turbo hate

>>14921402
Why the hate?

File: IMG_1720.jpg (20KB, 249x214px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 249x214px

i own both turbo and kompressor..

Why would anyone hate a turbo? Even with my V8 murrica hueg displacement engine, I can't fathom a reason why anyone would dislike them. From a practical standpoint, they're superior to superchargers, and they make small engines super efficient.

File: Screenshot_2016-04-25-14-28-52.png (146KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 540x960px

Funny i stumble into this thread after ive just found this gem

Hate? No, but I much prefer N/A engines for the better response. Unless you chasing hp numbers or drive a tiny four banger turbos suck.

>>14921438
Lag, non-linear power application, noise, complicated intake with boost leak fun times in old cars.

>>14921402

I don't hate them, but I have too many subaru and ST friends who have issues with theirs to want one.

File: sour-grapes[1].jpg (60KB, 332x335px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 332x335px

This sounds like one of those retard threads where someone with a shitty car tells us how mad they are about something that is unequivocally good.

as a benchracer, turbos are cool
but superchargers sound better

>>14921402
forcibly induct my .....

OP only hates turbos because his gutless V8 gets BTFO'd by petty 2.0 liter four-bangers.

Turbos are glorious.

So I'm trying to understand these different systems,

N/A means the air gets sucked into the grille by the movement of the car and gets directed into a pipe through the filter and then into the pistons.

Turbochargers take some air from the exhaust and redirect it to the pistons, but it has to be run through a cooling system or your engine will overheat. Adds power but has a lag which I don't understand.

Supercharger compresses air that comes from the grille and gives the engine more power because compressed air/fuel mixture is denser than uncompressed air/fuel mixture.

Does anyone else see the OP image moving (recceding into the screen)?
I'm pretty drunk

>>14921447
>M-m-muh better response.

I'll tell you what.
Response does not save you on the track, it does not save you while the vehicle is in motion.
When engine has to much base acceleration it looses traction and velocity. That is if the vehicle is not 'traction control'ed with a computer program. Otherwise that is the only drawback, but really a modern car with such electronic fail-safes dumb down the engine's maximum potential anyway.
Having a turbo creates pretty much the same effect of numbing of power on large displacement engines that do not have such electronic features. With addition of having extra power when it is needed by burning hotter "cleanly" with more compressed air per carbon. Performance is maintained, acceleration from the pedal is smoothed out from throttle response, overall making stoplights less embarrassing in theory to anyone that owns a 7 liter engine.

However a turbo is entirely ran on emission. Something like a 4 cylinder would be of no consequence, however a supercharger would be best for it's behavior instead.

>>14921537
The lag is because you have to pump exhaust through the turbo to 'spin' it up. That takes time to happen, not really sure how long though. It differs from car to cat.

>>14921537
>N/A means the air gets sucked into the grille by the movement of the car

Basically an engine without forced induction.

>>14921558
So it has a buildup time of pumping exhaust until the turbo actually works? Makes sense

>>14921561
Right, it's just natural air movement into the car if I was understanding correctly.

>>14921537
>Turbochargers take some air from the exhaust and redirect it to the pistons
No.
>Supercharger compresses air that comes from the grille
No.

>>14921571
Could you explain the actual version of what happens then?

File: 1451691243709.png (496KB, 643x580px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 643x580px

>>14921601
Google "how turbochargers work".
You're welcome.

>>14921537
Close but not quite. In all three cases air is starting at the front of the vehicle.

N/A- Spot on as you said. Air gets ducted through the intake and filter, gets all intimate with some atomized gasoline, and then goes bang inside the cylinder.

Turbocharger- Turbochargers DO utilize the car's exhaust, but not for a fresh charge. The impeller wheel is spun by the engine's exhaust gases as they're being pushed from the motor. This air current spins the turbocharger which makes it function as an air compressor, drawing in and compressing air coming from the intake.

Supercharger- Superchargers operate on the same principle as the turbocharger, but utilize the engine itself (the spinning crankshaft) for power. Most often belt-driven off of the front of the motor, the supercharger turns with the spinning of the engines crankshaft, performing the same function of spinning to compress air.

In both cases, large amounts of heat are generated. An intercooler functions here to cool incoming intake charge which has the two fold purpose of increasing the longevity of the charger by cooling it slightly and further increasing the charger's effectiveness by delivering denser air into the charger.

Cooler air=Denser. Denser air=More oxygen. More=Bigger bang.

File: 1455870475466.png (913KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 1280x1280px

>>14921601
Turbo charger pulls exhaust heat out of the exhaust and pushes it into an outward pipe and through the intercooler. Super heated air moves quicker of course so it allows for a wall effect. That wall hits the turbo spooling up even faster and pushes it into the intake manifold which cools it down. (danger to manifold is because it wasn't cooling fast enough). After that excess air pressure is used to increase the boost of the injectors so more fuel can be added.

They mix in a swirl pattern once in the chamber but aren't burnt, they go back through the process again and back into the intake this way twice as much fuel and air are mixed and can create more power.

This is why a turbo can give a huge increase in performance.

Super charges work the same, but use a belt to turn a second fan to cool the air without an intercooler.

>>14921537
>sucked into the grille by the movement of the car
Jesus Christ

>>14921537
N/A works off atmospheric pressure/the force of air coming into your intake while the car is moving.
Turbochargers use exhaust gas to spin a turbine that is connected by a rod to another turbine that is in the intake, which compresses the air. The exhaust gas doesn't actually go back into the engine. It has lag because it needs a certain amount of exhaust to be run through it before it spools up and spins fast enough for compression.
Superchargers are actually run directly off the crank by a belt. Generally you disconnect your main drive belt and attach a longer one that has room for the supercharger. Superchargers don't have lag since they're directly tied to the speed of the engine at all times. Apparently they don't put out as much power as a turbo for reasons I am unsure of.

>>14921438
>they make small engines super efficient
Not really

>>14921623
10\10, genuinely mad

File: 1245479000385.jpg (11KB, 196x177px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 196x177px

>>14921623

>N/A
Air just goes in naturally
>tarbo
Air coming out from exhaust spins a fan thats connected to another fan that compresses air that goes in. More air bigger boom more power but gotta wait for a good rpm for fast enough spin.
>supacharger
More fuel more boom

>>14921611
How do you think I got the information in the first place?

>>14921620
>>14921627
Thank you anons. I just want to learn

>>14921623

Jesus Christ

File: G1.jpg (36KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x337px

>>14921402

I do. But that's cause my turbo experience is limited to my GM pickup from the '90s and I never really bothered learn the extra plumbing that comes with turbocharged engines. It's my first, and probably last turbocharged vehicle.

>>14921537

All those wrong replies about NA.

NA air is drawn into the engine through the vacuum of the pistons moving down on the intake stroke. It has nothing to do with moving forwards, otherwise you couldn't idle at a stop.

You can, of course, have some sort of ram air system to provide a little intake force at speed.

>>14921627
Exactly, hence why NA cars won't run standing still and have to be pushed a while before you start them.
Or, you know, you could look it up.

File: me_boosta.png (76KB, 375x360px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 375x360px

>posses tarbo
>hits maximum spool at 2k RPM
>yes, I get 250 ft/lbs at 2,000 RPM
what is this lag you speak of?

>>14921402
I prefer N/A. It's simple, lighter and more responsive.

forced induction is cool but ill always prefer na

>>14921630
Except by definition they do.

300-400 whp out of a 4 cyl is efficiency while maintaining 30mpg

>>14921747
Thank fuck you said it I was getting mad.

/o/ really is full of retarded people

>>14921402
Yes. A turbocharger killed my father back in the Induction Wars. I hate them so much.

>>14921556
I would tend to agree however my BMW has smooth throttle response from 2k RPMs. My previous Mitsubishi had zero boost with a sudden rush at 3500 RPMs. Both have the same output but one is far easier to drive on the streets. On the track such an issue is less pronounced.

Should I ever decide I want more power in my S54 supercharging would be the clear choice.

>>14923319
Dieselcuck detected

>>14923319
>250ft/lbs
laughingsluts.jpg

try making real power then youll know lag

File: 1450792579857.gif (1MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x500px

>>14921623

>>14921402
I think they're cool in certain applications but I hate how they're stuffing them in everything now to meet mpg requirements.

turbos are for cheap fucks who can't buy a decent N/A car
superchargers are for brz/gt86

/thread

>>14921706
You owned a GMC Syclone? Cool

>>14923613
"No"

File: 1461378817463.jpg (18KB, 224x216px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 224x216px

>>14923808

File: you have shit taste.jpg (43KB, 494x366px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 494x366px

Is OP Jason Cammissa from Motor Trend?

If so, eat a bag of dicks you Dago motherfucker.

NA a shit.

>>14921402
Nope, in fact I'm fairly fond of them.

I don't hate them.
I hate people who think an NA losing to a Turbo means something.

Why do all modern sports cars size their turbos to hit peak boost at 2k and then taper off?

>>14921402
i love turbos.

changed from a turbo shitbox to an NA shitbox because of /o/ memes, regret it to this day.

>>14921402
why would you hate turbos?

>>14924456
acceleration in the low RPM's where torque is also low and inertia is low

>>14921402
>dat picture