Nigcharger vs nigcharger

>>15681436
turbo

File: 1425855235283.jpg (1MB, 2048x1901px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1901px

>>15681436
Only one decision.

once again, op is a faggot

Supercharger, Dat whine is epic.

File: borgwarner-efr-7670-turbo-0.jpg (36KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x533px

>IWG
>IBV
>Internal EBC
>Dual row ceramic ball bearing
>Titanium aluminide ceramic turbine wheel
>Forged-milled compressor wheel
>Stainless turbine housing

It'll build boost at idle, and it's the lightest and most plug-and-play method of forced induction.

>>15681436
supercharger with meth injection
OR
Nitrous

>>15681436
real men go N/A!

Supercharger I'm V8, everything else turbro

>>15681436
Depends on the engine and the horsepower goals.

Electric Turbo into a Super Charger into a Turbo into an Air Compressor
100+lbs of boost

File: Oh YES.png (240KB, 335x386px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 335x386px

>>15681436
EASY.

"SPEED AND TORQUE NOW LIKE RIGHT NOW I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE AS LONG AS I CAN GET SOME IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION!!!" = Supercharger

"I want power but I'm willing to work for it if it means going fast as FUCK as soon as they have their evening tea" = Turbo.

>>15681436
Supercharge if V8 or maybe a large displacement V6

Turbo works well in pretty much anything

File: 1388827955304.jpg (671KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 960x720px

>>15681436
supercharger.
>more reliable
>easier to install
>less to go wrong
>dat whine
>dat instant power delivery

>>15682854
Essentially:

Supercharger Pros: Faster startup because it is belt driven (connected directly to the engine) and gives you more low end torque and acceleration. Also runs cooler and less complicated.

Cons: Power from the superchargers dies off at higher revs.

Superchargers are a lot better if you're not actually gonna put it on a track, much better for street use.

Turbo Pros: More consistent power AFTER they are spooled up. Shit ton of power at higher revs. You'll be able to reach much higher top speeds.

Cons: More complicated, get hot AF, and have to spool up before they kick in because they rely on exhaust gasses to power them.

Turbo makes more power at all engine speeds
Supercharger is outdated tech for baby boomers

>that full boost ls2 super vs turbo test
http://www.fullboost.com.au/forum/showthread.php?43437-BOOST-vs-BOOST-(Supercharged-vs-Turbo)-V8-comparison-by-MPW

>>15681436
Definitely depends on the car and engine. Like, I wouldn't mind having a Saturn Ion Redline for DD and some fun, but I would definitely want to turbo a rotary track car

>>15682893

>less power

File: Not today.jpg (32KB, 650x453px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 650x453px

>>15681436
>cant choose N/A

File: 1472005167941.jpgXX0001.jpg (336KB, 1280x1080px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1280x1080px

>>15682893
I know this is important for some reason. I'm not sure why. It just seems like super important for some reason.

File: 1384400552863.jpg (112KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1024x576px

>>15682919
don't care. more civilized road manners, more reliable, and easier to live with. I'm not racing. I'm daily driving, with the occasional stop light grand prix.

>>15682893
>more reliably
Entirety and utterly incorrect
There is a reason diesels have used turbos since the 50s

File: saturn-ion-redline-wallpaper-2.jpg (196KB, 800x364px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 800x364px

>>15682933
>not getting based suicide doors

File: lambo-murcielago-lp640-nj-1_0.jpg (38KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x450px

>forced induction

displacelets baka
when will they learn desu

File: ford_gt_2.jpg (276KB, 750x435px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 750x435px

>>15682977

File: garb.jpg (158KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 800x533px

>>15683047
>v6

>>15682937
>diesels
opinion discarded.

File: 13432195_1220467917977756_6701422316098949140_n.jpg (74KB, 471x960px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 471x960px

>>15683071
If V6s are garbage then what does that make the V8s that lost to it? :^)

File: 1455543253906.jpg (178KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 800x600px

>>15681436
Why not twin turbo your twin blown v8s?

>>15683086
I mentioned diesels because theyve always been heavily reliant on forced induction
How many supercharged diesels are there? None on the market, its all turbos
And bevause they are superior in EVERY. SINGLE. WAY.
Gasoline engines are no different

Stay in denial, stupidcharger cuck

>>15683089
>murcielago
>v8

Nope

compounded boost, hoe

>>15682940
>yfw you replied to me, Stolen Recaros
>I have suicide doors but no supercharger
feels bad man.

>>15682893
>more reliable
Yeah, no.
>easier to install
If you're a faggot, sure
>less to go wrong
Yeah, no.
>dat whine
Bend a turbo blade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vb5LwKHFDg
>instant power delivery
Yeah, all nothing of it.

>>15681436
With a modern twin scroll ball bearing turbo, there is no reason at all not go turbo.
Only faggots who can't weld go shitchargers.

>>15683047

INTO

THE

TRASH

looks good famerino but that powertrain is only there for marketing reasons.

>>15683131
>only faggots who cant weld
Or baby boomer nhra cock sucking faggots who still live in the 1940s

File: V8s BTFO 4.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>15683143
>that powertrain is only there because a V8 wouldn't fit
FTFY

>>15682914
Dude actually makes a good point.

There's no superchargers left in aircraft or ships, it's literally only cars for lazy cunts.

Turbos make more power, make less heat, make the car use less fuel (by both not sapping power at partial throttle and causing an increase in exhaust speed at said partial throttle increasing flow efficiency), are much more reliable and if the piping is done correctly, is lighter.
They're easier to intercool and allow much, much greater (and cheaper) choice of what power you want. With the same manifold you can have a little GT28 or a GT42.

File: charging-car-cu-620[1].jpg (47KB, 620x301px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 620x301px

Charger.

File: 1167682_552466534874871_5729483174883774415_o.jpg (183KB, 2048x1369px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 2048x1369px

>>15683126
I'm sorry anon, but I'm not Stolen Recaros
>tfw he stopped being a tripfag

>>15683162
>Implying there won't be LS swapped GTs everywhere in a year and a half

>>15683226
Swapping in inferior engines seems to be an american thing
>rx7 ls swaps
>supra ls swaps
>miata ls swaps

File: 0831121943.jpg (94KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x768px

>>15683222
>people are actually upset I stopped tripping to avoid the faggotry

File: 1970-chevelle-6.jpg (192KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 640x360px

>tfw best of boomer meets best of millennialfag

>>15682914
>turbo makes more power at all engine speeds

But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

>>15683233
>inferior
>miata
It's a fucking FWD ford engine, retard. You could swap a 13B renesis in it and it would STILL be an improvement.

>>15683241
Is that a cunting 90 degree on the exhaust?
What the shit

>>15683226
If i was a richfag i would absolutely do a cammed voodoo swap to make people salty

>>15683239
desu senpai you made me a bit happy I have a Saturn, you were always pretty informative. I want to get a Redline thanks to you
n-no homo tho

>>15683257
Except it's not. At all.

If you're spending $6k on a supercharger, you get to compare it to a $6k variable geometry turbo that only needs to beat a shitcharger at the top end by about 5hp.

That would be on boost at or even below 1000rpm, which is below idle for me in neutral.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgZI1Bt_r3w
/thread

>>15683295
I was sick of people belittling my opions because I was a tripfag.
>say something as tripfag
>loll faggot, you dunt know nuthin'! Stupid tripfag. Everyone ignore him, he just wants attention.

>say same info as anonymous
>omg you're brilliant! I will follow your advice! Thanks anon!

I did enjoy putting out actual info about GM products to counteract the faggots here who've never driven or owned a GM product but say its shit because their parents said they were shit in the 70's.

Guess what. It isn't the 70s anymore.

>>15683303
Except supercharger kits start at around 3K.

>>15682893
Fails to mention cost too, superchargers are generally very expensive

>>15683330
I guess the hostility is to be expected on here. Thanks for being one of the more useful faggots on here though

>>15683257
See video in >>15682914 then proceed to kys

I always hear turbos are laggy because it takes some time at WOT before they spool up, and superchargers are more responsive but the drag they put on the engine makes them worse for MPGs and high HP numbers.

>>15682898
>superchargers good down low but fall off up top
Doesn't it depend more on the size and configuration of the supercharger though? Couldn't they be designed to give boost at either end?

File: Im-being-repressed.gif (482KB, 500x242px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 500x242px

>>15683392
>Thanks for being one of the more useful faggots on here though
umm... you're welcome?

>>15682919
Instant power and not as much of douche bag

>>15683089
Not turbo-ed

>>15683131
It's okay little guy turbo 4 cylinders are still... okay

>>15683377
actually, superchargers are generally cheaper than turbos because they're simpler designs.

>>15683693
>Eaton M90
>36 lbs/min
>$1000

>Borg Warner SXE 9180
>91 lbs/min
>$750

>>15683693
Generally only roots blowers are cheap. See the wealth of eatons on eBay for 1000 and less. I've seen reman m90s for like 5-600 dollars. A top quality turbo can be had for 1000.

>>15683846
Eatons are stupid cheap on eBay because they're common OEM equipment. T25s and K03s are similarly cheap.

File: lancia delta s4.jpg (319KB, 1772x1181px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1772x1181px

I pick both

>>15682937
To aid in auto-detonation.

>>15683791
Is that just the turbo or does it include the headers, intercooler, and ecu tune?

I didn't read any posts.

If you honestly think super chargers are still good or even better, you need to do some research.

Turbos have come a long, long way. Even from the 90's.

90 tuner cars are even better because of turbo innovations the past decade. Spool times are lower by a shit ton, etc.

Big ass turbos on Supras back then that took until 4K RPM to spool are now.....idk even less due to twin scroll and shit.

There's that one Aussie channel too who did a R32 GTR twin turbo build using the same parts that were well renowned back in the 90's and compared it to a modern twin scroll. Spooled sooner at much lower RPM, hit boost faster due to it, and delivered more power.

Turbos, bros. Way of the future.

>>15683930
You mean variable compression N/A

>>15683934

Nope. Turbocharged li-ion.

>>15683938
Sorry, I vomited in my mouth a little

>>15683934
>engine has high compression at low revs to create more exhaust pressure which means the turbo spools faster, sooner
>gradually reduces engine compression as the turbo spins at higher engine rpm
Nice

>>15684140
Compression doesn't actually affect spool. Doesn't matter how small a volume you cram a pound of air into, that's still just one pound flowing past the turbine.

>>15683910
Just the supercharger, and just the turbo.

>>15684175
Compressed air will move at higher speed as is trying to reach normal atmospheric pressure

>>15684196
Regardless of whether your compression ratio is 8:1 or 12:1, the combustion chamber is going to be the same size when the exhaust valve is fully open. If you don't believe me, just Google it and you will learn something new today.

>>15681506
And I bet it costs an arm and a leg, plus your first born to just buy it. (Both nuts if you don't have a child yet will also be accepted)

This whole "modern turbos have no lag" meme needs to die.

A turbo that makes 0.21 pounds of boost isn't going to have lag, but anything bigger than a toothpick windmill is going to need some force from the engine to spool. Making "some boost" at low RPM isn't the same as "no lag."

That being said, peak horsepower numbers are easier to attain with a turbocharger. They have the ability to make higher boost numbers easier due to their design being a large, metal, vacuum cleaner.

Turbos have synergy with modern technology, GDI and DOHC applications make tuning a turbo engine a lot easier.

Superchargers on the other hand build power linearly with engine RPM, so you don't get lurches of power that could potentially cause loss of stability. With a low-end cam profile, a positive displacement supercharger can iron out a torque curve like nothing else, and can build large amounts of horsepower before peak torque is made.

Superchargers are old tech, and work very well with large displacement, SOHC or OHV engines, because they tend to build torque earlier as opposed to high revving DOHC engines that make their power in the high-end. They can't be tuned easily, the closest thing to "tuning" a supercharger is a smaller pulley for more boost, a light flywheel to rev faster, and looser valve springs (though you start to risk valve float at that point).

They don't achieve high peak horsepower numbers without a lot of work, but they flatten out the powercurve of an engine nicely, and can make some decent power doing it. They can still be good for racing, but with modern technology theres not a whole lot of reason to add displacement over a turbo.

I still like superchargers more though, N/A response time and powercurve is A+

>>15684518
$2000, or $700 for its little brother (same geometry, but without most of the features). Considering it negates the requirement for a $350 wastegate, $150 blowoff valve, and $100 electronic boost controller, I wouldn't say that's particularly excessive.

>>15684604
You're confusing lag with spool threshold.

>>15683330
They were pretty shit in the 90's but they've come a long way in 20 years.

>>15683187
> less heat
No
> more reliable
No

Turbos advantages are already pretty clear cut you don't need to make shit up

>>15683278
I'm pretty sure Ford took that engine from Mazda.

>>15681436
Factory application? Turbo > Supercharger.

Aftermarket application? If a supercharger meets your power goals, use one. If not, go turbo. Exception: cheapass junkyard boost projects.

>>15681515
Turbo with meth injection + nitrous > either of those two.

>>15681506
>internal everything
Fuck that noise.

>>15682682
Positive displacement superchargers are good on a V-anything though. They're even a good match for torqueless I4's.

>>15684604
>>15684649
all turbos lag, it's the law of physics.
it's just a matter of how well it can be disguised.

>>15682703
>Electric Turbo
No.

>into an Air Compressor
(Turbo-)superchargers are air compressors you idiot.

>100+lbs of boost
Have fun scraping those internals off the pavement.

>>15682898
>Faster startup
wat

>supercharger runs cooler
>turbos get hot AF
Utterly wrong. Turbo's have 80 to 85% efficient compression, positive displacement are up to 60% efficient. Inefficient compression is what heats up the intake air.

>You'll be able to reach much higher top speeds.
Learn some engineering mate.

>>15683397
>Couldn't they be designed to give boost at either end?
Yes.

>>15683162
They designed the entire car around the 3.5 Ecoboost. If they started by designing it around a twinturbo Voodoo, it would've fit.

Thing is, they went with the V6 for marketing reasons.

>>15684179
Try entire kits the next time you wanna shitpost.

>>15684604
>Turbo's only work on DI DOHC engines
>Superchargers only work on SOHC/OHV engines
No. They might exaggerate the character of an engine, but a supercharger Modular and a twinturbo LS are both impressive engines.

>>15685204
>what is anti-lag

>>15685273
>what is anti-lag
Something that heats up your exhaust manifold massively, increasing heat in the turbo. This causes decreased bearing life, decrease manifold life, and is simply unacceptable in an OEM application. Also, noise violation.

>>15685280
Anon, direct injection also decreases your engine's life and yet, it's OEM.

If you can afford it, why not have it?

>>15685284
>Anon, direct injection also decreases your engine's life and yet, it's OEM.
Direct injection directly decreases emissions output. The only downside is that your intake manifold gets a bit dirty - which you can fix by just putting in a secondary set of port injectors (which also help with throttle response).

Antilag causes NVH problems, emissions problems, and is simply unfit for consumer use.

Can't find any turbo kits for my v6 'tang. What do?

>>15685297
How come DI engines are total trash then?

Besides you also have the shitty little turbos that are added to the small engines these days. Those also love to break, not to mention how does the high compression ratio on your engine affect it's life.

>>15681473
It sounds like fucking shit don't even kid yourself.

>>15683090
But that's not shiny and chrome.

>>15685319
>How come DI engines are total trash then?
Nicely supported claim you've got there.

>>15685307
Sell it, buy a V8.

>>15685379
>reliability reports on TFI/TFSI engines
Just google it. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you.

>>15681436
I'd rather procharge, but if I had to pick, it would be turbo

>>15685393
>VAG
well there's your problem

>>15685393
That's a Volkswagen problem, not a direct injection problem. Everyone else is using direct injection with minimal issues.

File: 42ef0b07a21cdd6cc6d7fcd58884f67a.jpg (50KB, 564x422px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 564x422px

Ten thousand hp supercharged hemi masterace reporting in

>>15685576
It's only supercharged because Top Fuel is ruled by a bunch of pansies. Nothing over 500ci, limits of the amount of nitromethane, and no turbo's allowed. That class needs 1/8 mile tracks and les rules.

Also, your pic isn't really a modern Top Fuel unit. Only the really modern ones make 5 numbers.

supercharger

>no lag, instant power
>less heat soak
>less complicated install
>epic sound, no bov needed
>ease of use
>much more reliable

Turbo btfo

>>15685621
>>less heat soak
How, if a turbo is more easily intercooled, and the average Roots blower can only manage 60% compression efficiency, compared to a turbo's 80-85%?

File: 9d2d3eb1fb52429698efbd80b3b934b0.jpg (55KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 736x552px

Muh terbo

Supercharger is such a dumb name. Like, "super"? What does that even mean?

File: F1R_cut.jpg (1MB, 1650x1650px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1650x1650px

Procharger. If it's strictly a turbo or supercharger deal I wouldn't give a shit, you can incorporate either into an interesting build.

>>15685672
compressor isn't free enough for murika

>>15685621
>parasitic fuel losses
>lesser gains overall
Supercharger a big smelly shit. Poopercharger really.

>>15685692
Procharger deals strictly with superchargers.

>>15685663
I can imagine someones legs on the side of this and they touch the turbo and burn the shit out of themselves

Hybrid turbocharger

/thread.

>>15683187
Basically any GA aircraft running less than 400CI displacement uses a supercharger, also most turboprop aircraft use a supercharger but that's usually only for cabin pressurization so doesn't really count

>>15682914
>no intercooler on the supercharger

This is no SC vs Turbo comparison, this is an intercooler vs no intercooler comparison.

Hot air robs power. Who'd have thought that?

Try that again with some apples to apples.

>>15684175
True, but the higher compression will make more power, accellerate faster and therefore be at higher RPM more quickly where it will, in fact, make more boost.

>>15685672
"Super" means "more than" in Latin.
Hence Superman, he is more than a man, etc.
In case of a supercharger, because it feeds more air than normal into an engine. Turbochargers are in fact a form of superchargers that just so happen to use a turbine-driven compressor to supercharge your engine instead of a belt-drive. They were originally called Turbo-superchargers, but turbocharger or just turbo is shorter so that's what people use nowadays.

>>15685706
Not all superchargers are compressors. Fixed displacement superchargers like Roots types do not compress air within their housing. The boost pressure is merely a result of having a larger displacement per crank revolution than the engine itself does. so it starts to 'heap up' if it were.
Twin-screw superchargers, as well as centrifugal and turbine-driven types are true compressors because their inner geometry forces the air into a tigher space before it is released on the discharge side. You'll find that Twin-screw compressors specifically have a very specific boost level that they run best at. Or more specifically, a very specific compression ratio. The lobes on the screws don't have a fixed but rather progressively shorter twist to compress the air. The ratio between the twist on the suction side and the discharge side is also the compression ratio the unit runs most efficiently at. A 2:1 compression ratio will take atmospheric pressure (1 Bar, 14,7 PSI) and run compress that to 2 Bar or 29.6 PSI (absolute pressure, boost is the difference between absolute and ambient pressure, so again 1 bar or 14.7 psi). If the pressure at the discharge side is lower, the gas will actually expand coming out of the compressor, and if higher, it will be packed even tighter like with a roots type. Both reduce the efficiency of the twin-screw blower, but at the right ratio, these units are great (slight variations wont hurt that much though).

>>15685280
Also, explosions INSIDE your turbo. They're not designed for that.

>>15686348
Technically, you're a bit off. Roots superchargers still compress air. As you said, they just don't do it in their housing.

>>15686375
Actually, turbo's are designed to make movement out of rapidly expanding gas. It's usually the exhaust manifold that NOPEs out when youuse antilag.

>>15686406
They push air onto more air, the result is compressed air, but the main design principle of a roots is to move air. It is not a compressor even if, in this application, air is compressed as a result of its main function. I specifically said they don't do it in their housing, not that they don't do it at all, which they do after discharge (and which is the main cause of their inefficiency). What part of that is off?

>>15686406
There's a difference between constantly expanding gas and detonation. Turbos aren't designed to handle to handle the radial shock loads of antilag. It fucks the bearings up right quick.

>>15686406
>>15686454
Most turbos run on plain bearings, that means they rely only a thin film of lubricant between two surfaces to carry the load. While this is typically the best type of bearing for shock loads, excessive shock like from anti-lag can cause the shaft to break through the oil film and contact the bearing surface, wearing it down every time it happens. Eventual bearing failure is inevitable.

That said, there are many types of plain bearings in terms of dimensions (clearance, backing thickness, liner thickness, etc) and materials (bimetal, trimetal, babbitt, etc). Out of the millions of possibilities, turbo bearings aren't specifically made to take shock loads the way engine bearings are.

More expensive turbos use roller bearings, which are significantly less resistant to shock loads.

File: img_2511.jpg (231KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1200x800px

>>15685198
It's designed to all be the equivalent of aftermarket performance parts, not just some OEM "how can we save $0.85 per unit" bullshit. The product line is called EFR, and stands for Engineered For Racing. The EFR7163 is the spec turbo for the IndyCar series.

Why not both? With a bit of tweaking you can probably have pretty good HP gains provided you don't throw a rod

>>15684140
The term you are looking for is Variable-geometry turbocharger.

>>15685402
>>15685413
muh parroting of anecdotal memes

>>15686279
might as well fit a centrifugal supercharger then

almost everything in this thread is opposite of truth. i don't even know if it's trolling any more

>>15686865
It would do the same, but without the low-RPM efficiency of a high compression ratio. Efficiency is the main goal here.

File: Lancia S4 1.4 twin charge.jpg (36KB, 636x460px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 636x460px

whats wrong with having both bitch

File: lanciadeltas4biasion86sanremo-1.jpg (53KB, 800x493px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x493px

>>15686979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmcTY2erGCk

>>15686865
Centrifugal superchargers build boost linearly with RPM. If you have it geared for 1.2 bar at 8000 RPM, you will be making 0.9 bar at 6000 RPM and 0.3 bar at 2000 RPM.

Turbos have a spool threshold, under which they don't build boost, and over which they rapidly build up to maximum boost pressure. If you have a turbo set up for 1.2 bar at 8000 RPM, you'll probably be making 1.2 bar by 4000 RPM, but nothing at 2000 RPM.

>>15686979
Triflux wasn't supercharged.

>>15685255
I never said "only work"

I said "works best with"

>>15687010
You don't understand what's being discussed, it's okay.

>>15685621
Everything you said was plain wrong

>>15686261
It wouldn't make any significant difference
Damage control less

File: image.jpg (18KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x165px

>>15681436
Why not both?

>>15687600
You should tell that to everyone who fits an intercooler.

i have driven and owned turbo and na and i like the responsiveness of na

>>15687635
An intercooler won't make up for the 200hp difference
Keep damage controlling you clueless stupidcharger cuckold

File: 1461290361579[1].png (954KB, 643x739px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 643x739px

friendly reminder

>>15689819
>Huge turbo > small blower

Well I'll be damn

>>15687569
Apparently I don't. If the goal is to get to full boost, a turbo will do the job much quicker.

>>15689870
prove their is a significant difference in flow pls

>>15683930
I don't think that was a twin scroll either, just a single large modern day turbo.

No reason to not go turbo with the power potential, though heat is the main issue to be aware of.

You can essentially double power and still hit full boost quite early on in the power band. Now imagine a variable vane turbo... Rip superchargies

File: na a best.png (673KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 800x600px

>>15681436
Naturally aspergers.

>>15689819
>friendly reminder
what? that boost =/= mass air flow?

>>15690782
Why do people still like NA? It's just a less efficient engine.

>muh turbo lag
stop driving slow

>>15691918
>y-your engine is sligtly less ef-ef-efficient
sure told him

>>15691930
*significantly

>>15691940
>I would know, I'm an expert on cars

>>15687688
You have NO idea.