>has turbocharged engine >gets less than 200 HP What's

Efficiency and reliability

>>15869734
>turbo
>reliability
Pick one

1.3 liter diesel fiat anyone?

>>15869737
Turbos are reliable, this isn't the 80s you fucking retard

>>15869742
>Higher pressure in the intake manifold, block
>turbos, intercoolers and all the other shit they have

Sure m9 all those parts won't ever break.

>>15869742
>turbos
>literally ( L I T E R A L L Y ) force more air into the cylinders so more fuel can be burned, resulting in more stress ont all engine components
Turbo engines will never be as reliable as an NA engine making the same power.

>>15869754
>car companies can't engineer the engine to be reliable and turbo'd

When the car is designed to be a turbo and uses stronger internal parts it will last as long as any NA engine

File: 1455513497166.gif (1MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x300px

>>15869760
>>15869754
>turbo charged F1 car
>engine lasts entire race
>same engine is used over and over again with just repairs being done

>top fuel NA drag racing
>engine lasts 4 seconds
>has to be thrown away and rebuilt everytime

Check mate NA fags.

>>15869768
>broken turbos
>leaking intercoolers
>cracked manifolds

Turbos don't last as long as the engine anyways so NA is the only solution

What you don't want to understand is that there are literally more parts that can fail therefore making the car less reliable

>>15869760
They'll never be -as- realiable, sure. But they'll be close, and a hell of a lot lighter and fuel efficient.

File: images.jpg (8KB, 284x178px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 284x178px

>>15869793
>top fuel
>na

>>15869793
>Top Fuel
>Naturally aspirated
Wat

>>15869803
oem turbo manifolds are much less likely to crack as they're usually thick cast iron rather than mild steel, intercooler failure is pretty rare unless you hit something. modern turbos last around 10-15 years of daily use.

>>15869727
>1 liter 3 cylinder supreme econobox
That's the point of it. Did you think "turbo" is synonymous with "fast", are you living in the 80s?

>>15869793
>top fuel NA drag racing
Have you even seen a top fuel car?

>>15869727
Because now you can get that 200HP out of a 1.6L engine and escape the Yuro Displacement Tax of No Fun.

It's also fuel efficiency. Driving the 1.6T conservatively and staying out of the boost, you can get about the sama gas mileage as that same engine without the tarbo. The difference comes when you want to merge onto the highway and the NA 1.6L with 140HP is struggling but the turbocharged version is fine.

>>15869737
don't know about modern turbos but the ones from ~00 can last 600,000km easily if you treat it properly
a well made turbo engine should last just as long as NA, provided the boost isn't something ridiculous

if turbo was bad for the engine then NA high compression engines like mazda's skyactiv should also be unreliable, though that's remains to be seen

File: 22.png (639KB, 1139x1079px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1139x1079px

>>15869727
>has turbocharged engine
>gets less than 200 HP
>weights less than 1700lbs/800kg

makes perfect sense

>>15870135
The car that I was thinking about when I wrote this is actually 3300 lbs. With a 2.4 L engine.

>>15869867
A well engineered turbo system will last 1,000,000+ miles.>>15869968

>>15870187
K24As aren't turbocharged...

>>15870850
PT cruisers are.

>>15870864

>chrysler being shit

what else is new

>>15869727
Hey you wanna know about the saddest turbo? Check out the specs on the 1981 turbo Trans Am.

>>15870905
Sorry, 1980*.

>>15870864
PTs don't weight 3300 lbs

>>15869793
>Top Fuel supercharger bigger than your shitboxes 1.0L diesel pushing 60+ lbs of boost
>NA

Never go full retard.

>>15869727
what if the car is also 20+ years old?

>>15871341
>tfw even Ford was getting 200+hp from a turbo 4 30 years ago

>>15871350
seriously, what engine?

>>15871359
2.3T in the Mustang SVO and Thunderbird TurboCoupe.

>>15869737
Faggot stop running 30psi of boost

>>15869760
For an NA engine to make the same power as a turbo engine you're going to have to increase either displacement, or increase compression. Assuming that both engines are 2L engines, a turbo engine is going to make power more reliably than a NA car since the NA car will have to increase compression a fuckload in order to match boost pressures, as well as revving higher since the stroke will become shorter as a result of the higher compression pistons, which in something like an i4 will cause extra stress since the engine isn't balanced. On top of all this, there is an upper limit in regards to how much you can increase compression since the combustion chamber needs to have enough stroke for combustion to occur efficiently. All in all, turbos are a cheaper, easier to fix solution to increasing power without increasing displacement.

>>15871424
They also sound cool, which is the best reason

>wooooosh

>>15869867
>NAs have a steel intake
>turbos have a cast iron intake

Wew lad

Turbos and NA alike all have have plastic/composite intake manifolds
Some turbos may aluminum but not cast iron unless its some ridiculous monster class 8 diesel

File: PX13927988AUTOSHOW_3168882b.jpg (35KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 620x387px

>>15869760
>>15869754

>>15871448
He was talking about the exhaust manifold you dingus. Which at this point is getting arbitrary due cast in head type designs we're seeing.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/05/gm-20110516.html

>>15871424
>as well as revving higher since the stroke will become shorter as a result of the higher compression pistons

>2.0L Duratec
>Bore 87.5 mm (3.4 in), Stroke 83.1 mm (3.3 in)

>2.0L Ecoboost
>Bore 87.5 mm (3.4 in), Stroke 83.1 mm (3.3 in)

>>15869760
>hey guys my form of making a more powerful explosion is much less harmful than your form of making a more powerful explosion
you're all fucking retards, if you're making more power you will always be getting more wear than if you make less
forced induction engines may have different wear points but you're still causing more damage and wear regardless of how you do what you do holy fuck

>>15869727
Blame the gubbermint. Cafe standards. Cars have to lighter and more fuel efficient. Keep voting democrat, assholes.

>>15871522
Not really familiar with ford engines, but what's compression on both of those engines? It's not unusual for manufacturers to have an under-stressed NA engine with lower compression, and then taking that engine and adding a turbo. It's cheaper to reuse parts after all. Although if both those engines make the same power and torque I'm the idiot.

File: 20160426_151950_HDR[1].jpg (3MB, 3984x2241px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3984x2241px

>turbos
Well at least it's RWD and makes similar power to an N/A I6 of the same era

>>15871543
i can't tell if you're shitposting or just retarded

File: 1474194174744.jpg (18KB, 350x250px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 350x250px

>>15869793
>Top fuel is NA

File: 20150317_153748(0).jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>15871553
>NA
>says Kompressor right on the plug cover

Jesus.

>>15871545
10:1 on the Duratec and 9.3:1 for the Ecoboost.

My car makes 143hp and 136lb-ft, my gfs makes 240hp and 270lb-ft.

>>15871572
Hmm, well they could use a different head in order to change the compression ration in that case. The issue with that is that the changes allowed are very minor, since only by changing the stroke can you dramatically increase the amount of air allowed into the chamber. The AFR could also be made leaner to increase the amount of air allowed in, thus increasing compression. This again though only allows small adjustments.
I believe a different head design and a leaner AFR might be the reason the engine's have a different compression ratio, Since the difference is only 0.7 units of air

>>15871567
Maybe if you spent less time here,and on reddit and facebook you might understand there is a another world out there. Dumbfuck.

>>15871640
Also, it's worth mentioning that changing the bore can also change compression, and it must actually change in order to maintain a 2L displacement if the stroke changes.

>>15871651
A world of people so thoroughly misunderstanding the world that they think the way to fight neoliberalism is to go with the other neoliberal group except this one has more racist dogwhistling? Brilliant. That'll bring your jobs back.

File: 1472759138662.jpg (15KB, 294x296px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 294x296px

>>15869793

You just proved everybody you know jack shit of what youre talking about

>>15871684
Shut up nigger.

>>15871714
Yeah yeah, I'm sure that'll make you feel better when you live in the worst conditions in the world and continue to fellate the rich.

File: 1377812480840.jpg (7KB, 267x323px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 267x323px

>>15869793
Wew it's almost like those are two wildly different motorsports.

Thinking about what 10,000hp is doing to the internals of a top fuel dragster gives me a raging boner

File: IMG_0008.jpg (3MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2592x1944px

>>15869727
Efficiency (fuel and thermal) and torque. They also sound like hot sex regardless of power output. The turbo makes it so a tiny engine can deliver high fuel economy off-boost and adequate accelerating power when the pedal is down.

>italian-designed, american-built turbo-4 with german engine management
>21 lbs of boost fully stock
>only 163 hp-184ft/lb
>41 mpg if you drive with your pinky toe
>fukken hektik dose so hard you'll think you're australian
>i drive it hard and engine just do zomg:brum-pop-tsu
>fast enough to satisfy, too slow to get into trouble

tl;dr:
shit is fun as fuck
every econobox should have a turbo, if only for the glorious noise
Turbos recycle heat for power, which is otherwise lost to the coolant in an n/a car, so a turbocharged car is by definition more environmentally friendly than an electric hybrid, as it makes better use of the energy in its fuel.

>>15871640
It does have a different head, Ti-VCT vs my car having no VCT. As well as the exhaust manifold integrated into the head itself. The lowered compression comes from the pistons. Dishing lowers and doming raises compression.

>new turbo costs more than new engine

Until this meme ends I'll avoid tarbos.

File: 1460720121613.jpg (58KB, 630x460px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 630x460px

>>15871849
>They also sound like hot sex regardless of power output
Turbos really are great fun when they don't try to hide themselves. Even the shitty loaner van I used to move my things was fun because of the beautiful turbo noise it made on the uphills

>>15871424
>>15871640
you're an idiot, stop posting gibberish

>>15872741
Okay mr intelligent man. I wouldn't dare question your superior intelligence.
you're so above everyone man, you're the best.

the cheapo lightweight engine would give you less than 200HP without the turbocharger, and probably use a little more fuel

that's the point

>worry-free reliability
the car is either very well maintained becuase motorsport or sold on craigslist after 50k miles because consumerism