Turbos can replace displacement, but that doesn't make them

File: 1479186532018.jpg (6KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x241px

>>16239961

>ECO
>BOOST
>PICK ONE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0tajBP8VI

People don't drive like the EPA test suggests. Eco and boost cannot go hand in hand. They are always separate.

>>16239961
Why not have the displacement of the cars before then just add a turbo instead of reducing engine power then getting all of the lost power + a little back in return?

>>16239986
>People don't drive like the EPA test suggests.
who fucking cares. It puts a superior number on paper and thats all the EPA cares about. The EPA doesn't give a shit about trying to emulate how a real person drives. Manufacturers don't give a fuck either, they just do what ever they can to appease the EPA

>>16239993
THIS

Everyone thought that reducing engine sizes and adding a turbo would be magical.

What actually happened:

>Everyone now has to be in boost with their 1.4L shitters to maintain 65MPH on the highway

>>16240017
Same shit as the civics

>civic LX 2015
>1.8L engine
>about 143 HP
>civic LX 2016
>1.4L engine with a turbo
>about 158 HP

Man imagine the horsepower if they kept the 1.8L engine then added that same turbo, easily would have touched 180.

>>16240033

Literally everyone except Subaru did this really.

Why automakers thought it'd be brilliant to stress out smaller, higher-strung engines with high boost is beyond me.

They could have kept the big displacement and run a LOT less boost to achieve better results overall. These puny engines that need 1 bar of boost? Keep the 1.8 instead of the 1.4 and run half that and you'll get the same power with more bottom end torque and less stress.


And hell, if they built the engine a bit (forged internals) they'd even satisfy the tuner crowd since upping the boost/adding a downpipe/etc is easy and unlocks extra power effortlessly.

itt

retards who think they know more than automotive engineers

probably want to return to massive engines with no power and carbs too

>>16240089
Taxes.

It's stupid, but companies often pay lower taxes for smaller engines. The thresholds are in half liter increments, so that's why so many modular engine lines come in half liter increments.

Turbos take energy from the exhaust and transfers it to the air used in combustion, everything else being the same will result in an engine with lower specific fuel economy.

A properly designed system making the same power with lower displacement and a turbocharger will result is better fuel economy.
Having a turbo does not make people drive stupidly.

>>16239961

>bigger NA engines get better real world fuel economy

If you drive 80 MPH on the highway 100 miles one way to work every morning, yes.

If you do any sort of city driving, no.

Two cars, one is a 2.2L NA, one is a 1.6L turbo. Both cars weigh around 2700 lbs. Both manual transmission, FWD, econocars.

On average, the 1.6L gets 4 MPG better than the 2.2L, while making 50 more HP and torque. This is on my personal, typical commute to work, which generally consists of ~25 minutes of state highway at ~55 MPH, and ~20 minutes in city traffic.

On the interstate, at 70 MPH for hundreds of miles at a time, the 2.2L beats the 1.6L, mainly because at 70 MPH the 1.6L is in constant boost.

They don't need to get rid of turbo cars. They just need bigger BOVs or wastegates that are programmed to open all the way and make exactly zero boost in low load cruising situations.

>>16240100
it doesn't take an engineer to see why people like honda make small engines with turbos for EPA tests that don't actually reflect real results.

Honda took their Fit engine, put it in the 2016 civic and put a dinky turbo on it because otherwise it couldn't do it. All it does is give the cars slightly more mpg on highway and the improvements in power aren't actually that great. I'm not gonna bend over to some honda engineers that are bending over for EPA bullshit so they can sell the gimmick of turbo to people. And Honda wonders why people boo'd when they revealed the new civic Si would have a 1.5L engine instead of the better 2.4L engine

>>16240110
>Having a turbo does not make people drive stupidly.
no one said this?

>>16240110
problem is when on boost you have more air coming in so you need more fuel anyway
for exemple when i'm on full power with my 1.6 L 100hp i average about 22.5 L per 100km
i notice it's the same with my mom's car wich as a 90 hp 0.9 liter turbo engine
the makers just pay lower taxes so it's a win for them anyway
the 0.9 also pollute less so

>>16239961
>when people realize bigger NA engines get better real world fuel economy and emissions
When it fucking matters.

>>16240134
>turbos
>gimmick

lmao

>>16240110

Making power doesn't mean shit though.

The fact is that a turbocharger has a Jekyll and Hyde effect. That is to say, the engine behaves wildly differently in and out of boost.

Really, a lot of conventional theory and logic get thrown out the window when you take this into the real world. If you design an engine that constantly depends on its turbocharger just to keep steady highway speeds, there goes your fuel economy.

These small turbos that spool fast and operate at lower RPM/lower throttle are exactly the reason it's not working out the way automakers intended.

This could even be worked around by programming things differently, but nah. Nobody's gonna do that.

>>16240165
>If you design an engine that constantly depends on its turbocharger just to keep steady highway speeds

no modern engine ever?

you guys are retarded

>>16240184

I've never driven a turbo car before and have no idea how they behave in real-world driving: The post.

>>16240196
yup

that applies to most of the thread

just not me since Ive had a turbo car for 6 years

>>16240165
Putting a huge ass turbo on a smartcar is not the answer either
A turbo that spools at higher RPMs on a tiny engine will only encourage users to drive it flat out all the time to keep it on Boost and get the power they were advertised, AND will have loads of boost lag on day to day use

Turbos + downsiing should be used to reduce weight at most, since they will burn through more gas than a NA engine of similar displacement

Also, why the fuck are people so scared of highway on a small engine? you can do 1L NA on the highway fine, sure you wont do any pulls, but totally doable, even with a loaded car

>>16240163
thats not what I meant

they SELL the gimmick of a turbo to their customers

>>16240213
putting small turbo who spool very quickly on a medium engine should d the trick you get the low torque and you don't have crazy consumption in the top end

>>16240226
yes and?

its basic marketing

everything you do is hot shit

>>16240163
Slap a TARBO badge on the ass of any car and it will get more sales from normalfags that think having a turbo means your car is fast/sporty/good

>>16240213

it's been suggested at least twice in this thread that there should be a way (either programming or mechanical sorcery) to basically cut boost when cruising on the highway. Allow the engine to boost normally until it reaches top gear, then allow it to boost only under specific conditions, perhaps similar to an automatic gearbox kickdown.

>>16240236
you can do the same thing with just about any badge

GT
SS
Si

whatever

>>16240240
weird how I can get up to highway speeds and stay there without the boost gauge even moving

I swear none of you have ever operated a turbo car or cant drive for shit

>>16240240
that already exist kinda on the newer 0.9 clio
the fuel injection is limited when you're in the last gear
so you can only get 13.5 L per 100 km at the worse
that limit top speed too thought can't get passed 150 kph

File: emissions_vs_temp.png (28KB, 550x398px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x398px

>>16239961

And why would a larger naturally aspirated engine ingesting the same amount of air and burning the same amount of liquid fuel be any more efficient in fuel consumption than a smaller displacement engine ingesting the same amount of air and burning the same amount of liquid fuel to develop the same net brake power?

With the cooler combustion chamber temperature of a naturally aspirated engine, why would the emissions output bar NOx which is reduced by lowering the combustion chamber temperature be any lower than a smaller displacement engine ingesting the same amount of air and burning the same amount of liquid fuel with a hotter combustion chamber? The CO2, CO and particulate output is greater with a cool combustion chamber.

It takes a certain amount of liquid fuel and a certain amount of oxygen to develop a certain amount of Indicated Mean Effective Pressure. A certain IMEP correlates to a certain shaft output. It matters not if the oxidiser is added by means of a compressor or by means of a larger swept volume engine as long as the density is comparable.

Like old mate here >>16240148

Of course both rates of liquid fuel consumption will be similar. You are splitting hairs over ten horsepower than neither engine is likely developing. One hundred net horsepower at Stoichiometric 14.5:1 is .83pounds/min Petroleum and about 12pounds/min of airflow at density 1.1839. Big difference is one plant is developing this power by consuming this air and burning this fuel with 700CC's less swept volume and by means of charge air compression.

Doesn't matter where the air comes from. Twelve pounds/min air at 25 degrees celcius with .83 pounds/min Petroleum will result in the development of right about 100 Net horsepower.

If you want to compare the same swept volume plant with the same combustion chamber type in both aspirated and with forced aspiration then yes, the fuel consumption rate of the forced aspiration unit will be higher. So too will the power output.

File: tesla_p100d.jpg (25KB, 560x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 560x300px

Luckily we're all going to be driving electric so none of this shit will matter.

>>16240300
Until the energy density of batteries is better than gasoline electric cars will never take off

>>16240231
But then you would be on boost all the time and drink fuel like crazy

Back to the smart car, it has a tiny turbo that spools fast, around 2.5k RPM actually, so its always burning loads of fuel
even a small turbo on a moderated sized engine (1.4s and 1.6L engines) causes them to be on boost all the time and burn fuel

The trick as several posts itt suggested it is to tie the waste gate also the engine load data the ECU has
Low engine load? Keep it open, High engine load? normal operation

>>16240252
Because you do know how turbos work and has a boost gauge, most downsized turbos do not have that and are sold to people who have no idea how they work and probably their last car was a larger NA engine, so when they drive and dont find the power/torque they are used to, they give it more gas until they get it (or until the engine starts making noticeable noise), and that is the problem

I currently own two turbo cars
A smartfortwo(0.9L) and a 2.5L turbo volvo
I like to cruise in the highway around 130-160kmph, to do that on the smart I need to be around 4.5k RPM and on boost, while the volvo does the same at 2k and off boost
Guess what car gets the better mileage after an hour of highway cruise?

>>16240307
you don't need big range for DD though even 200 miles is largely enough since you're charging it back home

>>16240240

ALSO to all the normally aspirated fags who have no idea why this is how it should work, let me explain.

Turbos operate based on 2 things:

>Engine RPM which produces exhaust to spin the turbine
>Throttle opening which allows more air in

So basically

>1.4L turbo shitter screaming down the freeway at 75mph
>3000+ RPM
>Turbo is ready to go at a moment's notice because 3000RPM generates a lot of exhaust to spin the turbine
>Since the turbo is always on tap at this RPM, opening the throttle past a certain point will commence boost
>Keeping a 1.4L shitter at 75MPH requires a decent amount of throttle to begin with
>If that throttle input happens to be at the previously mentioned "certain point" then you're in boost whether you like it or not

In a turbo car equipped with a boost gauge, you can observe that boost pressure builds up and leaves rather quickly with even a bit of throttle modulation. Engine RPM only dictates how long you have to wait for the turbine to push a larger volume of air. eg - you can be at 5000RPM in full vacuum if you're only using 10% throttle, and you can be at 2500RPM in slight boost if you give it 50% throttle.

The turbo equation isn't as simple as normies would like to think.

>>16240313
Its not really about that

pound for pound, mile for mile gasoline is still more energy efficient because it contains way more energy per volume than lithium batteries.

>>16240311
yeah but i meant small turbo with small boost just to increase torque a little bit not really power you know ?

i think just limiting the fuel injection per gear so you would have good acceleration in all gear but with a top speed of 130 kph since you don't need more

>>16240324
yeah but you will pay less for fuel and that what's really count in the end

>>16240332

Please refer to >>16240316

>>16240338
17 cents per kwh translates to how many miles per?

File: 7 (1).jpg (175KB, 660x660px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 660x660px

>>16240311

>Smart Car
>130-160kmph
>130,000 - 160,000 mph
>About Mach 190

I'll take ten.

>>16240373
KILO
METER
PER
HOUR

Dumb muricans

>>16240338

Fuel cost is irrelevant when you're paying 140k for an electric car...

File: 1433859269120.png (200KB, 936x590px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 936x590px

>>16240383
thats km/h

what you said was kilo-mile/per hour ;>}

>>16240383

That's KPH.

>>16240389
he replaced the / with per. just a retarded way of spelling it.

>>16240395
retard.

>>16239961
Fiesta st gets 35mpg when I drive like a normie. I was getting around 40 when I really tried.

>more reliable and easy power
>not better
Now let's see your irrelevant subjective feels bullshit try get passed off as an actual argument

An na 4age strung out to its limits making a measly 180hp at 8000rpm and only running for a dozen hours is totally better than a turbo 4age making 400hp at 6000rpm and having a life measured in six figures :^)

>>16240402

Sure is a retarded way to spell it. Kilometer is one word.

>>16240452
nope dude you say 1 megabytes and write Mb
1 kilometer is km
1 kilogram is kg
etc

>>16240468
Lol this
Stupid Americans

Kilo (k) by itself means nothing

>>16240436
>1.8 turbo making 400hp
>long life span

You are fucking retarded m8

>>16240487
Plenty of ca18dets making more than that with over 100k km clocked on them

>>16240494

>160hp vs 400hp from the same displacement >expecting the same longevity

100k km's is not a lot. And 99% of those engines have blown up by now.

>>16240468
>>16240478

Please don't bite to >>16240452

File: 1351650997356.jpg (36KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x342px

>>16240373

>>16240508
>expecting same Longetivity
No I wouldn't. The strung to shit na engine is less reliable. Anyone with half a brain knows formula Atlantic 4ages are unreliable trash and that a well tuned turno 4age can make big power while being reliable

Na is just plain fucking trash for performance and only ignorant fools think otherwise

>>16239961

Hear, hear.

When are we going to get some N/A diesel engines to replace this turbo fad?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (117KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x720px

>4 cylinder with clutched supercharger
>simpler and lighter than turbo
>disengage SC when you want economy
>engage SC when you want power
>leave it permanently off for eco mode, on for sport mode, and auto-toggle when in normal mode
>more power from the I4 but with superior throttle response and power delivery

Why the fuck didn't this catch on?

>>16240494
Wow, great. 100,000km is so much.

Ignoring that there are S2000's out there with well over triple that mileage.

>>16240607

Yeah those Honda's burn more oil than gas and struggle to make 100hp because of shitty compression. Not a good thing.

>>16240607
And they make 160hp at 6000rpm
And with a slapped on turbo they can make 600hp at 6000rpm while still being reliable. Meanwhile an na f20c will never ever make that kind of power, even with opening the engine
Na is fucking trash thanks for helping me prove my point

>>16240599
superchargers are boring heavy shit

>>16239961
When camless engines become mainstream.

>>16240630
>600hp with small displacement is reliable
>600hp with small displacement is driveable

You've gone full on delusional

>over a second of turbo lag is somehow acceptable in daily driving
>a massive spike in power is somehow good power delivery

Kys ricer

>>16239961
Nah.

An engine is designed around it's utility.

The Bore X Stroke
Valve Angle
Valve Size
Number of Valves per cylinder
Number of Pistons
The duration/lift of cam to change torque peak/Economy
Whether it has VVL or VVT.
Direct Injection vs Multipoint.

All of these things have to work together to create a motor, how high it revs, it's economy etc.

The point is, you can't make a engine without compromising something. If you increase stroke, you get a cleaner burn, but then you are also increasing displacement which needs more fuel. So you have to decrease bore.

If your rod length becomes too long, then the rods become weak, then the motor can't rev as high, and can't make power.

Then there's cost, and maintenance etc.

Turbos aren't going away, because it makes it so they don't have to compromise.

It creates two motors in one. You get a little anemic 3 cyl that in the low end, for cruising makes 45mpg. but in the top end when boost comes on, it makes enough to make the car driveable.

>>16240690
>over a second of turbo lag
Stop posting any time kid

>>16240134
>And Honda wonders why people boo'd when they revealed the new civic Si would have a 1.5L engine instead of the better 2.4L engine

I would be VERY surprised to see the turbo engine making less power than the puny naturally aspirated k24.

>>16239961
The reason NA large displacement engines aren't coming back is because you can't make good power with them while retaining decent fuel economy AND meeting ever-tightening emissions requirements.

Just look at Mazda's skyactive shit, you fuckers were ragging on them for having an underperforming 2.0L, but that's what the future holds for NA engines.

>>16240607
>adding oil every day
Those S2000s burn so much oil that it would be dead in a week if a regular non-enthusiast drove it. Also low torque = low stress.

>>16240494
They don't make those power levels for 100k km, they maybe make 500 full actual KMs out of 100K at over 350hp being generous.

>>16239961
http://www.m-power.com/_open/s/varlink2.jsp?id=3301&lang=en

The issue right now is that on boost these engines have to be conservative in their AFR to avoid detonation and melting the pistons.

Water injection will go a very, very long way to enabling better fuel economy in cruise conditions for small turbo engines while reducing the fuel economy impact under heavy acceleration which is where NA holds an advantage.

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/deep-dive-inside-the-mazda-skyactiv-2-5t-turbo-engine/

Mazda has already used a few other techniques as well like cooled EGR to reduce combustion temperatures and decrease the risk of detonation.

Cooled EGR and water injection together will likely allow for turbo engines to be comparable to naturally aspirated engines under high load, high RPM situations for fuel efficiency and emissions while continuing to reduce pumping losses and overall engine weight.

Supercapacitor banks with KERS systems will allow for near-instant turbo spool even at low RPM as well.

The future is going turbocharged because OEMs are going to downsize as much as humanly possible so you stay off boost at a steady 75 MPH but have enough power for consumers that don't want 10 second 0-60 times.

>>16240133
>70 mph crusing
>in boost
Nigga what

>>16241869
Clearly you have no idea how sturdy the f20 is with big power

>>16242062
No, I don't. I've only boosted a stock one with a copper spacer gasket. Seriously, F20 is a HP powerhouse but even boosted, puts out paltry torque levels. The thing is each combustion event provides much lower torque than an equivalent boosted 2.0L. F20 (and K20 etc) make up for a relatively weak power stroke by being able to do more of them.

A 65% Torque (ftlbs) to WHP ratio is standard business with boosted F20s and other VTEC Hondas. (ie 400hp/260tq). It is Torque that stresses engine parts and an engine's capacity to hold together with high torque is a true measure of a "sturdy" engine. F20 is weak for torque but well balanced and with 3000rpms of extra rev range thanks to camming and head flow.

>>16239961
>>16239986
>>16239993
>>16240017
>>16240110
>>16240133
>>16240153
>>16240153

what parts do i need to upgrade on an engine to throw a turbo on there? can i just get forged pistons and make sure its not an aluminum block or do i need to worry about camshit?

>>16240108
>displacement taxes

>UK

>2005 350z
>£295 a year
>2006 350z
>£515 a year

ye

>>16240133

cruising in boost lmao, try shifting down to relieve the load on your engine holyshit, if you didnt have a turbo you would be lugging the shit out of it, its not an airplane engine, its not meant to be outputting that much power continuously. Its better to run it at a higher RPM where it can make the power required by itself out of boost.

>>16240599
Parasitic Losses

>>16242614
lower compression and/or higher octane fuel to prevent pre-detonation, heat management (obviously), good spark plugs, uprated fuel system, and the most importantly a good ecu tune to have everything run correctly and not have your engine incinerate itself the moment you touch the throttle.

cams, valve springs, conrods, bottom end, gaskets and seals, are extra measures that can be taken and also dependant on the engine.

>>16239986
>posting that rcr (who is also shit) wannabe tryhard and his shit opinion

Friendly reminder the new E63 S makes 612 HP from a 4L engine.

>>16242614
If you want the engine to last you will need to replace pistons, connecting rods, and crank if not of very good quality. You may need different cams. You will need a different exhaust. You will need an engine management system to monitor and adjust boost. You will need oil and water lines to the turbo. You will need to update your pcv system. You will most likely need an intercooler. You may need a new clutch or transmission. You will need a head gasket and some way of reducing compression if you have a high compression engine.

>>16240133
>They don't need to get rid of turbo cars. They just need bigger BOVs or wastegates that are programmed to open all the way and make exactly zero boost in low load cruising situation
Most modern, if not all, turbo charged cars have ecu controlled boost controllers. My 20 year old saab does. 2.3 liter making 250hp. Cruising on the highway at 85 mph my manifold pressure is negative. 32 mpg.

>>16240436
Since when are smaller, lighter engines with higher compression and forcefucked intake more reliable?
Never

>>16239961
are you serious ? you do realise that turbos were introduced to bring mpg up and emissions down

>>16242448

what engine and how much boost?

>>16242614
>>16243193
Don't forget bigger injectors and fuel pump and wideband 02 sensor and boost controller and guage and bigger radiator

>>16244083
Right but it's not working. Ford's big V8 gets better EPA mpgs than the ecoboost in the F-150, not to mention far better real world numbers.

>>16242815

cmon. The parasitic loss on those tvs and vortech superchargers is minimal.

>>16244083
turbochargers are older than anybody giving a fuck about mpg or emissions.

they were introduced for powah

>>16244162
The reason why is because Ford did the least amount of work needed to stay in compliance with MPG.

They enrich the shit out of the mixture under boost to protect the engine and as a result unless you never hit boost while accelerating you won't come close to EPA estimates.

Mazda and Bosch have developed cooled EGR and water injection systems respectively. Neither system is a new idea but new implementations that will allow for much leaner mixture and more aggressive spark timing to really reap the benefits of turbocharging.

Water and cooled exhaust gases both moderate cylinder temperatures and reduce the chance of detonation which allows for better fuel economy, lower emissions and more power.

>>16244157
>>16243193
Might as well swap for an engine that comes with all this shit

>>16245104
Surprise, you almost never want to make major modifications to a car because the engineers that made it probably knew more about how to make things happen than you do.

If you want a turbo car, get a turbo car from the start. Something like the Toyota 86 is a rare exception because Subaru was going to turbo it anyways so tuners would have the FA20DIT as reference and there was a massive aftermarket for it anyways.

>>16245160
Engineers work within budget and time restraints
Very rarely do they engineer a product to be as good as possible
Suggesting that you can't improve on a car or engine simply because someone with a 4 year degree was told do design it a certain way is just outrageous

>>16245160
What if it is a Renault though?

>>16245167
Hahahah. Do you really think that the people in charge have only spent 4 years understanding the theory and practice of automotive engineering?

And if you don't even know how to apply Laplace transforms, PID feedback, or design and test a part you shouldn't talk at all because you don't even know what you don't know about making these things.

There are absolutely parts where engineers are budget or time constrained. But stupid shit like lowering springs and all kinds of other bullshit mods I see people doing are almost universally going to make the car worse.

I can absolutely name examples where it's obvious that the OEM stopped giving a shit and you should make an effort to improve on those areas with mods, but there are plenty of cases where people are just changing shit for the sake of changing shit.

Example A is intake mods. These are almost universally fucking retarded because more often than not all they do is introduce a bunch of noise to the MAF that is impossible to tune out because the flow is turbulent. Aftermarket intake filters often don't do a damn thing other than reduce the amount of filtration relative to stock intake filters.

Example B is shit like body kits and other shitty mods like lowering springs. Suspension tuning is fucking hard to optimize for considering just how many factors impact how you should be tuning and people toss all of that engineering effort into the wind with their shitty half-assed suspension changes. Body kits almost universally are not well-validated for aerodynamics and compromise the huge effort put into getting stuff like that done right.

I'm not saying modding is bad. Engineers do fuck things up. The RB26's oil pump is a great example of this. The Supertec Spline Drive kit is recommended to resolve these issues: http://blog.supertecracing.com/blog/tag/supertec-spline-drive/

You have to look carefully and do your research to not do stupid shit.

>>16245246
>muh body kits
Many body kits offer superior aerodynamics over factory
Caron fibre body kits for supra dropping over 200kg and gaining mad down force. Total useless ricer bullshit, nothing can be improved over factory

You literally are talking shit
Huur you can't improve on work engineers do!!!! But you can!!! But you can't!!!

>>16245167
>Engineers work within budget and time restraints
>Very rarely do they engineer a product to be as good as possible
that really isn't completely accurate. yes there are budget constraints but they do make things to be as best as they possibly can.
If they are designing an engine for x amount of horsepower there isn't any reason to build components to take more than x amount of horsepower. On the contrary there are reasons to build it to take only x amount of horsepower as overbuilding it would add weight and decrease efficiency.

It is highly unlikely you will improve on the work of engineers from within your garage. You might be successful in adapting their design to another purpose though.

>>16245284
>own rx7
>rig omp to inject from resovior of 2 stroke oil instead of dirty crank case oil

>own rx8
>scrap oem ignition cools for junkyard trailblazer coils
>major point of failure removed


major improvements over what the engineers engineered :^)
Guess my failed high school certificate is worth more than mit degrees :^))

>>16245313
>>own rx7
>>rig omp to inject from resovior of 2 stroke oil instead of dirty crank case oil
you are being backtraced by the cyber epa police. hope you like lots of strokes in your dirty crank case buddy.

>>16245334
I also vent ac gas straight into atmosphere muahaha

>>16240276
ding ding ding you win a gold star for being the only smart person in this thread =) i dont get why people dont understand that more air mean more fuel, so youll get the same BSFC (if your boosting for power)

>>16245104
what if my car is from the pre-turbo era

would probably be cheaper to turbo it and build engine than get a new car, plus new cars that i like and can afford are pretty much just the miata

>>16246484
what if you're from the pre-cambrian era then what u gonna do nigga??

>>16240436
>turbo 4 cylinder
>400go
>"life measured in figures"

Thanks for the laugh, friend.

>>16245263
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying more often than not people mod their cars to be worse, not better.

If you can experimentally validate the design of an aero package and thoroughly test it to avoid regressions over stock, more power to you. But you should make sure that the car doesn't have unbalanced aero characteristics like more rear downforce than front at speed which leads to understeer at speed. You also want to make sure that you aren't negatively impacting the weight distribution by pushing it away from 50/50.

You also need to verify that your body kit isn't introducing drag in strange places. Drag is inevitable with downforce but stuff like the Nismo lip spoiler on the R32 GT-Rs that was super popular was horrendous for fuel economy and performance because it introduced insane amounts of drag.

And for each mod you make you need to consider the interaction effects. A part is often made with the assumption that the car is stock. If you add a custom front bumper and front diffuser, have you analyzed how the two interact? Does the aftermarket bumper expose the diffuser in a way that dramatically increases drag?

This is the kind of stuff that needs to be considered before blindly modding your car.

>>16239961
>bigger NA engines get better real world fuel economy and emissions than equally powerful turbos?
they dont

File: 1465116042386.jpg (45KB, 291x280px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 291x280px

>>16240276
This.

If you downsize and downspeed but keep the power the same you MUST make the engine more efficient.
To get the same or greater power from a smaller displacement demands an increase in IMEP. i.e. increased thermal efficiency.
With a move to GDI there is a significant reduction in combustion chamber temperature as the fuel changes phase inside the engine. This allows an increase in compression ratio, again increasing thermal efficiency.
Your MPG may not be any better (why would you think it would be if your power output is the same?), but the thermal efficiency of the engine is better and emissions will be reduced as a result.

>ITT: retards can't differentiate between thermal efficiency and fuel economy

>>16247960
Posts like this make me realize that people on /o/ actually know what they're talking about sometimes instead of just gtr and ecoboost shitposting.

>>16243242
But that's SAAB.
They know turbos.

>>16240468
Mb is Megabit, you mean MB.
But you're correct about both, just a minor spelling mistake I know you realized once you looked at it again.

>>16240089
It matched up with the requirements of the NEDC. Emissions are more important than power or torque, that's just the way it is.

But now that the test is changing to better reflect how people actually drive, and with the emphasis on NOx emissions, engines are going to get bigger again.

>>16240240
Bad idea.
The idea of keeping the engine in boost at cruise is a reducton in pumping losses and therefore reductoon in fuel consumption.

What you really need is a more efficient way of throttling the engine. Throwing out the butterfly valve and using trick valve train control to limit the air flow with positive pressure in the manifold would be better than cutting boost.

So I should stay away from the civics with turbo?

It will be my dd, will not be tracked or modded; but I will occasionally floor it.

>>16248366
The only thing they know now is Chapter 11.

File: Volkswagen-logo-4[1].jpg (37KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1280x782px

>>16240009
:^)

Turbos are thirsty and cost more to maintain.

Give me displacement.

>>16248911
Not a new idea. BMW already has valvetronic. After initial startup the throttle valve is always open and throttle is controlled by varying valve lift.

>>16252060
I wouldn't waste your time. No one on this board is capable of original thought. Fiat have their multi air multi air system that achieves the same result.

>>16252846
http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/vvel.html

And Nissan.

I don't know why I bother but it's kind of fun anyways.

File: 1467523564714.jpg (39KB, 496x573px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 496x573px

>>16252060

I think that's real fuckin' neato man. I work with industrial engines and haven't really looked into that sort of thing until then. Cool shit.

File: 1447795363324.jpg (66KB, 453x679px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 453x679px

>>16239961
Turbos won't make a comeback when engines with poor oil flow are still being paired with plastic radiators.

>Wanting your engine to literally burn up past the boiling point.

>>16244083
A turbo was a concept from the 1940's aviation to extend flight range so planes with huge propellers did not stall out at high altitude.

>>16250918
>Turbos are thirsty and cost more to maintain.

False. You just keep using the boost that is achieved from the RPM's in which your pray that the manufacturer of the engine does not fuck you over when driving on the highway when the EFI increases the fuel intake to match that boost. Otherwise get a car with actual tall gears to make use of that tappable forced power, like an electric 8 speed that only makes 4 shifts of skipping multiple gears to get from a boosted 0-60.

File: shifter lockout does not tolerate fun.jpg (1MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1360px

>>16240009
That's why this exists.

File: Viper.jpg (29KB, 640x381px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x381px

Just imagine when Dodge finally gets their shit together and puts some twin turbos in this thing

>>16240300
>Luckily

Lucky until they're all scrapped for copper and the only EVs you ride are publically owned or property of MicroAT&Googlecast inc and serve thousands each day