>make a compressor that allows an engine to consume more fuel

>>16298122
>not knowing that turbos are used to improve fuel efficiency besides performance
kys GM shill

>>16298122
doesn't consume more fuel.
increased cylinder pressure increases torque to fuel ratio.

and being able to use smaller displacement out of boost helps highway mileage.

good thread.

i thought the point was to make similar hp with a smaller motor

doesnt really matter will probably be found on the road dead soon anyway

>>16298138
It does use more fuel you fucktard. I literally bought a work van the other day and my three options were the 5 cyl diesel, the standard for 3.7 v6, or the ecoboost 3.5v v6 and the ecoboost had the worst fuel economy of them all

>>16298122
Jesus christ this is some stupid bait

>>16298138

Exhaust restrictions are great for MPG, am I right or are you fucking retarded, son?

>>16298158
It uses more fuel compared to what?
An N/A motor of the same power, no.

>the ecoboost had worse mpg
No shit, but the ecoboost makes probably twice as much torque.

it uses less fuel to make the same horsepower as a much higher displacement engine.
plus the benefit of being able to use it off boost.

>>16298176
Alright, I guess fuel to power ratios are too complex for the average dipshit video gamer on this board.

>>16298122
For the last fucking time, 'ecoboost' does not mean it includes a charger.
It's an efficient design of piston and cylinder head that uses way less fuel when the engine isn't loaded, and squeezes more energy out of the fuel with some sort of magic.
They developed it for naturally-aspirated engines for use in smaller cars. This is why they can use a 3 cylinder <1L engine to produce enough power to move a new Fiesta around.
It's something like 20% more efficient, so you either get the same power with a smaller engine, or use the same size engine to get more power.
Good for fuel efficiency AND insurance/tax that are calculated off engine displacement.

3.7 ecoboost pulls real nice, I like it.

>>16298204

Turbo gasoline engines have abysmal fuel economy under boost, ignoramus.

>>16298219
>EcoBoost is a family of turbocharged, direct-injection gasoline engines produced by the Ford Motor Company

>>16298183
bruh the power to fuel ratio is a useless metric to use. just because on paper the ecoboost makes 300 lb/ft of torque with the same amount of fuel as the 3.7L doesn't mean it translates flawlessly to the real world. what matters is the practical highway and city mileage and it is measurably worse in the ecoboost models (according to Ford)

>>16298236
Not compared to a N/A motor of equal power.
Can you read or..?

Please learn something about cars before you pretend to be smart again.

>>16298219
>some sort of magic.
It's low friction,dipshit

>>16298122
>implying you are in boost 25/8/367

>>16298236
Not if the turbo is used to barely overcome intake vacuum under light load

>>16298253
>bruh the power to fuel ratio is a useless metric to use

Uh no it isn't. Not for towing and hauling.
It uses less fuel than a higher displacement n/a motor of the same power rating and gearing.

It's just a fact, accept it or forever be a retard.

>>16298254

Yes, compared to an N/A motor of equal power. The boost is created by a restriction in the exhaust, which is a waste of energy. As opposed to airflow created by a vaccuum and a free flow of gases.

The only thing that makes them have high advertised MPG is because government tests only require 0-60 acceleration of 30 seconds. During MPG testing, they are not making boost AT ALL.

God, you're a retarded shitstain.

>>16298279
yeah because straight pipes give you the best fuel economy
kys retard

>>16298279
Congratulations, you know nothing about cars.

File: fuelly13.png (12KB, 511x219px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 511x219px

>>16298138
>doesn't consume more fuel.

>2.0L Ecoboost
https://www.edmunds.com/ford/focus-st/2013/long-term-road-test/mpg.html

>2.0L Duratec - pic related


>>16298140
That is the point, but a larger motor under less stress can manage the same economy.

>>16298183
>plus the benefit of being able to use it off boost.
Ecoboost turbos are so tiny they're basically making boost off idle.

Someone better tell all the semi makers in the world that they could be saving a lot of gas if they just took those dang turbos off!

>>16298292

Actually, they do, if the engine is tuned for them. Just because you read a lot of ads, doesn't make you smart, kid.

>>16298267
>gets btfo
>immediately starts arguing semantics

>>16298306

Turbodiesels are different, you actually get more efficiency with a leaner mix. With gasoline, you can't use a lean mix.

>>16298279
>The boost is created by a restriction in the exhaust, which is a waste of energy
>which is a waste of energy
how can anyone be this retarded and still think they arent talking complete shit

>>16298307
>what is exhaust scavenging
kek, stay retarded
also enjoy your premature wear, cuck

>>16298299
You're comparing two engines of the same displacement you absolute retard.

>>16298310
>arguing semantics
??? do you even know what the word means

Jesus, why do I even come to this board.
Yeah you sure blew me the fuck out. Back to your video games, bud.

>>16298321

It's the same thing as a clogged catalytic converter of air filter. Check if those give you worse MPG.

>>16298299
>HUUR THIS ENGINE THAT MAKES LESS POWER USES WAAY LES FUEL
retard

File: consider.jpg (70KB, 640x730px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x730px

>>16298346
OH YEAH TOTALLY THE SAME

>>16298346
Turbos recycle exhaust gas retard.

>>16298341
>thinks people buy cargo vans to tow
>taking damage control this far

>>16298375
cargo vans HAUL

>taking damage control this far
literally projecting roflmao

nacucks btfo this hard

>>16298359

From the viewpoint of efficiency, for a gasoline engine, which can't burn lean, yes. It's the same.

Shoving more air into the intake, which you HAVE to inject more fuel for, does not make up for the restriction losses in any way.

>>16298364

Yes, it is a turbine. It harvests velocity and turns it into power. That's what turbines do. Turbines also cause drag. There's nothing perfect in engineering.

>>16298402
>Shoving more air into the intake
recycled air from the exhaust :^)

>which you HAVE to inject more fuel for
what, na engines dont need fuel mixed with air?

>does not make up for the restriction losses in any way
there is no restriction. turbo increases volumetric efficiency by a significant amount over an na engine, that means turbo is more efficient,

stay btfo :^))

>>16298358
N/a engines that make same power with same displacement are practically low end racing engines you retarded amerifat

File: Skyactiv-Technology1-1800x450.jpg (148KB, 1800x450px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1800x450px

>Develop an actual cool technology that actually improves fuel efficiency without sacrificing clean emissions.
>Put the shittiest name you can think of.

I bet the average normie thinks ferd ecogarbage actually helps the environment while ignoring that Skactiv is the one that actually does something.

>>16298315
You are literally brain dead.

>>16298687
t. mazda fangirl

>>16298122
>Now an example of a corporation Green Washing is Ford's recent Ecoboost engine and ecoboost ad campaign. I'm sure if you have watched TV lately you have seen Fords new commercial for the new Taurus SHO with "ECOBOOST". This engine is a V6 365 horse that gets 17 city and 25 highway miles to the gallon. And everyone knows that the government estimated MPG is never accurate. So really this engine gets about 15 city and 20 highway. Now does that sound like a car that should have the words "ECOBOOST" put on the trunk! Ford should be ashamed of this green washing. The worst thing is that the American people are so stupid that this green washing is actually working.

>>16298777
>17/25 for a high performance car
sounds pretty good tbqh

>>16298332
>exhaust scavenging
>on a turbocharged engine on boost

File: 51Tm9msprYL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (26KB, 260x327px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 260x327px

>>16298809

File: 1405076614717[1].jpg (21KB, 437x369px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 437x369px

>>16298364
>Turbos recycle exhaust gas retard.
You're thinking of DEI™ by WAT Automotive Techologies

>>16298827
Yes anon I'm sure that book proves there's negative back pressure in the exhaust line on a turbocharged engine under boost.

>>16298334
The person I was replying to was saying that adding the compressor didn't lower fuel economy and that "being out of boost helps highway mpg". Why would I not compare two engines of the same size you fucking moron?

>>16298358
Where was power mentioned in >>16298138 ?

The 2.0L ecoboost has literally the exact same bore, stroke, deck height etc.. as a 2.0L Duratec. It's essentially just a TI-VCT Duratec with a turbo. And it's less fuel efficient than the non turbo version. So explain to me how I'm wrong in correcting him when his claim isn't true.

>>16298709
actually kys you stupid coon

>>16298257

You pretty much are when you got a 140hp 1.4l dragging along 3500lbs.

>>16298851
>i don't know how valves work

>>16298859
what did she mean by this?

>>16298854
You're 100% retarded. Just give up.

>>16298854
>It's essentially just a TI-VCT Duratec with a turbo.
and a lot more power

>>16298219
lol, Ecoboost is literally a line of GTDI engines. Ford doesn't use the buzzword for any of their direct injected motors that don't have a turbo.

Ecoboost is a corporate buzzword for gas turbo direct injeccted motors.

File: Girlsifunny.png (363KB, 446x414px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 446x414px

>>16298936
>he didn't get the memo that forced induction is cheating

Are you kids retarded or what? The purpose of a turbo is to add more air. The air is a catalyst for the fuel. You can't make more power without more fuel.

The difference is.. For a given horsepower, the boosted engine will use less fuel due to increased cylinder pressure. Despite the added exhaust pressure.

They also have the added benefit of being able to use similar fuel as a non-turbo when out of boost on the highway.

For example a 2 liter boosted engine can get 20% better average mpg than an LT1 while making the same horsepower.

>>16298972
>lolpushrods
I don't think it's the turbo, anon

>>16298972
>For a given horsepower, the boosted engine will use less fuel due to increased cylinder pressure.
wat? this is completely wrong

>For example a 2 liter boosted engine can get 20% better average mpg than an LT1 while making the same horsepower.

Only when you're not on boost..... Shits different when it comes to real world mpg's, not the marketing wank manufacturers want you to believe. It'll only achieve those MPG's if you stay out of boost which kind of defeats the purpose of a turbo. You might as get the bigger engine and not be a retard on the throttle.

>>16298992
>Only when you're not on boost
combined you idiot.. an LT1 at WOT probably gets 5mpg same as the turbo.

If you were out of boost the whole time you'd get the same MPG as a 2 liter. Way above 20% more.

Jesus christ.

>>16298978
No it's not..

why the fuck do you think people are using turbos now? just to meme? why do you think every endurance race car is turbo'd? is it just a meme?

>>16298992
The whole point of getting the NA V8 is so you CAN be a retard on the throttle.
As a bonus you get to listen to a better soundtrack and have proper throttle response.

>>16299005
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>16299016
>why the fuck do you think people are using turbos now? just to meme?
because the tests favour them
why do you think every endurance race car is turbo'd? is it just a meme?
because the racing rules favour them

>>16299027
You're fucking stupid lmao

>>16299020
It's common sense. At least I thought till reading this thread.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure

The only thing making power is the fuel. Nothing else. More fuel, more power. The turbo will ALWAYS have way more torque per unit of fuel burned due to pressure provided it's tuned properly. A turbo increases VE over 100%.

It doesn't matter if it's a 2L or a 20L, if it's making 500hp it's burning 500hp worth of fuel.
But, a turbo can do it way more efficiently.

>>16299063
>a 500hp engine can only do it by burning 500hp worth of fuel, efficiency isn't a thing
>oh wait, it is a thing and my favourite engine is better at it because I said so
>it's becuase of cylinder pressure you see :DDD

I can tell you're out of your depth and grasping. Anyway what do you do for a living?

>>16298923
So you're saying adding the compressor helped fuel economy? Or that the 2.0L Ecoboost is more efficient than the 2.0L Duratec? Because neither of these statements are true. But you resort to ad hominem instead of actually defending any sort of point. Stop being an idiot.

>>16298936
Again, I understand that a turbo engine of the same displacement will have more power. My point is that it's not more efficient.

>>16298122
There are people with a lot more qualification, and are paid a lot more than you that decided to make it. They know what they are doing better then some carless fuck on /o/.

Why are semi trucks, heavy machinery and ships still using such huge engines? You don't see them constantly downsizing their engines... They've pretty much been the same displacement for 30+ years. Small engines are a meme.

>>16299102
Mechanic for a BMW independent and in school for mechanical engineering.

>>16299145
They all have turbos though.

>>16299149

Because they're Diesel. NA diesels suck dick.

>>16299116
But comparing the same displacement is irrelevant, what makes engines equivalent is the power and torque.

>>16299116
Ecoboost is absolutely more efficient. The duratec will never be over 100% VE. A turbo is by definition. Plus more effective pressure. If you build an NA car to make the same power as a turbo car it will be way less efficient. Turbo is essentially MPG on demand.

>>16299153
NA diesels suck dick for a reason anon
protip: it's efficiency

>>16298122
>making a direct injected engine that fucks up your valves by design

Kekarooni

>>16298135
believing GM or Ford are at the fore front of the engine efficiency race

pls reevaluate your life

>>16299146
Well it's nice that you're into cars but you have a lot to learn.

>>16299145
Durability is way more heavily weighted in the design process compared to car engines.

>>16299159
The Duratec at peak torque will be around 110-120% VE. But more VE on a turbo engine basically means more boost, and this means more fuel, and it usually doesn't mean more fuel efficiency.

>>16299189
kek

>>16299198
No.. you have a lot to learn.. In fact it seems like you've learned nothing and you should stop shilling blatantly wrong information on /o/.

>>16299189
Where do you get this BS from? moron
Even the German premiums are using turbos, look at how BMW' and Mercedes-Benz's nomenclature has changed. A 323i isn't a 2.3L anymore.
Turbos have become so widespread because of emissions regulations.

>>16299206
It's been a while since a grease monkey tried to tell me what time it is but it still amuses.

>>16299265
nice larping
the only grease monkey you've ever met is your mother when she goes to the basement to hand you some hotpockets

>>16299265
You're so obviously wrong it's painful to read.
The entire reason every race car is turbo now is fuel efficiency.

>>16299282
waaw ebin burn anon
sure showed me

>>16299287
yes it must be all about efficiency with f1 rules that say "1.5 litres, na or fi, you choose"

>>16299302
The new F1 cars are 30% more efficient at the same power level as the N/A v8's despite making more horsepower.

Every endurance car has a turbo, even when hp is limited by the rules. There's a reason for that. Hint: It's fuel efficiency.

>>16299317
This

>>16298777
I got 17/33 in a 2011 Dodge Charger rt/Max over three years. Exceeded the ratings. You don't actually own a car

>>16299317
>The new F1 cars are 30% more efficient at the same power level as the N/A v8's despite making more horsepower.
Yes it's nothing to do with the change in hybrid rules. Also, saying F1 does it so it must be apply to road cars too is pretty dumb.

>There's a reason for that. Hint: It's fuel efficiency.
And yet you can't explain or show the science behind it.

>>16299351
Nigger, the driving force behind turbos and 3 cyl engines in yurop is literally emissions regulations

The only reason why small turbo engines excel in emission and mpg tests is because they test them off boost. Drive them like a normal person and they do the same as a slightly larger NA engine.

>>16299362
Yes anonI get that, but you seem to have missed the point of this thread.
They build 3 cyl turbo engines to score great results in tests and then they are fucking awful irl.
But they do well according to the emissions regulation in place so it's all good.

>literally recycles waste heat

>eco

>>16299116
>same displacement
>one makes a lot more power
>is not more efficient

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Oh my God, nice trolling m8. Oh, wait, you were serious?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
This board is fucking retarded, bus riders please leave.

>>16299116
>I understand that a turbo engine of the same displacement will have more power. My point is that it's not more efficient
way to move goal posts

a smaller displacement turbo will make same power and be more efficient
deal with it

>>16299382
>and then they are fucking awful irl
they aren't. They aren't as refined as higher cylinder count engines, but when it comes to fuel economy they do their job very well

>>16298346
dirty air filter has virtually no effect on MPG unless you are in the carbureted stone age.

File: 1301008967548.jpg (18KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 250x250px

Just entered this thread to say OP is a complete retard.

>>16299482
>a smaller displacement turbo will make same power and be more efficient
it won't make power until you're on boost and when you are it will be less efficient.
deal with it.

>>16299499
most anecdotal claims contradicts that, i doubt they are all lying.

>>16299590
Except that's not true at all. less air flow has a direct impact on torque and throttle response

This thread is filled to the brim with misinformation on both sides.

>>16299624
This thread's success is why this board is cancer.

>>16299614
but he said mpg, not torque or throttle response
why do people argue like this, and invent something to disagree with?

>>16299614
Fuck off alonzo

>>16299598
>most anecdotal claims contradicts that, i doubt they are all lying.
Virtually every taxi in my country has switched to 3 cyl, I doubt they'd use them if they were so bad. I have many friends with 3 cyl cars and they do fine, I've ridden in them and you can't tell it's not a 4 banger.

>>16299737

Your country is probably the size of a North American city. Those tiny engines won't last them you're doing 200 miles a day.

>>16299758
Nice FUD, buddy. My friend did 30000 km to her Peugeot in a single year and the thing didn't blink, all city use that is a lot harsher on engines than highway use. There's a whole fleet of taxis that use those engines 24/7 and they have no issues either. Get yer head out of your ass some time, son.

>>16299758
Oh I forgot that you amerilards can't drive manual, maybe that's why your engines last less
stupid niggers

>>16299803

wow 30km a month is nothing when you never go over 30kph because of the perpetual traffic. Any engine is going to last when you're only using 10hp of it's output.

>>16299827
>implying speed matters and not rpm
as I said, stupid niggers

>>16298315
Basic thermodynamics says that the leaner the mixture, the lower the temperature of the product gases of combustion, which therefore creates lower cylinder pressure, which reduces the total work the product gases exert on the piston. Less work for the same amount of fuel means less efficiency. Recommend attending high school.

>>16299737
what choice do they have? a 3 cyl turbo or a 4 cyl turbo. obvs they choose the 3 cyl.

>>16299845
They don't buy turbos, it's 3 cyl NA

>>16299850
>professional drivers avoid fake power
colour me surprised

>>16299857
more like they avoid paying more than they need to
you see them in either 1.4 fiats, or 1.2 3 cyl peugeots or 1.0/1.2/1.3 chinese cars
UberX drivers love their 800c 3 cyl altos

>>16299159
There is no such thing as 100% volumetric efficiency. A turbo'd engine can't be defined as over than 100% volumetric efficiency because that's not a thing. Volumetric efficiency isn't an efficiency at all; it's just a way of comparing power output to displacement.

>>16299871
wtf has this got to do with turbos?

>>16299327
>Replies to post with "this"
go back to tumblr fag

>>16299925
3 cyl engines were mentioned along with turbos as 2 different measures that manufacturers are taking to improve fuel efficiency

>>16299598
like Euromagic diesels, they just have tiny turbos that produce their maximum boost from low rpm say 1000-1200 rpm

>>16299827
...implying that city miles are kinder to cars than highway miles? You've never owned a car, have you?

>>16299956
He probably has never driven an ex-taxi or ex-police car either, lol
I wish cars had odometers like the ones on planes.

>>16299630
>Implying autistic benchracers on here even own cars
Fuck em

This thread is why the ecoboost meme is selling.

i cant wait till these engines start grenading in a couple of years because Ferd quality control

>>16299949
1000rpm or not, it's not going to be producing boost when you're just putting along at 25mph, crawling in traffic or barely accelerating.

File: d659a7b041db4ba4b0ab55f167d4cf88.jpg (92KB, 564x564px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 564x564px

>>16299967
>i cant wait till these engines start grenading in a couple of years because Ferd quality control
>projecting
stay btfo

>>16299241
Small turbos, man
Small. Turbos.

>>16299970
>let me tell you about cars I haven't seen in action
>>16299981
some aren't that small, some even have twin turbo setups

>>16299978
>t.Trayvon "Alphonse" D'NoCar
kys you autistic nigger

>>16299986
>>let me tell you about cars I haven't seen in action
>implying you've sat and measured boost pressure on cars in different conditions
>implying you're not just reciting the spec sheet and nothing else
>implying you have any idea how engines work
please stop posting

>>16299839
read this you utter mong
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=130502

>>16299986
>some aren't that small, some even have twin turbo setups
Those are peformance cars like the Ford GT and such

>>16299978
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/07/ford-ecoboost-poor-fuel-mileage-complaints-wards/
>Shit fuel encomony
>Shit Reliability
>Turbo performance orientated engines literally dying in the first couple of thousand miles
How is this shit any worse than GM's c7 Vette fuckups?

>>16299998
>muh bench mechanics
I've seen the cars in action, nigger. I don't need to measure shit to know they are more than just alright. I deal with people in the people carrying business every day. I ride those cars very frequently. Fuck off.

>Ford
>Quality
https://www.edmunds.com/ford/mustang/2015/consumer-reviews/?sorting=REVERSE_OVERALL_RATINGS
>Driveline vibrations
>Engine failiures
>Electronics a shit
wow

File: )when-someone-think-they-have-an-argument-but-its-not-2777133.png (54KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x534px

>>16299988
>implying I'm alphonse

>>16300031
As if any mass produced car is free from having lemons

>>16300026
>I don't need to measure anything I can just make up retarded shit and post it online :^)

>>16300012
>http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=130502
All that says is nobody throttles diesels, which is true. Why the hell would you? I stopped reading after I read the post which says "diesels produce max torque rich of stoichiometric" which is exactly my point. Highest torque means highest cylinder pressures, which means highest power output. Highest efficiency for any motor (meaning work out per heat in) is achieved where it produces maximum torque, and under full throttle.

>>16300039
So by that logic every mass produced cars engine claps out within the breakin period, has squeeling brakes, shit electronics, driveline viabration, rust and paint problems, false marketing, shit warranty


fucking kill yourself ford shill ive owned a bunch of fords and they are dogshit, literally every one had brake, engine, gearbox and electronic failiures and not just the US made ones, UK, EU and AU are all just as dogshit

Ill never touch a ford again in my life they are all horrid especially the Falcon, Focus, Fiesta and Mustang

>>16298972
>For example a 2 liter boosted engine can get 20% better average mpg than an LT1 while making the same horsepower.
Application?

No, seriously, compare apples to apples, pick a 460 horsepower 2.0T in a vehicle with similar weight and aerodynamics to a Corvette or a Camaro, and lets compare.

FWIW, the stock 2.0T in a Camaro gets 4 mpg better highway and 5 mpg better highway, but it makes 185 fewer horsepower, and it uses a lighter trans, lighter rear axle, and skinnier tires because it doesn't have to deal with the same abuse under load. Find me a 3700 lb 460 horsepower 2.0t with a manual trans and a US EPA rating, and lets compare.

>>16300043
They produce boost from low rpms. don't talk shit if you don't understand how those turbos work

>>16300045
Yes we should run the AFR for max torque even when we're just cruising along requiring 10% of max torque.
Stupid engineers.

>>16299317
>The new F1 cars are 30% more efficient at the same power level as the N/A v8's despite making more horsepower.
New F1 cars are lapping slower and making less power than the V8s, how can you argue that they're burning less fuel at the same power level when they can't achieve the same power level?

ERS systems do more to improve efficiency on an F1 car than a turbocharger.

>>16300061
see
>>16299970

>>16300074
>muh "facts" i pulled out of my ass

>>16300080
yes anon, facts that were established by harry ricardo in the 1930s still apply and still form the basis of how cars function today regardless of what you think you imagine your fiat punto is doing

>>16300066
>Stupid engineers, always bringing up those pesky laws of physics.

Yes, we should run AFR for max torque for max efficiency. This doesn't mean we should run the entire engine to produce max torque; it means that we should tailor each individual explosion to produce the maximum torque it can, and therefore be the most efficient. The turbo accomplishes that.

Besides that, the only reason I replied to your post was because you said "you actually get more efficiency with a leaner mix" and no, you can't.

>>16300104
>(((harry ricardo)))

>>16300053
t. gm fangirl

>>16298122
>bait

Lmao why is ford such a shit car company

>>16300289
Because they have no competition lmao

File: 1481206441696.jpg (129KB, 558x570px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 558x570px

Ex-Honeywell engie here, this thread is fucking destroying my sides. Keep going though.

>>16300329
exactly they cant compete because Ford is such a shit company that other manufacturers bother not to waste their time to compete with a car company that makes shit vehicles lmao.

File: 1477600966270.jpg (600KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1920x1080px

>>16300401 here

>>16298140
That's the point of "eco"boost but as he said:
>>16299170

>>16299189
this
>mfw

>>16299624
I agree.

All retards ITT need to read this and how tarbos actually work >>16298827

>>16300401
>>16300422
kek stop larping nigger, I posted Cengel just to do some cheap bait

>>16300432
Ah you blew it nigger

>>16300259
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEBGxujrZfc&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEBGxujrZfc&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEBGxujrZfc&feature=youtu.be

>>16298429
>recycled air from the exhaust :^)
No, a turbo does not recycle air from the exhaust. lmao. You're thinking of DEI.
>volumetric efficiency by a significant amount over an na engine, that means turbo is more efficient
more efficient volumetrically, hence the term "volumetric efficiency"
unfortunately this thread is about fuel efficiency
sorry buddy :DDD

>>16300465
kek

>>16300494
it gets funnier every time i watch it

>>16300507
probably the funniest thing is that many of us have pretended to be alphonse and copied his shitposts lmao

>>16300712
>tfw Taxi was debating with a bunch of fakes
Lmao

>>16300747
I even like the Corvette and think the Nismo is shit but I still did Alphonse shitposts lol. Even saved some of his pics with his filenames. Sometimes argued both sides and waited for other people to hop in the flame war.

>>16300756
literal cancer

>>16300017
Nope, not even close, my SUV has twin turbos.

>>16298226
No such thing

File: treequinox.jpg (600KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1536x1024px

>>16300712
ahahah.

my favorite is still treequinox

>>16301174
kek, is that alphonse-related?

>>16301181
Google Treequinox in 4chan archives

When i first started browsing /o/ in 2010-2012 Equinox posting was in full force

>>16301185
I liked Frostyposting, with the ripping a fukken hektik in front of cops and getting busted with dope, kek
Also muh bitcoin money hahahah

>>16298256
Yeah. Magic.

>>16301185
what ever happened to equinox?

>>16298687
I wish that I could get any car with a N/A skyactive engine.