Are turbos really that good, /o/?

>>16601564

Only if you like paying way more for oil and gas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0tajBP8VI&t=7s

Plus

>eco
>boost

pick one and only one

>>16601564
Depends on the application and what setup/kind of turbo you have.

>>16601570
>drive ecoboost mustang
>go crazy in the city, get only ok mileage, but fun to drive and usable power
>go on roadtrip
>34mpg
you can pick one and only one but if you get the veeate you can only pick "POWER". and that's okay.

File: 20160920_165758.jpg (209KB, 606x608px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 606x608px

>>16601564
Pic related

>>16601604
>muh v8 bench racer

good at cheating emissions? yes.
good in real life driving? depends.
good at wasting gas while having similar or less power than its n/a counterparts? yes.
good at making torque down low? yes.


bottom line is that turbos are only made to meet emissions

>>16601564
If you stay off boost in city driving they're fine. Most of the people pissing and moaning about bad economy are using a heavy foot to accelerate.

Water injection and cooled EGR will solve the problem of turbo engine economy on boost. Then the rest becomes irrelevant.

File: 723462347324.jpg (63KB, 640x654px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x654px

>>16601564
Turbos alone are only good for a diesel, otherwise the car itself would be set up like a 4 bbl carb and pretty much be tuned for fuel and boost ratios to make maximum power.
That brings to a point that turbos and carbs actually work better than supers.

/o/ telling people turbos are bad oh fucking lol
good for more power? hell yes if your engine and drivetrain can handle it. good for more mpgs, maybe not

File: turbored,stuperchargerblue.png (760KB, 856x481px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 856x481px

lets see the stupicharger cucks try defend this

>>16601564
They're a fantastic way to add power to an engine.

>>16601706
>good at wasting gas while having similar or less power than its n/a counterparts? yes.
lmao, try show me a 1000hp+ naturally aspirated 4.8l vortec please :^)

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1109-stock-gm-ls-engine-big-bang-theory/

you are literally retarded if you think a "na counterpart" would make more power than a turbo version of the asme engine., kys

>>16601564
They're good for a weekend car, not your daily driver. Idk why manufacturers keep making small motors and turbo them to get the power they want instead of going NA like Mazda

>>16603805

That 4.8 is going to be drinking as much fuel on boost as a 1000hp NA 8l.

>>16603816
nut the turbo 4.8 can drive around off boost and get better mpg than the 8l at any time :^)
and it will also be more reliable :^))

>>16601564
thanks to electronics and modern engineering, turbo lag is a thing of the past, so the only real downside of turbos is that they add one more thing to break under the hood (and they're rather fragile).

But remember, in the end
>no replacement for displacement
Because more displacement = more boost potential
>in b4 3 cylinder 268hp 1.0L engine

>>16603951
>no replacement for displacement
yeah why dont we use 40,000l turbo diesel ship engines in cars then retard?

>>16603848

You could pussyfoot around the 8l and get the same mileage. The bigger displacement engine will almost always be more reliable. What's the point of driving a turbo engine like a bitch?

>>16603963
>takes the most idiotic possible comparison
>calls others idiot
Mmmh

>>16603988
>The bigger displacement engine will almost always be more reliable
a naturally aspirated 8l strung out to 1000hp is not reliable by any measure, enjoy tear down and rebuilds every 10k miles
the turbo engine will be more reliable

The goal of these little shitbox engines with turbos IS to try and achieve both.

Drive it "boring" 99% of the time for MPGs, then heavy foot and more power only when you need it. So, you have 100hp shitbox for the commute, but the turbo takes that up to say, 160 when you need that power. Merging onto a highway, for example.

That's how the system is supposed to work. Flooring it everywhere or beating on it (requiring "full" power), will obviously run amok of the system.

>>16601706
Oh my god what the fuck did i just read.

>>16604037
So how about this :
http://www.carscoops.com/2015/05/vw-unveils-all-new-272ps-10l-3-cylinder.html
Would it be a good idea to use this engine on a trackday ?

>>16604087
It will probably work but almost all engines designed for passenger car use need extra cooling when on track duty. Water injection will probably become necessary to maintain efficiency at such high specific power.

Sounds neat and makes more power But NA are just so smooth

>>16601564
turbos are raelly that good
WRRHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
WHOOSHWWLOPWLOPWLOPWLOPWLOPWLOP
WHREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEee
WHOOSHWLOPWLOPWLOPWLOPWLOP

>>16601706
get off this board asap