Outside of displacement laws and racing restrictions, is there

>>17511697

Weight.

efficiency mostly. Computer controls and turbos are great, it lets the computer decide when and where to have boost.

This basically means it's variable displacement (I know its a dumb analogy but shut up) as the car can effectively change the amount of power the engine produces at X RPM or in X circumstance, which is more efficient than the engine just producing X power at X RPM because that's what it's mechanically capable of.

>>17511697
It may or may not be cheaper overall, and a bigger N/A maybe more complex to work on.

A turbo'ed inline six making the same power as a N/A V12 will be easier to work on and cheaper.

Also space restrictions, that I6 could fit in cars that the v12 would have problems fitting in.

>>17511697
Weight, fuel consumption, possible increase in production cost, and space.

Really it comes down to application.

>>17511697
A few reasons:
- less frictional losses
- greater mep
- weight
- altitude independence

>>17511726
> - altitude independence
That's actually a good one, didn't think of that

>>17511697
Weight, rpm, power at rpm, and lag.

>>17511697
Entirely depends on what you're going for.

turbo sounds better

File: sam hyde terrorist skeptic.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

>>17511697
>displacement laws
what's that

>>17511697
Think about it mang....

If you have a turbocharged 2L engine that runs 15psi of boost at 4000rpm+...

If you are doing sluggish city driving or cruising in low RPMs without much boost, you are using about the same air (and therefore fuel) as a 2.0L N/A engine. It doesn't have much power there, but you don't need thag for efficiency.

But then when you are merging your 4500lb hunk of gov't mandated safety features and crumple zones onto the highway, you get up to 4500rpm and the turbo is cramming in another ATM worth of air into the engine. Twice the air of the same 2.0L N/A engine, twice the fuel. So you can get close to the same power as a 4.0L N/A engine when you have 15psi of boost going into that 2.0L turbo engine.

So it sips fuel like a small and weak engine when you drive like a grandma, but it acts like a larger engine when you actually need the power.

>>17512605
It's a good feel.
>putter around town sipping gas like a fine wine
>get to highway, ready for on ramp
>sport mode engaged
>turbo spooling
>guzzling gas like a relapsing alcoholic >gulping air like a surfacing whale
>engine screaming like a tard lost in the mall

>>17512653
>engine screaming like a tard lost in the mall
kek'd

>>17512412
A few countries have laws that govern engine displacement in cars and bikes.

In Japan for instance their laws effect taxes among other things. K or Kie cars in Japan for instance have strict displacement limits.

>>17511706
A throttle already does this, I guess this is just even more efficient?

>>17512605
>>17512653
It's awesome. You're never going to beat an NA car of similar weight off the line but once that turbo spools up you get a kick in the pants like no other and that clear on ramp is something you look forward to every day.

Superchargers are better :^)

File: 15dc4fc084923960f983216286cb747ad00a5ac1.jpg (15KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x200px

>>17511697
I'd be interested in seeing the difference in serviceability and cost over a long period of time like 10-20 years or 200k to 400k miles.

File: 10.jpg (248KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1200x801px

>>17513361
I agree

>>17511697
weight savings, are you stupid?

>>17513370
that pulley is fucking huge, does the supercharger even do anything at that point? lmfao

also, turbos are able to have electronic boost control.

File: 1498646370118.jpg (665KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

665KB, 1280x1920px

>>17511707
>an NA engine is more complex than an engine with things added to it to make more power

>larger

Can everyone stop this horribly ignorant meme?
Displacement means nothing to do with size

>>17513383
also, turbos are at full boost all time time (well, they try to be) whereas superchargers are only at "full" boost when you are at redline

Make a large turbo engine instead.

NA a shit.

>>17513383
superchargers are cheaper, more robust, and are as plug n' play as you can get in terms of forced induction.

turbo's require complicated fuel delivery systems, electronics, and copious amounts of exhaust/intake plumbing. there's a reason rednecks have been strapping huffers to their hot rods since the 20s

>>17513401
that's not how that works,its more of them being at full boost all the time- the engine itself must work harder to deliver air at a more constant rate. if that's what you think full boost is.

>>17513384
>12 coils
>12 plugs
>two intake manifolds
>two exhaust manifolds
>12 pistons and ring sets
>12 rods
>tune up time, or, time to build the engine for MOAR POWA
>"this'll be a piece of cake"
>vs
>six of everything
>turbine spliced into the intake pipe
>maybe a few extra oil/coolant lines you never have to touch
>this will actually be a piece of cake
>just turn up the boost for moar powa

File: 1494535264389.png (167KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 600x600px

>>17513409
>turbo's require complicated fuel delivery systems
HOL UP

what you be sayin' is, is that superchargers don't need bigger fuel injectors to compensate for more air?

>>17513404
The thread isn't about theoretical engines you dipstick, it's about forced induction low displacement vs naturally aspirated high displacement

Otherwise we would just say hurr durr make an engine with graham's number cylinders and graham's number turbos

>>17513417
>two intakes
>turbine spliced into the intake pipe

newfag detected, please return when you know what the fuck youre talking about

>>17513422
>injectors
i was referring more to the custom fuel map/ECU you need.

pull through carb set ups with a supercharger are infinitely easier.

>>17513449
>custom fuel map/ECU
this applies to any fuel injected car going in for a tune, not just only tarbo cars

>>17513370
>>17513361
in a way yes ... no turbo lag for instance
but you get more parasitic loss with a supercharger.

File: IMG_1799.jpg (43KB, 270x166px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 270x166px

>>17513518
H-h-here we go

File: Turbo.jpg (9KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 259x194px

Will this turbo work on my car?

>>17513744
:/

>>17513744
that tarbo would make a sick tattoo

>>17512717
>A few countries

Japan and Belgium. Germany scrapped them in 2009.

>>17513449
Why not run a pull through carb on a turbo then? (Yes they exist and yes they are safe).
Or you can run a blow through carb with a turbo just as easily.

An extra bit of pipe on the hot side is no harder than sorting out the belts for a superchanrger and gives you more location opportunities.

>>17511697
Why not a huge displacement engine with forced induction?