Why are turbos more common in Diesel engines than gasoline engines?

its better

>>17746134
Without a turbo a diesel engine is unacceptable, without a turbo a gasoline engine is fine. Basically the market demands it.

It makes them less garbage

Diesels work completely different to gasoline engines.

>>17746144
>>17746140
>>17746139
>>17746136
>doesn't explain how in the slightest

Gee you guys sure told OP

I think it helps with the spark plugs because diesel isn't as combustible as gas.

Diesel engines are built to take detonation. They're built to take higher compression ratios. Putting one on a diesel is a very cheap way to boost power and efficiency and you don't have to worry about grenading the engine when you do it.

>>17746150
>I explain how a car needs to be marketable to the general public to sell well
>I explain how a diesel without a turbo has such abysmal performance that it couldn't possibly compete with a gasoline engine without a turbo
>You claim I didn't explain anything

Dank fucking memes dude. Kill yourself.

>>17746134
Engines make more power with more air and/or fuel.
Adding more fuel to a diesel doesn't work so well.
Diesels also need more air to begin with because of how they combust fuel and make power.
Turbos are a very economical and easy way to provide diesel motors with the air they need, and more power.
Basically.

Diesel engines are more efficient in producing fuel into movement. The problem with diesel engines is that diesel burns slower, so they need longer strokes and in turn lower RPMs which means bigger pistons which makes for a bigger engine, which in turn makes for a heavier engine. Otherwise you are losing energy. This slow burning fuel can't create a lot of power without help. That's why a 2.0 Diesel can have around 60 bhp without a turbo. If you slap a turbo on it, the same engine can put more air and fuel to double the power or even more with newer engine designs.

>>17746134
You can literally put that question into google and get atleast 50 different sources for an answer.
Stop asking inane questions

>>17746196
Also, diesels engines, especially in trucks, are super gutless apart from their low end torque. They can't really keep up with highway speed limits. Look at things like the GM 6.2, and the International-Ford IDI motors. Great and reliable work horses, but can't cruise at highway speeds without being revved to all hell. Turbos allow diesels to make cruising power in a more acceptable RPM range.

Diesels are slow and weak shits without a turbo, needing literal minutes to get up to speed.
With a turbo they can get to acceptable levels, without needed double the cc's as a petrol car.

>>17746134
because a non-turbo diesel is fucking slow

I've driven an E-class Mercedes with a 3.0 NA diesel and it took something over 14 seconds to 100km/h
>>17746181
turbocharged engines actually have lower compression ratios to compensate for the fact that the air coming in is not at atmospheric pressure

Diesels have no way to control air coming into the cylinders, it's always open and engine speed is controlled by the fuel injectors. The fuel itself burns slower and you can't really crack the throttle open more
That's where Turbos come in, they force even more air into the cylinder and give that diesel fuel a better change at mixing at the right ratio for more efficient and bigger booms

>>17746212
>it took something over 14 seconds to 100km/h
That's a decently quick speed.
I drive a 2.0TDI, 0-100 is 30 seconds, 100-130 is another 30 seconds.

File: IMG_6525.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>17746212
>tfw I drive a turbo 2.4 diesel and the 0-100kmh is 25 seconds

Damnit

File: Screenshot_20170819-213722.png (205KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1080x1920px

>>17746212
Not with a diesel, still runs 18:1 with a turbo

>>17746226
Based Mercedes. 0-100kmh in like 6.5 seconds in my diesel S Class

>>17746230
Which has a big turbo diesel.

>>17746243
It's the OM642, the same 3.0l V6 used in the Sprinter vans

>>17746182
You did fine anon

>>17746172
>Spark Plugs
>Diesel

>>17746134
Because with out a turbo Diesels would have virtually no power.

>>17746225
Then again you get 40mpg? Only way to get that with a gas engine is a hybrid drive system.

>>17746225
The 2LT is shit but holy fuck the 2L is way worse

>>17746251
Like I said, big turbo diesel.

I drive the VW version of a Sprinter, the Crafter. 2.0 TDI with 130ish hp. Slow as fucking shit.

>>17746134
Nobody has given the right answer. Diesel engines run at really high AFR, so they need a lot of air. But, fuel is where the power comes from, so if you want decent power, you need a bunch of air. The turbo gives you a bunch of air. Gasoline engines run at a relative low AFR, so they need less air for the same power.

>>17746260
Diesels aren't always fuel efficient. The most fuel guzzling vehicle I operate is a diesel. Has a nice 20mpg.

File: 1482093689407.jpg (104KB, 1500x844px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1500x844px

>>17746225
>>17746222

>mfw my TDI gets to 100 in 30 seconds dragging a 60000lb trailer

>>17746280
Your 12L TDI doesn't count.

>>17746222
it's broken m8

even the 130HP 1.9TDI in a fucking Passat estate isn't that slow
>>17746225
I'm sorry anon

the e-class was probably way lighter tho, it was also a luxury car, this looks like the engine bay of a 4runner

>>17746287
A Passat estate is like 1/3 of the weight and height.

>>17746271
Small for the car, usually they're outfitted with giant 6L V8s

I can't picture a Sprinter with a 2L, must be a European thing. We like over sized engine in North America

>>17746304
Very European. But Crafters don't come with a bigger engine.
I would prefer the American way with a van like that. Just put the biggest fucking engine you fit in there and just limit it electronically to speed. We basically drive it flat out 90% of the time.

>>17746182
> it's that way cuz gas engines is more good than diesel
Quality explanation

File: detroit-dd15-engine.jpg (54KB, 301x347px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 301x347px

>>17746284

*15L

>implying a 12L TDI could drag a 60000lb trailer to 100 in less than 4 minutes

>tfw 1800ft.lb. torque

>mfw i have to grab the next gear by time I'm in full boost

>mfw I can tow your house

I'm done now, carry on gentlemen.

>>17746327
>mfw I can tow your house
Not really. I live in a concrete building build on 72m poles.

>>17746134
N/A diesels are cancer look up a Mercedes w123 0-60

>>17746134
>Why are turbos more common in Diesel engines than gasoline engines?

It let's you go faster faster, basically you just need it for a diesel to work

File: 2017-08-19_11-33-10.jpg (452KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 2048x1360px

It's makes the diesel and is become gazoline
>pic related

>>17746279
Relative. What would a gas equivalent get?

>>17746277
This is the correct answer.
I've always thought of it as gas engines rely on fueling the oxidiser to make power where diesels rely on oxidising the fuel to make power.

>>17746134
Soot.
The leaner a diesel runs the less smokey it is so the oems put turbos on to clean up the exhaust.

>>17746287
I had a 2015 TDI golf and it's 0-100km was only like 7 seconds.

>>17746260
>you need a hybrid to get 40mpg from petrol
yeah no

>>17748003
Show me one gas engine that gets 40mpg and isn't unreasonably small like a smart car.

>>17746324
Everyone knows why diesels are shit.
Are you a newfag OP?

>>17748018
My 1985, that's right, 1985, fucking 32 years ago, Chevy Sprint got an actual, calculated, 50 miles per gallon. That's not 50 EPA rated, that's a real world 50, with a carburetor no less. And, the car was a hatchback where the back seat folded flat, so it actually had a good bit of room to carry shit around in. When in college, I moved several times with that car.

So blow that out your ass.

>>17748018
My scirocco

>>17746341
> I live in a concrete building build on 72m poles.

Kurwa

>>17746199
i've got 150 crank from the factory which is pretty good for a 2 litre econobox engine

>>17746260
I get 80 mpg on a tank with my naturaly aspirated port injected gas engine without any hybrid system.
>>17748018
My car has 4 seats and can carry a motorcycle when the rear seats fold down.
It can tow 1200 lbs.

>>17748018
VW Golf mk3

>>17748063
>80mpg
Post your 250cc bike

>>17748077
more like 50 lel

>>17748077
>>17748083
My 50ccm bike gets >200 mpg with 70s technology.

>>17746134
Diesel engines produce less power per litre of displacement, but get more energy per litre of fuel. A turbo helps a small diesel engine produce more power with the displacement it has, without the fuel consumption associated with more engine.
Gasoline engines don't come bigger than 10 litres, usually. Diesel engines come the size of houses, and need turbos to avoid being bigger still.

>>17749768
Don't forget to mention that the more boost and fuel you provide to a diesel can actually can assist with cooling of the engine.

>>17747284
Wut

>>17749768
You've just described all internal combustion engines. Not diesels specifically.
This post got it right >>17746213 >>17746277 >>17747314

This is also true >>17750051

>>17748023
mpg comparisons with cars from different eras are fucking retarded, because 30 years ago average compact was gutless, striped down shitbox that would fold down in a 25mph crash or give you concussion, either way leaving you virtually crippled for life

>>17746260
I get 48mpg on an AWD, 3100 pound, 2 liter, not even direct injected, only 10.5:1 CR car with underbody shields missing.

>>17750760
No you don't.

>>17750930
Probably Britbong mpgs

>>17747998
Eh, more like 8 m8

>>17750937
Even britbong MPG is far fetched. I'd wager that poster either can't mathematically calculate fuel economy, or just reads the instant economy readout coasting downhill.

File: diesel pusher.jpg (903KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 1280x853px

>>17746225

Fucking hell. This thing is a house on wheels and can still manage a sub 25 second 0-60.

>>17750051
No it wont. Whatever extra fuel you will be adding to cool it off wont matter because there's extra compressed air to heat it up.

>>17746134
Gas engines need to avoid self ignition. Turbo engines dont because the diesel injection is what sets the timing anyways. So limits for turbo psi on a diesel are much increased.

On top of that, diesels produce more power per liter of fuel, and they produce jack shit power. The only way to increase their power would be with adding more high end RPM, which would destroy the function of a diesel, or adding more cylinders, which would increase weight too much and would reduce MPGs.


With a turbo diesel you've got a relative light diesel engine that produces quite a lot of power with no self ignition risk. And a diesel engine is much stronger than a gas engine, so its not going to have its reliability affected too much.

Its not about a single thing, but a combination of what makes a diesel a diesel and how the turbo just so happens to benefit a diesel more than gas engines.

>>17751197
>No it wont. Whatever extra fuel you will be adding to cool it off wont matter because there's extra compressed air to heat it up.
Want to know how I know you've got next to no idea on diesel tuning?

File: 1499066777639.jpg (88KB, 1190x906px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1190x906px

>>17746172

>>17751291
More diesel on mix = cooler explosion.

More air = hotter explosion.

You run more air you run more fuel. You might be adding extra fuel but you will still be running more air on more compression

>>17751438
>More diesel on mix = cooler explosion.

>More air = hotter explosion.
It's the exact opposite you fucking peanut. You should stick to gas motors.

File: 1490600089622.gif (335KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 400x400px

>>17751538

>>17751641
Are you still trying to bumble misinformation as fact?

>>17746196
>>17746203
Thanks. I saw the thread and was looking for an explanation because I noticed railroad locomotives are always turbocharged.

>>17746304
Where I live in Europooria we don't even get the transit with the memeboost engine. Which is a shame really, LPG is really cheap where I live and imported thicc trucks pretty much all run on LPG

>>17746225
niceeeee

>>17746202
This

>>17755214
>>17746202
I also find it funny OP seems to only acknowledge the most inane answers too >>17751678

NA Diesel
>sub 100 Nm/L specific torque
>lolnorevs
>can run insane compression ratio since knock isn´t a issue

turbo Diesel
>insane secific torque due to
>insane boost pressure due to
>knonk isn´t a problem
>still verry high compression

NA Gas
> about 100Nm/L specific torque
>can rev to 9000 rpm in production cars
>can only run like 11:1 compression ratio with regular gas

turbo Gas
>like 150-200 Nm/L due to
>limited boost pressure due to
>knock
>lower compression like 9:1

>>17746150
spoon feed me
>>17746196
even better there are some diesel engines that don't even use the turbo for more power
but just so they have enough compression to start

>>17757215
It's been explained >>17746213 >>17746277 >>17747314

>>17746134

2.0 turbo diesel = 2.0 n/a gas engine
2.0 n/a diesel = 1.3 n/a gas engine

>>17757478
>2.0 n/a diesel = 1.3 n/a gas engine
A 2 L n/a diesel has like 50-70 hp, a 1,3 L has about 100 hp.
A 1 L gas engine would be closer.

>>17750757
>moving the goalposts

>>17751438
It is the exact opposite, that other poster is right

>>17760039
No its not.

Compressed air gets hot. More compressed air = more heat.

they only rev to lile 4k rpm

>>17760256
-9001/10
Laws of gas engines don't apply with diesel engines.

>>17746134
diesels can't rev so they need boost to make any power at all