Why arent turbos more common?

[Danny Tran]

Turbos are the simplest and most efficient way of adding more power to an engine.

In the afterwarket modifiying and tunning world, it is a well known fact that trying to get more power from NA is useless. Unless the engine has a super high-compression ratio (ie: S2000), you might as well add more air and fuel to gain more power

Sub question:

Wouldnt boosting be cheaper in motorsport (ie: F1) rather than building super highrevving NAs?

 

[andyhui01]

Re: Why arent turbos more common?

Turbos are the simplest and most efficient way of adding more power to an engine.

In the afterwarket modifiying and tunning world, it is a well known fact that trying to get more power from NA is useless. Unless the engine has a super high-compression ratio (ie: S2000), you might as well add more air and fuel to gain more power

Sub question:

Wouldnt boosting be cheaper in motorsport (ie: F1) rather than building super highrevving NAs?

I believe F1 cars used to have turbocharged engines in the 80's before the FIA banned it.

and may I ask why getting more power from N/A is useless? a N/A car at 280hp would be alot quicker than a turbo car at 280hp... turbo often has turbo lag (unless you do what racecars do and install anti-lag in your car, your turbo would then last about 5000km), turbos also have lower high end power, they usually peak well below the red-line which means the power curve isn't as efficient.

The turbo era is just about to end (Mazda has ditched turbo rotaries, Toyota has ditched the turbo on the upcoming supra), the days where my cousins tuned Impreza's, RX-7's, Evo's in malaysia were popular in the 90's and early 00's... but now, all of them have ditched the idea of having turbo's and starting to drive modifed E46 3-series, Nissan 350Z and RX-8's

but don't get my wrong, turbo cars are great, esp. when the boost kicks in, the turbo whine + blowoff combination is an awesome sound... but when it comes down to it, N/A cars are faster (at the same hp rating obviously).

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Turbos are the simplest and most efficient way of adding more power to an engine.

In the afterwarket modifiying and tunning world, it is a well known fact that trying to get more power from NA is useless. Unless the engine has a super high-compression ratio (ie: S2000), you might as well add more air and fuel to gain more power

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Well-known my ass, I don't know what "tunning" world you're familiar with, but there is no rule that says turbocharging (or supercharging, for that matter) is better than natural aspiration. They each have their benefits and drawbacks - N/A is expensive but produces an excellent powerband, turbo has lag and poor top-end performance but is mice in the mid revs, and supercharging eliminates lag and flattens the powerband but loses bottom-end boost. I mean, if turbocharging was the "best" way to go about things, wouldn't Top Fuel dragsters be running turbos instead of blowers? I'm willing to bet that seasoned professionals working on multimilliondollar cars competing fiercely for prize and sponsorship money would know better than most people, hm?

Also, a higher-displacement V8 will also be more reliable than a turbocharged I4 with the same horsepower, assuming both are built correctly. N/A with more displacement means lower compression can be used, and a lack of forced induction lowers stress on the reciprocating assembly.

 

[the Interceptor]

I also have no problem with Turbocharging, still, I don't see it as the highest form of getting power out of an engine. You will also notice that the new high performance Audis and Mercs have turned to high-revving N/A engines like BMW and ditched the turbos. They however just made a twin-turbo I6 that has the habits of a N/A V8, so they use turbochargers to imitate an engine with normal aspiration.

Now, we're not talking about diesels here, cause that's a totally different story. And bhp per litre, turbos can be way more efficient than an N/A engine. Still, you need to live with drawbacks here and there, which seems to keep many off the turbos, or even drive them away from the thing.

P.S.: N/A is true engineering, turbo is cheating!

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[mautzel]

Re: Why arent turbos more common?

Turbos are the simplest and most efficient way of adding more power to an engine.

In the afterwarket modifiying and tunning world, it is a well known fact that trying to get more power from NA is useless. Unless the engine has a super high-compression ratio (ie: S2000), you might as well add more air and fuel to gain more power

Yes, I know, situation has improved recently and many companies start adding turbos to their cars again (think of the Golf FSI as an example), but until shortly Turbos were known for having a drinking problem as well, so the additional power doesn't come from nowhere...

 

[Viper007Bond]

Well, not to mention maintenance and cost.

 

[ruuman]

I'd argue i europe at least, turbo's are very common, it's very hard to get a non turbo diesel these days. With a modern computer control varible geometry turbo you can achieve a superb power range without sacrificing economy and drivability.

I think we are just entering a whole new forced induction revolution personally. When VW releases it's supercharged turbo engine I think thats going to be the start.

VW Golf GT
Engine ... 1.4 liter, 4 cyl.
Power ... 168 hp
Torque ... 177 lb. -ft
0-62 MPH ... 7.9 sec.
Top Speed ... 136 mph
MPG ... 30 (city); 48 (highway)

source: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotivetech/502459855fd27010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Sounds pretty good to me and once they stick that on a diesel the MPG and torque will be doubled.... yummy

 

[leomax]

Variable geometry turbo(from the new 911 and diesels) or Sequential twin turbo might solve problems with performance.
Still that leaves cost and reliability..

 

[mautzel]

Well, not to mention maintenance and cost.

Word!

 

[bone]

I think we are just entering a whole new forced induction revolution personally. When VW releases it's supercharged turbo engine I think thats going to be the start.

they're not the first, lancia did it before on the integrale

 

[wooflepoof]

I think we are just entering a whole new forced induction revolution personally. When VW releases it's supercharged turbo engine I think thats going to be the start.

they're not the first, lancia did it before on the integrale

WOuldnt supercharging AND turbocharging call for a really high octane fuel or a really low compression ratio on the engine?

 

[bone]

they don't work simultaneously, the supercharger on low rpm, and the turbo on higher rpm

from wiki

The most common type of twincharging system is a Roots type supercharger paired up with a medium-large sized turbocharger. The supercharger will give better power at low RPM while the turbocharger will give better power at medium-high RPMs. The main drawback of this configuration is that at high speeds, the supercharger (as it is driven by belts) will increase drag upon the engine, limiting the top end power. The Volkswagen Twincharging System overcomes this by locating the supercharger's pulley on a clutch system, which is automatically engaged and disengaged by the computer. This allows the car to keep its top-end performance and automatically switch to supercharging at low RPM. The only drawback is that the supercharger still creates drag in the airflow system, even when the clutch is off and the turbocharger is on. To overcome this, complex piping must be used to bypass the supercharger at high RPMs.

 

[chaos386]

Well, not to mention maintenance and cost.

And the piping, heat, weight...

 

[Svempa]

I think we are just entering a whole new forced induction revolution personally. When VW releases it's supercharged turbo engine I think thats going to be the start.

they're not the first, lancia did it before on the integrale

Nope the Integrale has a regular 2 liter turbo inline four.

You're probably thinking about the S4. It had a 1.8 liter inline four with a supercharger and a turbocharger.

 

[bartboy9891]

I think we are just entering a whole new forced induction revolution personally. When VW releases it's supercharged turbo engine I think thats going to be the start.

they're not the first, lancia did it before on the integrale

Nope the Integrale has a regular 2 liter turbo inline four.

You're probably thinking about the S4. It had a 1.8 liter inline four with a supercharger and a turbocharger.

except when Lancia did, they were going for all out power. VW, 20 years later, is working on turbo/supercharger coupling to try to get more power and significantly better mpg.

 

[ruuman]

Well, not to mention maintenance and cost.

Word!

Again I argue this, at my work we run a fleet of 16 cars, all are turbo charged petrols and diesel models with average service intervals of 10k and they cover about 100k in 3years. Servicing cost are not really noticable compared to na cars.

Look at the UK commercial fleet as another example, almost all vans are turbo charged and servicing charges remain unchanged.

With all the recent improvments in materiels, coatings and CAD/CAM. The turbo is no longer an expensive option. Accurate computer control of fuel injection, monitoring of mainfold temperature, etc, etc also mean less polution and a more relible engine.

I think we are just entering a whole new forced induction revolution personally. When VW releases it's supercharged turbo engine I think thats going to be the start.

they're not the first, lancia did it before on the integrale

Nope the Integrale has a regular 2 liter turbo inline four.

You're probably thinking about the S4. It had a 1.8 liter inline four with a supercharger and a turbocharger.

except when Lancia did, they were going for all out power. VW, 20 years later, is working on turbo/supercharger coupling to try to get more power and significantly better mpg.

Exactly, basically people need to get the idea of their heads that turbos and superchargers are purely for performance. That was the case, not any more.

 

[mautzel]

Well, not to mention maintenance and cost.

Word!

Again I argue this, at my work we run a fleet of 16 cars, all are turbo charged petrols and diesel models with average service intervals of 10k and they cover about 100k in 3years. Servicing cost are not really noticable compared to na cars.

Look at the UK commercial fleet as another example, almost all vans are turbo charged and servicing charges remain unchanged.

With all the recent improvments in materiels, coatings and CAD/CAM. The turbo is no longer an expensive option. Accurate computer control of fuel injection, monitoring of mainfold temperature, etc, etc also mean less polution and a more relible engine.

My car has a turbo as well which constantly switches itself off in particular situations of driving, the garage isn't able to find the reason why it fails and now recommends to change the bloody thing for a 1000+ Euro. No additional maintenance and costs? Sure!

 

[TC]

I've owned a turbocharged car for 2 years and running without a problem. And it's American to boot.

 

[andyhui01]

^it depends alot on how you drive the car and how you treat your turbo... if you use a turbo timer, let the engine warmup before driving with the turbo on, not boosting the turbo at every gear... it should be okay (just a tad over a normal car)

 

[ruuman]

Well, not to mention maintenance and cost.

Word!

Again I argue this, at my work we run a fleet of 16 cars, all are turbo charged petrols and diesel models with average service intervals of 10k and they cover about 100k in 3years. Servicing cost are not really noticable compared to na cars.

Look at the UK commercial fleet as another example, almost all vans are turbo charged and servicing charges remain unchanged.

With all the recent improvments in materiels, coatings and CAD/CAM. The turbo is no longer an expensive option. Accurate computer control of fuel injection, monitoring of mainfold temperature, etc, etc also mean less polution and a more relible engine.

My car has a turbo as well which constantly switches itself off in particular situations of driving, the garage isn't able to find the reason why it fails and now recommends to change the bloody thing for a 1000+ Euro. No additional maintenance and costs? Sure!

I don't have a clue what car you have mautzel, unfortunatly there will always some problems with every mass produced complex system, but 1000euro for something as precision built as a turbo is peanuts compared to what they used to cost 10years ago.

on a side note, care to share you car problem with us, sounds a bit strange to me that the turbo sometimes works. Got any more info?