The cars are targetted at the same market. One gets its output using a supercharger the other by having two litres more capacity.
No, I didn't.
And comparing to a 750i is bloody silly, since you're taking no account of what a supercharger does.
Suffered from the same Nikasil problems as BMW so they could be problematic unless there's evidence of a recall/new engine.
Generally Jaguars have been well enough nailed together since the mid
1990s. And there are large numbers of independent Jag mechanics to keep servicing to a reasonable price range. Parts aren't too bad and there's a decent OEM market for spares/
IIRC the Nikasil problems ended around 98MY, as I researched it a bit when my Dad was after his XJ8.
Wrong! Sex, scrounged stuff, sunshine (which is energy) and yesterday I got a free cinema ticket!
But the exhaust would be there regardless... And the energy to drive the turbo mostly comes from still expanding hot gasses AFTER the valves have closed. Then of course there is reduced induction pumping losses due to the pressurised intake! So efficiency of a turbo is very good.
Still it takes its power directly from the crankshaft.
Err wrong again. What about the multitude of turbo cars, twin turbo V8s and Turbo Nitrous drag bikes??? There is typically 4 or 5 times more turbos at any serious drag meet than superchargers.
And as far as peak power is concerned then on any given fuel and engine the maximum power produced is determined by the detonation onset point. This will happen at the same boost level regardless of how you produce it. Since the turbo is almost free of any power sapping effect from driving it, and the supercharged engine can have hundreds of hp absorbed then the turbo can always beat it. And when nitrous is used too, as it inevitably is, there is zero lag anyway.
There are plenty in the bike classes - superchargers cant get the 450 to
550bhp needed to win from a 1300cc bike motor. And they are too heavy, and the throttle response is too slow due to the extra rotating mass needing to be spun up. Actually there are one or two but they dont win.
C: a turbocharger BIKE!
The Aerocharger was manufactured by Aerodyne but production of them stopped a few years ago, probably due to the high failure rate. They had their own oil reservoir so didn't need an external supply.
The description is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Take this gem, for example:
"The air molecules are drawn into the fan at such speed that they are fractured and compressed, making the air denser and allowing more flow into the same area - a three way air cooling process."
Ian
Yes, but the presence of the turbocharger increases back pressure when the valves are open.
But there's a decreased induction efficiency from the heated air. Hence the need for intercoolers.
So does the compression stroke in the cylinder. What matters is whether you get an overall gain.
Ever tried driving a car with the outlet side of the turbo connected but the inlet disconnected? I think you might be surprised ...
Ian
It makes no difference how you compress air it heats it up. So you can choose to use an intercooler with turbo or supercharger. For what its worth the stupid bhp per litre bikes use 35lb boost, no intercooler and a simple draw through carb to get reliable 300 bhp per litre.
X boost means the same loss in both systems. And...
No because for any given motor the power game ends firmly with the onset of detonation. And we were talking about drag racing. This happens at the same boost level regardless of method. The turbo wins because much more of the power produced remains available at the flywheel rather than wasted directly driving the greedy supercharger. I never claimed a turbo didnt cause losses on the exhaust side just that it is far less.
Not at all surprised. Spent years playing with turbo drag bikes with all out T4 turbos on 1 litre engines making the sort of power road cars with mickey mouse turbos only dream of. And building designing systems including nitrous systems, and testing and developing them on my own designed dyno systems that I also used to sell...
But with a big turbo there isnt enough back pressure to be an issue... Admitted it still feels slow because of low compression and no boost...
Given the last Nikasil engine will be about 10 years old I'd say to look out for barn finds.
OK, my mistake. You quoted the 0-60 figure displayed on
No I didn't.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.