Turbo Cars

OK, well we did the twincharger thing here last week.

You're missing the point by a country mile.

The point being that the 1.4 twincharger has equivalent performance and better economy than the 2.0FSI, as well as being cheaper to tax and cheaper on company car tax.

That's the point of the Golf twincharger.

You need to compare the 1.5 turbo with a colt of similar performance, not cc.

Chet

Indeed - the tree-hugging swedes have been turbocharging their cars for ages.

It will be on paper. But a low pressure turbo (say 0.75 bar) 1.5l car will use less fuel at steady cruise and idle than an equivalent 2.2l car. High pressure turbo cars become inefficient off boost due to the requirement to reduce the compression (or more importantly expansion) ratio.

Oh I don't know. Saab especially managed ok with their 11PSI 900 models (like mine) and the 9000 models. The Full pressure turbo 900 in europe uses 9:1 base compression ration. I think the 9000 uses higher especially in the Aero models. Both can produce 30+mpg. My 900 is currently averaging 30.5mpg for mixed commuting, and I'm sure bringing it back from Durham in a solid straight 150mile cruise back I managed 43MPG. I'll need to do another solid run to see if I can back that up, or get anything close.

Hmmm The old mans Saab gets no where near 30mpg :) the Fuel computer shows

It's lying VW aren't the first. Nissan did it well over a decade ago. Ask Ed who posts here now and again. And other people did too.

Yup.

Depends how it's driven, but the general theory is that the torque will be available lower down the rev range, so you'll need less throttle to accelerate a similar amount compared to a normally aspirated engine. If it's thrashed everywhere then the turbo will be worse, but in the real world there's little difference, and turbo often can be better.

A bit. All depends on how well suited the power and torque characteristics of the normally aspirated engine are to the weight and aerodynamics of the car it's pulling along.

But the general trend will be towards smaller capacity engines with turbos/superchargers, to replace larger capacity n/a (that's 'normally aspirated', not 'not available', though they might one day become the latter due to lack of demand...) engines.

The modern crop of low and medium to highish blow turbo's use a standard NA type compression ratio now- eg VW's FSI's and the Volvo's 2 and 2.4litre at around 10 & 9.5:1 respectively to maintain off boost response and efficiency...

Tim..

The 9-5's especially the Aeros aren't anywhere near as good as the 9000 later C900, and the GM900/early 9-3 models. Heavier, and with different fuel economy maps. Probably better arround town if I recall (can drop to 18 arround towen in a 900), but not as cool on longer runs. Which just happens to co-incide with GM adding Diesels to the Saab range a few years back.

Lancia.

Direct injection engines work on higher CR anyway - that's part of the point!

Lol that reminds me of my friend I met up with at Jap Show he was jumping up and down "I touched a Delta S4 the other week"

I did 2 years ago at Brooklands Auto Italia... so what!

Only because SAAB couldn't afford to build a bigger engine. It's a cheap way to get more power. However, I'd say it cost them sales to the like of BMW through not having a 6 cylinder unit.

Only because you've done it. And was yours moving :)

Shame on you!

They never were a big seller or engine maker anyway. They used I think Autounion twostrokes then ford V4's then the Ricardo inline four and the Saab improvements Then the European GM V6 and now the GM 4 cylnder and US GM V6.

Yes and yes, really. It's how the turbocharger is set up. In simple terms and ignoring a whole host of detail :) a turbocharger allows you to recycle some of the energy that would otherwise be chucked down the exhaust pipe.

Detailing includes compression ratios and what not. When turbodiesels and diesels were sold side by side, many lower blow turbodiesels were more economical than their naturally aspirated cousins for _most_ drivers over _most_ driving. The 306 is a great example.

Driven flat out, the 1.9d was materially more economical.

Driven in the city but briskly, the 1.9d was more economical.

Driven on the motorway or on ordinary roads at the speed limit, the 1.9td was more economical, or don't be a dick in the city and moderate use of the accelerator. Maybe only by one or two miles per gallon, but the 306 1.9td was also quieter, easier to drive (especially when laden) and generally just a nice piece of kit.

And you needed to look at the stats to figure that out ?

Obviously.

How very strange. Do Nissan actually know that the Micra Super March was on sale in UK showrooms then ?

I'm pretty sure they'll be interested to know as no doubt they'll be due some revenue !

It didn't say "first to make for the UK market".