Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are talking everyday passenger vehicles, and not bulldozers, semis, and drag cars. A new mustang (Shelby) has 550HP. A new 'vette has over 500HP, and those aren't even blown. Technology has changed a lot since when I was a kid.
The Shelby Mustang certainly is blown, and so is the top-of-the-line 'Vette. The ZO6 makes ~500HP without a blower, albeit with 7.0 liters. The "standard" 6.3 'Vette makes well short of that.
What all this has to do with the thread topic, I'm not too sure.
We are talking everyday passenger vehicles, and not bulldozers, semis, and drag cars. A new mustang (Shelby) has 550HP. A new 'vette has over 500HP, and those aren't even blown. Technology has changed a lot since when I was a kid.
Starting with a 2.0/3.0 liter motor will take a lot of tricks on my end (and expense) to take a simple large-displacement normally-aspirated motor to beat. Low-end torque on a brute will swamp any small-displacement motor. The very first blown motor I built would put out 140 HP at idle speed, at WOT (on a dyno).
I understand that people want both fuel economy and performance, but to achieve both is not a simple feat.
Quote:"Why aren't blowers used for that purpose?"
Simple. Cost-effectiveness. (well, numerous manufacturers use blowers but come on, they were invented in 1868, and the first car to have one was in the early 1900's). If you are a car manufacturer, you realize that cost is critical. While they still have to meet CAFE, it is WAY easier to put in a large-displacement motor than playing with all the tweaks and twiddling to get a small displacement motor to (reliably) put out high horsepower (actually, we should be talking torque instead, as you can take a little motor and spin it at ridiculous rpm's). Of course in any case they have to meet emissions.
Maybe I am a guy that is "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", but simple technology (well, let's not go into ignition/transmission programming on this thread, but it too is sort of cake), will often swamp (IMHO) super-tweaky quasi-reliable technology, designed to get a few more MPG (which, in the grand scheme of things, who cares?)
Quote:"then put FI on it to up the power economically"
I have been out of it for a couple of years, but I can't recall any factory car here in the US that doesn't have FI. Correct me if I am wrong.
FI = Forced Induction. Even if you didn't know that already, it should be obvious from the topic of the thread. Why would I suddenly bring up fuel injection?
As for 'everyday vehicles', how many have 9+ liters of displacement? It should also have been obvious, both from my post and the thread, that not all cars have or need hundreds of HP. I was very obviously referring to smaller-engined commuter vehicles that use turbos to get more power out of small displacement.
I ask again, if supercharging is more advantageous, as you assert, why isn't it used on these types of vehicles, instead of the commonly used turbo?
What all this has to do with the thread topic, I'm not too sure.
I asked why small displacement engines commonly employ turbos rather than superchargers to make a bit more power, and he responded that a 572 is better.
I asked why small displacement engines commonly employ turbos rather than superchargers to make a bit more power, and he responded that a 572 is better.
Turbo is driven by exhaust and not the motor, saving more fuel by not being a burden on mpg.
Superchargers are driven by the motor and have boost as the pedal is hit.
Turbo used to have lag making performance lag until they made boost, so sportscars went with superchargers while road cars and or sport compacts went with turbo to gain performance and still claim better mpg.
However i wonder why with the knowledge now known why they aren't using the turbo, except for the reason of weight and room since the turbo needs the intercooler, and the vette that may be a problem
The aim to leave your running for few minute before you switch it off is not to cool the turbo. Is to give time to the front and rear turbine to stop and slow down. What you need to know also the engine Lacks power, turbocharger noisy, oil consumption and smoke coming out. There are other fault diagnosis you must know and take theme in consideration. That way you need to give time to the turbo to stop first.
Are you looking also for more information about turbo visit this informative sit Turbo Tip » Automotive Service Centre.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
