smoke Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 On second thought don't go fuck yourself, you have probly been doing that too much lately anyway So...noon then? Actually, been doing alright in the not having to fuck myself department. Quote Link to comment
q-tip Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 So...noon then? Actually, been doing alright in the not having to fuck myself department. We talkin regulation paddle or one of those crappy ones you get with a cheap table? Quote Link to comment
smoke Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 You think I'm made of money? Nerf. 1 Quote Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Out of genuine interest I would like to know the advantage. I have no preference of either NA or FI. I like both.. Quote Link to comment
paradime Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 No matter how big your cam, hogged out your intake and exhaust, or high your compression may be, the amount of air fuel mixture a N/A motor can consume is absolutely limited by it's displacement, PERIOD. A turbo can force feed two or three times as much mixture into the cylinder. At the same time, the boost, mixture and timing can be controlled to produce a linear power curve. Now an ass clown will say stupid shit like "A turbo will never produce the same torque", or my favorite "A turbo puts too much stress on the motor". Regardless of the desired output, success in a given turbocharged application is dependent on designing the entire system for that given purpose. They don't turbocharge virtually every diesel big rigs on the road to give them more top end power, it's all about torque and fuel efficiency. Try and finagle 355hp out of a N/A 2.0L four cylinder engine and we'll see how long it lasts. The turbocharged 2.0L Mercedes CL45 AMG does it with a 4 year 50,000 mile warranty. Do it right and there is no question witch has the advantage. 1 Quote Link to comment
smoke Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 One pretty neat advantage just from a mpg standpoint is that a vehicle can run a small displacement engine, get the mpg of a small displacement engine when at light cruise (going down the highway) but have the power of a large displacement engine when you just give it a little more throttle. Sort of like Fords ecoboost. Putting a small engine in a full size truck was kinda cool when you were just buzzing down the highway, but you would soon realize that it kinda sucked when you stuck your foot in it. With a turbo engine, the engine "grows" for lack of a better term, when it's boosted. An engine is just an air pump, the more air you can pump, the more power. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, this is the pressure the is pushed into a NA engine. Now with a turbo at 14.7 you just doubled your engines atmospheric pressure (bigger air pump). You see, even an NA engine acts like a turbo charged engines, they do not "suck in" air they are force fed 14.7 psi (at sea level) because they are making a low pressure area that the higher pressure of the atmosphere rushes into. It's why a car at 10,000 feet elevation will not have the same power as one at sea level, it's less natural boost. With a turbo, you are just creating your own atmosphere of very high pressure at your engines intake. I could really go on for hours and bore you to drool with it. The basic physics of the situation are that an NA engine of the same size will never outrun or out-power a turbo engine that is set up correctly at any rpm and there really are no disadvantages. 1 Quote Link to comment
smoke Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 And now about 'turbo lag'. Keep in mind that I am not talking about an old draw through system here, there are so many issues with those that I don't feel like making a list. BUT, in a blow through system (such as used on 99.9% of cars today) there is no such thing as 'turbo lag'. What turbo lag actually is has really nothing to do with the turbo at all, no...what that is, is a person feeling how sluggy there NA engine is until it gets up on boost. In other words, if you just removed the turbo from the car you say has lag, it would LAG until it hit redline.I'll give you a very dramatic example. Many of you have either driven or ridden in an old, stock, aircooled VW. Pretty darn slow right? Well, they were kinda made that way, but that's neither here nor there....anyway, if you take that same car, with that same engine and do NOTHING but put a turbo on it, Well, you need to tune it for the turbo, but no other mods is what I mean. That stone stock engine can go from a horsepower rating of in the 40s up to over 100 pretty darn easy, and yes, it will hold together, I do it all the time, but that's not what this is about.Okay, so you have more than doubled your horsepower when on boost. Notice the "when on boost" part. So you stab the throttle and for a short time (depending on the turbo you used) you will be off boost and your car will have that same 40 some hp it had when it was stock. Then, the turbo spools up and you have over twice the amount of hp. There is no 'turbo lag' it's more like NA lag. You have just been reminded of what a slug your car used to be for a short time.That is where turbo size, trim, primary tube size and all that comes into play. You want to cut down the time that your engine acts like it used to with no turbo as much as you can. Turbo sizing is a VERY long topic, but the gist is... if you go too big, the longer it will take your turbo to spool up and make boost, so the longer you will be running NA before you feel that big boost in power you want. On the other side of the coin, if you go too small you will have boost almost instantly, but your turbo can run out of air before you want it to. That, and it will make boost when you really don't want it to.A proper sized turbo will act as follows...You can drive across the country at freeway speed and never hit boost (unless you want to) as in, normal driving, your car acts just as it did with no turbo, normal. Now, stick your foot in it hard and if you did it right, boost will come on in a split second. My car, rolling slow in first gear, I can pin the throttle and it will hit 15 psi (what I have it set to) in less than one second. On the other hand, I can drive it around all over and never make the needle move.Moral of the story, it's NA lag people feel and it's NA lag you are trying to minimize when adding a turbo. 1 Quote Link to comment
67_1600 Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Holy shit! What happened to the pics in this thread?? 3 Quote Link to comment
VFR800 Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 There's one. A damn good one too. :) Quote Link to comment
paradime Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 What do you mean, I got the turbo pict in there quick. Quote Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Why no inter-cooler on that setup? Quote Link to comment
q-tip Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Why no inter-cooler on that setup? Causes more lag 2 Quote Link to comment
captaingamez Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Just out of curiosity, can you name an advantage to an NA engine? Oh, never mind, your THAT guy. Already a lost cause, not gonna bother naming any. Quote Link to comment
smoke Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 The guy that asks what you mean? Quote Link to comment
captaingamez Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Meaning that like people who have already made up their mind that "NA is better" you have already made up your mind that "Turbo is better" Quote Link to comment
smoke Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Here is you're chance to change my mind though. Quote Link to comment
captaingamez Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Well frankly sometimes there is an advantage of having less torque, and more throttle. 270hp NA might have 205-210 ft lb. 270 forced might be 265-280+ ft lb. There are advantages in having a high revving little engine as well. Formula one has switched back and fourth between turbo and naturally aspirated for years. Quote Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 This little V4 makes crazy power!! Has anyone read the article about this little billet machine? http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_1109_v4_motorcycle_engine/ 1 Quote Link to comment
q-tip Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Well frankly sometimes there is an advantage of having less torque, and more throttle. 270hp NA might have 205-210 ft lb. 270 forced might be 265-280+ ft lb. There are advantages in having a high revving little engine as well. Formula one has switched back and fourth between turbo and naturally aspirated for years. Im not so sure your estimates are correct.... Quote Link to comment
Mattndew76 Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Check out the X 500cc 2 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.