|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: TheOtherDodge]
#1085108
10/09/11 05:28 PM
10/09/11 05:28 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
|
Quote:
"Doh!
Perhaps because more power can't be extracted by N/A means due to running afoul of federal emissions. "
Really? I guess that big inch Viper didn't pass emissions? And you don't think driveability and mpg has no factor in the decision to go with forced induction? Ok. Not going to argue as we all have our own opinions. 
Now your trying to muddy things up- The Viper is a V-10 because of federal emissions, the same reason they are supercharging V8 packages.
Big wide cylinders increase hydrocarbon emissions around the edges of the pistons. Chrysler (and other car makers) went to "extra cylinders" to reduce this area and better control emissions. Also exactly why piston rings are so close to piston tops now.
The Challenger, Mustang and Camaro are working within the confines of a V8 package. Big cams are not going to pass federal emissions, hence forced induction in an effort to produce more power within a given package.
Look it up, I'm not going to do the research for you. This has been well covered.
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: Duner]
#1085109
10/09/11 05:31 PM
10/09/11 05:31 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
|
Quote:
Don't forget that in the 80's - the answer to turbo tuning was to take away timing and throw fuel at it.
Still has to pass federal emissions standards which are much higher than state.
Feel free to cite another example where a turbocharged engine gets better mpg than its naturally aspirated counterpart of the same displacement.
.
I pointed out a clean example and so far got nothing but hot air in return.
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: Duner]
#1085112
10/09/11 06:23 PM
10/09/11 06:23 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
|
Quote:
I just pointed out why in the 80s the turbo'd engine would get worse mileage. Other than when in boost - a "modern" engine will make the same mileage NA as boosted when not in boost.
Your position makes no sense- The turbo motor passes Federal emissions (destroying the "dumps fuel" argument) has better intake and fueling than the N/A counterpart and yet the N/A motor gets better MPG.
The turbocharged engine WILL get worse MPG regardless of electronics for the same displacement. The exhaust restrictions alone due to the turbo will cause some loss of MPG.
Oh, and by the way? If you compare turbocharged 2.4 engine with the non-turbocharged version you will see that the non turbocharged version gets better mpg. One can assume that 2006 vintage electronics are somewhat better than what was used in 1989.
Quote:
They put more fuel to it and retarded the timing to make it work hard enough to burn the fuel at idle to pass emissions. That's just how they did it in "the old days".
You keep stating this without a shred of proof.
I have access to the code and can point out that at times the turbo engines ran as much as 54 degrees of timing at cruise. This can be confirmed with a Snap On MT 2500 scanner on an average turbo Mopar.
My point (again) is that you cannot increase mpg by adding a turbo to an engine package (which is the original intent of discussion is it not?).
Only by decreasing the displacement will you gain any mpg when adding a turbocharger. The turbocharger will allow you cruise with a "small" engine and have a "larger" engine when desirable.
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: TheOtherDodge]
#1085115
10/10/11 02:17 AM
10/10/11 02:17 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,255
IL
furious70
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,255
IL
|
the new 3.5 ecoboost engine is something worth bringing up in this context....I'm not sure if the 3.7l NA is also direct injection?
70 Sport Fury
68 Charger
69 Coronet
72 RR
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: TheOtherDodge]
#1085116
10/10/11 06:31 AM
10/10/11 06:31 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
|
Quote:
"You are well aware there is no comparable "1.8 mopar" engine made during this time frame."
You are the one that made the statement "Rpm isn't necessarily the killer of MPG (I have driven 1.8l Acuras that buzzed down the highway at much higher rates than a typical mopar and get good MPG)"
Your own admission that there are no comparable mopar motors renders your statement invalid.  
It also states "typical mopar" if you are going to nitpick and is a true statement as I have driven a large number of mopars and none of them turned as high an rpm as the Acura did. A trade off for having such a small displacement I'm sure.
There is a 1.8 mopar engine made now (in the caliber) but since I have no idea what it turns for rpm going down the highway can offer no opinion. It came out about the same time I retired from Chrysler.
A quick google search states the acura turns 4000-4200 rpm doing 70 down the interstate which is 2000 rpm higher than my Ram and 1500 rpm higher than my Shelby Daytona.
The point still stands, rpm isn;t necessarily the killer of mpg with a real world example provided.
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: furious70]
#1085120
10/10/11 04:45 PM
10/10/11 04:45 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
|
Quote:
And it also proves the real world advantage is that the 3.5 ecoboost provides more torque over a broader rpm range and better mpg than the 5.0L does. This other side argument is silly IMO and I've never heard it argued before that same displacement, same stockish configuration and somehow the turbo engine gets better mpg. 3.5 ecoboost > 5.0L is the real takeaway.
Careful, I have pointed that out several times in this thread and got nothing but flack for it.
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: TheOtherDodge]
#1085121
10/10/11 05:07 PM
10/10/11 05:07 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
|
Quote:
"which is 2000 rpm higher than my Ram"
Really????? You care comparing it to a truck that is probably at least 2000 lbs heavier with a V8?
Ok, enjoy! Im done with you too!   
"Typical Mopar" was clearly stated alongside another known quantitys for points of reference.
Thanks for contributing to this discussion.
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: gdonovan]
#1085122
10/10/11 09:36 PM
10/10/11 09:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,068
Irving, TX
feets
Senior Management
|
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,068
Irving, TX
|
Look, guys, it's not going to happen.
Dropping a turbo on an otherwise non-turbo setup WILL NOT increase efficiency.
Now, quit all the attempts at trickery and twisting each others' words.
As a collective, you've managed to make this thread no longer worth reading.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: feets]
#1085123
10/10/11 10:17 PM
10/10/11 10:17 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,953
Houston, Texas
TheOtherDodge
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,953
Houston, Texas
|
Hey Feets, the answer is yes and no. Which you do you think will get better gas mileage? 1. 400 inch motor, 4.56 gear, 5000 stall, big cam. 2. 400 inch motor, 3.55 gear, 2500 stall, small cam, 76 mm turbo. Everything else is identical with the exception of noted above. I am curious as to your reply. Whatever your reply, I won't dispute it. My point is that with a turbo (and my example is based on a 600 hp combo, not a stockish type setup) there is the ability to drop rpms that will in turn give the increased gas mileage. A poster replied to my statement and claimed that dropping rpms will not affect gas mileage then attempted to compare a 1.8L motor to a typical Mopar motor (even though at his on admission there was not a compareable motor) and then to a Dodge Ram truck! I didn't make any of that up! It is all on this post! 
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: TheOtherDodge]
#1085124
10/10/11 11:10 PM
10/10/11 11:10 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6,563
Downtown Roebuck Ont
Twostick
Still wishing...
|
Still wishing...
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6,563
Downtown Roebuck Ont
|
Quote:
Hey Feets, the answer is yes and no.
Which you do you think will get better gas mileage?
1. 400 inch motor, 4.56 gear, 5000 stall, big cam.
2. 400 inch motor, 3.55 gear, 2500 stall, small cam, 76 mm turbo.
Everything else is identical with the exception of noted above.
I am curious as to your reply.
I think the premise is identical engine, just add turbo.
I still maintain that with blow-thru carb wet manifold induction and an appropriate cam ie stock type, boost theoretically could do slightly better on fuel because it could help an OEM manifold with fuel distribution and perhaps induce/enhance swirl in the chamber when the intake valve opens. Real world? Certainly not enough to warrant the cost.
David Gardiner is a friend of mine in the R+D biz that has done all manner of automotive fuel research and is published in the SAE. He is with Nexum Research http://www.nexumresearch.com/publications.html and I'll give him a call this week and get a scientific type opinion. I'll specify a 440 Mopar (he's a Mopar guy) and see what he says.
Kevin
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: Twostick]
#1085125
10/11/11 06:22 AM
10/11/11 06:22 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hey Feets, the answer is yes and no.
Which you do you think will get better gas mileage?
1. 400 inch motor, 4.56 gear, 5000 stall, big cam.
2. 400 inch motor, 3.55 gear, 2500 stall, small cam, 76 mm turbo.
Everything else is identical with the exception of noted above.
I am curious as to your reply.
I think the premise is identical engine, just add turbo.
Exactly, which is the original posters intent and what we were discussing!
I'll answer the question for him though- The motor with the 76mm turbo will get better mpg since it has a mellower cam, milder gear and less stall on the converter.
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: feets]
#1085126
10/11/11 12:03 PM
10/11/11 12:03 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
Quote:
Look, guys, it's not going to happen.
Dropping a turbo on an otherwise non-turbo setup WILL NOT increase efficiency.
Now, quit all the attempts at trickery and twisting each others' words.
As a collective, you've managed to make this thread no longer worth reading.
 , Regardless, heat is power, heat lost thru the exhaust is wasted power, heat used to turn a turbo, which then reduces exhaust temp, (and we all know energy is only converted) and adds other benefits, increases effiency. In WW2, millitary aircraft started to use "turbo compounders", which used the wasted exhaust heat/energy to spin a turbo that was then connected to the shaft output, for added power of nearly 200hp. Before anyone throws up their hands, what am I missing? 
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: Turbocharging for economy
[Re: TheOtherDodge]
#1085127
10/11/11 02:14 PM
10/11/11 02:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,068
Irving, TX
feets
Senior Management
|
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,068
Irving, TX
|
Quote:
Hey Feets, the answer is yes and no.
Which you do you think will get better gas mileage?
1. 400 inch motor, 4.56 gear, 5000 stall, big cam.
2. 400 inch motor, 3.55 gear, 2500 stall, small cam, 76 mm turbo.
Everything else is identical with the exception of noted above.
EVERYTHING IDENTICAL. EVERYTHING! CHASSIS, ENGINE, TRANS, GEARS, EVERYTHING!
IT WILL NOT MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT!
Now, quit changing combinations. It was a simple question. Will adding a turbo increase efficiency? NO, IT WILL NOT!
Now, if you toss everything out the window and make an entirely new package bumper to bumper you can build a package to suit your prefrences.
That's not what this topic was about.
Some of you freaks just don't get it. You can't get something for nothing. Spinning a turbo consumes energy. to take advantage of it you have to change the combination. POW! It's no longer the same package and therefore out of the realm of this topic.
Some of you people need to pull your heads out of your collective arses and THINK! There is no free lunch. Cause and effect. Go all the way through cause and effect WITHOUT changing your combination.
I'm out of this one.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
|
|
