Why bother with a turbo?
04 April 2006, 06:09 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ALi-B
<Cough> http://superchevy.com/technical/engi...09sc_assembly/
And it's cheaper to buy as a complete turn key engine than a turn key scooby engine...just need something to put it in
Lighter than a Rover V8 but 7.0 instead of 3.5litres and the torque never drops below 350lb/ft from 1000-7000rpm (470lb/ft peak), basic design but using the lastest materials and manufactureing and can still match your rice rocket for appauling fuel consumption (alledged to be between 18mpg to as good as 28mpg)
And it's STOCK...tweek it or supercharge it and it's going to be a stormer!! 
And it's cheaper to buy as a complete turn key engine than a turn key scooby engine...just need something to put it in
Lighter than a Rover V8 but 7.0 instead of 3.5litres and the torque never drops below 350lb/ft from 1000-7000rpm (470lb/ft peak), basic design but using the lastest materials and manufactureing and can still match your rice rocket for appauling fuel consumption (alledged to be between 18mpg to as good as 28mpg)
And it's STOCK...tweek it or supercharge it and it's going to be a stormer!! Rob.
04 April 2006, 07:15 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
To get back to the original question; a turbo is simply the most efficient/least wasteful way of getting the power you want. An internal combustion engine is pretty inefficient and most of this waste is in the form of heat. A turbocharged engine utilises the huge amounts of otherwise wasted energy in the hot exhaust gases. Hence why you'll find lots of tiny shopping cars nowadays run 3-cylinder sub 1.0 litre turbos rather than 1.2s and 1.3s as in days of yore. A Smart is not designed for road scorching performance, but for fuel economy and driveabillity primarily - a tiny turbo engine delivers this better than a small NA.
04 April 2006, 08:27 PM
#35
Originally Posted by RB5_245
and one that will hopefully put to rest the idea that a pushrod engine can't be sophisticated and efficient. Each liter of displacement contributes 72 HP, for a total of 505 as measured by the newGo get that cobra!!!
Sorry about the edit. I couldn't remember the fuel consumption offhand
Last edited by ALi-B; 04 April 2006 at 08:30 PM.
06 April 2006, 01:46 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
![[Davey]'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%23806b84' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>[</text></svg>)
Originally Posted by robsw
I don't think the top fuel cars run several turbo's just one rather large supercharger. There are no other cars with internal combustion engines that accelerate quicker.
Rob.
Rob.
You can't really compare a top fuel car designed for 1/4 sprints with a car that is actually driveable on the road, its like comparing a Gun to a Tank.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post