TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Imbert last week announced an increase of 50 per cent in Customs duty and motor vehicle tax on luxury vehicles, starting with private vehicles with an engine size exceeding 1999cc. The measure took effect immediately.
However, he said yesterday the State will impose a tax on cars of an “appropriate horse-power” such as turbo-charged cars that may fall below the 1999cc engine size.
http://newsday.co.tt/news/0,226446.html
I stand corrected there, transmissions receive power from the engine, it doesn't "increase" power.drchaos wrote:"8 speed transmissions, dual clutch transmissions, etc."
How does a transmission affect the horse power?
gearing and transmissions greatly affect fuel efficiency thoughdrchaos wrote:"8 speed transmissions, dual clutch transmissions, etc."
How does a transmission affect the horse power?
Habit7 wrote:The links, my explanation of variable fuel injection in force induction chambers and several cars with NA and turbo variants with no "increased fuel economy" I thoroughly listed, support my argument.
That post above is another point because I feed up flog that horse because apparently I "don't get it."
ingalook wrote:You just made the case for larger (more than 2.0 litre) naturally aspirated engines
You and Colm need to have a long talk
Habit7 wrote:I really cant understand this beat up for this though. It is obvious that they'll have to tax OEM turbo charged vehicles that circumvent the 2.0L NA tax.
Habit7 wrote:
All PNM lies!
Habit7 wrote:novastar1 wrote:shake d livin wake d dead wrote:Habit7 wrote:pete wrote:Maybe they will use a factor like in motor racing like 1.4x the cc rating for turbocharged vehicles to determine the n/a equivalent cc. So that 1.0 turbo fiesta wouldnt be affected.
I really cant understand this beat up for this though. It is obvious that they'll have to tax OEM turbo charged vehicles that circumvent the 2.0L NA tax.
A VW 1.4TSI engine (turbocharged) is comparable to a VW 2.0FSI engine (normally aspirated) and both fall under 1999cc. The economical turbo charged engine will not be taxed.
I am yet to hear of an economical middle class targeted +1999cc engine car on the local market. Likewise if you can buy a +1.5T you must have paper. Pay the tax and save the environment.
all that to show support for the gov't.
Turbos are used to increase the fuel efficiency and thus save the environment.
No.
Turbos are used to increase power to match that to an engine of greater displacement.
Adding a turbo to an engine doesn't increase fuel efficiency.
drchaos wrote:Habit7 wrote:novastar1 wrote:shake d livin wake d dead wrote:Habit7 wrote:pete wrote:Maybe they will use a factor like in motor racing like 1.4x the cc rating for turbocharged vehicles to determine the n/a equivalent cc. So that 1.0 turbo fiesta wouldnt be affected.
I really cant understand this beat up for this though. It is obvious that they'll have to tax OEM turbo charged vehicles that circumvent the 2.0L NA tax.
A VW 1.4TSI engine (turbocharged) is comparable to a VW 2.0FSI engine (normally aspirated) and both fall under 1999cc. The economical turbo charged engine will not be taxed.
I am yet to hear of an economical middle class targeted +1999cc engine car on the local market. Likewise if you can buy a +1.5T you must have paper. Pay the tax and save the environment.
all that to show support for the gov't.
Turbos are used to increase the fuel efficiency and thus save the environment.
No.
Turbos are used to increase power to match that to an engine of greater displacement.
Adding a turbo to an engine doesn't increase fuel efficiency.
AND ..... you're lying again ...
The argument was about "Turbos are used to increase the fuel efficiency" to which you responded "NO"
and now your saying and I quote "A tuner said turbochargers increase fuel economy" which is where you are now fabricating things ...
Fuel efficiency and Thermal efficiency has to do with the amount of work that can be done from a unit of fuel.
Fuel economy has to do with the distance you travel on that unit of fuel ... Two completely different concepts
This is why you have been getting it wrong all along and seem to be completely dense when people try to explain it to you.
Turbo charging increases fuel/thermal efficiency but may or may not affect fuel economy.
But AGAIN the argument you started was that "Adding a turbo to an engine doesn't increase fuel efficiency"
This will probably go over your head but its still worth a try to save you from yourself.
16 cycles wrote:Someone did say turbo charged engines are more fuel efficient or something to that effect earlier in the thread...h7 will quote it...no doubt...
drchaos wrote:Habit7 wrote:novastar1 wrote:shake d livin wake d dead wrote:Habit7 wrote:pete wrote:Maybe they will use a factor like in motor racing like 1.4x the cc rating for turbocharged vehicles to determine the n/a equivalent cc. So that 1.0 turbo fiesta wouldnt be affected.
I really cant understand this beat up for this though. It is obvious that they'll have to tax OEM turbo charged vehicles that circumvent the 2.0L NA tax.
A VW 1.4TSI engine (turbocharged) is comparable to a VW 2.0FSI engine (normally aspirated) and both fall under 1999cc. The economical turbo charged engine will not be taxed.
I am yet to hear of an economical middle class targeted +1999cc engine car on the local market. Likewise if you can buy a +1.5T you must have paper. Pay the tax and save the environment.
all that to show support for the gov't.
Turbos are used to increase the fuel efficiency and thus save the environment.
No.
Turbos are used to increase power to match that to an engine of greater displacement.
Adding a turbo to an engine doesn't increase fuel efficiency.
AND ..... you're lying again ...
The argument was about "Turbos are used to increase the fuel efficiency" to which you responded "NO"
and now your saying and I quote "A tuner said turbochargers increase fuel economy" which is where you are now fabricating things ...
Fuel efficiency and Thermal efficiency has to do with the amount of work that can be done from a unit of fuel.
Fuel economy has to do with the distance you travel on that unit of fuel ... Two completely different concepts
This is why you have been getting it wrong all along and seem to be completely dense when people try to explain it to you.
Turbo charging increases fuel/thermal efficiency but may or may not affect fuel economy.
But AGAIN the argument you started was that "Adding a turbo to an engine doesn't increase fuel efficiency"
This will probably go over your head but its still worth a try to save you from yourself.
Are Turbocharged Engines More Fuel Efficient?
January 11, 2016
By Sam Weiss
Introduction:
My previous post discussed methods to uncover effects of a particular explanatory variable on a response variable in machine learning models. These work by changing the variable of interest and measure how much the change in output, is keeping all other variables constant. However, this assumption that we can hold constant other variables is almost surely incorrect. In most applications, changing one variable changes the distributions of other covariates as well.
In this post I will show the effect of a change in values by simulating a dataset, keeping only variables of interest fixed while allowing all other variables to change. I will do this by simulating data points from a method described here. I’ll compare this method with existing techniques.
The topic I’m going to explore is whether turbocharged engines actually decrease fuel economy. Over the past few years turbocharging is increasingly used for engines that reduce engine size while increasing power and fuel economy and reducing emissions. It has been hailed as the solution to increasing power while decreasing fuel consumption. A common theme among proponents is that one can achieve V-6 power through turbocharging I-4 engines and thereby achieve I-4 fuel consumption. However, real world driving has suggested that a turbocharged option doesn’t necessarily reduce consumption, it merely gives you the option to reduce consumption if you don’t use all the power.
Data:
The car data was scraped from car and driver website and included 416 car reviews with “observed mpg” along with 15 other variables including; weight, horsepower, torque, zero to 60 time, etc.
I’ll compare how observed fuel economy compares with a turbo I-4 and naturally aspirated V-6 with the same 0 to 60 time (6.5 seconds). The two comparisons are:
Turbo Regime: {Engine Breathing=Turbo, Engine_Type=I-4, Zero.60=6.5, Date=Most recent}
Naturally Aspirated Regime: {Engine Breathing=Naturally Aspirated, Engine_Type=V-6, Zero.60=6.5, Date=Most recent}
I picked these examples because changing from V-6 to a I-4 is a very common choice and 0-60 of 6.5 is a fairly standard time for a mid range family sedan.
My previous post discussed the methodology of using everything as constant. In this case I will predict each observation twice under the differences (one with turbo 4 and one with naturally aspirated v-6) and compare the predictions.
f(mpg.observed | other covariates, Turbo Regime) – f(mpg.observed | other covariates, Naturally Aspirated Regime)
Where f() is approximated by a machine learning method. In this case it is a random Forest. Below is a histogram of the results.
Using this method, the mean change in observed mpg is -.028. In addition there is a wide variation in changes (1st Qu is -.077 and 3Qu is 0.025). This results appear that turbos have much of an effect on fuel consumption.
However, it’s clear that changing the engine from a I-4 Turbo to a V-6 naturally aspirated engine could change other variables as well. For instance, I-4 engines are lighter than V-6 engines (2 fewer cylinders after all) so its possible that changing from Turbo Regime to Naturally Aspirated regime decreases fuel consumption through other channels.
From this post, we can simulate the distributions:
P(mpg.observed, other covariates | Turbo Regime) and P(mpg.observed, other covariates | Naturally Aspirated Regime). We can the see the differences in distributions with these simulations.
Below is a pairs plot of several variables under each of the different regimes.
The mean mpg observed under I-4 Turbo regime is 25.57 and is 24.29 for V-6 indicating that I-4 Turbos are, on average, 1.28 mpg more fuel efficient than similar performing V-6. It would appear that this is due, at least partially, to weight decrease of a turbo engine. That is, turbo engines are associated with lighter cars (on average by 150 pounds) and that reduces fuel consumption.
Conclusion:
This post compared existing methods of predicting changes with one that simulates the distribution under different conditions. The resulting distribution allows other covariates to change an expected amount given a change in other variables. Using existing methods found no change in average fuel consumption because the gain in fuel efficiency isn’t directly caused by turbocharging an engine but through other channels like decrease in weight.
http://www.r-bloggers.com/are-turbochar ... efficient/
Consumer Reports Says Ford, GM Overstate Turbo Benefits
Alan Ohnsman
February 5, 2013 — 5:10 PM BOT
Consumer Reports said its tests of turbocharged cars from Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. didn’t support the companies’ claims about fuel economy and performance provided by the powertrain technology.
Tests of Ford’s 2013 Fusion sedan with a 1.6-liter turbo engine by the Yonkers, New York-based magazine found the car to be slower and less fuel-efficient than standard four-cylinder engine cars such as Toyota Motor Corp.’s Camry and Honda Motor Co.’s Accord.
GM’s Chevrolet Cruze compact with a 1.4-liter turbo engine is slightly faster than one with a standard 1.8-liter engine, the mileage is no better, Consumer Reports said. Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s methodology, the turbocharged Cruze was rated 1 mile (1.6 kilometer) per gallon better in combined city and highway driving.
“While these engines may look better on paper with impressive EPA numbers, in reality they are often slower and less fuel-efficient than larger four- and six-cylinder engines,” Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, said in an e-mailed statement.
Turbochargers pump more air through an engine, increasing power. Automakers have turned to turbochargers as a way to have smaller engines without sacrificing power. The extra air has to be augmented with extra fuel, which may offset savings from smaller engines, Consumer Reports said.
GM, Ford Reaction
Automakers are under pressure to boost vehicle efficiency to meet stricter U.S. mileage requirements and win fuel-economy bragging rights with turbo and direct-injection engines and hybrid systems. Consumer Reports, automakers and U.S. regulators have been reviewing gaps between official fuel-efficiency tests and real-world performance since Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Motors Corp. in November said they overstated mileage test results.
The turbocharged Cruze has “better acceleration across the rpm range making for a more fun to drive car,” Tom Read, a GM spokesman, said in a statement. “However, if you have a heavy foot on a turbocharged engine, you’re not necessarily going to see a lot of fuel economy benefits.” Mileage, he said, “is really dependent on how you drive.”
Consumer Reports in December said Ford’s two newest hybrid models, the Fusion and C-Max hybrids, fell 17 percent to 21 percent short of the EPA rating of 47 mpg in the magazine’s tests.
“We cannot answer for how Consumer Reports tested the Fusion, but its findings are not consistent with our internal and external feedback,” said Wes Sherwood, a Ford spokesman. “Those show that EcoBoost vehicles lead in customer satisfaction for fuel economy across segments -- including surveys by J.D. Power” & Associates. EcoBoost is Ford’s brand name for its turbocharged engines.
Turbo engines in Bayerische Motoren Werke AG’s BMW 328i sedan and X3 sport-utility vehicle were more fuel-efficient than non-turbo versions, Consumer Reports said.
Ford rose 2.3 percent to $13.18 at the close in New York while GM gained 2.3 percent to $28.59.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... overstated
Top 5 Turbocharger Tech Innovations: The Truth about Fuel-Sipping Turbos
Turbochargers are making a comeback. With new technologies and a need for fuel-efficient power, the auto industry is seeing a significant rise in turbos—with promises of more to come. If gasoline-turbocharged engines are making a comeback, what's different this time around? And will turbos be able to fulfill that promised fuel-economy benefit?
By Larry Webster
Sep 30, 2009
In the 1980s, it was difficult to escape the turbocharger. The twin energy crises of the 1970s forced automakers to produce cars that delivered better fuel economy. And that meant downsizing engines. By the 1980s, turbo technology was evolving and automakers installed them to boost the power of these smaller engines. But turbos promised more than just power—they promised fuel economy benefits too.
Turbos were billed as a way to have the fuel economy of a four-cylinder engine with the power of a Six. Sound familiar? That's what automakers are claiming today. Theoretically it makes sense because the turbo uses some of the normally wasted exhaust energy. And downsizing the engines reduces thermodynamic and frictional losses. It's an easy win-win, right? Well, in many cases the fuel-economy benefits were slight. And some manufacturers were famous for reliability problems. So widespread turbocharger use faded somewhat in the decades since. In their place, the auto industry simply made bigger engines that were more efficient.
Now that we're in the midst of another kind of energy crisis, the turbocharger is back. Ford is particularly aggressive with the technology and plans to replace many of its V8 engines with twin-turbo V6s and use turbo four-cylinder engines to supplant V6s. The company has even coined a friendly name for its turbo engines—Ecoboost
. Ford, however, is not alone. "We're going to see a lot more turbo engines," says Chris Meagher, GM's chief engineer for its Ecotec engines. Industry estimates peg global gasoline-turbocharger production to grow to around 3 million units by 2013. That's a sixfold increase in less than a decade.
So we wondered: If gasoline-turbocharged engines are making a comeback, what's different this time around? And will turbos be able to fulfill that promised fuel-economy benefit?
How Turbos Work
The turbocharger has been around for decades, and like its cousin, the supercharger, it is a simple way to increase engine power. Both the supercharger and turbocharger are pumps that stuff air into the cylinder, which, when burned with added fuel, creates greater combustion pressure and more power. The supercharger runs off the crankshaft, like the alternator and power-steering pump, and therefore draws some power as it does its job.
But turbos are powered by the normally wasted energy that flows out of the exhaust pipe. Picture two fans joined by a common shaft. One fan lies in the exhaust stream, the other in the intake. The flowing exhaust spins the fan (called the turbine), which powers the corresponding fan in the intake (the compressor).
Turbos have always been effective at increasing an engine's specific power, otherwise known as the output per displacement. A 2.0-liter turbo four-cylinder engine can easily match the power of naturally aspirated 3.0-liter V6, for example. The first production car to use a turbo was the 1962 Chevrolet Corvair, and Porsche famously used a turbo on its 911 Turbo in the late 1970s.
Improved Materials
Since one side of the turbo sits in the exhaust stream, heat has always been a problem. Reducing the temperature of the exhaust stream to keep the turbo from failing requires adding extra fuel--wasted fuel. Modern turbos benefit from a stainless-steel housing (instead of cast iron) and improved nickel-alloy turbines. "Our turbos can now withstand up to 1922 degrees F, so the engines can run much closer to ideal stoichiometric air/fuel ratios," says Craig Balis, engineering vice president of Honeywell's turbo technology division, "which improves fuel economy."
Turbo Refinement
"We have powerful computer models and finite element analysis tools that are vastly better than what was available five years ago," Balis says. We're talking small tweaks here, like the shape of the blades, bearings that run on less oil, and lighter materials. The result is significant--modern turbos can spin 18 percent faster at around 200,000 rpm. GM's Meagher says, "Today we can get the same manifold pressure with a smaller, lighter turbo."
Direct Fuel Injection
By injecting the fuel right into the combustion chamber instead of the more conventional place--the intake stream--the fuel dramatically cools the intake charge. This cooling effect reduces the potential for harmful preignition or detonation and allows engineers to specify higher, more efficient compression ratios.
Smarter Sensors
Ford's Ecoboost V6 employs two knock sensors that instantly detect engine-killing detonation. According to Ford's advanced engine design manager Brett Hinds, these sensors, combined with fast-reacting engine computers, mean they can advance the ignition timing without worrying about detonation. If there is a problem, say, from a bad batch of fuel, then the engine's computer can adjust so there's no need to hard-wire in an efficiency-killing safety net. In addition, modern turbo engines electronically control cam timing, turbo boost, and critically--the throttle. All of which can dramatically reduce the engine's pumping losses.
Efficient System Design
The design of the turbo--the shape and size of the turbine and compressor--dictates at what engine speed and load the turbo is most efficient. Previously, turbos were designed to produce the maximum power and were most efficient at high engine speeds. But the majority of the time, engines run at light load and medium speeds. Optimizing the efficiency of the turbo for this most-used region of the powerband results in more efficient real-world performance.
The Bottom Line
So just how much fuel can a turbocharged gas engine save? Well, that depends, of course, on what you're comparing it to and whom you ask. It's safe to say, however, that a small, modern, gasoline-turbo engine will save about 8 to 10 percent over a larger engine that makes similar power and torque. There are side benefits to turbocharging small engines too--such as reduced weight. Ford's Brett Hinds says that the upcoming EcoBoost V6 is 30 pounds lighter than a V8. That may not sound like much, but every bit counts. And that's especially true, as automakers will continue to hunt for even more fuel efficiency in the coming years.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/ho ... 5/4306310/
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: alfa and 77 guests
