Increased Taxes coming for Turbocharged Vehicles next Budget!

[drchaos]

The problem you are having is that you see fuel economy and fuel efficiency as the same and interchangeable ... apples and oranges ... both fruit but one is pomaceous and the other citrus.

[16 cycles]

Turbo tech, tuning and engine design have come along way since 2009...date of 2nd article....

Jus saying...

[megadoc1]

I thought the idea behind turbo chargers was the capability to burn more fuel in a smaller cylinder?

[kamakazi]

Vehicle manufacturers tend to err on the side of caution with their turbo systems and usually run rich when on boost. You can take the risk and lean out the mixture to improve fuel efficiency... But push it to far and you get knock. I believe that NA engines generally run leaner air fuel ratios than there turbocharged counterparts.

[Habit7]

The problem you are having is that you see fuel economy and fuel efficiency as the same and interchangeable ... apples and oranges ... both fruit but one is pomaceous and the other citrus.

The problem you are having is that you see fuel economy and fuel efficiency are mutually exclusive. As well, you fail to understand that turbocharged engines gains in fuel efficiency are due to other technologies working in tandem with the turbocharger.

Turbo tech, tuning and engine design have come along way since 2009...date of 2nd article....
Jus saying...

The ever popular VW 1.4L 16v TSI came out in 2005 and the aforementioned Ford Ecoboost line of engines in 2009.

[megadoc1]

Habit is correct ,a turbo car does not save gas ,the savings comes from the small engine used , what the turbo does is allow that small engine to produce the same power as a larger sized engine when needed.

[ingalook]

Ecoboost is like a "brand name" of engines, they all came out at different times and Ford is refining them as we speak

Its like Skyactiv from Mazda

[drchaos]

The problem you are having is that you see fuel economy and fuel efficiency as the same and interchangeable ... apples and oranges ... both fruit but one is pomaceous and the other citrus.

The problem you are having is that you see fuel economy and fuel efficiency are mutually exclusive. As well, you fail to understand that turbocharged engines gains in fuel efficiency are due to other technologies working in tandem with the turbocharger.

Turbo tech, tuning and engine design have come along way since 2009...date of 2nd article....
Jus saying...

The ever popular VW 1.4L 16v TSI came out in 2005 and the aforementioned Ford Ecoboost line of engines in 2009.

The biggest problem you are having is that you denied that turbo charger increases efficiency and I called you out on it. Now you trying to make this simple argument about loads of other stuff.
Get the facts straight ... no one is denying that new technologies have helped turbo's to be more fuel efficient .... No one doubts that turbo engines may not affect fuel economy ...

What I do have a problem with is the continued lies and attempt at cover up. First you responded to a tuner on fuel efficiency then was proven wrong with your fiesta blunder .... then you lied and said a tuner and your self was talking about fuel economy which he was not.

Then attempted to fill the forum with dribble about fuel economy (which no one has a problem with by the way).
You have yet to respond to why you lied here ...


"It seems like you like the other tuners are misunderstanding what this subtopic is. A tuner said turbochargers increase fuel economy. So far, nobody has substantiated that claim. I love turbos, I think that they are great but to say that they improve fuel economy is a stretch. In the VW Polo, Fiat Bravo and Ford Fiesta to name a few, the bigger the turbo the lesser the fuel economy when compared to the NA equivalent."

Please continue to distract attention from your big blunder and lies with more factual information that we agree with ....

[Habit7]

please see cited articles posted above about fuel efficiency with respect to turbocharged engines

[scotty_buttons]

Wait na allyuh still talking about this

[drchaos]

I think your time would be better spent advising the Canadian government on tech, H7

These pesky Canadians seem think that turbo charging increases efficiency by 2 to 6% ... How wrong they are, cause as you said they only add more HP and burn more fuel ...
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficienc ... ying/16747

Don't forget the EU and US governments ... since they have been deluded into thinking that turbocharging has allowed all the car companies to meet ever increasing emissions standards that get stricter every few years. I mean why stop there you should talk to BMW, Audi and Merc since they decided to stop making N.A engines ... Tell them to stop before its too late!!! Cause they will probably be getting worse mpg with those turbo's.

I really think you onto something man ... You should continue to roll with it.

[drchaos]

please see cited articles posted above about fuel efficiency with respect to turbocharged engines

"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."

And that decreased weight and reduced friction which the guy fails to mention is because of turbocharging ... Only because the engine is turbocharged you can shed weight from the engine ...

"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" I'm sorry ... what does that say? Lol

[Habit7]

"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" I'm sorry ... what does that say? Lol

But while you were cataloguing my lies you forgot this one:

Turbocharged engines fuel efficiency gains are measured over NA engine of large displacements not of equal displacement. Furthermore there are other factors that go into fuel efficiency such as body weight, aerodynamics, transmission etc.

http://www.trinituner.com/v3/forums/vie ... 3#p9139883

[drchaos]

"Turbocharged engines fuel efficiency gains are measured over NA engine of large displacements not of equal displacement."
That is why you keep forgetting the 1.0 ecoboost more efficient than the 1.0 Zetec? Same MPG and more HP, so if the engine can do more work on the same fuel it less efficient right? only in habit7 land.

[pete]

This is worse than an evo vs sti thread now. Thanks guys

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

[16 cycles]

Yummy@ variable blade turbo geometry..

Them Borg warners ain't backward either...transient response supposed to be good..

[drchaos]

If you haven't already check out the electrified turbo's/supercharger that Audi working on.

[De Dragon]

"Turbocharged engines fuel efficiency gains are measured over NA engine of large displacements not of equal displacement."
That is why you keep forgetting the 1.0 ecoboost more efficient than the 1.0 Zetec? Same MPG and more HP, so if the engine can do more work on the same fuel it less efficient right? only in habit7 land.

You will not win this one breds, this guy never backs down from any position, no matter how ridiculous, or no matter how many people show him that he is wrong.

[drchaos]

SHHHHHHH !!! Lest he come back with more lengthy articles that show the opposite of what he is trying to say.

[megadoc1]

"Turbocharged engines fuel efficiency gains are measured over NA engine of large displacements not of equal displacement."
That is why you keep forgetting the 1.0 ecoboost more efficient than the 1.0 Zetec? Same MPG and more HP, so if the engine can do more work on the same fuel it less efficient right? only in habit7 land.

so you are saying that adding a turbo charger to an na engine will increase hp using the same amount of fuel? are u a magician? you make more HP by burning more fuel (forcing more air/fuel mixture into the smaller cylinder chamber and making the same HP as of one with a larger displacement. ) but carry on folks

[drchaos]

"Turbocharged engines fuel efficiency gains are measured over NA engine of large displacements not of equal displacement."
That is why you keep forgetting the 1.0 ecoboost more efficient than the 1.0 Zetec? Same MPG and more HP, so if the engine can do more work on the same fuel it less efficient right? only in habit7 land.

so you are saying that adding a turbo charger to an na engine will increase hp using the same amount of fuel? are u a magician? you make more HP by burning more fuel (forcing more air/fuel mixture into the smaller cylinder chamber and making the same HP as of one with a larger displacement. ) but carry on folks

No my dear boy I am not a magician ... the real magic is in tuning charged engines.
By just increasing the compression ratio without using more fuel there is more power to be had. Yes you can dump more fuel in with a higher compression ratio and boost yourself to the moon but the former is also possible.

Take a lit scratch bomb and place it on your right open palm ... take another one and put it in your left hand and close your hand as tight as you can around it. I am sure you can figure out the result.
Same amount of fuel yet more work being done ... a simplistic example of course but same principle.

Ok so you guys are saying that its all the other tech that makes turbo's more efficient like DI, valve timing, lowered friction in the engine materials, more efficient exhaust headers and aluminum blocks and heads. But the NA engines that you are comparing the turbo engines to benefit from those advances as well. No point in arguing over the constants in a comparison, focus on the differences in the engine.

[De Dragon]

Yuh pardner like he jump out or wha'? Meem see him post no long arsed articles to bolster he side. Mebbe he doing some research tuh jump back een yuh rass!

[A172]

This is worse than an evo vs sti thread now. Thanks guys

nah evo & sti is car worth cyakin abt

[drchaos]

Oh yeah megadoc1
Just wanted to add that you have to be careful when running lean air mixtures at HIGH engine load you can cause knock. So when you push the engine really hard the car dumps more fuel in. If you run lean mixtures at lower engine loads then its fine.

That's why when I used to drive the Jetta with its 1.4 TSI really hard, it would guzzle gas. When driven carefully the fuel economy was insane ... one night around 1:00 am I managed 59 UK mpg which is 49 us mpg on a sando to chaguanas run.
Some people even report around 900 km on a tank.

[S_2NR]

Yuh pardner like he jump out or wha'? Meem see him post no long arsed articles to bolster he side. Mebbe he doing some research tuh jump back een yuh rass!

I feel you and habit secretly want to hold hands and run off into the sunset together...

[Habit7]

Yuh pardner like he jump out or wha'? Meem see him post no long arsed articles to bolster he side. Mebbe he doing some research tuh jump back een yuh rass!

I feel you and habit secretly want to hold hands and run off into the sunset together...

Hoss I am honestly concerned. The man's presence on tuner is becoming dependant on my posts.

Oh yeah megadoc1
Just wanted to add that you have to be careful when running lean air mixtures at HIGH engine load you can cause knock. So when you push the engine really hard the car dumps more fuel in. If you run lean mixtures at lower engine loads then its fine.

That's why when I used to drive the Jetta with its 1.4 TSI really hard, it would guzzle gas. When driven carefully the fuel economy was insane ... one night around 1:00 am I managed 59 UK mpg which is 49 us mpg on a sando to chaguanas run.
Some people even report around 900 km on a tank.

Oh....

So when you run the engine at higher RPMs engaging the turbo you get worse fuel efficiency than when running it at lower RPMs which might not engage the turbo.

Informative.

[drchaos]

Yuh pardner like he jump out or wha'? Meem see him post no long arsed articles to bolster he side. Mebbe he doing some research tuh jump back een yuh rass!

I feel you and habit secretly want to hold hands and run off into the sunset together...

Hoss I am honestly concerned. The man's presence on tuner is becoming dependant on my posts.

Oh yeah megadoc1
Just wanted to add that you have to be careful when running lean air mixtures at HIGH engine load you can cause knock. So when you push the engine really hard the car dumps more fuel in. If you run lean mixtures at lower engine loads then its fine.

That's why when I used to drive the Jetta with its 1.4 TSI really hard, it would guzzle gas. When driven carefully the fuel economy was insane ... one night around 1:00 am I managed 59 UK mpg which is 49 us mpg on a sando to chaguanas run.
Some people even report around 900 km on a tank.

Oh....

So when you run the engine at higher RPMs engaging the turbo you get worse fuel efficiency than when running it at lower RPMs which might not engage the turbo.

Informative.

Habbit7 like you living in the 70's when turbo's used to spool up at 6000 rpm?

Turbo's giving boost from 1500 rpm and ting now. Turbo lag is just a fairy-tale told to scare kids like yourself off turbo's.

[jhonnieblue]

My experience with turbos has Been positive. With the passat I could get 700-900 off a tank of gas if I drive conservative.
Open up the throttle and would easily sink to 400km or less.

Compared to the n/a vehicle I have now which can't get below 10L/100km combined no matter how conservative I drive.

Most manufacturers are moving to turbo charged engines now. Check car advice and their favored vehicles are that are turbo charged for overall efficiency and power balance

[Habit7]

Habbit7 like you living in the 70's when turbo's used to spool up at 6000 rpm?

Turbo's giving boost from 1500 rpm and ting now. Turbo lag is just a fairy-tale told to scare kids like yourself off turbo's.

Well I cant speak for the 1.4 TSI Jetta but in my 1.4 T-Jet the turbo engages at 2500rpm in the lower gears and 2000rpm in the higher gears. So at 50kph in 5th gear I am at 1500rpm and 80kph in 6th I am at >2000rpm. If I open up the throttle a little more and cruise at 120kph will be doing 2500-3000km. So I would like to think it is likewise for the Jetta.