Turbocharging, The New Hybrid? technology which is available right now _JW

[JohnWxy]

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/turbocharging-new-hybrid.html
One of the reasons hybrids get good gas mileage is that they allow engineers to use a smaller engine without losing too much performance. The Camry Hybrid, for example, is peppy despite its modest 2.4-liter four-cylinder powerplant. But there are other ways to downsize, and as automakers decide how to meet stricter fuel-efficiency goals, they’re exploring all their options. So it’s no surprise that turbocharged engines are becoming fashionable again.

Turbos work by compressing the air that goes into an engine. Squeezing more air into the cylinder generates more power without making the engine bigger, so a turbocharged V6 may provide as much—or more—power than a conventional V8. But compressing the incoming air, a process car guys call “forced induction,” requires energy. Turbos get that energy from an unlikely source: the car’s exhaust. As hot exhaust gases from the engine race toward the tailpipe, they spin a small impeller that drives the turbo. The result is a little bit like regenerative braking in a hybrid: the turbo recycles some energy that would normally be wasted.

Never driven a turbocharged car? You probably will soon. BMW began turbocharging a few of its mainstream U.S. offerings this year, and other automakers are following suit. General Motors is planning to bring a new turbocharged four-cylinder to the U.S, next year, potentially for use in the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Astra. At 1.4 liters, the engine would be the smallest engine G.M. has offered here in almost 15 years.

Ford has also announced plans to offer turbocharged engines. Ford’s “EcoBoost” technology—a combination of direct injection and turbocharging—yields as much as a 20 percent increase in fuel economy (only possible using ethanol injection.__JW), and is slated to appear on as many as a half-million vehicles during the next five years.

[virginia mountainman]

1. I am a big believer in Turbochargers..

I had several Turbo Charged Chrysler 2.2 powered cars, back in the late 80's and early 1990's They would flat fly, and when drove easy, they would get 30 to 35 mpg.

But when you needed power you had it by the boatload. The Omni (yes, that Omni) would melt the tires, if you stomped it to the floor in first or second gear. They had so much "grunt" that you needed to be careful when driving them, the "torque steer" could rip the wheel out of your hands if you had the wheel turned when you stepped all the way down on them.

I had a Dodge Omni GLH Turbo, and two Dodge Shelby Chargers, with about 200 to 300 dollars worth of modification they where faster than the Mustang 5.0's and Camaro Z-28's of the day.

I actually kept the Omni GLH till just a couple of months ago....Rust is a terrible thing.

[Howzit]

8. Dodge Omni GLH Turbo

GLH stood for "goes like hell"...

[virginia mountainman]

9. Yes, and I can attest...

It was "truth in advertising"

[flvegan]

2. I have a turbocharged 2.3 liter.

It gets great mileage on the highway and puttering around town, and that mileage only suffers when I put my foot into it. Also, the days of turbo lag are pretty much gone at this point.

A proper turbo is much more economical than bigger cubic inches or a supercharger.

As for turbo V6 powered cars competing with V8 powered cars, it's already been proven. The Buick Grand Nationals (I miss mine dearly), the GMC Cyclone/Typhoon of the early 90's, the 89 Indy Trans Am are all examples of turbo V6 cars that were the most powerful realistic production machines of their time. Word is that even Ferrari is looking into this now. It's blasphemy, but it's brilliant.

[JohnWxy]

12. a Grand National could have a vette for lunch! ..and a much more comfortable ride!

One of the best cars GM aver made. And they could do it right now, with economy in mind, downsizing the engine for the average grocery hauler.

[CRF450]

17. They ran low 13's in a 1/4 mile didn't they?

I'd love a 89 Trans Am with the turbo 3.8 v6, they were way faster than the v8 models at the time.

[krispos42]

3. For a few years now...

I've thought that instead of adding optional, larger engines for cars the manufacturers should instead offer a selective-supercharging package.

A car only needs about 35-50 horsepower to break the wind resistance at highway speeds. The 150, 200, 300 horspower that the car's engine might ultimately make is really only utilized for accelerating and the rest of the time contributes to reduced fuel economy.

A supercharger is an air pump for the engine. Unlike a turbocharger, which derives it's power from the exhaust gasses, a supercharger is linked to the engine's crankshaft in the same way your alternator, water pump, power-steering pump, A/C compressor, etc. A supercharger, like a turbocharger, can boost horsepower by about 30 or 40 percent without much difficulty or going to extremes.

A car that had a clutch-driven supercharger could selectively use the supercharger. A switch on dash could have three setting for supercharger activation: Off, Auto, and On. "Off" would be used when it was slippery out, "On" for when you're climbing steep hills, towing, high altitudes, or for added performance, and "Auto" would let the car's computer control the activation. When in "Auto" mode, the supercharger would only kick in when you pressed hard on the gas pedal, such as when climbing a highway ramp or making a pass.

This would mean that you could make small cars with small, efficient engines (maybe 110hp base) but that can still engage the supercharger and bump that up to 150hp or so for a few seconds at a time when you need it.

Similarly you could have larger cars like a Ford Taurus with a fairly modest base engine, say the 203-hp 3.0L Duratec V-6 and the better fuel economy that comes with it, but be able to generate the power of the larger 263-hp 3.5L Duratec V-6 at will.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Turbo Charging, is much more efficient.

Supercharging, as you noted, runs off a belt, a Turbocharger, runs of exhaust. The supercharger, is a parasitic drain on the engine. The turbo, runs off a waste product, of the engine, it does not add a parasitic drain.

Also, the key to supercharging or turbocharging is boost, the amount of pressure the unit pumps into engine's intake.

Most common superchargers are only capable of about 5 to 8 pounds of boost, the smallest turbos are easily capable of 10 to 15 pounds of boost.

The superchargers ONLY advantage, is at takeoff, once the engine "winds up" the supercharger, cannot provide a "top end" punch of a turbocharger.

With the turbo, you need to give it a chance to "spin up" this is the "turbo lag" people complain about. That really is not a problem once you learn how to drive a turbo car.

The complainers, are those used to V8 engines, with their "instant" power. With a turbo car, if you are engaged in high performance driving, the key is, to always try to keep you foot in the gas (even if it is just a little), even when downshifting, and slowing for curves...Yes, many times your two feet, will be on all three pedals.

To hang a maximum performance curve in a FWD car, with a turbo engine, you will brake, before the turn, slowing down enough, to step on the gas (a little), as you come INTO the curve, as you come by the apex, the boost WILL be their, when you stomp it down, as you begin to come out of it, letting the front end, push to the outside.

This is not the way you drive a V8 RWD car, using the above tactic, is a way to TOTAL a powerful RWD car.

Ahh, the things we learn, when we are much younger, and brash...back about 20 years ago.

EDIT, to launch a turbo car, from a stop, without lag is easier...You put your heel, on the brake pedal, toe on the gas, rev the engine up to about 3,500 rpm, and as the light starts to change (one or two seconds before) you "back off the clutch" to the point you feel the car start TRYING to take off (at this time, you will hear the sound of an avenging god, as the Turbocharger spools up, and the fool in the Mustang next to you at the light messes his pants, forcefully), apply enough pressure with the brake to hold it, and hold you clutch foot right at that point, when the light changes, BE CAREFUL, you will find yourself holding a tiger by the tail, sitting still with turbocharger fully spooled up and engine under boost!!!!!... Tire shreddage will ensue if you are not careful!!!!!!!!!!

[krispos42]

6. Yes I understand that, but my point was...

...that 95% of the time the supercharger would be off and the engine would be running unboosted. No extra fuel wasted when it's not needed.

Obviously you would need dual air intakes with a valve so that you're not trying to suck the air through the supercharger when it's turned off, but that's not a big deal.

That's what I was saying. Not that supers are better than turbos, but that supers can be turned on and off and turbos can't. Why have turbo boost running when you're just maintaining highway cruising speed?

[virginia mountainman]

7. Well, at highway speeds..

The turbo "free wheels" if that makes any sense to you.

It "spins" but does not add more than a tiny amount of boost, actually, according to my boost gages, the engine runs at atmosphere, not at vacuum, not at boost.

My turbo cars (2.2 liter 4 cylinder), on the interstate, and rural highways would get about 30 to 35 mpg...

At very low boost settings, or "no boost" their is no additional fuel needed. The only time it starts to "drink" the gas, is at the higher boost situations, than the fuel system must, add fuel, to offset the lean condition, by all that extra air being ingested into the engine.

My wife's supercharged V6 in here Grand Prix, can only get about 25 on the interstate.

In the situation you describe. a car, with a small turbo, would be vastly superior than a supercharger. Small turbos, also spool much faster than the Garrett units I used, Would give the "punch" that most drivers want at low speed, like a supercharger.

EDIT, In summery... A turbo 4 cylinder, burns fuel, like a 4 cylinder during normal driving, but when you ask it to perform like a V8, it will burn fuel like one.

[JohnWxy]

14. your wife's Grand Prix is a much heavier car than what you had 2.2 L engines in. A 2.2L

wouldn't pull a car as heavy as a GP very well on the highway (cruising, you are not turning enough rpms to get much help from a turbo - BUT a super-charged smaller engine could be smaller and still do the job at highway speeds as the boost is available at very low rpms (and you wouldn't need a 3.4 or 3.8 L V-6 to do the job) so you would get better mileage with the smaller engine.

I think both applications have their advantages. (by the way superchargers are not limited to 8.5 lbs. Back in the drag-racing days 11 pounds was pretty typical. Thing is, if you go to 11 you're gonna need some better pistons, rods and bearings and you might be tightening head bolts pretty frequently too. Most people don't want to be doing that.). Turbo's basically are going to be a bit more expensive than the lower tech supercharger. What I like is Manufacturers have millions of miles of experience with superchargers hauling very heavy loads at highway cruising speeds as all big trucks have been supercharged for a very long time. (of course being diesels they had to have supercharging to give them the torque required at low engine speeds). I guess I'm kindof 'old school' I just like supercharging.

Either turbo or supercharging can be used nicely to downsize you engine to get better gas consumption from the smaller engine. This is something I have been sortof frustrated about for a long time - knowing that manufacturers could have done this but chose not too. Now, they are being forced to.

BTW, I enjoyed everybody's inputs on turbo vs supercharging.

[CRF450]

20. Sorry to bring this back from the dead, but you should see this.

Good video about the Pontiac G8's fuel milage with DOD on and off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj3MpnZgXRI&feature=related

[krispos42]

19. Ah, okay.

My understanding was that at sustained highway speeds the turbos were still giving a few psi of boost. Perhaps the proliferation of 6-speed sticks and 5-speed autos lowered the engine speed enough so that doesn't happen anymore.

If that is true, then that is a good thing. I've never even driven a turbo so I'm running off of car magazines an such. :-)



You might be interested in this article I posted last year about the "turbosteamer" concept that BMW is working on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x101100

Basically it works by having a small steam turbines attached to the engine crankshaft. The heat source for the boiler is the exhaust manifold. They got 15hp at highway cruising speeds, which is about a third of what's needed to overcome air resistance.

[Howzit]

10. Turbos may be more efficient than super chargers, but they do load the engine by

increasing back pressure on the exhaust.

You can regulate boost or even uncouple a turbo system by opening the waste gate - this is done under computer control on modern cars.

[virginia mountainman]

11. A bit of Back pressure, is insignificant, compared to something..

Running off a belt on the "power side" of an engine.

It is still using a waste product of an engine, to drive itself, also, once the turbo is spooled up, it "feeds" itself.

[CRF450]

4. I'm saving up for a twin turbo kit for my car.

Which is a 01 Trans Am WS6. Their wont be any fuel savings for the cost of going doing this to my car, but it would just be awsome to have a v8 thats already has 350hp, and then easily achieve 500hp with a turbo setup. I'm sure it will be a little more effiecient, if I dont mess with anything else in the engine, it already gets around 22-23mpg on average for me. Fuel milage I expect will be no different unless I have a heavier foot after the turbo install.

Heres a ling for the exact kit for my car.

[JohnWxy]

13. your link didn't 'take' you can just put the url in by itself and i think it will work. Even if it

doesn't work I can copy it and put it in the navigation bar.

[CRF450]

15. Oh sorry, somehow it didn't post.

http://www.airpowersystems.com/fbody/tt.htm

Their you go.

[JohnWxy]

16. Thanks.

Jeeeeeezus!


Don't kill yourself!

[CRF450]

18. I wont... I hope lol.

I'm amazed of how good the torq curve is (280 at 2200rpm!!) on this setup. I wouldn't have to rev the engine much at all when driving normally.