What's the point?

[Ranger850]

Remember the Ford Probe, I loved this car. I was too young to know the ties ford and Mazda had at the time, but that's not what this is about. I remember the first gen Probe came with a 2.0 base 4 banger and the GT hade the same engine but with a turbo. So why are the car companies today giving us a 2.3 I4 for a base model and then a 1.8 I4 with a turbo to get roughly the same power output and roughly the same mpg. It seems to me the smaller engine has to work way harder and get hotter to do the same job. I know there are some differences in the numbers but it doesn't seem worth it when you could just turbo the bigger power plant for more performance. I think it is a trick the carmakers use to make us think we are getting a better product, but it's really a different way to get the same numbers on paper. I'm sure somebody will say something about CAFE or some other acronym govt. agency that has their hands in the Auto industry, but it seems ridiculous to pay more for an upgrade that's not that much of an upgrade to begin with.

 

[fastpakr]

Typically the smaller engines have better part throttle efficiency than the larger ones. A 1.8 turbo may have the same (or more) available power than the 2.3 when needed, but improved efficiency during normal use.

 

[Denisefwd93]

It's about what people want they want to say "I have a turbo" don't matter that it's not a screaming devil of a machine. It fits right in with so why does everybody want dual exhaust when it's not even necessary?

Remember the Ford Probe, I loved this car. I was too young to know the ties ford and Mazda had at the time, but that's not what this is about. I remember the first gen Probe came with a 2.0 base 4 banger and the GT hade the same engine but with a turbo. So why are the car companies today giving us a 2.3 I4 for a base model and then a 1.8 I4 with a turbo to get roughly the same power output and roughly the same mpg. It seems to me the smaller engine has to work way harder and get hotter to do the same job. I know there are some differences in the numbers but it doesn't seem worth it when you could just turbo the bigger power plant for more performance. I think it is a trick the carmakers use to make us think we are getting a better product, but it's really a different way to get the same numbers on paper. I'm sure somebody will say something about CAFE or some other acronym govt. agency that has their hands in the Auto industry, but it seems ridiculous to pay more for an upgrade that's not that much of an upgrade to begin with.

 

[Ranger850]

It's about what people want they want to say "I have a turbo" don't matter that it's not a screaming devil of a machine. It fits right in with so why does everybody want dual exhaust when it's not even necessary?

That's it too, I guess it's cool to say " I gotta TURBO"
I'm more of a Supercharger type of guy anyways. but I do like the idea of SC and turbos

 

[adsm08]

Typically the smaller engines have better part throttle efficiency than the larger ones. A 1.8 turbo may have the same (or more) available power than the 2.3 when needed, but improved efficiency during normal use.

Basically this. The smaller engine will produce better emissions and fuel economy with the turbo not spooled up, but can still make the power of a larger engine when you get into it. Plus a turbo (or supercharged) engine will run cleaner under boost than a naturally aspirated one. But turbos are basically free power. They are light and use exhaust gas to spin up, so no parasitic drag like you get from a supercharger.

 

[scotts90ranger]

not entirely true, the parasitic drag is in the form of exhaust backpressure which does rob some performance like a supercharger... but that's kinda splitting hairs, I like the simplicity of turbo's myself but as the old adage goes there is no replacement for displacement... my turbo Ranger is fun and does what I want it to, but torque is nice sometimes... a lot of times I wish I went 4.0L and got similar HP and more torque...

 

[Ranger850]

I thought turbos were better for top end speed and that that's why they put them on diesel engines. So the diesel could get out of its own way when getting on the highway.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I thought turbos were better for top end speed and that that's why they put them on diesel engines. So the diesel could get out of its own way when getting on the highway.

They make boost wherever you want them to.

Diesels are usually low revving, most tractors are governed under 3k rpm.

 

[adsm08]

not entirely true, the parasitic drag is in the form of exhaust backpressure which does rob some performance like a supercharger.

It's not nearly as bad with a turbo though. Turbo vanes are a minimal restriction at idle and low RPM, which is why you have to get the engine going a bit before they spool up. The supercharger on the 3.8 Super Coupes used almost as much power as it made, and used it across the whole RPM range.

I thought turbos were better for top end speed and that that's why they put them on diesel engines. So the diesel could get out of its own way when getting on the highway.

Superchargers don't lag like turbos because they are connected directly to the crank but their boost amount it still based off engine RPM. Gotta get those screws turning before they move any air.

A turbo isn't based on engine RPM as much as volume, speed and temp of exhaust flow, which are still related to RPM.

Diesels don't rev as high as but can flow more exhaust than a gas engine. Some of the big truck diesels can start coming apart as low as 6 or 7K RPM.

 

[Ranger850]

Volkswagen once put a turbo AND supercharger on one of those little tuner cars GTi Golf or Jetta or whatever. I just remember reading about it in CnD mag. SC for low end torqe and turbo for high end speed. The idea is that one would thrive where the other lacked. i.e. power from the SC while waiting for the Turbo to spool. makes sense to me.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I dont know why they cant just stick 400 CI+ big blocks in everything. Screw the govt.

Just one mans opinion.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I dont know why they cant just stick 400 CI+ big blocks in everything. Screw the govt.

Just one mans opinion.

400CI+ Ecoboosts... everybody is happy.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

400CI+ Ecoboosts... everybody is happy.

I did the math one time, if you took a 460 and added EB, assuming it made the same power per liter as a 3.5, itd match the current PSD for torque and beat it by like 100hp.

 

[fastpakr]

I did the math one time, if you took a 460 and added EB, assuming it made the same power per liter as a 3.5, itd match the current PSD for torque and beat it by like 100hp.

That's a massive assumption, but I like where your head's at.

 

[adsm08]

I dont know why they cant just stick 400 CI+ big blocks in everything. Screw the govt.

Just one mans opinion.

I'm pretty sure it is because they are making the same power with less inches, and nobody wants to pay to feed an engine that size anymore.