Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-31-2016, 11:45 PM   #11 (permalink)
V8 guy
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 4,444

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)
Thanks: 98
Thanked 994 Times in 727 Posts
Turbocharged gasoline engine typically run lower compression ratio and richer air fuel ratio. So of course fuel economy will be lower.

__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 09-01-2016, 12:13 AM   #12 (permalink)
In Lean Burn Mode
 
pgfpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,402

MisFit Talon - '91 Eagle Talon TSi
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 43.87 mpg (US)

Insight into the Future - '00 Honda Insight
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 68.05 mpg (US)
Thanks: 987
Thanked 470 Times in 307 Posts
This might help answer your question.

I have installed around 10 turbo systems on N/A Honda engines. I did not change anything on the engines. Completely stock. These were just bolt on turbo kits and before the larger injectors, stronger heaver clutch and engine management were added the engines got the same fuel mileage as they did N/A at light load and freeway driving. The exhaust back pressure did not hurt fuel mileage at these loads. In fact I measure on two different engines that the turbo back pressure decreased at light load verses N/A because the exhaust system pipe diameter increased from 1.5 to 2.5". So there is no reason to install a exhaust cut out to bypass the turbo at light load.

As others have already said when you see two types of engines of the same family one N/A verses one turbo there's a reason the turbo engine gets poorer fuel mileage.
Lower compression.
Heavy duty internals and drivetrain two handle the HP at high load.
Fuel enrichment to keep detonation suppressed because of the uneducated car buyer.
etc.
__________________
Pressure Gradient Force
The Positive Side of the Number Line


Last edited by pgfpro; 09-01-2016 at 12:22 AM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pgfpro For This Useful Post:
Daox (09-01-2016), Daschicken (02-23-2017), MetroMPG (09-01-2016), Xist (09-01-2016)
Old 09-01-2016, 08:35 AM   #13 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 2,793

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 41.19 mpg (US)
Thanks: 872
Thanked 1,014 Times in 663 Posts
The real problem is that at the design stage, factories want to build one thing and sell it several ways instead of building several things to sell one way.

What idiot would come up with a turbo variant of an existing engine that matched it in any performance metric except maybe emissions? How would anyone pitch that to their bosses? We'll slap a turbo on it, but dial it back so it won't add much power in order to match the mpg of the regular engine. Say another engineering crew has a competing pitch: We'll slap a turbo on it, get a bunch of additional horsepower and it'll only cost us a few mpg on the EPA tests. We'll call this trim level the "Sport" and get an extra $5k for it.

Which team do you think is still going to have a job at the end of the meeting?
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fat Charlie For This Useful Post:
Xist (09-01-2016)
Old 09-01-2016, 08:55 AM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 394

Topoff - '92 Geo Metro LSi
90 day: 48.54 mpg (US)

'91 Miata - '91 Mazda Miata
90 day: 27.2 mpg (US)

'86 Fiero GT - '86 Pontiac Fiero GT

Purple Penny Pincher - '95 Pontiac Firefly Base
90 day: 38.91 mpg (US)

Jett-Black - '01 Volkswagen Jetta
90 day: 39.02 mpg (US)
Thanks: 24
Thanked 117 Times in 87 Posts
As has been mentioned, lower compression ratio, plus richer fuel ratio to keep combustion chamber temps down are the main factors. But they can get around these with direct injection these days...examples being GM's 1.4l turbo ecotec engine and VW TDI engines.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 09:44 AM   #15 (permalink)
Lada Fan
 
Fingie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 522

"The War Wagon" Aka Yevina - '03 Vaz 2111 1.5 8V Injected
90 day: 33.12 mpg (US)
Thanks: 108
Thanked 43 Times in 35 Posts
My Turbo All-trac Celica Has a 3S-GTE and gets a bit worse MPG than my previous non-turbo celica, which had a 3S-GE.

Have to account for a heftily increased drivetrain loss, though. The turbo variant is lazier on low revs but boy, I can overtake cars in 4th gear .
__________________
If you don't make any mistakes in your life,
life itself will be a f*ckup.



A V T O V A Z

Last edited by Fingie; 09-02-2016 at 09:44 AM.. Reason: Everything i am explaining does not help the cause of me being a lazy writer
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2016, 03:30 PM   #16 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 21

Eggy - '06 CitroŽn C3 1.4 HDi (DV4TD 8HZ) Exclusive
Diesel
90 day: 49.8 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
In my experience with a turbo diesel is easy and around of the 90% of the time you are
throttling go to the 75/90% engine load land.
Once you have the speed desired the engine goes to 25/30% engines load.

So turbo chargers are good for throttling in a efficient way
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2016, 12:28 PM   #17 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 4,767
Thanks: 0
Thanked 415 Times in 372 Posts
In certain circumstances, such as when an engine would be deemed underpowered if fitted in naturally-aspirated form into a large vehicle, turbocharging actually improves the efficiency regardless of fuel system, be it a carburettor or an EFI.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubby79 View Post
As has been mentioned, lower compression ratio, plus richer fuel ratio to keep combustion chamber temps down are the main factors. But they can get around these with direct injection these days...examples being GM's 1.4l turbo ecotec engine and VW TDI engines.
I guess you mean the VW 1.4 TSI, not the TDI. But anyway, detonation is not so much of an issue nowadays for those newer turbocharged engines fitted with direct injection as it used to be for port-injection engines.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2017, 05:56 PM   #18 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 219
Thanks: 11
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
I have one of those fsi engines (passat 2011 1.8 fsi).

How much extra fuel is injected? %1 - %10?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 12:02 AM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,792
Thanks: 900
Thanked 366 Times in 261 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by teoman View Post
I have one of those fsi engines (passat 2011 1.8 fsi).

How much extra fuel is injected? %1 - %10?
Depends on the situation. Older engines run hella rich (down to the 10:1 range) when in boost.

The newer engines with direct fuel injection run close to stoich at a cruise... or if you have the stratified fuel injection, it's running extra lean, so no extra fuel is being injected to cool down the engine when you're out of the boost.

Under boost, you'll be in the 12:1 range, so probably around that ten percent more. But then, even with naturally aspirated engines, manufacturers tend to run the engines richer when under load for safety reasons. Even those with direct injection.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2017, 03:58 PM   #20 (permalink)
NHB
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltothewolf View Post
I have never seen a factory turbo car that has the same gearing ratio as the NA version. The turbo version always has a shorter ratio to make it feel more 'sporty'. Thus, Killing the mileage. Also no manufacturer in the past has economy in mind when tuning the ECU and other systems on a turbo version.
I believe that you are talking about cars, which have seen the daylight a long time ago. Those old turbos used to be weak a low revs and needed short gearing to compensate their weakness. Modern turbo engine are strong at low revs and have virtually ALWAYS taller gearing than a comparable NA engine.

Here is a list of 1 liter engined cars from years 2015-2016. Speeds at 1000 rpm at the tallest gear are:

Turbo:
Ford Focus - 41.2 km/h
VW Golf - 44.4 km/h
Kia Cee'd - 44.6 km/h
Opel Corsa - 45,5 km/h

NA:
Hyundai i10 - 31.1 km/h
Renault Twingo - 33.5 km/h
Peugeot 108 - 37.1 km/h
Toyota Aygo - 35.1 km/h


Let's take some examples from the year 2013.

Turbo:
Audi A3 1.4 - 46.9 km/h
BMW 320i - 56.7 km/h
VW golf 1.2 - 44.4 km/h

NA:
Honda Civic 1.8i - 37.2 km/h
Mazda6 2.0 - 41.2 km/h

It is very clear, that turbo means taller gearing.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com