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)
Corporate imperialist
oil pan 4's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 10,329

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
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)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 248
Thanked 3,318 Times in 2,616 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.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  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: 1,486

MisFit Talon - '91 Eagle Talon TSi
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 39.03 mpg (US)

Warlock - '71 Chevy Camaro

Fe Eclipse - '97 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS
Thanks: 1,149
Thanked 539 Times in 350 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.
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: 4,150

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,784
Thanked 1,919 Times in 1,246 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?

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
Stubby79's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 1,747

Firefly EV - '98 Pontiac Firefly EV
90 day: 107.65 mpg (US)

Little Boy Blue - '05 Toyota Echo
90 day: 33.35 mpg (US)

BlueZ - '19 Nissan 370Z Sport
90 day: 17.19 mpg (US)
Thanks: 75
Thanked 570 Times in 425 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)
Volvo-driving MachYeen
Fingie's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 788

Neo Volvo - '98 Volvo S70 10V
90 day: 24.98 mpg (US)
Thanks: 298
Thanked 82 Times in 68 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.

With Volvo to Valhalla and back!

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
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: 11,203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,390 Times in 1,238 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.

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)
Master EcoModder
teoman's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 1,242

A3 - '12 Audi A3
Thanks: 65
Thanked 224 Times in 185 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: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
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)
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 64
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
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:

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

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.

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

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 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com