FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[KyrosV]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

This is what they get in Australia. Here are 2 almost same cars. FG Falcon XR6 Turbo (4.0 Litre in line 6 Turbo) and FG Falcon XR8 (NA 5.4 Litre V8). The XR6 Turbo is lighter, quicker and consumes less petrol. Conclusion. Turbocharged sixes are generally better than NA V8s.

thats my point

[bud]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

This is what they get in Australia. Here are 2 almost same cars. FG Falcon XR6 Turbo (4.0 Litre in line 6 Turbo) and FG Falcon XR8 (NA 5.4 Litre V8). The XR6 Turbo is lighter, quicker and consumes less petrol. Conclusion. Turbocharged sixes are generally better than NA V8s.

the fuel Consumption for the NA XR6 is 11 litres per 100 Km
the fuel consumption for the XR6 Turbo is 12 litres per 100km

look it up on Ford.com.au

turbo = more fuel consumption on the same engine! ofcourse when you compare engine displacement ie a 4litre or a 2 litre to a 6 litre then consumptions will vary. but the comparing the exact same engine then sticking a turbo on it then the turbo will burn more fuel!
they are not the green answer thats for sure!!

[Gaz]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

This is what they get in Australia. Here are 2 almost same cars. FG Falcon XR6 Turbo (4.0 Litre in line 6 Turbo) and FG Falcon XR8 (NA 5.4 Litre V8). The XR6 Turbo is lighter, quicker and consumes less petrol. Conclusion. Turbocharged sixes are generally better than NA V8s.

the fuel Consumption for the NA XR6 is 11 litres per 100 Km
the fuel consumption for the XR6 Turbo is 12 litres per 100km

look it up on Ford.com.au

turbo = more fuel consumption on the same engine! ofcourse when you compare engine displacement ie a 4litre or a 2 litre to a 6 litre then consumptions will vary. but the comparing the exact same engine then sticking a turbo on it then the turbo will burn more fuel!
they are not the green answer thats for sure!!

Yeh its simple physics you can't put less FUEL into a REACTION and get more ENERGY all the Turbo does is give a bigger BANG because increased oxygen and fuel.

Because of the bigger "bang" you can get a smaller engine which is lighter to get similar amount of power to a heaver NA engine.

But it don't always work in this case the weight of the car/engine isn't reduced enough to make it more fuel efficient.

[KyrosV]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

This is what they get in Australia. Here are 2 almost same cars. FG Falcon XR6 Turbo (4.0 Litre in line 6 Turbo) and FG Falcon XR8 (NA 5.4 Litre V8). The XR6 Turbo is lighter, quicker and consumes less petrol. Conclusion. Turbocharged sixes are generally better than NA V8s.

the fuel Consumption for the NA XR6 is 11 litres per 100 Km
the fuel consumption for the XR6 Turbo is 12 litres per 100km

look it up on Ford.com.au

turbo = more fuel consumption on the same engine! ofcourse when you compare engine displacement ie a 4litre or a 2 litre to a 6 litre then consumptions will vary. but the comparing the exact same engine then sticking a turbo on it then the turbo will burn more fuel!
they are not the green answer thats for sure!!

Im not saying the same size engines.

a V6 Turbo is more efficient than a NA V8 and quicker

A NA V6 engine wouldnt be good enough...

[Gaz]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

This is what they get in Australia. Here are 2 almost same cars. FG Falcon XR6 Turbo (4.0 Litre in line 6 Turbo) and FG Falcon XR8 (NA 5.4 Litre V8). The XR6 Turbo is lighter, quicker and consumes less petrol. Conclusion. Turbocharged sixes are generally better than NA V8s.

the fuel Consumption for the NA XR6 is 11 litres per 100 Km
the fuel consumption for the XR6 Turbo is 12 litres per 100km

look it up on Ford.com.au

turbo = more fuel consumption on the same engine! ofcourse when you compare engine displacement ie a 4litre or a 2 litre to a 6 litre then consumptions will vary. but the comparing the exact same engine then sticking a turbo on it then the turbo will burn more fuel!
they are not the green answer thats for sure!!

Im not saying the same size engines.

a V6 Turbo is more efficient than a NA V8 and quicker

A NA V6 engine wouldnt be good enough...

You can't just say that in relation to F1 it depends on the Engine Size (liters too)

i mean a 5 Litre V6 is perhaps going to weight almost as much as a 3.0L V8

the tolerances in F1 are so fine on top of all that.

I can't see turbo's comming back to F1 as part of a enerygy efficiancey driver because

1. They have reliability issues.
2. It would cost more initialy.
3. There wouldn't me much of a fuel saving if any.

[bud]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

This is what they get in Australia. Here are 2 almost same cars. FG Falcon XR6 Turbo (4.0 Litre in line 6 Turbo) and FG Falcon XR8 (NA 5.4 Litre V8). The XR6 Turbo is lighter, quicker and consumes less petrol. Conclusion. Turbocharged sixes are generally better than NA V8s.

the fuel Consumption for the NA XR6 is 11 litres per 100 Km
the fuel consumption for the XR6 Turbo is 12 litres per 100km

look it up on Ford.com.au

turbo = more fuel consumption on the same engine! ofcourse when you compare engine displacement ie a 4litre or a 2 litre to a 6 litre then consumptions will vary. but the comparing the exact same engine then sticking a turbo on it then the turbo will burn more fuel!
they are not the green answer thats for sure!!

Im not saying the same size engines.

a V6 Turbo is more efficient than a NA V8 and quicker

A NA V6 engine wouldnt be good enough...

say an NA V6 wouldnt be good enough? try saying that to the Nissan 350Z or NIssan V35 Skyline. their engine is an NA V6 that is very powerful with alot of punch!

and for the record the NA 5.4litre V8 that powers the Ford XR8 only has 2litres per 100km more consumption than the Turbo inline 6 XR6

[KyrosV]

say an NA V6 wouldnt be good enough? try saying that to the Nissan 350Z or NIssan V35 Skyline. their engine is an NA V6 that is very powerful with alot of punch!

and for the record the NA 5.4litre V8 that powers the Ford XR8 only has 2litres per 100km more consumption than the Turbo inline 6 XR6

ok so back in the world of F1

would a V6 F1 car be comaparable to a V8 F1 car?
a V6 turbo F1 car would be better than an V8 F1 car

as it would:
- be more fuel efficient
- more powerfull
- less reliable BUT Im sure F1s manufacturers can put pay to that.
- will help the FIAs cost cutting mission
- will help the FIAs greener F1 mission
- AND will help the FIAs relevance to Road cars mission

[bud]

- will help cost cutting? the teams would have to go back to the drawing board and design an entire new engine from scratch. that is not going to be cheap

- forced induction engines due to their function are put under alot more stress than an NA engine so engine life as you say will be shortened and this will not help in the money stakes either!

- will not help the green mission. F1 will still be dependent on fossil fuels. the only green way is alternate fuels!

will help road cars? turbos have been on road cars for a long long time now! its not a new concept!


if their gonna lose a couple of cylinders and lose displacement why bother with the turbo at all and why not have an NA V6 1.5 litre that can rev to 20k rpm

[KyrosV]

- will help cost cutting? the teams would have to go back to the drawing board and design an entire new engine from scratch. that is not going to be cheap

Manufacturers of the engines will have to pay, but it will be benifitial. Most already have production of V6 sports engines. It wont be from scratch

- forced induction engines due to their function are put under alot more stress than an NA engine so engine life as you say will be shortened and this will not help in the money stakes either!

its a challenge, thats what F1s supposed to be about


- will not help the green mission. F1 will still be dependent on fossil fuels. the only green way is alternate fuels!

what about a diesel Biofuel that the FIA are looking to bring in anyway. It works, just look at LeMans. Indy also uses biofuels I think... (I know Biofuels still have a fue enviromental issues behind it)

will help road cars? turbos have been on road cars for a long long time now! its not a new concept!

some cars already have KERS... Using it in F1 they will find improvements in the system that will be filtered down to the everyday Road car

if their gonna lose a couple of cylinders and lose displacement why bother with the turbo at all and why not have an NA V6 1.5 litre that can rev to 20k rpm

F1 wont be the pinical of motor sports if it has slow engines, running V6s at 20,000rpm isnt going to make it more reliable is it..

overall Turbocharged F1 cars are an exciting and good idea.

...This really should be on a seperate thread =/

[nsaqam]

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

Ummm, no. The turbocharger uses the exhaust gasses to spin a turbine in excess of 100,000 RPM. This turbine (the cold side) compresses the incoming charge of air alone to force the combustion chambers to accept more oxygen. The ECU injects enough fuel to maintain the proper fuel/air mixture (called the stoiciometric ratio).
The efficiency advantages attributed to turbos comes solely from their ability to extract more power than a naturally aspirated engine of identical displacement.
I believe in the fantastic turbo era of F1 you were allowed an NA engine of 3.0 or 3.5 liters or a turbo engine of 1.5 liters. All the manufacturers realized they could get far more power from a 1.5 turbo than they could get from a NA engine of twice the displacement. The 1.5 liter, 4 cylinder BMW/Megatron engine developed something near 1500 horsepower in qualifying trim!!!!! These engines didn't last long in qualifying trim though so they were dialed down to somewhere around 1000 HP for the races.
One more thing about Ferrari V. Everyone else.
Why doesn't anyone mention the decade or more where Ferrari didn't win a single race!

[scotty]

Why doesn't anyone mention the decade or more where Ferrari didn't win a single race!

Eh? When was that? I don't think that ever happened...

[nsaqam]

Why doesn't anyone mention the decade or more where Ferrari didn't win a single race!

Eh? When was that? I don't think that ever happened...

You're right!
I got my F1 history messed up but Ferrari failed to win a WDC for 2 decades!!! 1980-1999!!!
Jody Scheckter won it in 1979 and Michael Schumacher won it next for Ferrari in 2000.
This despite having drivers like Prost, Mansell, Alesi, Gilles Villenueve and other top flight pilots.
Surely an embarrassing and easily forgotten 2 decades for the tifosi.

[Gaz]

- will help cost cutting? the teams would have to go back to the drawing board and design an entire new engine from scratch. that is not going to be cheap

Manufacturers of the engines will have to pay, but it will be benifitial. Most already have production of V6 sports engines. It wont be from scratch

Yes it will you can't use a V6 sports car engine for a F1 Car it would need a brand new engine there would be increased cost in this which the FIA are trying to avoid with the engine freeze

- forced induction engines due to their function are put under alot more stress than an NA engine so engine life as you say will be shortened and this will not help in the money stakes either!

its a challenge, thats what F1s supposed to be about

Yeh but you would either get slower cars or me engine failures both of which would get boring.


- will not help the green mission. F1 will still be dependent on fossil fuels. the only green way is alternate fuels!

what about a diesel Biofuel that the FIA are looking to bring in anyway. It works, just look at LeMans. Indy also uses biofuels I think... (I know Biofuels still have a fue enviromental issues behind it)

Diesel F1 cars? no just no.

will help road cars? turbos have been on road cars for a long long time now! its not a new concept!

some cars already have KERS... Using it in F1 they will find improvements in the system that will be filtered down to the everyday Road car

Yeh no disagreement with KERS but Turbo's would cost too much for the reasons stated above

if their gonna lose a couple of cylinders and lose displacement why bother with the turbo at all and why not have an NA V6 1.5 litre that can rev to 20k rpm

F1 wont be the pinical of motor sports if it has slow engines, running V6s at 20,000rpm isnt going to make it more reliable is it..

Correct so your back to square one, all that will happen is that engines will have to last longer so you will get the NA V8s being pushed to last 4 - or 5 races.

overall Turbocharged F1 cars are an exciting and good idea.

...This really should be on a seperate thread =/

Turbo's have come and gone, the FIA is trying to save money and forcing manufacturers to create new engines to work with turbos is going against the grain there. i'd rather see a NA V8 than a Turbo V6.

[nsaqam]

Costs aside the most exciting engines ever put into a F1 chassis were the turbos of the late '70's and '80's.
Lightswitch like transition from 100 fluffy HP to 1300 screaming, shrieking horses. These engines make Senna's wet performances even more remarkable.
FIA could have both reduced costs and increased performance if they mandated 1.0 liter turbos with very high boost limits but with the stipulation that the engines last 3 or 4 races. Mandate that the engine manufacturers provide identical engines to at least 3 teams. I'm sure there are tons more issues to work out but I just loved the raw power and amazing sound of the turbos.

[AKR]

Turbochargers burn of less fuel I.e better fuel economy and reduced emissions.

So if we stuck a turbo on the current engine would they all of the sudden burn less fuel?
ok for example turbo Astra vs N/A Astra, same engine but one has forced induction. which one will burn more fuel? Im thinking the Turbo!

the myth that turbo's are green stems from comparing them to large displacement engines, but they are still gas guzzlers in their own right!

Nooooooo what kind of Turbos do you get down under??

Turbos Inject the fuel and lets less air get into the combustion chamber so it doesnt waste by burning excess fuel. therefore you get more miles for your gallon. plus the bonus of more power (once it kicks in)

its more of a myth that turbos are not green...

(I am talking V6 turbo compared to NA V8 btw)

This is what they get in Australia. Here are 2 almost same cars. FG Falcon XR6 Turbo (4.0 Litre in line 6 Turbo) and FG Falcon XR8 (NA 5.4 Litre V8). The XR6 Turbo is lighter, quicker and consumes less petrol. Conclusion. Turbocharged sixes are generally better than NA V8s.

the fuel Consumption for the NA XR6 is 11 litres per 100 Km
the fuel consumption for the XR6 Turbo is 12 litres per 100km

look it up on Ford.com.au

turbo = more fuel consumption on the same engine! ofcourse when you compare engine displacement ie a 4litre or a 2 litre to a 6 litre then consumptions will vary. but the comparing the exact same engine then sticking a turbo on it then the turbo will burn more fuel!
they are not the green answer thats for sure!!

That is higway figures. When idling in traffic the turbo consumes less because the turbo isn't kicking in.