FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[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!!

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

its common knowledge highway miles are more efficient when compared to the stop start city driving!

[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!!

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

F1 Cars don't stop start do they?

the turbo will be always on.

[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.

its common knowledge highway miles are more efficient when compared to the stop start city driving!

Drive in a big city anywhere in the world and you'll be starting and stopping all the time. Thus idiling a lot. Turbo is better. Better still Ford and Holden should scrap all big engines. Ford's in line 4.0 litre 6 even without the turbo is thirsty. Why not do what Saab does. Bring out like a Turbo 2.3 litre with Turbo. They wacked it on the 93 and as a Viggen Spec was very fast. I know because I got one by the way. Now get the same engine, put it in a Saab 95 which is around the size of a Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore, tweak it up a little more while your at it and for the city it will be perfect. It will consume a lot less than any 4.0 litre 6 and 3.8 litre V6 (Holden) engine and defently less than the Turbo variants (Ford) and Supercharged Variants (Holden) plus V8s from both sides, especially in traffic and power and speed wise would be quicker than both NA 6s and just as quick as the Turbo 6s and V8s. Easy. Turbo is better. However Longbow is right. In F1, the cars don't really stop so the idling concept goes right out the door.

[bud]

not bothering anymore

[AKR]

not bothering anymore

Well F1 wise it doesn't matter anyway. They wont bring back Turbos. They generally cost more than NA engines anyway and all they want to do these days is save on costs.

[Rick_1138]

Having read through most of this, AKR mnakes some good points and the Mclaren chums make some good points.

I am a Honda fan so i get to be semi biased, i was happy Hamilton won, simply to have a bit of variety in the winners and team etc.

However Mclaren was dominant in the 80's, Ferrari was dominant in the 90/00's, Ferrari may have a situation where the wheels fall off their wagon and it all goes to hell.

Thhink that couldn't happen, look at the Ferrari win\fortunes from the period of late 1970 - 1997, they won almost nothing, it was usually williams, Renault or Mclaren.

Ferrari got the benefit of full govt funding (through Fiat) and were able to spend the largets sum of money over any other team in F1, and they got a team of excellent management, engineering and driver, Todt, Brawn and Schumacher.

This brought about Ferrari's Golden age and we are now in a situation where that could change due to big team changes etc.

However i was always wanted to see Mclaren win as its a british team (why, coz i am poatriotic to my countries manufacturers) however i like Honda's and would like to see them flourish in 09.

I like Ferraris and i like Massa, however simply saying Ferrari deserve to win and always should is a bit stupid, the most deserving team is the one that puts in the best performances, finishes every race and scores the most points, simple, be that Ferrrari, Mclaren, Honda, Red bull or BMW.

Roll on 09 and lets see what happens

Oh and can we all stop over the my team is better than yours, the of the ferrari mclaren\ hamilton massa is better, and can AKR please stop


all the Mclaren fans even if they are posing a well balanced arguments.

Those that flame should br rightly frazzled.

that is all.

[texasmr2]

I hope they do bring back turbo's and they do not necessarily mean higher cost like they did in the '80's. Remember back in the '80's they were still playing with fuel to get the highest octane they could and now we have a standard fuel.

Also now that we have a standard ecu a boost application can be added to it very easily and imo I would rather have a lower revving engine, = more reliable, with a smaller displacement that has just as much HP as these 19K rpm beast. There are many advantage's to a turbo engine making 800+hp than a 19K rpm timebomb.

Unfreeze the engine freeze asap and let's get back to what was once the greatest things about F1, innovation.

ANYWAY back ontopic I think the '09 season will be one of the most exciting, on the track, season's and I can hardly wait.

PS,
Concerning the XR6 Turbo engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuMayMAo ... re=related

[darwin dali]

Having read through most of this, AKR mnakes some good points and the Mclaren chums make some good points.

I am a Honda fan so i get to be semi biased, i was happy Hamilton won, simply to have a bit of variety in the winners and team etc.

However Mclaren was dominant in the 80's, Ferrari was dominant in the 90/00's, Ferrari may have a situation where the wheels fall off their wagon and it all goes to hell.

Thhink that couldn't happen, look at the Ferrari win\fortunes from the period of late 1970 - 1997, they won almost nothing, it was usually williams, Renault or Mclaren.

Ferrari got the benefit of full govt funding (through Fiat) and were able to spend the largets sum of money over any other team in F1, and they got a team of excellent management, engineering and driver, Todt, Brawn and Schumacher.

This brought about Ferrari's Golden age and we are now in a situation where that could change due to big team changes etc.

However i was always wanted to see Mclaren win as its a british team (why, coz i am poatriotic to my countries manufacturers) however i like Honda's and would like to see them flourish in 09.

I like Ferraris and i like Massa, however simply saying Ferrari deserve to win and always should is a bit stupid, the most deserving team is the one that puts in the best performances, finishes every race and scores the most points, simple, be that Ferrrari, Mclaren, Honda, Red bull or BMW.

Roll on 09 and lets see what happens

Oh and can we all stop over the my team is better than yours, the of the ferrari mclaren\ hamilton massa is better, and can AKR please stop


all the Mclaren fans even if they are posing a well balanced arguments.

Those that flame should br rightly frazzled.

that is all.

Two points I'd like to correct: It's been widely accepted that Toyota has had the largest budget in the paddock since they started in F1 (2002). Not sure who had the biggest before that, but I'm convinced that McLaren and Ferrari were around the same.
Secondly: Ferrari supposedly (as per di Montezemolo) does NOT get any funding from FIAT. They earn their money through customer car sales plus the various sponsors. The rest is merchandise plus TV money. FIAT would be in no position to fund Ferrari anyway given their poor financial history.

[McLaren Fan]

Ferrari supposedly (as per di Montezemolo) does NOT get any funding from FIAT. They earn their money through customer car sales plus the various sponsors. The rest is merchandise plus TV money. FIAT would be in no position to fund Ferrari anyway given their poor financial history.

The key word is supposedly.

[darwin dali]

Ferrari supposedly (as per di Montezemolo) does NOT get any funding from FIAT. They earn their money through customer car sales plus the various sponsors. The rest is merchandise plus TV money. FIAT would be in no position to fund Ferrari anyway given their poor financial history.

The key word is supposedly.

Yeah well, I put that in there just for you honey
Who knows what exactly is going on, right? But to me it is believable that Ferrari doesn't need financial aid from FIAT given their car business, huge sponsor contracts and usually a top share of the TV money based on their points.

[texasmr2]

Who knows what exactly is going on, right? But to me it is believable that Ferrari doesn't need financial aid from FIAT given their car business, huge sponsor contracts and usually a top share of the TV money based on their points.

Get ready DD put your flame suit on!!

[bud]

from what I've read Ferrari are self functioning

[AKR]

Two points I'd like to correct: It's been widely accepted that Toyota has had the largest budget in the paddock since they started in F1 (2002). Not sure who had the biggest before that, but I'm convinced that McLaren and Ferrari were around the same.
Secondly: Ferrari supposedly (as per di Montezemolo) does NOT get any funding from FIAT. They earn their money through customer car sales plus the various sponsors. The rest is merchandise plus TV money. FIAT would be in no position to fund Ferrari anyway given their poor financial history.

One thing you need to learn about Italians is that we are shifty with words. Monte said Ferrari gets money from sponsors. Which Sponsors? He doesn't say. Any of Ferrari's sponsors can be giving funds for F1 racing. A sponsor on Ferrari's F1 car is Fiat. It is all over the car. So Fiat doesn't fund Ferrari F1, Ferrari's sponsors only do........... Capisci?

[Gaz]

Two points I'd like to correct: It's been widely accepted that Toyota has had the largest budget in the paddock since they started in F1 (2002). Not sure who had the biggest before that, but I'm convinced that McLaren and Ferrari were around the same.
Secondly: Ferrari supposedly (as per di Montezemolo) does NOT get any funding from FIAT. They earn their money through customer car sales plus the various sponsors. The rest is merchandise plus TV money. FIAT would be in no position to fund Ferrari anyway given their poor financial history.

One thing you need to learn about Italians is that we are shifty with words. Monte said Ferrari gets money from sponsors. Which Sponsors? He doesn't say. Any of Ferrari's sponsors can be giving funds for F1 racing. A sponsor on Ferrari's F1 car is Fiat. It is all over the car. So Fiat doesn't fund Ferrari F1, Ferrari's sponsors only do........... Capisci?

lol kiki going all mafioso

[darwin dali]

Two points I'd like to correct: It's been widely accepted that Toyota has had the largest budget in the paddock since they started in F1 (2002). Not sure who had the biggest before that, but I'm convinced that McLaren and Ferrari were around the same.
Secondly: Ferrari supposedly (as per di Montezemolo) does NOT get any funding from FIAT. They earn their money through customer car sales plus the various sponsors. The rest is merchandise plus TV money. FIAT would be in no position to fund Ferrari anyway given their poor financial history.

One thing you need to learn about Italians is that we are shifty with words. Monte said Ferrari gets money from sponsors. Which Sponsors? He doesn't say. Any of Ferrari's sponsors can be giving funds for F1 racing. A sponsor on Ferrari's F1 car is Fiat. It is all over the car. So Fiat doesn't fund Ferrari F1, Ferrari's sponsors only do........... Capisci?

Capisco, ma non è vero...