The cars and bikes thread!

[mlcor]

Adding parts like turbos and superchargers doesn't seem like it would be a cost reduction measure.

Companies are moving away from NA engines because of power, fuel economy and emissions. Even with the same peak power, a forced induction engine will usually make more power under the curve. The car will be quicker and offer superior driveability at lower revs than an NA engine. You can also use smaller displacement engines with fewer cylinders, which results in additional efficiency.

Theoretically that's all true, but I still scratch my head when I see a new car with all that new technology that doesn't appear to be significantly different from the old in terms of performance or efficiency. For an enthusiast, part of the fun is the ability to wind the rpm's up and keep the engine in the zone.

Anyway, there is still potential savings with more complex engines if it allows you to reduce the number of engine types you need in your company, much like standardizing car platforms to serve many different models.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[happyscrappyheropup]

Theoretically that's all true, but I still scratch my head when I see a new car with all that new technology that doesn't appear to be significantly different from the old in terms of performance or efficiency. For an enthusiast, part of the fun is the ability to wind the rpm's up and keep the engine in the zone.

A manual trans and a high revving, high powered engine is a joy. It's a shame that we're losing it in new cars but that's what project cars are for

I haven't seen dyno curves for the engines you're referring to, but comparing cars I've owned with superchargers or turbos vs my NA cars, the curves are always fatter on the blown cars. While you lose out on the joy of running a high revving engine hard, you do get a car that is quicker in most, if not all, situations. Even with the same peak numbers, the blown cars make those numbers at a lower RPM and hit harder down low.

Anyway, there is still potential savings with more complex engines if it allows you to reduce the number of engine types you need in your company, much like standardizing car platforms to serve many different models.

True. A compressor or blower swap when moving from a lower end to higher end model and you make a lot more power out of the same engine. GM sort of did that with the 6.2L LSA and LS9. The LSA was used in my car and the ZL1 Camaro. It uses a 1.9L blower and makes 556hp@6100rpm and 551tq@3800 rpm. The LS9 uses a 2.3L blower and makes 638hp@6500rpm and 604hp@3800rpm. The LS9 also received internal upgrades to pistons, caps, camshaft and other parts.

[geoffbot]

This is mildly interesting http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...ught-in-2016/?

[mlcor]

This is mildly interesting http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...ught-in-2016/?

Only 457 4C's sold--surprising, but I guess it's a niche car. The Elise probably never sold much more than that, I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[geoffbot]

Turned the DTC on (confusingly this actually allows for more wheelspin) and got the back end out yesterday-lively! Much fun.

Still looking at naturally aspirated 3 litres though. Apparently the real world mpg isn't noticeably any worse than the 2l turbo (as mlcor says) which sounds a bit shit tbh. I have a sickness - why can I not just settle!

[Seriously]

Turbo FTW

[geoffbot]

Maybe. But I think a naturally aspirated 3l six is better than a turbo 2l 4.

[Seriously]

Maybe. But I think a naturally aspirated 3l six is better than a turbo 2l 4.

In what way specifically ?

[Seriously]

I'm just trying to understand your illness

[geoffbot]

Probably not a noticeable one. Or not something I wouldn't get used to very quickly.

My sickness is that I always want more.