Turbocharger, Supercharger, or Naturally Aspirated?
- Thread starter Dark_Ryder
- 137 comments
- 7,568 views
But only because it'll be generating major horsepower...
A turbo is a bit more efficient than a mechanical supercharger, but you still need similar amounts of fuel to generate similar amounts of horsepower. It's not quite the same, but the real-world fuel consumption of a 300bhp 2.0 litre turbo Evo X is about the same as a 430bhp 6.2 litre NA Corvette - bigger is better.
you have some EPA highway figures to back that up?
- 1,291
- Vermont, USA
- GTP_Superwally, supahwally
Screw them all...2-stroke!
I've often wonder how a 2 stroke would do as a larger motor. It sould i would think in theroy doubble the HP vs a 4 stroke as you get twice as many power strokes in a given amount of time. and with no "real" valve train you could turn some serious RPM vs a simmialr 4 stroke motor. some one sould make one 
never mind the EPA
never mind the EPA
- 23,800
- Philippines
But only because it'll be generating major horsepower...
A turbo is a bit more efficient than a mechanical supercharger, but you still need similar amounts of fuel to generate similar amounts of horsepower. It's not quite the same, but the real-world fuel consumption of a 300bhp 2.0 litre turbo Evo X is about the same as a 430bhp 6.2 litre NA Corvette - bigger is better.
Take note that the 4G63T was an old design, with inherent flaws. One of them being that the engine would eat itself alive if you didn't run it pig rich to keep detonation and eventual engine failure at bay.
Newer turbocharged engines don't need to run as rich, thanks to the extra cooling afforded by direct injection.
But yes, in general, power takes fuel to make...
- 23,800
- Philippines
But only because it'll be generating major horsepower...
A turbo is a bit more efficient than a mechanical supercharger, but you still need similar amounts of fuel to generate similar amounts of horsepower. It's not quite the same, but the real-world fuel consumption of a 300bhp 2.0 litre turbo Evo X is about the same as a 430bhp 6.2 litre NA Corvette - bigger is better.
Take note that the 4G63T was an old design, with inherent flaws. One of them being that the engine would eat itself alive if you didn't run it pig rich to keep detonation and eventual engine failure at bay.
Newer turbocharged engines don't need to run as rich, thanks to the extra cooling afforded by direct injection.
But yes, in general, power takes fuel to make...
nd 4 holden spd
(Banned)
- 6,142
- GTP_nd4holdenspd
- No, another PSN: nd4holdenspd
Patrik
(Banned)
- 2,231
- GTP_Patrik
Leonidae
(Banned)
- 6,881
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
with stock suspension, stock tyres, stock powertrain? Rriight.. besides, linear power delivery is not privilege of big blocks only. If you want linear, take a look of rotary. then consider the displacement and power it makes for the displacement, and suddenly the fuel economy and oil consumption starts to make sense.. after all, the rotors do 3x more RPM than the crankshaft.
nd 4 holden spd
(Banned)
- 6,142
- GTP_nd4holdenspd
- No, another PSN: nd4holdenspd
Linear power deliver in a ROTARY? Don't make me laugh, they have the worst power delivery on the planet, no bottom end at all then it comes in a sudden rush at high rpm before you change gears back into rpm that do nothing.
I'm sorry, were we talking stock everything else? Well it would be around 10sec down the 1/4 for a supercharged V8, the Z06 does a low 11 so the ZR1 should be a mighty bit faster.
- 297
- GTP_BonzoHarry
Haven't read all seven pages of this one thread, but I think I'd opt for variable geometry turbos to minimize lag and maximize torque. Seems to be the best way of making big power and torque in a more compact package. Case and point the 911 Turbo.
Otherwise I definitely prefer a sophisticated high-revving NA V8 from BMW, Audi, or Ferrari.
Otherwise I definitely prefer a sophisticated high-revving NA V8 from BMW, Audi, or Ferrari.
