3,652
 

Turbos Don't Save Fuel


ADVERTISEMENT
 


section  x1   |  0 bx goons and 1 bystanders Share this on Twitter       Share this on Facebook

section rides
  
 1 month ago '17        #1
818 page views
10 comments


Naga Sadow  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x2
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 81919 81 K  Slaps total: 5045 5 K
Turbos Don't Save Fuel
 

 
+3   



best
worst
10 comments
 

 1 month ago '18        #2
Blaffy  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x1
space
space
space
Props total: 68715 68 K  Slaps total: 6370 6 K

+7   

 1 month ago '14        #3
FukHowYouFeel 
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 24634 24 K  Slaps total: 5435 5 K
This guy is a fu*king moron...

Nobody that knows cars thinks turbos "save" fuel especially if you're seeking out forced induction for performance applications. Their purpose is to reduce sprung weight and fuel EFFICIENCY as it pertains to POWER OUTPUT.

It's a means of doing more with less.

Quite simply...It's a trade off. Yes bigger displacement means more torque output at lower RPM, but that means they also have less than optimal or usable power-band on the higher end of the RPM range.

Technically speaking...You could literally a*sert that a naturally-aspirated engine has infinite lag because of this.

That's why 3.4L Supra w/ 88mm turbo walk 6.2L vettes all day long and use less fuel doing so. The opposite would be true if they raced from a dead stop/dig.

Muscle guys like this always use EPA standards against turbocharged imports testing at wide-open throttle in performance-driven scenarios.

Meaning...If a guy tells you his Corvette gets better gas milage and it's as fast as a turbocharged vehicle...He's lying about the MPG. They're stating EPA test numbers when the MPG at wide-open throttle is completely different and draining on fuel.

I think a 6.2L vette probably gets like 5.5-6.5mpg at full throttle over a full tank whereas my Supra (3.4L w/ 264 cams and 1000cc injectors) came out to about 8.2-8.5mpg.

That's not peanuts over the course of a 16-18 gallon fuel tank. it's pretty substantial if one car stops and the other keeps going for another 30 miles.

That's why he was shy about saying the word "efficiency." Because he knows his point is dead. Even the car manufacturers know the truth. That's why my F-150 is a turbocharged V6 instead of a V8 like it used to be.

Oh and by the way...The fu*king V6 is literally 3 seconds faster than the V8 package in it's 0-60 time and uses less fuel to do so. That's night and day when your gas tank sized hasn't shrunk. It's also literally 500+ lbs lighter. Guess where that weight came from...



Last edited by FukHowYouFeel; 01-22-2020 at 04:28 PM..
+22   

 1 month ago '08        #4
flav 
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 11081 11 K  Slaps total: 3061 3 K
^^
Grand opening




Grand closing
+1   

 1 month ago '04        #5
xbossxplayax 
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 6872 6 K  Slaps total: 1661 1 K
hate the regulations be forcing smaller displacements. exhaust note is very important to me while performance is not as much. i hope after 90% of new cars become electric, they just let the poor souls who cling onto the remnants of the bygone era be
+1   

 1 month ago '06        #6
TheKastOne 
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 942 942  Slaps total: 112 112
 FukHowYouFeel said
This guy is a fu*king moron...

Nobody that knows cars thinks turbos "save" fuel especially if you're seeking out forced induction for performance applications. Their purpose is to reduce sprung weight and fuel EFFICIENCY as it pertains to POWER OUTPUT..[/B]

My '15 STI got about 21 mpg @ 305HP Turbo'd.

My '16 370z pictured got me about 14 mpg originally @ 332HP, had some work done to it, its still a naturally aspirated v6, but its at 397HP now and is still at 14 mpg.

60hp increase and same economy.

Any idea why?

 1 month ago '14        #7
FukHowYouFeel 
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 24634 24 K  Slaps total: 5435 5 K
 TheKastOne said
My '15 STI got about 21 mpg @ 305HP Turbo'd.

My '16 370z pictured got me about 14 mpg originally @ 332HP, had some work done to it, its still a naturally aspirated v6, but its at 397HP now and is still at 14 mpg.

60hp increase and same economy.

Any idea why?
Depends what you had done to it. But the more simple answer would be that if you’re talking basic bolt instead and a remap, your displacement and injection remains the same it’s just operating at a higher efficiency and different tune when you mash the gas at full throttle. Nobody drives at full
throttle all the time.

It kind of goes along with what I said...You’re determining the MPG across a full tank. It’s not actually being measured in real time.

The reason it matters is because you don’t drive every tank of gas exactly the same.

Now the reason why you didn’t see a huge spike across an entire tank is what I said above. It’s because the displacement is unchanged, the only way you’d see a change in MPG is in real time when you mash the gas because the mapping is changed to accommodate the additional air flow and timing.

MPG across a full tank as opposed to full throttle will always be vastly different numbers.


Last edited by FukHowYouFeel; 01-22-2020 at 10:49 PM..
+4   

 1 month ago '10        #8
FrankAndBeans 
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 10402 10 K  Slaps total: 5648 5 K
 FukHowYouFeel said
This guy is a fu*king moron...

Nobody that knows cars thinks turbos "save" fuel especially if you're seeking out forced induction for performance applications. Their purpose is to reduce sprung weight and fuel EFFICIENCY as it pertains to POWER OUTPUT.

It's a means of doing more with less.

Quite simply...It's a trade off. Yes bigger displacement means more torque output at lower RPM, but that means they also have less than optimal or usable power-band on the higher end of the RPM range.

Technically speaking...You could literally a*sert that a naturally-aspirated engine has infinite lag because of this.

That's why 3.4L Supra w/ 88mm turbo walk 6.2L vettes all day long and use less fuel doing so. The opposite would be true if they raced from a dead stop/dig.

Muscle guys like this always use EPA standards against turbocharged imports testing at wide-open throttle in performance-driven scenarios.

Meaning...If a guy tells you his Corvette gets better gas milage and it's as fast as a turbocharged vehicle...He's lying about the MPG. They're stating EPA test numbers when the MPG at wide-open throttle is completely different and draining on fuel.

I think a 6.2L vette probably gets like 5.5-6.5mpg at full throttle over a full tank whereas my Supra (3.4L w/ 264 cams and 1000cc injectors) came out to about 8.2-8.5mpg.

That's not peanuts over the course of a 16-18 gallon fuel tank. it's pretty substantial if one car stops and the other keeps going for another 30 miles.

That's why he was shy about saying the word "efficiency." Because he knows his point is dead. Even the car manufacturers know the truth. That's why my F-150 is a turbocharged V6 instead of a V8 like it used to be.

Oh and by the way...The fu*king V6 is literally 3 seconds faster than the V8 package in it's 0-60 time and uses less fuel to do so. That's night and day when your gas tank sized hasn't shrunk. It's also literally 500+ lbs lighter. Guess where that weight came from...

Turbos are more efficient because turbos are regenerative devices that use waste to create more work. In theory any application with turbos is more efficient than the same application without; the efficiency is by design, not weight loss.

Corvettes get good mileage mostly because of good aero, tall gearing and a 1st to 4th skip shift that encourages you to drive in a tall gear


Last edited by FrankAndBeans; 01-23-2020 at 03:13 AM..
+3   

 1 month ago '04        #9
Dash Marley 
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 2224 2 K  Slaps total: 85 85
IDK anyone who's gotten a turbo for fuel efficiencies

 1 month ago '16        #10
Proveone  topics gone triple plat - Number 1 spot x1
space
space
space
Props total: 16372 16 K  Slaps total: 1352 1 K
 FukHowYouFeel said
This guy is a fu*king moron...

Nobody that knows cars thinks turbos "save" fuel especially if you're seeking out forced induction for performance applications. Their purpose is to reduce sprung weight and fuel EFFICIENCY as it pertains to POWER OUTPUT.

It's a means of doing more with less.

Quite simply...It's a trade off. Yes bigger displacement means more torque output at lower RPM, but that means they also have less than optimal or usable power-band on the higher end of the RPM range.

Technically speaking...You could literally a*sert that a naturally-aspirated engine has infinite lag because of this.

That's why 3.4L Supra w/ 88mm turbo walk 6.2L vettes all day long and use less fuel doing so. The opposite would be true if they raced from a dead stop/dig.

Muscle guys like this always use EPA standards against turbocharged imports testing at wide-open throttle in performance-driven scenarios.

Meaning...If a guy tells you his Corvette gets better gas milage and it's as fast as a turbocharged vehicle...He's lying about the MPG. They're stating EPA test numbers when the MPG at wide-open throttle is completely different and draining on fuel.

I think a 6.2L vette probably gets like 5.5-6.5mpg at full throttle over a full tank whereas my Supra (3.4L w/ 264 cams and 1000cc injectors) came out to about 8.2-8.5mpg.

That's not peanuts over the course of a 16-18 gallon fuel tank. it's pretty substantial if one car stops and the other keeps going for another 30 miles.

That's why he was shy about saying the word "efficiency." Because he knows his point is dead. Even the car manufacturers know the truth. That's why my F-150 is a turbocharged V6 instead of a V8 like it used to be.

Oh and by the way...The fu*king V6 is literally 3 seconds faster than the V8 package in it's 0-60 time and uses less fuel to do so. That's night and day when your gas tank sized hasn't shrunk. It's also literally 500+ lbs lighter. Guess where that weight came from...

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read the title. Why does this video exist? I didn't know anyone was a*serting the opposite
+1   

 1 month ago '06        #11
imthatinfamous 
space
avatar space
space
Props total: 10874 10 K  Slaps total: 4278 4 K
 FukHowYouFeel said
This guy is a fu*king moron...

Nobody that knows cars thinks turbos "save" fuel especially if you're seeking out forced induction for performance applications. Their purpose is to reduce sprung weight and fuel EFFICIENCY as it pertains to POWER OUTPUT.

It's a means of doing more with less.

Quite simply...It's a trade off. Yes bigger displacement means more torque output at lower RPM, but that means they also have less than optimal or usable power-band on the higher end of the RPM range.

Technically speaking...You could literally a*sert that a naturally-aspirated engine has infinite lag because of this.

That's why 3.4L Supra w/ 88mm turbo walk 6.2L vettes all day long and use less fuel doing so. The opposite would be true if they raced from a dead stop/dig.

Muscle guys like this always use EPA standards against turbocharged imports testing at wide-open throttle in performance-driven scenarios.

Meaning...If a guy tells you his Corvette gets better gas milage and it's as fast as a turbocharged vehicle...He's lying about the MPG. They're stating EPA test numbers when the MPG at wide-open throttle is completely different and draining on fuel.

I think a 6.2L vette probably gets like 5.5-6.5mpg at full throttle over a full tank whereas my Supra (3.4L w/ 264 cams and 1000cc injectors) came out to about 8.2-8.5mpg.

That's not peanuts over the course of a 16-18 gallon fuel tank. it's pretty substantial if one car stops and the other keeps going for another 30 miles.

That's why he was shy about saying the word "efficiency." Because he knows his point is dead. Even the car manufacturers know the truth. That's why my F-150 is a turbocharged V6 instead of a V8 like it used to be.

Oh and by the way...The fu*king V6 is literally 3 seconds faster than the V8 package in it's 0-60 time and uses less fuel to do so. That's night and day when your gas tank sized hasn't shrunk. It's also literally 500+ lbs lighter. Guess where that weight came from...




+2   



ADVERTISEMENT
Sign me up
 
 

yesterday...


most viewed right now
online now  37
Kingearner puts beanie sigel as a snitch. Sigel calls in
55 comments
20 hours ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
-90online now  28
Did Tyson Fury cheat by having something in his gloves?
107 comments
2 days ago
@sports
most viewed right now
-70online now  19
Video inside Chris Brown EXPOSED! Drug usage confirmed by Offset & ABC News
64 comments
1 day ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
-69online now  13
Pusha Tea exposed as never being a real drug dealer
293 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
back to top
register register Follow BX @ Twitter search BX privacy