Turbo Vehicles And What Could Have Been...

[jjman]

Seeing EVO magazine's write up on the Pagani Huayra gave me a huge phat. We now have a motor that is a 6 litre V12 running twin turbo's.... ohhhh yes.

That is an awesome bit of kit and i rate it that much more now it has twin snails spinning up the madness as well as that overall sculpting of the body and cockpit. Just pure automotive utopia in my books...

The thing is this all got me thinking. I love turbo cars- how much power they can generate, how efficiently, and how easy it is to make them go even harder (compared to modding or developing NA motors)

Whats more is just how many of the worlds top cars (outright speed as well as benchmark models) are now turbo (or forced induction at least).

For example in my rudimentary count of the worlds fastest cars at least 6 of the top 10 are turbod counting that fact that the Huayra will certainly join this group. (XJ220, Bugatti EB, Saleen S7, Bugatti Veyron, Ultimate Aero TT ) +1 more forced induction in the CCR- n that our side of the fence, not NA's

Furthermore, the top 2 are turbo's (Veyron and Ultimate Aero TT). Perhaps it will be the top 3 or 4 with the addition of the new McLaren MP4 and Huayra.

Now this got me thinking, this all proves just how good turbocharging really is. But then i became sad when thinking what 'could have been'. By this i mean the F1 hey-days of turbocharging and the tech development this would have been creating in turbocharging (they are argued to have been pushing up to 1500 hp out of them in qualifying using over 5 BAR OF BOOST on 1.5 litre motors)- and then followed the limp dicked pussy-as-f*k regulations ruling that banned turbocharging.

Can you imagine where turbo cars would be today if this hadnt have been the case. Can you imagine where the tech development and application would have gotten too with an additional 20 years at the top of prototype development that occurs in F1??!!

Im thinking that 9 out of 10 of the worlds fastest would be turbos with the last place probably going to a S/C vehicle. More than that can you imagine where sports cars would be at now? the donk in the current GTR probably would have been in the R34!!.

Variable geometry turbos such as found in current porsches and a few other's would have been in our R33's!. Lag and turbo's having limited efficiencies of application would have been sorted in the 90's.

If some redneck came up with statements like its got '6.2 litres' or 'aint no replacement for displacement' our simple response probably would have been "child please". and we could have left it at that cos turbo's would have been the undisputed king.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. And for christ sake bring the turbo's back to F1

[wedge_r34gtr]

Turbos are back in f1 stArting 2013, although with 1.6l 4 pots, which will cross over with rally. I miss em aswell

[Galois]

Bmw has been saying for a few years now that turbo-charging is the way of the future, as it is the more efficient use of fuel and production of power.

[Touge Kyousou]

I still prefer n/a.

Only have a turbo because it's good bang for buck.

[Galois]

I wonder if turbos without lag feel much more like NA...

In the future energy recovery systems like turbos will be used more and more extensively.

[GTR-N1]

Seeing EVO magazine's write up on the Pagani Huayra gave me a huge phat. We now have a motor that is a 6 litre V12 running twin turbo's.... ohhhh yes.

That is an awesome bit of kit and i rate it that much more now it has twin snails spinning up the madness as well as that overall sculpting of the body and cockpit. Just pure automotive utopia in my books...

The thing is this all got me thinking. I love turbo cars- how much power they can generate, how efficiently, and how easy it is to make them go even harder (compared to modding or developing NA motors)

Whats more is just how many of the worlds top cars (outright speed as well as benchmark models) are now turbo (or forced induction at least).

For example in my rudimentary count of the worlds fastest cars at least 6 of the top 10 are turbod counting that fact that the Huayra will certainly join this group. (XJ220, Bugatti EB, Saleen S7, Bugatti Veyron, Ultimate Aero TT ) +1 more forced induction in the CCR- n that our side of the fence, not NA's

Furthermore, the top 2 are turbo's (Veyron and Ultimate Aero TT). Perhaps it will be the top 3 or 4 with the addition of the new McLaren MP4 and Huayra.

Now this got me thinking, this all proves just how good turbocharging really is. But then i became sad when thinking what 'could have been'. By this i mean the F1 hey-days of turbocharging and the tech development this would have been creating in turbocharging (they are argued to have been pushing up to 1500 hp out of them in qualifying using over 5 BAR OF BOOST on 1.5 litre motors)- and then followed the limp dicked pussy-as-f*k regulations ruling that banned turbocharging.

Can you imagine where turbo cars would be today if this hadnt have been the case. Can you imagine where the tech development and application would have gotten too with an additional 20 years at the top of prototype development that occurs in F1??!!

Im thinking that 9 out of 10 of the worlds fastest would be turbos with the last place probably going to a S/C vehicle. More than that can you imagine where sports cars would be at now? the donk in the current GTR probably would have been in the R34!!.

Variable geometry turbos such as found in current porsches and a few other's would have been in our R33's!. Lag and turbo's having limited efficiencies of application would have been sorted in the 90's.

If some redneck came up with statements like its got '6.2 litres' or 'aint no replacement for displacement' our simple response probably would have been "child please". and we could have left it at that cos turbo's would have been the undisputed king.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. And for christ sake bring the turbo's back to F1

...and my wife thinks I do too much thinking

[sneakey pete]

I'd say it isn't all bad. Half the stuff needed for better turbos in the last 2 decades (eg, better materials, bearings, manufacturing methods) have all been developed regardless of them being in F1, for numerous other reasons.

If i wasn't lazy i'd find a link to some popular mechanics article in the 80's where some big designers in the major automakers said that they didn't think turbocharging was anything more than a fad. They also said that 2 stroke auto engines were also a fad, which turned out ot be true however.

(magazines are on google books incase people are interested. even the ones from the 1930's)

[iplen]

Bare in mind that F1 is not the only motorsport used for development, and truth is that others forms of motorsport are much closer to the real world...

[ARTZ]

also you must remember even F1 cars are massively detuned from what they really could be in order to keep them safe..Not much use having more power if it cant stick to the ground, with the HP limits they have an NA engine is just as good as a turbo one. Also Indy cars have run turbos for ages have a top speed up around 400 too but is only useful on an oval track, so pretty useless for F1, now they run na V8s and are hardly slower. if turbocharging is the answer why have the GTRs gone from 2.6lt to 3.8lt engines, obviously more displacement has its merits. personally I think the balance is to be had somewhere in the middle, engines need to be large enough to have lowdown torque but need to charged for ultimate power.

Problem is when you give everybody turbos for their streeters and every dumbass realizes you can get more power by cranking the boost up they tend to go round killing themselves cause cars dont yet have the safety features required to make them stick, this was proved all through the 90s with fatal import stacks on TV weekly.

And why complain about "redneck statements" when the US Indy cars run turbos for years and probably will again soon. Its a pretty low blow to the rednecks mate, but you get that alot round here If you truly believe you are more intelligent than a redneck why lower yourself to the same discriminatory level

[Birds]

This is all assuming that every manufacturer takes their tech from F1. Turbos have been around for a very, long time, and I don't think that what F1 would have done for them is anything that the diesel engineers wouldn't have come up with years before. Truth is, that what is being used as a trend in the mainstream manufacture of vehicles is more relevant to what gets developed. Tis the reason many diesel engines now have direct injection, as a result of increased popularity in diesel road cars over the past two decades. It's the reason hybrid engines now have a large focus from R&D...don't see any electric F1 cars...yet.

Displacement is always king. Whatever can be done to the small engine can be done to a larger one. Tis a silly thing to both say or argue with this statement in the first place though. You might as well just say power or torque is king, or a faster speed is king...well no shit.

[tm_r33]

Interesting views guys. I tend to agree that maybe the rate at which turbocharger technology has come forward may not have been effected by whether or not F1 was using turbochargers. Turbocharging is a huge part of the diesel world and i think that this area alone may well be more responsible for where we at, so to speak, with turbochargers.

But in saying that, I welcome the use of turbocharging in F1. I do have a soft spot for anything turbod. Even prime movers (trucks) that only rev to let say less than 3000 rpm. its amazing how much power can be made with the use of turbos. And how efficently they do it.

Increased displacement is great for torque ya da ya da... But at the same time, if you can have an engine thats only half the size but can still make equal power if it utilizes turbocharger technology then hell, why not turbo it.

I would tend to agree about all cars being turbocharged too. I dont thing we want every idiot on the road to have the option of creating crazy power for the price of a boost tee. and maybe a few other cheap supporting mods.

forced induction being driven by exhaust gas that would otherwise be wasted is an excellent option and i think allways will be.

my 2c

[PSI-FED]

Turbochargers are always going to be superior and more efficient than a naturally aspirated engine and thats just simple physics. More air into motor for same amount of work = win.

In saying that displacement is very important. Look at the rb26 for example. As great as a motor it is it will never achieve the torque curves of a rb30 or 2j for the simple fact that its lacking the extra cc's. Turbo IS great, however at the end of the day there is no replacement for displacement especially when the two complement each other. Heck look at the big 4L XR6 falcons and how easy it is to extract power out of them.

Compare the Rb26 to a LS2-TT for example. 1.3L driving a pair of gt25 turbos vs 3L driving a much bigger pair of turbos. Not really rocket science which will make more power and usable torque..

[sneakey pete]

Tis the reason many diesel engines now have direct injection,

Err, the reason all diesels have direct injection right now is same reason why they've all always had direct injection from the very start. Its how they work.

I'm assuming you meant petrol there?

[Birds]

Ahhh yes, that should say petrol, thank you.

That said, not all diesels are direct injection...

[ras1983]

This isn't really a turbo vs displacement discussion; it's more of a turbo vs NA discussion. NAs have great response, but turbo engines have that awesome mid-range torque kick that is so addictive.

Does anyone know if it's easier to get more power out of forced induction engines? Is it more expensive to get more power out of NA engines? Maybe this is one of the reasons a lot of today's performance cars are going turbo?

Edited April 18, 2011 by ras1983

[jjman]

Bmw has been saying for a few years now that turbo-charging is the way of the future, as it is the more efficient use of fuel and production of power.

exactly. n the 335 tt is meant to be quite the bit of kit, better than the m3 V8 and very tunable...

I still prefer n/a.

Only have a turbo because it's good bang for buck.

ahhhhh, ok. N that is why you have an insanely modded turbo car? (in your signature area)

I wonder if turbos without lag feel much more like NA...

In the future energy recovery systems like turbos will be used more and more extensively.

yes they do. The current porsche turbo is meant to feel like a big-block in the way it pulls. Can't remember what it was but it was making an insane amount of torque well below 2000rpm

I'd say it isn't all bad. Half the stuff needed for better turbos in the last 2 decades (eg, better materials, bearings, manufacturing methods) have all been developed regardless of them being in F1, for numerous other reasons.

If i wasn't lazy i'd find a link to some popular mechanics article in the 80's where some big designers in the major automakers said that they didn't think turbocharging was anything more than a fad. They also said that 2 stroke auto engines were also a fad, which turned out ot be true however.

(magazines are on google books incase people are interested. even the ones from the 1930's)

yes it has been developed regardless of F1, but i would undoubtedly have been far better had they remained there....

also you must remember even F1 cars are massively detuned from what they really could be in order to keep them safe..Not much use having more power if it cant stick to the ground, with the HP limits they have an NA engine is just as good as a turbo one. Also Indy cars have run turbos for ages have a top speed up around 400 too but is only useful on an oval track, so pretty useless for F1, now they run na V8s and are hardly slower. if turbocharging is the answer why have the GTRs gone from 2.6lt to 3.8lt engines, obviously more displacement has its merits. personally I think the balance is to be had somewhere in the middle, engines need to be large enough to have lowdown torque but need to charged for ultimate power.

Problem is when you give everybody turbos for their streeters and every dumbass realizes you can get more power by cranking the boost up they tend to go round killing themselves cause cars dont yet have the safety features required to make them stick, this was proved all through the 90s with fatal import stacks on TV weekly.

And why complain about "redneck statements" when the US Indy cars run turbos for years and probably will again soon. Its a pretty low blow to the rednecks mate, but you get that alot round here If you truly believe you are more intelligent than a redneck why lower yourself to the same discriminatory level

I never get stuck into anybody about being more superior than their V8 cos iv got a turbo. But im forever getting hated for having a jap turbo. Just making that point. I love V8's n happy to say it.

This isn't really a turbo vs displacement discussion; it's more of a turbo vs NA discussion. NAs have great response, but turbo engines have that awesome mid-range torque kick that is so addictive.

Does anyone know if it's easier to get more power out of forced induction engines? Is it more expensive to get more power out of NA engines? Maybe this is one of the reasons a lot of today's performance cars are going turbo?

it is heaps easier...

Edited April 18, 2011 by jjman

[Galois]

exactly. n the 335 tt is meant to be quite the bit of kit, better than the m3 V8 and very tunable...

That's very interesting... I do love the sound of a gurgling v8 though (the m3 is sadly quiet)

it is heaps easier...

Lol just look at the NA section haha.

[ARTZ]

I dont understand why people think it is easier or cheaper to extract power from a turbo engine..

Take your average rb25 spend 5000$ you will probably get a fairly reliable 450hp, give or take..

spend 5000$ on an injected holden v8 and you will also get a reliable 450hp and heaps more torque down low, spend the same on an Ls1, easy 550hp

The only real advantage is you can do it to a turbo engine without having to open the engine up, just install a bigger turbo etc..But rebuilding an engine isn't hard for those that know how just that people prefer to just buy bolton bits these days cause it seems easier.

I knew a guy with a 308 5 speed vb commodore, had a 286 cam a holley carb, and heads he ported himself at tafe and running crazy high compression (12.5-13) it pulled easy 12s and he even beat a ferrari in it.

The only trade-off was he would blow a head gasket every few months, but now you could build that whole car for 5000$

[jjman]

yeah but as a general rule we would be talking about people who cant do that kind of work on their car. In which case a new head gasket every few months is an expensive little venture. Letalone the porting work etc.

also consider the times. in the 90's compare an R33 and a 5litre comodore and trying to extract said 450bhp out of it... That commy would cost alot to get there, be a pig around town and chew fuel like a... Not to mention the ability of the drive train to handle that (transmission, diff, etc etc)

btw LS1's werent the most reliable bits of machinery here in aus... (not sure why but iv had several mechanics infer as much). Also consider how many LS1 VT's there used to be when they first came out. I dont see ANY anymore. Where did they all go?

[Birds]

AFAIK there was only one series of VT commodore that used the LS1 engine, i.e. series 3...which is why you won't see that many of them. Plenty of LS1 engined VX, VY and VZ still going about.