Mr.Dingle

If its not rude to ask , what would be your estimate on the total cost of the materials you used ? I just need to multiply by 2 to get the cost here ..

Better than 1,5 Direct Cringe injection :kappa:

3,5 EcoLeak

*pshhhh*

They do indeed blow ...

I would but that reply was too smooth

You really did tread deep ..

Do enlighten me in a PM.

:omegadrywall:

:nasty:

Definetly noticed something , shouldve kept my OCD under control , but seeing bullshit posted somehow got the better of me . Look , have fun arguing your point , you are obviously on a higher intellect than all them engineers and that snake oil called turbocharging . Burning oil more rapidly ? Do i need to link you a tutorial on what piston rings are supposed to do ? Yeah , enough of this de-railing .

Robbing ? How hard is it to understand that repurposing otherwise wasted energy is beneficial ? And turbo plumbing / package size iz irrelevant in this discussion no point in bringing that up. Here : https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target "The 50% mark, which has not yet been reached on track, is much higher than a reported 29% efficiency peak that old normally-aspirated V8 engines produced." Or https://www.carthrottle.com/post/engineering-explained-the-pros-and-cons-of-turbochargers-vs-superchargers/ I hope you realise its your word against every single thermodynamics engineer in the world , or to say , people hwo have an idea of what they are talking about. Have fun reading .

HCCI , combined traits of diesel and petrol engines . Never really liked mazda , but its cool stuff.

I suggest you read up some . Fuel consumption =/= efficency . Let me rephrase , since you keep putting your own definition over the actual one : With a smaller turbocharged engine you minimize losses , which in turn enables you to perform the same amount of work with less energy input , because you recylcled otherwise wasted energy in the first place . Formula 1 - currently the most efficient ICE out there . Mazda Skyactiv-X - promising stuff with HCCI tech , again very efficient. OP2ST - crazy efficient engine design even tho not common as of yet. Should you fail to comperhend the point again , google is your friend . Peace.

Oh but they are . Lucky us , that science doesnt look at what you need , otheriwse id be running a flathead still. See , i hope you understand that nobody cares what your personal need is . Turbochargers as a mechanical device are as simple as it gets , upwards of 90% mechanical efficency isnt tough to get from a balanced shaft riding on an oil film . Compare that to even the most basic engine layout , and im having a hard time figuring out where you keep pulling those claims from .

Im sorry what do worn piston rings have to do with anything ? And yea , 30 year old turbos do need that , anything made in the last 10 years has water cooling jackets so that issue is a myth . Unless you think all modern car manufacturers are wrong ?

Okay , the long explanation it is . First , the definition of engine efficency ( applies to any engine or motor type ) : Energy given divided by the energy consumed . Always less than 1 ( 100% efficient ) . Fuel consumption is related to this number , but isnt strictly set . As in you can have a very efficient engine but since you need a lot of work done you need to consume a lot of fuel , simple as that . A more efficient engine will consume less fuel for a given work envelope that a less efficient engine . There is other stuff involved like thermodynamic efficency , mechanical losses , etc.. but for the topic at hand its not needed. Second , turbocharging IS more efficient than N/A , for the reasons above . Exhaust gasses have velocity and heat , and simple physics tells you that any difference in pressure , height , heat or velocity can be translated into usable work . Exhaust gasses being pumped out in an N/A engine is waster energy . Exhaust gasses harvested by a turbocharger is a case of minimizing losses by using those gasses to spin a compressor wheel to force more air into the engine thus achieve more complete combustion . You are using otherwise wasted energy as a means to produce more . Thats the real purpose of a turbocharger , the power gains are a "side-effect" of that . Long before they appeared on cars , during WWII and before , they were extensively used to help aircraft breathe better at altitudes , and to achieve better combustion . For trucks and towing , i have no experience so i cannot comment on that . But saying turbos are less efficient than N/A is plain wrong . Notice how i said turbocharging specifically , not supercharing. EDIT : Real world example i can atest to - my 1,5DCi megane shares the same basic engine layout as the previous renault vehicles which had the same 1.5L capacity but without the turbo . I have more power , and better MPG because i dont need to rev the car out to make power , you make it at a lower RPM thus consume less air . Its a catch 101 really .

FYI by definition of "efficency" , forced induction , especially turbocharging is the most efficient means of squeezing the most power from an engine , regardless of size .

You are in germany so i figured that wouldnt be a strange concept to you You cant see her shaking her fist if she cant be seen at all

Thats why you get a diesel

New alarm clock.

Mazda protegei . sips less than a lighter , you leave civics in your rear view mirror AND you get the bonus of being attracted to all forms of concrete !

Your username really fits my reaction to this .