are turbos bad on gas milage?
They only bad for milage cause it is so hard not to spool em up. Nothing replaces the feeling from 4-6k... I'm normally in the 20 mpg range with a high of 28 seen on a long highway trip.
Trending Topics
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Five Reasons the Camaro Was the Most Pivotal Player in the Pony Car Wars 2.0
Brett Foote
10 Reasons the LS7 Is GM's Most Extreme Naturally Aspirated V8 Engine Ever
Verdad Gallardo
SSU'S Vice Mod
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,391
Likes: 0
From: Hazard Co. Maryland
Originally Posted by NoGo
For a performance setup turbo's don't improve gas mileage. They add back-pressure which actually reduces your gas mileage.
Um, not a well matched turbine housing! Fact of it is that when you aren't on boost, it drives much like a NA car. Since there is no extra pulley to drive (supercharger) you don't really sacrifice mechanical drag on the motor. Most of the arguements for better mileage come from extra tq in a higher gear which = less down shifting. As long as you aren't crazy, you shouldn't see that much of a decrease in fuel mileage.EDIT: back-pressure should be a negliagable increase off boost, that's what I meant to say.
Anything with more power will decrease your gas mileage. I refuse to believe that adding a turbo(s) will increase fuel economy. From stock to turbo it will decrease gas mileage. I'd like someone to prove me wrong. (not being a jerk, I just would like to know how I could be wrong)
anyone with a properly sized turbo should have noticed a big difference in part throttle driving (in vacuum not boost). Even at part throttle the engine will be more effecient due to extra aiflow provided by the turbo. If you have any before turbo logs look at the hitogram area below 3k. Then compare the after, you will notice quite a bit of extra airflow in those areas.
They can improve gas milage, but rarely do because the of excessive throttle manipulation
They have also been known to wear brakes out a lot faster too.
They can improve gas milage, but rarely do because the of excessive throttle manipulation
They have also been known to wear brakes out a lot faster too.
Originally Posted by sb427f-car
Um, not a well matched turbine housing! Fact of it is that when you aren't on boost, it drives much like a NA car. Since there is no extra pulley to drive (supercharger) you don't really sacrifice mechanical drag on the motor. Most of the arguements for better mileage come from extra tq in a higher gear which = less down shifting. As long as you aren't crazy, you shouldn't see that much of a decrease in fuel mileage.EDIT: back-pressure should be a negliagable increase off boost, that's what I meant to say.
Originally Posted by folleyj1
I heard that they were originally invented to improve gass mileage, but I may have been lied to. I think that it would if the turbo were always at 0psi.
For example a turbo diesel will have better economy over an equivilant N/A diesel for two specific reasons
1) The turbo makes use of heat recovery
2) The diesel engine can be a smaller cubic equivilant and still move the same amount of air due to the turbo.
Our cars loose gas mileage with a turbo because it does not contribute to the normal driving cycle. It simply rides shotgun in your exhaust obstructing flow until YOU want more power. Industrial turbo's are built to provide boost during normal operating conditions which does make the cycle more efficient
This brings up a good point. I wonder what the hp/weight ratio is on a loaded 18 wheeler?? I bet it's nowhere close the ratio on any car you'll find in the US. Perhaps in the 18 wheeler scenario, where the engines are grossly underpowered compared to the hp/weight of our passenger cars, the turbo will make the engine more efficient because it will be needing boost to achieve it's normal everyday driving... like pulling a hill on the hiway.
Here's the challenge Someone show me a US sold passenger car that we can take the (funcitonal) turbo off of and actually get worse gas mileage during normal, everyday conservative driving.
Here's the challenge
Someone show me a US sold passenger car that we can take the (funcitonal) turbo off of and actually get worse gas mileage during normal, everyday conservative driving.
Originally Posted by folleyj1
oh..makes sense. guess thats why 18 wheelers whistle all the time.
Originally Posted by FastKat
This brings up a good point. I wonder what the hp/weight ratio is on a loaded 18 wheeler?? I bet it's nowhere close the ratio on any car you'll find in the US. Perhaps in the 18 wheeler scenario, where the engines are grossly underpowered compared to the hp/weight of our passenger cars, the turbo will make the engine more efficient because it will be needing boost to achieve it's normal everyday driving... like pulling a hill on the hiway.
Here's the challenge Someone show me a US sold passenger car that we can take the (funcitonal) turbo off of and actually get worse gas mileage during normal, everyday conservative driving.
Here's the challenge
Someone show me a US sold passenger car that we can take the (funcitonal) turbo off of and actually get worse gas mileage during normal, everyday conservative driving.heres an idea though. ask pur evil how much mpg he is getting right now with his NA 408(with turbo internals) and then compare it to after he puts the turbo on. then we can see exactly what changes and what doesnt.
SSU'S Vice Mod
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,391
Likes: 0
From: Hazard Co. Maryland
Originally Posted by 2000 Tran Zam
i dont think anyones really ever wanted to do that.
heres an idea though. ask pur evil how much mpg he is getting right now with his NA 408(with turbo internals) and then compare it to after he puts the turbo on. then we can see exactly what changes and what doesnt.
heres an idea though. ask pur evil how much mpg he is getting right now with his NA 408(with turbo internals) and then compare it to after he puts the turbo on. then we can see exactly what changes and what doesnt.
That's a great idea, get him to do a "normal" driving cycle for 1~2 tanks, mix in city and highway, with "some" light and full throttle accels, before and after. Then we'll have some real world #s.
Yea we like the torque too much... but my point is you're not going to find a gasoline passenger car in the US with an engine so grossly undersized that it needs a turbo to increase the "effective size" of the engine during everyday conservative driving. If we all drove around 4000lb cars with 1L engines, 75hp and 75ft/lbs of NA torque, then yes a turbo could be an economizer.
The closest thing I can think of is a TDI VW... but that's it.
The closest thing I can think of is a TDI VW... but that's it.
Originally Posted by 2000 Tran Zam
i dont think anyones really ever wanted to do that.