On 13/05/2020 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/05/2020 17:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You€˜re ignoring the weight/volume penalty of a large N/A engine as
opposed
to a turbo engine.

He is also ignoring frictional loses - larger in a big engine.

And you're ignoring that with a petrol engine a turbo unit of the same
output as a larger NA one is generally more thirsty. It's just a cheap
way
of getting more power.

Do you have a source for that?



hios damaged brain.
Turbos are more fuel efficient when delivering comparable power


I thought one of the reasons they've all gone for little turbos is that
they are more efficient than a big NA on light loads. Which is most
driving.
of course


The turbo give you the output you need for the brochure's 0-60 figure.
For most people that's enough.

And if the engine only lasts 60k miles? shrugs

Andy
RPM is an engine killer. Once you beef up the engine for turbo
pressures, it doesn't need the revs and can be pretty long lived. As lw
RPM diesel is.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.