In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/05/2020 17:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Youre 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?
Just reading road tests of vaguely comparable vehicles. But very difficult
to find a truly direct comparison.
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.
The ads will claim that. But not tell you it is cheaper to produce.
The turbo give you the output you need for the brochure's 0-60 figure.
For most people that's enough.
As will a larger engine.
And if the engine only lasts 60k miles? shrugs
Quite. Like I said, cheap.
Andy
--
--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter
Dave Plowman
London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.