"Pomegranate *******" wrote in message
...

On 9 May 2020 19:22:10 GMT, Tim+ wrote:


Perhaps if you phrased your questions using conventional grammar and
English you might get better responses?

Tim

Speaking of grammar, your senttence didn't need a question mark.

It's a claim which is capable of argument, not an undisputed
fact; and so merits a question mark. Given that ...

a) It's quite possible to frame questions in impeccable grammar and
English to which there are no sensible answers. i.e. What colour is
Tuesday ?

b) It's quite possible to frame intelligible questions which would
get a responsem despite using unconventional grammar, i.e.
" This Regent Street ?"

And while you're at it, look up Skitt's Law.


michael adams

....

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output,
but with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the
same output. Despite the marketing hype.


You‘re ignoring the weight/volume penalty of a large N/A engine as
opposed to a turbo engine. What weight engine would you need to replace
a 600 hp 2 litre three cylinder engine?

https://jalopnik.com/a-detailed-look...ing-1842073757

More to the point, who would want a crude 3 cylinder engine in a decent
road car anyway?

Irrelevant to my point about weight.

And of course that vehicle is a hybrid. So you get the
weight penalty from the electric motor and battery pack.

True, but the engine still produces 600 hp from a very neat 2 litres
package.

Tim



--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Wed, 13 May 2020 17:58:53 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Pomegranate *******" wrote in message
.. .

On 9 May 2020 19:22:10 GMT, Tim+ wrote:


Perhaps if you phrased your questions using conventional grammar and
English you might get better responses?

Tim

Speaking of grammar, your senttence didn't need a question mark.

It's a claim which is capable of argument, not an undisputed
fact; and so merits a question mark. Given that ...

a) It's quite possible to frame questions in impeccable grammar and
English to which there are no sensible answers. i.e. What colour is
Tuesday ?

b) It's quite possible to frame intelligible questions which would
get a responsem despite using unconventional grammar, i.e.
" This Regent Street ?"

And while you're at it, look up Skitt's Law.


michael adams

...

Responsem?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 13/05/2020 17:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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?

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 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
--
FTAOD my car has an NA engine and over twice that mileage...

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.

In article
,
Tim+ wrote:
More to the point, who would want a crude 3 cylinder engine in a decent
road car anyway?

Irrelevant to my point about weight.

See below.

And of course that vehicle is a hybrid. So you get the
weight penalty from the electric motor and battery pack.

True, but the engine still produces 600 hp from a very neat 2 litres
package.

But whether that engine could be used as a stand alone unit is the very
real question. Unless you like comparing apples with oranges.

--
*How's my driving? Call 999*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/05/2020 17:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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?

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.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Turbos are more fuel efficient when delivering comparable power

See your statement below.


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.

If it doesn't need to rev it simply ain't going to produce the same BHP.
Since BHP is a function of torque and RPM.

But being Turnip, you happily contradict yourself in the same post.

BTW, as I indicated, I'm referring only to petrol engines. But I'd guess
you didn't understand that either.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/05/2020 17:16:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/05/2020 13:56, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Would the increased number of valves allow greater cooling efficiency
or was it always about valve bounce?

neither.

Getting power out of a non blown engine is down to one thing. peak RPM.

Often max power occurs at less than max RPM. Unless your definition of
'peak' is itself defined as RPM at which max power occurs.

On 13/05/2020 12:57:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
AJH wrote:
On 12/05/2020 17:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
None of this relates to fuel efficiency: That's is far greater these
days because of electronic injection and mapping allowing an optimal
fuel level and inlet pressure depending on the load and RPM. That and
lower friction materials nets you a more efficient motor overall.

That fits my understanding.

So why have such complicated engines when these above things can be
implemented on a simple OHV engine doing less than 5krpm and no variable
valve timing?

Because, like for like, BHP goes up with RPM.

Variable valve timing allows a much better torque curve. And the shape of
that curve is what matters for day to day driving.

Multi valve engines also are better for emissions.

Just what tricks they get up to on an F1 engine when all it has to do is
last once race of little relevance to a road car.

Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but
with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same
output. Despite the marketing hype.

That simply isn't true. As a general rule the smaller the engine you are
comparing a turbo may reduce overall mpg. On larger engine where
induction losses dominate a turbo can increase economy. It really isn't
safe to make such a blanket statement.

I will go further and ask if you can find any reference to a NA engine
with a thermal efficiency of greater than 50%?

https://www.fia.com/news/f1s-10-year...rgy-efficiency

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2020 17:16:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/05/2020 13:56, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Would the increased number of valves allow greater cooling efficiency
or was it always about valve bounce?

neither.

Getting power out of a non blown engine is down to one thing. peak RPM.

Often max power occurs at less than max RPM. Unless your definition of
'peak' is itself defined as RPM at which max power occurs.

An engine where peak BHP coincided with maximum revs would be a rare beast.

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but
with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same
output. Despite the marketing hype.

That simply isn't true. As a general rule the smaller the engine you are
comparing a turbo may reduce overall mpg. On larger engine where
induction losses dominate a turbo can increase economy. It really isn't
safe to make such a blanket statement.

Go on then. Give some real world figures.

And example of the same engine with turbo and without where the turbo unit
gives better MPG at cruise.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/05/2020 13:44:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but
with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same
output. Despite the marketing hype.

That simply isn't true. As a general rule the smaller the engine you are
comparing a turbo may reduce overall mpg. On larger engine where
induction losses dominate a turbo can increase economy. It really isn't
safe to make such a blanket statement.

Go on then. Give some real world figures.

And example of the same engine with turbo and without where the turbo unit
gives better MPG at cruise.

Your goal posts have changed, your claim was, "petrol engines are never
as good as a larger NA unit of the same output".

You're the one who made such a claim, and as usual have no evidence to
back up this blanket statement.

On 14/05/2020 13:42:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2020 17:16:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/05/2020 13:56, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Would the increased number of valves allow greater cooling efficiency
or was it always about valve bounce?

neither.

Getting power out of a non blown engine is down to one thing. peak RPM.

Often max power occurs at less than max RPM. Unless your definition of
'peak' is itself defined as RPM at which max power occurs.

An engine where peak BHP coincided with maximum revs would be a rare beast.

Finally, a statement we can both agree on.

On 14 May 2020 at 14:03:51 BST, "Fredxx" wrote:

On 14/05/2020 13:44:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but
with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same
output. Despite the marketing hype.

That simply isn't true. As a general rule the smaller the engine you are
comparing a turbo may reduce overall mpg. On larger engine where
induction losses dominate a turbo can increase economy. It really isn't
safe to make such a blanket statement.

Go on then. Give some real world figures.

And example of the same engine with turbo and without where the turbo unit
gives better MPG at cruise.

Is there any meaningful example of that situation?


Your goal posts have changed, your claim was, "petrol engines are never
as good as a larger NA unit of the same output".

Not sure what 'as good' means. Again, trying to find comparable isn't easy
even if it's something as reasonably objective as mpg.


You're the one who made such a claim, and as usual have no evidence to
back up this blanket statement.

Unless you know what you're measuring, you can't make a comparison.
--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 14/05/2020 13:44:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but
with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same
output. Despite the marketing hype.

That simply isn't true. As a general rule the smaller the engine you are
comparing a turbo may reduce overall mpg. On larger engine where
induction losses dominate a turbo can increase economy. It really isn't
safe to make such a blanket statement.

Go on then. Give some real world figures.

And example of the same engine with turbo and without where the turbo unit
gives better MPG at cruise.

Your goal posts have changed, your claim was, "petrol engines are never
as good as a larger NA unit of the same output".

You're the one who made such a claim, and as usual have no evidence to
back up this blanket statement.

And since you are so certain I'm wrong you could do the research and find
figures that prove it.

It may have escaped your notice, but turbos on petrol engines are nothing
likes as common as on diesels. Indeed plenty makers of petrol cars have
gone back from using turbos to simply fitting a bigger engine of similar
output. Perhaps you'd explain just why - if they are such a panacea.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It may have escaped your notice, but turbos on petrol engines are nothing
likes as common as on diesels. Indeed plenty makers of petrol cars have
gone back from using turbos to simply fitting a bigger engine of similar
output. Perhaps you'd explain just why - if they are such a panacea.


Ive not studied the car market for a couple of years but last time I did,
smaller, lighter, turbo units were the fashion. Which makers/models have
gone back to bigger N/A?

Tim


--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 15/05/2020 13:56, Tim+ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It may have escaped your notice, but turbos on petrol engines are nothing
likes as common as on diesels. Indeed plenty makers of petrol cars have
gone back from using turbos to simply fitting a bigger engine of similar
output. Perhaps you'd explain just why - if they are such a panacea.


Ive not studied the car market for a couple of years but last time I did,
smaller, lighter, turbo units were the fashion. Which makers/models have
gone back to bigger N/A?

The ones in dave's socialist utopia.
Here if its not a hybrid, it probably has a turbo unless its REALLY top
end, when it will be a supercharger.


Tim




--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/05/2020 13:56, Tim+ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It may have escaped your notice, but turbos on petrol engines are
nothing likes as common as on diesels. Indeed plenty makers of petrol
cars have gone back from using turbos to simply fitting a bigger
engine of similar output. Perhaps you'd explain just why - if they
are such a panacea.


I‘ve not studied the car market for a couple of years but last time I
did, smaller, lighter, turbo units were the fashion. Which
makers/models have gone back to bigger N/A?

The ones in dave's socialist utopia. Here if its not a hybrid, it
probably has a turbo unless its REALLY top end, when it will be a
supercharger.

Which is even more inefficient than a turbocharger.

I take it you know little of either, other than in your ancient 4x4 diesel?

--
*My wife and I had words. But I didn't get to use mine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.