Turbo

[mijan24]

Why would you want a TURBO in Bangkok?

[teej]

because it came with the car.

[mijan24]

because it came with the car.

Of course you are not concerned that it is not able to fulfill its designed purpose in such traffic conditions and subsequently you are paying through the pocket at the bowser.

Do they sell a non turbo version??

[teej]

because it came with the car.

Of course you are not concerned that it is not able to fulfill its designed purpose in such traffic conditions and subsequently you are paying through the pocket at the bowser.

Do they sell a non turbo version??

I assure you it quite adequately fulfills it's designed purpose... and I push it to the limit whenvever I can... remember that bangkok is not all bumper to bumper traffic 24 hours a day. Yes they did sell a non-turbo version of the car, and I have the same car in non-turbo and automatic, trust me the NA auto drinks a hel_l of a lot more petrol than the turbo....even though the turbo has about 120% more power on the dyno.

I don't quite understand your post as it seems as if you are just here to troll or to insult... to that end, I have another 4.4L supercharged gas guzzler and if I want to pay a million baht in petrol per year, it is my business after all isn't it? To each his own, yes?

[Donz]

Turbo's dont run as well in hot weather, but still go hard.

[mijan24]

because it came with the car.

Of course you are not concerned that it is not able to fulfill its designed purpose in such traffic conditions and subsequently you are paying through the pocket at the bowser.

Do they sell a non turbo version??

I assure you it quite adequately fulfills it's designed purpose... and I push it to the limit whenvever I can... remember that bangkok is not all bumper to bumper traffic 24 hours a day. Yes they did sell a non-turbo version of the car, and I have the same car in non-turbo and automatic, trust me the NA auto drinks a hel_l of a lot more petrol than the turbo....even though the turbo has about 120% more power on the dyno.

I don't quite understand your post as it seems as if you are just here to troll or to insult... to that end, I have another 4.4L supercharged gas guzzler and if I want to pay a million baht in petrol per year, it is my business after all isn't it? To each his own, yes?

I fail to see why you make such comments - But would be interested to hear you version on the purpose of a Turboing (blower scavenged) and of supercharging an engine (normally 3 degrees of CR).

Of course you know that a supercharger actually performs the same role as a Turbo until the exhaust valve closes and (approx 3 degrees CR) inlet valve remains open) - hence the amount of supercharging received is directly related to the degree of CR that is set.

Edited August 28, 2006 by mijan24

[BlimeyCharlie]

because it came with the car.

Of course you are not concerned that it is not able to fulfill its designed purpose in such traffic conditions and subsequently you are paying through the pocket at the bowser.

Do they sell a non turbo version??

I assure you it quite adequately fulfills it's designed purpose... and I push it to the limit whenvever I can... remember that bangkok is not all bumper to bumper traffic 24 hours a day. Yes they did sell a non-turbo version of the car, and I have the same car in non-turbo and automatic, trust me the NA auto drinks a hel_l of a lot more petrol than the turbo....even though the turbo has about 120% more power on the dyno.

I don't quite understand your post as it seems as if you are just here to troll or to insult... to that end, I have another 4.4L supercharged gas guzzler and if I want to pay a million baht in petrol per year, it is my business after all isn't it? To each his own, yes?

I fail to see why you make such comments - But would be interested to hear you version on the purpose of a Turboing (blower scavenged) and of supercharging an engine (normally 3 degrees of CR).

Of course you know that a supercharger actually performs the same role as a Turbo until the exhaust valve closes and (approx 3 degrees CR) inlet valve remains open) - hence the amount of supercharging received is directly related to the degree of CR that is set.

Well said. Supercharger in my opinion is the better of the 2 and is a little more realible than the turbo when pushed.

My little citreon AX GT rally car with a 1.3 engine ws SG'd and was kicking out about 220bhp and was still road worthy. It would also kick many of the Jap crap into to touch from a stading start too.

No point to mypost but though i'd mention it. 4.2 0-60mph it was tested at and 145mph i had it a before i shat myselfon the M1 motorway UK. Believe me it's quite scary in a tin can.

Edited August 28, 2006 by BlimeyCharlie

[teej]

The purpose of using a turbo and a supercharger? Or are you asking why use a turbocharger in one and a supercharger in another? To answer the first question, in simple terms: more spirited driving. To answer the second: Saab has been turbocharging their little engines to great success for almost 30 years. I own 2 Saabs, one is turbocharged, one is not. The turbocharged version is much more fun to drive. Re: the supercharger: I lifted the Vortech supercharger from my 7-series in the USA and put it in my 7-series in here. I had asked about places in Thailand that sell these superchargers, and found that it was much easier and cheaper to bring my own from overseas.

Would/could Saab supercharge a 2.0 or 2.3L engine? Probably not and who cares, they use turbochargers... Would you want to attempt to/could you stuff a turbocharger in a BMW 4.4L V8? I wouldn't. That's about it.

[mijan24]

When people talk about race cars or high-performance sports cars, the topic of turbochargers usually comes up. Turbochargers also appear on large diesel engines. A turbo can significantly boost an engine's horsepower without significantly increasing its weight, which is the huge benefit that makes turbos so popular!

Turbochargers are a type of forced induction system. They compress the air flowing into the engine. The advantage of compressing the air is that it lets the engine squeeze more air into a cylinder, and more air means that more fuel can be added. Therefore, you get more power from each explosion in each cylinder. A turbocharged engine produces more power overall than the same engine without the charging. This can significantly improve the power-to-weight ratio for the engine.

In order to achieve this boost, the turbocharger uses the exhaust flow from the engine to spin a turbine, which in turn spins an air pump. The turbine in the turbocharger spins at speeds of up to 150,000 rotations per minute (rpm) -- that's about 30 times faster than most car engines can go. And since it is hooked up to the exhaust, the temperatures in the turbine are also very high.

Turbochargers allow an engine to burn more fuel and air by packing more into the existing cylinders. The typical boost provided by a turbocharger is 6 to 8 pounds per square inch (psi). Since normal atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi at sea level, you can see that you are getting about 50 percent more air into the engine. Therefore, you would expect to get 50 percent more power. It's not perfectly efficient, so you might get a 30- to 40-percent improvement instead.

Edited August 28, 2006 by mijan24

[teej]

so you cut and pasted an article about turbocharging 101... and the point is?

[Rdrokit]

Turbo's dont run as well in hot weather, but still go hard.

True, but that is why many turbo models are equipped with an intercooler. Only problem with a turbo is you should wait for the turbo to spool down before shutting down the engine. If you shut off the engine with the turbo spooled up you shut off the oil flow to the turbo and burn up the bearing in the turbo.

[mijan24]

Turbo's dont run as well in hot weather, but still go hard.

True, but that is why many turbo models are equipped with an intercooler. Only problem with a turbo is you should wait for the turbo to spool down before shutting down the engine. If you shut off the engine with the turbo spooled up you shut off the oil flow to the turbo and burn up the bearing in the turbo.

Rdrokit Yes but you will find about 20 years ago they intoduced a Tspecial Turbo oil which was designed to accomodate this common problem but I agree it is still a good practice and installing a timer for close down is alsoa good idea.

To answer the cut and paste - It was to show how a Turbo operates and hence you should be able to glean that in stop start city traffic (Bangkok) it does not operate to its designed efficiency as I said earlier and 50% power gain is standard 70% can be achieved 120% is only in your imagination Teej.

From your comments you obviously dont understand the simple difference between Turbo and Super charging.

[Stefan Beck]

I am not in the politics of super charging or Turbo but I had a Mazda MX5 (the bottom end of the car was initially designed for the old Mazda 3 turbo) that had a stage 2, intercooler, decompression pistons, ported and polished, Momo racing seats (difficult to get in and out) and a few other modifications like a titanium / nickel mix for the exhaust (kept melting the standard steel ones - until we figured out better aeration for inside)

It was unbelievable to drive - used to beat the standard WRX and just about everything else on the roads except tripped up RX7, 8’s ,WRX.

Someone stole it - stripped it and left it in saltwater - moral is - maybe other people don’t like the single fact that you have a turbo. Maybe I was just unlucky? Turbo or Supercharge - sure is a treat!

[PeaceBlondie]

mijan, not to be arguing, but both forms of compressed induction - supercharging and turbocharging - should have similar results nowadays. Studebaker-Packard had SC in the mid-1950's, and both Olds F-85 and Chevy Corvair had turbocharged aluminum engines mass-produced starting in 1962 or '63. VW just announced a very economical 1.3 liter engine with BOTH forms of compressed induction.

Originally, turbos had the dreaded lag time of a couple seconds for boost to kick in (on my Corvair Spyder, maybe 3 seconds); that's probably gone now. I doubt there's much of a weight difference in the hardware. Both types require lower CR (compression ratios), and stronger valvetrain and drivetrain to take the increased heat and power.

Turbos have pretty well dominated the market for 30 years. Pontiac and Jaguar still have supercharged sports models, I think. But I'm no engineer.

[Gary A]

For those who don't understand; A supercharger normally uses a belt from the crankshaft to a pump that boosts the air going into the engine. A supercharger is a device that raises the power of an engine a lot but the problem is that it takes a lot of power to run that air compressor. A turbo charger uses the exhaust gas to run the air compressor. That boost is basically free. The power is not as much as a supercharger but it costs nothing (almost). There are compromises. That turbo charger slows the exhaust gases leaving the engine. Engine builders spend a lot of money making sure the exhaust gases can easily get out. They spend a lot of money on custom headers that get rid of the exhaust gasses more efficiently than the factory manifolds. Everything is a compromise and the most efficient engines will be naturally aspirated. That means the do NOT have either a turbocharger or a supercharger.

[mijan24]

mijan, not to be arguing, but both forms of compressed induction - supercharging and turbocharging - should have similar results nowadays. Studebaker-Packard had SC in the mid-1950's, and both Olds F-85 and Chevy Corvair had turbocharged aluminum engines mass-produced starting in 1962 or '63. VW just announced a very economical 1.3 liter engine with BOTH forms of compressed induction.

Originally, turbos had the dreaded lag time of a couple seconds for boost to kick in (on my Corvair Spyder, maybe 3 seconds); that's probably gone now. I doubt there's much of a weight difference in the hardware. Both types require lower CR (compression ratios), and stronger valvetrain and drivetrain to take the increased heat and power.

Turbos have pretty well dominated the market for 30 years. Pontiac and Jaguar still have supercharged sports models, I think. But I'm no engineer.

GarryA summed it up pretty well Turbo simple bolt on extra no expense neede in upgrading engine parts. Supercharger once again bolt on air pump but as stated a coule of times throughout the discussion takes power to run - main disadvantathe is it actually boosts the pressure in the cylinder through the manipulation ofv vale timing due to the extra forces involved engine strengthing is normally required.

The points GarryA made hits on the crux of why I raised the intial point under city conditions such as Bangkok a normally aspirated engine will perform as well if not better than one with a Turbo and also be more fuel efficient in the process.

[mijan24]

Points for and against Turbos have been made Happy Motoring hopefully it was worth the read even if it only enlightens those that did not know the difference between @T & @S.

[teej]

mijan, not to be arguing, but both forms of compressed induction - supercharging and turbocharging - should have similar results nowadays. Studebaker-Packard had SC in the mid-1950's, and both Olds F-85 and Chevy Corvair had turbocharged aluminum engines mass-produced starting in 1962 or '63. VW just announced a very economical 1.3 liter engine with BOTH forms of compressed induction.

Originally, turbos had the dreaded lag time of a couple seconds for boost to kick in (on my Corvair Spyder, maybe 3 seconds); that's probably gone now. I doubt there's much of a weight difference in the hardware. Both types require lower CR (compression ratios), and stronger valvetrain and drivetrain to take the increased heat and power.

Turbos have pretty well dominated the market for 30 years. Pontiac and Jaguar still have supercharged sports models, I think. But I'm no engineer.

GarryA summed it up pretty well Turbo simple bolt on extra no expense neede in upgrading engine parts. Supercharger once again bolt on air pump but as stated a coule of times throughout the discussion takes power to run - main disadvantathe is it actually boosts the pressure in the cylinder through the manipulation ofv vale timing due to the extra forces involved engine strengthing is normally required.

The points GarryA made hits on the crux of why I raised the intial point under city conditions such as Bangkok a normally aspirated engine will perform as well if not better than one with a Turbo and also be more fuel efficient in the process.

Actually the number is 126% increase in hp to the wheels from the NA car to the turbocharged car, same model, same year.... on the dyno. Not just from the turbocharger, of course, but from the upgraded ecu, exhaust, intercooler, delivery pipe, throttle body, all of which could not be effectively modified on the N/A engine. So indeed the turbocharger and the turbocharged car are more powerful by a large margin and is more fuel efficient (it's an easy and direct comparison as the cars are exactly the same otherwise)...

Your initial post was "why would anyone want a turbo in bangkok" and your subsequent responses went into forced induction 101 re turbochargers and superchargers... Indeed I know many of the mechanical differences of both and how they operate as I own cars both turbocharged and supercharged (4).... While I may not be an expert in forced induction, I assure you that I am an expert in making the money that allows me to enjoy forced induction -- so why not try it out someday instead of bashing it? Or you can continue to ride that sweet bus of yours... teacher's salary, eh?

[Plus]

Mijan, why don't you take your question to Toyota engineers forum? They are the ones that turbocharge their pickups, not us. Maybe you can teach them a thing or two about supercharging, or about Bangkok traffic.

Us, customers don't have a choice nowadays - all trucks are turbocharged, all gasoline cars are naturally aspirated (except the odd Saab they sell every other year).

TRD, btw, offers superchargers for Altis and Wish. 150k, not incuding all other necessary mods.

[Moonfruit]

This thread baffles me!

OP asks dumb question, and gets eminently sensible replies.

OP rubbishes replies.

OP says ok, enough is enough. Im bored now.

Thred finishes.

Hmm.. do i have too much time on my hands if im sat here reading this sH+*e?

[Plus]

Besides that long post about turbochargers was lifted off

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

without giving any credits or acknowledgment.

Really bad manners.

I can only speculate that the OP is just practicing "forum skills" - starting a topic, discussing, closing the topic etc.

I'd give "F"

[mijan24]

In response all I can say is:

Teej - A teacher I am not!

Plus - for you several points:

It would seem you are at odds with the information provided by Teej who I am sure stated you

could obtain the Toyota w/out Turbo?

If you read my post I said Yes when Teej addressed the "Lift cut & paste" to give "ack" in a forum discussion must be your way of just attacking for the sake of it.

Plus I do not intend to be sucked into another long winded debate with you so please conside our discussion closed.

Moonfruit - you are obviously easily confused - but why enter into a discussion after the to and fro has taken place with what I would class as pure spam/trolling if you disagee with this ( and you have every right to do so) please include in your response the area that you addressed regarding the topic raised by the OP (me).

[teej]

In response all I can say is:

Plus - for you several points:

It would seem you are at odds with the information provided by Teej who I am sure stated you

could obtain the Toyota w/out Turbo?

Never in any post did I ever refer to a Toyota. Your initial post was "Turbo: why would anybody want a turbo in Bangkok?" to which I responded "because it came with the car."

You responded to that with "did it come in a non-turbo version" to which I responded something along the lines of "yes, I have both the NA and the turbo"... nowhere was I referring to a Toyota, as I don't own a Toyota... the question you raised was re: turbos and why use them, not Toyotas and whether they have turbo and NA versions. I of course, was referring to my Saabs, which I referenced later.

Either way, your original question was "why own a turbo in BKK?"-- and you got your answers. The rest of the thread was totally off-topic.

[mijan24]

Teej - apologies "Toyota" was in my mind in fact the 2.5 version -

You are correct though, I didn't mention either of those points aqlthough I thought there were some interesting points on Turbos came out.

[teej]

Teej - apologies "Toyota" was in my mind in fact the 2.5 version -

You are correct though, I didn't mention either of those points aqlthough I thought there were some interesting points on Turbos came out.

apology accepted. and I take the teacher-comment back. teachers are important... stay in school kids....

[mijan24]

Teej - apologies "Toyota" was in my mind in fact the 2.5 version -

You are correct though, I didn't mention either of those points aqlthough I thought there were some interesting points on Turbos came out.

apology accepted. and I take the teacher-comment back. teachers are important... stay in school kids....

[/quote

Some people are never satisfied you are a w(a)nker of the first order.& if this comment earns me a holiday so be it & farwell to all from mijan24.

Edited August 31, 2006 by mijan24

[teej]

Teej - apologies "Toyota" was in my mind in fact the 2.5 version -

You are correct though, I didn't mention either of those points aqlthough I thought there were some interesting points on Turbos came out.

apology accepted. and I take the teacher-comment back. teachers are important... stay in school kids....

[/quote

Some people are never satisfied you are a w(a)nker of the first order.& if this comment earns me a holiday so be it & farwell to all from mijan24.

Now I'm totally confused. First, I apoligized. Then I took back an earlier comment I had made. Then I stressed the importance of teachers and urged kids to stay in school. So, an apology, a take-back, and a pat on the back to the teaching profession.... but then I get called a "###### of the first order."

I'm totally baffled. Mijan, you are a strage fellow indeed.

[mijan24]

Teej - apologies "Toyota" was in my mind in fact the 2.5 version -

You are correct though, I didn't mention either of those points aqlthough I thought there were some interesting points on Turbos came out.

apology accepted. and I take the teacher-comment back. teachers are important... stay in school kids....

[/quote

Some people are never satisfied you are a w(a)nker of the first order.& if this comment earns me a holiday so be it & farwell to all from mijan24.

Now I'm totally confused. First, I apoligized. Then I took back an earlier comment I had made. Then I stressed the importance of teachers and urged kids to stay in school. So, an apology, a take-back, and a pat on the back to the teaching profession.... but then I get called a "###### of the first order."

I'm totally baffled. Mijan, you are a strage fellow indeed.

Yes that may well be true, but inuendoes you may employ with non english background people here in the LOS they are read and understood by many of us native speakers & if you fail to comprehend my meaning then yes I would be the first to agree you are confused - ending post/comment with happy turboing in Bangkok.

Edited September 1, 2006 by mijan24