OT: engines
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
There have been a couple of waves of enthusiasm for turbocharged
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
There have been a couple of waves of enthusiasm for turbocharged
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
There have been a couple of waves of enthusiasm for turbocharged
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
There have been a couple of waves of enthusiasm for turbocharged
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
There have been a couple of waves of enthusiasm for turbocharged
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
There have been a couple of waves of enthusiasm for turbocharged
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
gasoline engines for more or less the reasons you mention. The one in
the late 70s and early 80s was a bit ahead of its time in the
engine-controls department, and also it took awhile for manufacturers
to consumer-proof the way they cooled the bearings.
In the late 80s, turbos came back, but went away again, mostly
supplanted this time with bigger as well as better naturally aspirated
engines. Note also that instead of a third wave of the energy crisis,
oil was getting cheaper and cheaper, in inflation-corrected terms, in
the US market, so the regulatory and economic forces that had been
pushing increased fuel economy lost a lot of momentum.
In both instances, the turbos seemed mainly oriented toward a
performance variant of any given car rather than toward getting away
with a smaller engine for economy.
Toyota made a version of their 4WD pickup that had a turbocharged Four.
It was not a huge success in the marketplace. Frankly, neither "turbo
lag" nor the need to maintain high revs are what most people are after
off-road, or even on-highway in a truck.
Which brings us to one of the other troubles with getting huge power
out of a small engine: real-world driveability. Under most
circumstances it's more pleasant to drive a lower-powered vehicle with
broader torque and power curves than one that makes monster numbers but
only with constant attention to gear and rpm to stay in a narrow
sweet-spot.
This applies mostly to gassers, of course. For reasons of both
thermodynamics and physical robustness, turbos go with diesels like
basil goes with tomatoes. They have a good bit to do with diesels'
success in both super-duty pickup trucks and economy cars in recent
years.
In either case, you also get plumbing/packaging complications, which
can range from trivial to damnable depending on the engine and vehicle.
Cheers,
--Joe
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: engines
Of course, if you knew anything about making horsepower you'd know
a turbo charger causes way too much back pressure and heat to be of any
real value, as compared the a supercharger, which pushes more energy
into the engine, it just costs a little more. A stock '96 Thunderbird:
http://www.----------.com/temp/Supercharged96TBird.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Turbocharging works especially wel on propane burning engines.
>
> Google "Ak Miller". A real American genius, unlike ------.
a turbo charger causes way too much back pressure and heat to be of any
real value, as compared the a supercharger, which pushes more energy
into the engine, it just costs a little more. A stock '96 Thunderbird:
http://www.----------.com/temp/Supercharged96TBird.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> Turbocharging works especially wel on propane burning engines.
>
> Google "Ak Miller". A real American genius, unlike ------.