Hyundai Genesis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 159 Posts

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Originally Posted by Tweak
Nope, because boosting a 6 nets more power and torque without straining the block as much

pa...how can this be true? eg: to make 500 hp you need lets say 500psi pushing on the piston in the cylinder this does not change between fi & na in the said engine so to make 500hp it takes same amount of air and fuel to create the same cylinder preasures does it not?
. Hence displacement being a factor in the overall end game.

pa... size does matter!
But I digress...

pa.... digress [daɪˈgrɛs]
vb (intr)
1. to depart from the main subject in speech or writing
2. to wander from one's path or main direction
comon for you is it not?strike that don't want a war!

Someone said "there is no replacement for displacement". Well actually there is.

as much as i would love to agree there is not!!!:wtc:
At 100% efficiency for instance a 2.0 boosted engine at 14.6 psi (+ atmosphere) is in effect a NA 4.0 engine. Actually larger because a NA 4.0 is not 100% efficient. Therefore, there IS in fact a replacement for displacement, it's called FI.

pa... well both are not 100% efficient hence the 1.75 multiplication rule in most racing classes! but agree with you that its much easier to to achieve in an fi car than an na car!!!
But if they are both boosted to the same extent, well of course the larger displacement engine will make more power.

pa....sorry again it also comes down to engine design! just as in an n/a car the better the engine flows the more power you make!
guy's a few things that need to be realised to create power are:
1, displacement swept or forced
4.0l displacement swept or forced is just that 4.0 where the f/i gets its advantage is mechanical advantage less loss due to smaller lighter parts (this is where the above quote by my fellow esteemed member is wrong!!!)
2, charge temp / oxygen content
the cooler the temp the more oxygen content and the more you can rapidly expand this charge = the more burning efficiency = more power!
3, fuel btu, flash rate& octane
the more btu the more expansion, the quicker the flash rate the less advance require the less mechanical loss, the higher the octane the higher the comp or boost all resulting in = better burning efficiency better power!

hope this clears things up!!!
 

·
In Charge of Snacks
Joined
·
2,109 Posts
Well put, convict!. Perhaps a better version of the old "no replacement for displacement" adage would be something along the lines of "more engine is easier than better engine". As I see it, forced induction should be the norm. Surely the efficiencies derived from FI outweigh the expense and complications involved.
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Well put, convict!. Perhaps a better version of the old "no replacement for displacement" adage would be something along the lines of "more engine is easier than better engine". As I see it, forced induction should be the norm. Surely the efficiencies derived from FI outweigh the expense and complications involved.
lol convict!

"more engine is easier than better engine"
how is this so when its easier to get better burning efficiency with a turbo?

the beauty of turbos is the power of a big engine with the fuel efficiency of a small one!

can't be done as efficiently with any other form of f/i! (as yet)
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Well put, convict!. Perhaps a better version of the old "no replacement for displacement" adage would be something along the lines of "more engine is easier than better engine". As I see it, forced induction should be the norm. Surely the efficiencies derived from FI outweigh the expense and complications involved.
lol convict!

"more engine is easier than better engine"
how is this so when its easier to get better burning efficiency with a turbo?

the beauty of turbos is the power of a big engine with the fuel efficiency of a small one!

can't be done as efficiently with any other form of f/i! (as yet)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
So you're saying, hypothetically, that say a turbocharged 5.7 chevy small block will be more efficient than a 400ci stroked chevy small block?
 

·
In Charge of Snacks
Joined
·
2,109 Posts
lol convict!



how is this so when its easier to get better burning efficiency with a turbo?

the beauty of turbos is the power of a big engine with the fuel efficiency of a small one!

can't be done as efficiently with any other form of f/i! (as yet)
Well, it's very simple, really. What you're missing is that it's about power per dollar, not efficiency.

From a tuner aspect available inexpensive transplants are usually large displacement. I also note, at least in North America, that a Chevy or Ford V8 block is easier to repair and high performance parts with very little need of modification are both readily available and relatively inexpensive. This is of course compared to the performance equivalent smaller turbo motor build.

From the OEM point of view; Why develop a new turbo performance mill when you can just slap in the biggest torquey motor from your range?

Don't get me wrong, I love efficiency! I love forced induction! I'm just answering the question raised here. Namely; why is more displacement easier than FI at the same power levels.
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
So you're saying, hypothetically, that say a turbocharged 5.7 chevy small block will be more efficient than a 400ci stroked chevy small block?
ok, i am saying that if you have 5.7 making 650 hp and a 5.7 turbo making 650 hp the drive ability can be better and same with the economy if set up correctly this applies to a 1.0 or a 17.0 just the same as a 5.7

eg: a 4.0 ford na in the same weight car (1950kg/2300lbs?) does 10l/100klm on 98/or e85 and the turbo carrying extra weight runs in at around 9l/100klm on the same fuel and has much more power on tap!!!
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Well, it's very simple, really. What you're missing is that it's about power per dollar, not efficiency.

pa...your a bozo i was shittin you!!! lol! sarcasm!
From a tuner aspect available inexpensive transplants are usually large displacement. I also note, at least in North America, that a Chevy or Ford V8 block is easier to repair and high performance parts with very little need of modification are both readily available and relatively inexpensive. This is of course compared to the performance equivalent smaller turbo motor build.

pa...i can see that and advise its the opposite here!
From the OEM point of view; Why develop a new turbo performance mill when you can just slap in the biggest torquey motor from your range?

coz you get more greenie grants form the tax payer!
Don't get me wrong, I love efficiency! I love forced induction! I'm just answering the question raised here. Namely; why is more displacement easier than FI at the same power levels.
again me too i was giving you a hard time for calling me a convict! when actually they got here free and my parents had to pay!!! (told them they should have gone to england stole a loaf of bread and got a free ticket!!!)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
924 Posts
lol convict!



how is this so when its easier to get better burning efficiency with a turbo?

the beauty of turbos is the power of a big engine with the fuel efficiency of a small one!

can't be done as efficiently with any other form of f/i! (as yet)

You use this term better burning efficiency frequently but you use it in the wrong context. Burning efficiency is based off of stoich and lambda,if you want to argue, a NA motor has a better buring efficiency do to its ability to run leaner or closer to stoich then its turbo counter part.
If you used the term fuel efficiency different story,but even then cyclinder deactivation has come along way.
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
You use this term better burning efficiency frequently but you use it in the wrong context. Burning efficiency is based off of stoich and lambda,if you want to argue, a NA motor has a better buring efficiency do to its ability to run leaner or closer to stoich then its turbo counter part.
If you used the term fuel efficiency different story,but even then cyclinder deactivation has come along way.
gen i believe i use the term correctly and by this i mean burning efficiency / engine efficiency is related to, the more air fuel you completely combust the more energy produced the least emissions and waste you emit!

its obvious if you produce more energy your making more power and if its done through better burning / less waste then your using less fuel to do the same job!

stoich well don't get me started! only a few feel my pain there!

its almost like 1:1 bore / stroke or combustion chamber design or port angle arguments they all have advantages and disadvantages!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,004 Posts
I know you're from Australia.. but come on.. learn to convert. You talk about other people not taking time to do things, or doing them half-assed?
(1950kg/2300lbs?)
You're on a US forum. I think that's the #1 reason you piss people off sometimes because you're talking metric but not indicating that you're metric. Also, while Korea speaks metric, the USDM Korean companies don't do things in metric.

I'm Canadian, naturally I'm metric.. but I still convert because I'm on a US site.

and fyi, 1kg=2.204lbs
which means this:

(1950kg/4299lbs)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
924 Posts
gen i believe i use the term correctly and by this i mean burning efficiency / engine efficiency is related to, the more air fuel you completely combust the more energy produced the least emissions and waste you emit!

its obvious if you produce more energy your making more power and if its done through better burning / less waste then your using less fuel to do the same job!

stoich well don't get me started! only a few feel my pain there!

its almost like 1:1 bore / stroke or combustion chamber design or port angle arguments they all have advantages and disadvantages!
Burning efficiency is just that ,the higher percentage of complete burn the higher burning efficiency and a turbo cant match the numbers of a NA for burning efficiency.
The reason a turbo motor gets better fuel mileage is because its less efficient not more efficient and what I mean by that is, when on low boost or no boost its taking in less air making it less efficient therefore less fuel needed.
As for your statement 650 hp NA 5.7 liter vs 650 hp turbo 5.7 liter, the turbo being the better choice, I 100% agree, much more civil for the street.
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I know you're from Australia.. but come on.. learn to convert. You talk about other people not taking time to do things, or doing them half-assed?


You're on a US forum. I think that's the #1 reason you piss people off sometimes because you're talking metric but not indicating that you're metric. Also, while Korea speaks metric, the USDM Korean companies don't do things in metric.

I'm Canadian, naturally I'm metric.. but I still convert because I'm on a US site.

and fyi, 1kg=2.204lbs
which means this:
yes i typo'd i'm sorry for not being perfect i promise ill try harder next time some how i typed 2300 instead of 4300 ooops sorry!
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Burning efficiency is just that ,the higher percentage of complete burn the higher burning efficiency and a turbo cant match the numbers of a NA for burning efficiency.

pa...sorry it can, it does and will always, when done right!
The reason a turbo motor gets better fuel mileage is because its less efficient not more efficient and what I mean by that is, when on low boost or no boost its taking in less air making it less efficient therefore less fuel needed.

pa...ahh? what? break it down a little here, your talking in tongues!
As for your statement 650 hp NA 5.7 liter vs 650 hp turbo 5.7 liter, the turbo being the better choice, I 100% agree, much more civil for the street.
to get better mileage you must have better efficiency

on low boost you have low demand not low efficiency

having variable load / boost keeps your efficiency up

an engine requiring more compression to achieve better burning will benefit from variable compression/boost

an engine never achieves 100% swept volume unless under boost!

so at .01 psi you have 100% swept volume there abouts!

= better efficiency!!!! does it not?
 

·
In Charge of Snacks
Joined
·
2,109 Posts
to get better mileage you must have better efficiency

on low boost you have low demand not low efficiency

having variable load / boost keeps your efficiency up

an engine requiring more compression to achieve better burning will benefit from variable compression/boost

an engine never achieves 100% swept volume unless under boost!

so at .01 psi you have 100% swept volume there abouts!

= better efficiency!!!! does it not?
IIRC there were some engines with properly tuned open intake runners that could achieve positive pressure in the cylinder without FI. Of course that's talking about maybe 102%-105% of ambient pressure. I heard they were
ridiculous to engineer, too. As for the convict bit; I just like to use it and since there was an Aussie chick at my place for a little bit I was in the mood. Better to be called a convict than a Yank, IMO... No hard feelings.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
924 Posts
to get better mileage you must have better efficiency

on low boost you have low demand not low efficiency

having variable load / boost keeps your efficiency up

an engine requiring more compression to achieve better burning will benefit from variable compression/boost

an engine never achieves 100% swept volume unless under boost!

so at .01 psi you have 100% swept volume there abouts!

= better efficiency!!!! does it not?

1. B.S.F.C., its just facts, turbo and supercharged motors use more fuel per HP then a NA motor

2. Swept volume does not change when you boost a motor, the air mass within that volume does, which increases the volumetric efficiency of the motor.
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
IIRC there were some engines with properly tuned open intake runners that could achieve positive pressure in the cylinder without FI. Of course that's talking about maybe 102%-105% of ambient pressure. I heard they were
ridiculous to engineer, too. As for the convict bit; I just like to use it and since there was an Aussie chick at my place for a little bit I was in the mood. Better to be called a convict than a Yank, IMO... No hard feelings.
much rather convict than yank at least we have "conviction" and not puppets with a stick up our bum!

no no offence your all cool!

the right cai gives 100% if you try hard enough!
 

·
MR TURBO 2 U
Joined
·
862 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
1. B.S.F.C., its just facts, turbo and supercharged motors use more fuel per HP then a NA motor

pa... yes bsfc is part of it but so is bmep and this is where you need to look!
2. Swept volume does not change when you boost a motor, the air mass within that volume does, which increases the volumetric efficiency of the motor.
here take a wiki lesson not 100% correct but correct enough!
Mean effective pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
924 Posts
here take a wiki lesson not 100% correct but correct enough!
Mean effective pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
lol, you crack me up.Stop spinning your going to get dizzy.

Answer theses question with a yes or no

1 Increase boost, volumetric efficiency goes up
2 Decrease boost, volumetric efficiency goes down
3 based off of B.S.F.C., forced induction motors use more fuel then a NA motor per HP
4 A NA motor is able to safely run closer to lambda 1 then a turbo motor
5 Thermal efficiency of a turbo motor is lower then a NA motor.

These are straight forward question, no need to spin talk circles just yes or no.
 
1 - 20 of 159 Posts
Top