I hope the C7Z isn't turdboed
09-09-2013, 03:20 PM
#101
Instructor
Similarly, you can't know that the GT-R might not do comparably well with a more traditional mill (and potentially save weight). Nissan had a working V6 design and so they ran with it. Your ground is just as shaky as mine.
Moving to the 1996-2013 comparison: weight, power, torque, all similar between an LT4 C4 and a 2013 base Carrera (torque advantage to the former, weight advantage to the latter). I didn't say the lap times were comparable and that really doesn't mean anything here, though the 0-60 times are within spitting distance of each other (4.8 vs. 4.6).
As for more realistic driving scenarios, I think that last link I gave you printed a pretty nice picture. Here's Corvette. Here's the Porsche 911. Based on that data and what I've seen from my own car, I'd call the window sticker's "16/27" a pretty good estimation to represent real-world driving conditions and I'd call the number on fueleconomy.gov a fraud.
As for your last point, you are trying to play a game of semantics again. I'm not conceding anything. In fact, I'm not even saying that they aren't a fuel-saving device. All I'm saying is that the reasons it saves is not dependent on the presence of a turbo at all, and that reason is increased compression. If you can increase the compression with, say, a longer stroke, you get a similar result. In both cases, you need higher grade fuel for it to work well. And since auto manufacturers have been pursuing both avenues and they have both come up to similar fuel economy thus far, I can't see where you draw the "turbo is obviously the future" conclusion from. From where I sit, electric is the future and turbos are a fun distraction for us to debate over that are as dead as the N/A gasoline engine.
So...peanuts it is.
Moving to the 1996-2013 comparison: weight, power, torque, all similar between an LT4 C4 and a 2013 base Carrera (torque advantage to the former, weight advantage to the latter). I didn't say the lap times were comparable and that really doesn't mean anything here, though the 0-60 times are within spitting distance of each other (4.8 vs. 4.6).
As for more realistic driving scenarios, I think that last link I gave you printed a pretty nice picture. Here's Corvette. Here's the Porsche 911. Based on that data and what I've seen from my own car, I'd call the window sticker's "16/27" a pretty good estimation to represent real-world driving conditions and I'd call the number on fueleconomy.gov a fraud.
As for your last point, you are trying to play a game of semantics again. I'm not conceding anything. In fact, I'm not even saying that they aren't a fuel-saving device. All I'm saying is that the reasons it saves is not dependent on the presence of a turbo at all, and that reason is increased compression. If you can increase the compression with, say, a longer stroke, you get a similar result. In both cases, you need higher grade fuel for it to work well. And since auto manufacturers have been pursuing both avenues and they have both come up to similar fuel economy thus far, I can't see where you draw the "turbo is obviously the future" conclusion from. From where I sit, electric is the future and turbos are a fun distraction for us to debate over that are as dead as the N/A gasoline engine.
So...peanuts it is.
There have been REPEATED tests of taking a car that's NA, dropping in a turbo, and tuning it to the same level of power as a comparison. They consistently get *better economy*. http://www.autoweek.com/article/2013...news/130619995
When driven the same, with similar acceleration, etc., the turbo gets better FE. You also gain the ability to stomp on it, get more power, and worse FE. But the point is, that if you drive it the same, you get better FE. Period. This isn't questionable, this isn't debatable, this isn't a "well no one's proven it to me." Formula I? Now running turbo'd 6 cylinder engines. Everyone's going to turbo'd smaller engines because you get similar performance for better economy. You take the same full sized V8 and fill it up with a turbo? You're gonna get incredible power. And you're going to do it while having the option of, when you drop into eco mode, getting phenomenal economy.
09-09-2013, 04:06 PM
#102
Instructor
Member Since: Feb 2010
Location: orange grove TX
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep reading your posts, and you keep missing the point.
There have been REPEATED tests of taking a car that's NA, dropping in a turbo, and tuning it to the same level of power as a comparison. They consistently get *better economy*. http://www.autoweek.com/article/2013...news/130619995
When driven the same, with similar acceleration, etc., the turbo gets better FE. You also gain the ability to stomp on it, get more power, and worse FE. But the point is, that if you drive it the same, you get better FE. Period. This isn't questionable, this isn't debatable, this isn't a "well no one's proven it to me." Formula I? Now running turbo'd 6 cylinder engines. Everyone's going to turbo'd smaller engines because you get similar performance for better economy. You take the same full sized V8 and fill it up with a turbo? You're gonna get incredible power. And you're going to do it while having the option of, when you drop into eco mode, getting phenomenal economy.
There have been REPEATED tests of taking a car that's NA, dropping in a turbo, and tuning it to the same level of power as a comparison. They consistently get *better economy*. http://www.autoweek.com/article/2013...news/130619995
When driven the same, with similar acceleration, etc., the turbo gets better FE. You also gain the ability to stomp on it, get more power, and worse FE. But the point is, that if you drive it the same, you get better FE. Period. This isn't questionable, this isn't debatable, this isn't a "well no one's proven it to me." Formula I? Now running turbo'd 6 cylinder engines. Everyone's going to turbo'd smaller engines because you get similar performance for better economy. You take the same full sized V8 and fill it up with a turbo? You're gonna get incredible power. And you're going to do it while having the option of, when you drop into eco mode, getting phenomenal economy.
09-10-2013, 09:05 AM
#105
I think blower and keep the displacement on demand. No way to run twin turbos with DoD. Can any of you speak about how blowers are running on the Camaro or Trucks with DoD? Looks like it is no problem but they can get extra hp with a non DoD cam. I expect a supercharged Z06/ZL1 mid price and a NA ZR1/Z28 track star at 100 k.... The NA Z28 is top dog price wise. Why not have a radio delete NA ZR1 at 110k with the Supercharged car at 85k.
Last edited by CitationZ06@yahoo; 09-10-2013 at 09:37 AM.
09-10-2013, 12:27 PM
#106
Le Mans Master
There have been REPEATED tests of taking a car that's NA, dropping in a turbo, and tuning it to the same level of power as a comparison. They consistently get *better economy*. http://www.autoweek.com/article/2013...news/130619995
"Honda quietly dropped the 2.4-liter four-cylinder turbo engine in the 2013 Acura RDX and replaced it with a bigger nonturbo engine that gets better fuel economy. The turbo engine, EPA rated at 19 mpg city/24 highway/21 combined, was replaced by a 3.5-liter V6 that is EPA rated at 20 mpg city/28 highway/23 combined."
It doesn't seem to support your argument. Then the article goes on,
"The editors at pickuptrucks.com put two Ford F-150s in a towing test, one with the V6 EcoBoost twin turbo engine, the other with a 5.0-liter V8. They got better fuel economy with the larger engine, 9.4 mpg for the V8, compared with 7.2 for the V6 EcoBoost."
GM did not go the turbo V6 route on their pickups, and stuck with V8s. The V8s have higher fuel economy ratings.
EPA Ratings:
F-150 Ecoboost V6 16 city/22highway/18 combined
Chevy Silverado 5.3L V8 16 city/23 highway/19 combined
Consumer Reports also did a review of turbo engine fuel economy.
Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims
Turbo engines have some things not in their favor for fuel economy: lower compression ratios, and higher exhaust backpressure.
Michael
09-10-2013, 12:49 PM
#107
Le Mans Master
There have been REPEATED tests of taking a car that's NA, dropping in a turbo, and tuning it to the same level of power as a comparison. They consistently get *better economy*. http://www.autoweek.com/article/2013...news/130619995.
09-10-2013, 01:08 PM
#108
interesting that a large part of the back and forth in this thread is about economy. since this is a performance car, economy is nice but not the focus of what this car is about.
turbos, superchargers and NA high performance strategies are different. Personally i like turbos because they lend themselves to large performance increases by swapping turbos and upping the boost with higher octane fuel without having to open the motor for cams, different pistons. i suppose the same things are obtainable with supercharging though i've never had a supercharged car. turbo's do make use of waste heat to produce more power so it would seem that turbos are better than superchargers.
personally i would like to see a twin turbo vette. but i doubt you will see this anytime soon because it is a major departure from the big V8 heritage for this car.
what would be interesting (but i suspect folks would scream about this) would be a very high revving, smaller V8. There is something about winding a NA motor to 10k rpm that is rewarding.
turbos, superchargers and NA high performance strategies are different. Personally i like turbos because they lend themselves to large performance increases by swapping turbos and upping the boost with higher octane fuel without having to open the motor for cams, different pistons. i suppose the same things are obtainable with supercharging though i've never had a supercharged car. turbo's do make use of waste heat to produce more power so it would seem that turbos are better than superchargers.
personally i would like to see a twin turbo vette. but i doubt you will see this anytime soon because it is a major departure from the big V8 heritage for this car.
what would be interesting (but i suspect folks would scream about this) would be a very high revving, smaller V8. There is something about winding a NA motor to 10k rpm that is rewarding.
09-10-2013, 01:47 PM
#109
It would be nice, but I suspect it would make the engines pretty expensive. There would need to be much tighter tolerances on this engine.
09-10-2013, 02:11 PM
#110
What would be awesome is if the C7 Z06 had a lightweight engine, that was simple and reliable, made lots of torque and horsepower, and had a smooth linear powerband with excellent throttle response.
Its funny to me that the most popular engine swap is an LSX into any other car, yet the Corvette would consider looking to get away from such a proven recipe.
Its funny to me that the most popular engine swap is an LSX into any other car, yet the Corvette would consider looking to get away from such a proven recipe.