Turbo Cars

[Mr. Jones]

You guys should check out this page of LIARS:

 

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c5-general/1465549-best-corvette-mpg.html

 

 

STUPID LYING BASTARDS SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT AN EVO!

 

 

http://www.columbusht.com/mpg.jpg

[Guest Spam]

You just don't get it, and you're never going to get it.

 

Guess not. Since all the cars i know that are 4 cylinders will run circles around v8's when it comes to gas milage.

[2 Sweet]

I guess thats your only way to win.

 

Oh really? Because you're so right and we're so wrong?

 

Take that 42-43mpg economy car, make it over 400hp, and get at me when it's still getting 42-43mpg. Never gonna happen.

[Guest Spam]

 

Shut your mouth. Watch. Be informed. 600+ hp. Can obtain 33 mpg

[KStang3.8]

Bro, just cuz that car does it doesn't mean that most do. look at that picture of the vette. go to that link. Its facts. These people are just lying to make you mad or something.

[Guest Spam]

Sounds like you are a v8 guy again. Good luck! Peace

[2 Sweet]

 

Shut your mouth. Watch. Be informed. 600+ hp. Can obtain 33 mpg

 

OK? Dude, I don't give a shit if it gets 800mpg. My point (and everyone else's in this thread) is that it's not uncommon for a modified or powerful V8 to have comparable gas mileage to a modified or powerful 4-cyl. Hence the initial Evo vs. LSx conversations, and the comparisons that followed. Are we clear? Do I have to spell it out for you?

[KStang3.8]

I feel you bro. Who knew my thread seeking to make a list of nice turbo cars would become this!?:offtopic: lol

[Guest Spam]

OK? Dude, I don't give a shit if it gets 800mpg. My point (and everyone else's in this thread) is that it's not uncommon for a modified or powerful V8 to have comparable gas mileage to a modified or powerful 4-cyl. Hence the initial Evo vs. LSx conversations, and the comparisons that followed. Are we clear? Do I have to spell it out for you?

 

Taken.

[Evolved8]

Why does any thread posted on this site turn into the exact opposite of what it should? lol

[KStang3.8]

I do have a really sweet list of cars though. And there weren't really any more to add. And everyone chimed in with their opinion really. So. mission accomplished.

[KStang3.8]

hahahahahahahaha did you guys ban BDAZGSX because of his stupidity?

[Patterson]

Unless I missed them, the Turbo Fords from the 80's T-bird Turbo Coupe, and SVO also. They ran really well when modded and would get great mileage at the same time.

[Patterson]

You of all people should post. What do you get in your old technology 4 cylinder jetta. 42-43. Damn. Tell me the day you see vettes getting that. Ill literally hand you my death certificate.

 

 

I forgot to mention it. But it's not Turbo'd. A 1.8T will pull mid 30's easily though.

 

Days like yesterday I wish it wasn't slow. I'd give up 5-6 mpg for another 100-150 hp.

[staywide8]

hahahahahahahaha did you guys ban BDAZGSX because of his stupidity?

 

Thank god.

[wagner]

hahahahahahahaha did you guys ban BDAZGSX because of his stupidity?

 

No he is stuck on the side of the road trying to prove that a gs-whatever can go further on a tank of gas at 3k rpm than a vette on his way to race wars.

[Nate1647545505]

No he is stuck on the side of the road trying to prove that a gs-whatever can go further on a tank of gas at 3k rpm than a vette on his way to race wars.

 

In an over-generalized-statement, 3,000 RPM just might be where the engine is most efficient provided proper loading (e.g. 6th gear).

 

Most SI Gas engines operate best in the 2500-3500RPM range at high (~70-80%) load -- V8, I4, etc..

[KStang3.8]

If we banned people solely for stupidity you would have been gone by now.

 

honestly? i'm really not stupid. the "stupid" things i said in this thread were things people just misunderstood.

 

Like "i only want a turbo car for a BOV" when in reality i just meant it was a cool bonus. Not a reason to buy.

 

So i told that guy his Audi isn't as nice looking as my stang. Doesn't make me stupid. Just my opinion.

 

So i think Evo 9's are cooler than GTO's. Just my opinion. Doesn't make me stupid.

 

I did think V8's were bad on gas, but i didn't fight it like dumbass did. I believe you guys when you tell me shit. I just didn't know. Doesn't make me stupid man.

 

This thread turned out really well. We made an awesome list of turbo cars (My idea). We sparked a good discussion of which ones are good, bad, etc and why (My idea). And people are still adding to it because thats how sweet it is.

[CRed05]

If buy a turbo awd car, you're not stupid.

[Nate1647545505]

Just doing some thinking from an engineering point of view:

 

The move towards lower displacement (and lower cylinder count) with forced induction is aimed at conserving fuel usage but providing similar power.

 

The general idea being:

· There isn't a constant need to operate at 100% throttle and at 100% power

· Higher mechanical efficiency from lower loss -- namely in reduced frictional loss (e.g. moving 4 pistons vs. 8 pistons)

However, there are some interesting concepts that should be taken into consideration:

· All SI engines are subject to pumping loss, namely, the throttle (excluding GDI systems)

· As [cylinder] displacement grows, consumption will fundamentally be less, due to a boost in thermal efficiency (surface area : volume ratio)

Can we have our cake, and eat it too?

Our cake (fuel consumption) favors a reasonably sized >n cylinder engine operating with a large throttle opening and relatively low rpm (2500-3500rpm). Without comparing powertrain [e.g. transmission & gearing] and road loss [e.g. areo], this is possible with your Sti, Evo, GSX, etc…

But what compromise do we need to make to eat our cake?

Power (digestion of our beloved cake) is a function of many things, but namely cylinder pressure. If one can fill the cylinder with air (oxidizer), provide a fuel (octane), and ignite the mixture at the optimum time without abnormality, one has eateded their cake.

Common sense dictates an engine that displaces 2L with 4 cylinders has to at least triple the cylinder pressure as 6L 8 cylinder, thus, there will be a considerable amount of additional force on components in >n cylinder/displacement engine. For argumentative purposes – there is an invisible line of limitation to engine size and output – the size of an engine is still a major factor in power output.

We might not be able to fully engulf our cake, but with the help of technology, we can devour a few forks worth….

[Nate1647545505]

Oh really? Because you're so right and we're so wrong?

 

Take that 42-43mpg economy car, make it over 400hp, and get at me when it's still getting 42-43mpg. Never gonna happen.

 

I wouldn't say never.

[Mr. Jones]

I <3 Nate.

[twistedfocus1647545489]

Now I want cake.

I'd like to eat it also.

[Mallard]

Just doing some thinking from an engineering point of view:

 

The move towards lower displacement (and lower cylinder count) with forced induction is aimed at conserving fuel usage but providing similar power.

 

The general idea being:

· There isn't a constant need to operate at 100% throttle and at 100% power

· Higher mechanical efficiency from lower loss -- namely in reduced frictional loss (e.g. moving 4 pistons vs. 8 pistons)

However, there are some interesting concepts that should be taken into consideration:

· All SI engines are subject to pumping loss, namely, the throttle (excluding GDI systems)

· As [cylinder] displacement grows, consumption will fundamentally be less, due to a boost in thermal efficiency (surface area : volume ratio)

Can we have our cake, and eat it too?

Our cake (fuel consumption) favors a reasonably sized >n cylinder engine operating with a large throttle opening and relatively low rpm (2500-3500rpm). Without comparing powertrain [e.g. transmission & gearing] and road loss [e.g. areo], this is possible with your Sti, Evo, GSX, etc…

But what compromise do we need to make to eat our cake?

Power (digestion of our beloved cake) is a function of many things, but namely cylinder pressure. If one can fill the cylinder with air (oxidizer), provide a fuel (octane), and ignite the mixture at the optimum time without abnormality, one has eateded their cake.

Common sense dictates an engine that displaces 2L with 4 cylinders has to at least triple the cylinder pressure as 6L 8 cylinder, thus, there will be a considerable amount of additional force on components in >n cylinder/displacement engine. For argumentative purposes – there is an invisible line of limitation to engine size and output – the size of an engine is still a major factor in power output.

We might not be able to fully engulf our cake, but with the help of technology, we can devour a few forks worth….

 

Nate, please abide by the forum rules when posting. You did not make fun of anyone, talk shit about any company or person, post a stupid picture, or say something blatantly off topic.

 

Further, you must use at least one of the words moar, teh, fail, joo, homo, buttsecks, or vetc yo in every post.

 

Stop trying to bring rationality to the board. I hate you.

 

j/k you know I love you.

[Mr. Jones]

Nate, please abide by the forum rules when posting. You did not make fun of anyone, talk shit about any company or person, post a stupid picture, or say something blatantly off topic.

 

Further, you must use at least one of the words moar, teh, fail, joo, homo, buttsecks, or vetc yo in every post.

 

Stop trying to bring rationality to the board. I hate you.

 

j/k you know I love you.

 

 

moar homo buttseks