focussvt

I know that there is a big difference between a factory turbo and an aftermarket one. What I am tring to find out is what is the purpose of a factory one. I have heard that it does add some horsepower but is mainly used for fuel economy.

Lsos

Factory turbos are not for fuel economy.

Factories usually install turbos way too small for the application so that they spool faster. The result is a slower car but with more low-end torque. Try to find the torque curve of the turbo Neon. It goes straight up, and then falls flat on its face at higher rpms...not my type of torque curve. It might be a quick car, but they could have made it quicker...

forcefed

i disagree a proper turbo can provide much better fuel economy with minimal power gains (as you see in alot of factory turbo cars) do some research

focussvt

thats what i thought i read in a wrx phamphlet that alot of the purpose of its turbo was for fuel economy and some power gains.

b16ahybrid

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by forcefed &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i disagree a proper turbo can provide much better fuel economy with minimal power gains (as you see in alot of factory turbo cars) do some research </TD></TR></TABLE>

Correct most turbo cars are turbo for fuel economy not power.
With the exception of sports cars.
Better fuel economy and still have some power if it's needed.

Lsos

Corky Bell in "Maximum Boost" straight up says that turbos are not for fuel economy, even though it might seem that they would increase it.

Lsos

Now, I just read (randomly, too, I wasn't even researching this) that today turbocharging is used primarily to increase fuel economy.

I don't know...at least in America, I can't think of any turbocharged car that is meant to be economical.

I think the best way to put it is that turbocharging is a way to increase performance without sacrificing too much fuel economy, as would be the case with a larger displacement engine. But, all else equal, I don't think that a turbo engine would be more economical than an N/A engine, unless it was specifically designed for that purpose which, as I said before, I can't think of any cars like that.

Wouldn't it make sense that the most hardcore fuel-saver cars out there (Prius, Insight) would be turbocharged if it improved their mileage?

focussvt

Thanks for you replies and help

Joseph Davis

Most turbocharged small displacement engines get, what, 30 to the gallon if you keep your foot out of it?

A clean 5.0 Muffstank LX that is a bit faster than your average factory turbo car gets 30 to the gallon if you keep your foot out of it.

I know people who get 30 to the gallon out of the late 60's Olds 455.

So, what are turbos for again? I hear a lot of discussion that small engines are more fuel efficient, but that's only when stuck into a smaller chassis. You toss the turbo on there, and keep your foot out of the pedal and you're 95% as fuel efficient as before, but have some decent power if you should need it. However, that isn't how it works, is it? DSM's weighed in at over 3000 lbs... WRX's are pretty porky, too, as well as having more drag from the extra drivetrain killing off mpg. The new 4.6 GT is about the same weight as the Dodge SRT-4. There is no potential for fuel efficiency that I can see.