'Turbo Boost'

Author
Discussion

mikey k

13,011 posts

216 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
Lowtimer said:
Of course, simply preventing a turbo engine from boosting doesn't turn it into the normally aspirated engine of the same range. It will almost certainly have lower static compression and therefore be inherently less efficient off boost than the engine built for normal aspiration.
yes the other issue the 2.5XT suffers from is drive train losses which pushes the consumption down. My wife is similar to the OP and gets about 26 mpg
OP you are going to need to change it to a none permanent 4x4 to get better mpg



Mastodon2

13,826 posts

165 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
Lowtimer said:
Of course, simply preventing a turbo engine from boosting doesn't turn it into the normally aspirated engine of the same range. It will almost certainly have lower static compression and therefore be inherently less efficient off boost than the engine built for normal aspiration.
As above, if you "disabled" the turbo it would drive like a turbocharged engine with a broken turbo - it will definitely feel broken and probably won't see amazing fuel efficiency anyway.

If your wife is not a quick driver then it's unlikely that she is using anything close to full boost anyway.

danllama

5,728 posts

142 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
Fit a secret dash cam and watch her hoon it when she's out alone!

biggrin

themanwithnoname

1,634 posts

213 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
My Forester STI does about the same fuel consumption with 330bhp

Disabling the turbo would be a bad plan, simply as its a low compression engine with big drivetrain losses.


trickywoo

11,789 posts

230 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
aka_kerrly said:
Assuming that the OP has a Forester of the 2002-08 variety a XT turbo manages to average 26mpg with 226hp and the non turbo with 155hp manages 30mpg (info from Parkers)



Keep the turbodriving
God that's st. I get 26mpg from an e60 545i without trying. 4.4 litre 330bhp v8 for the uneducated.

Jasandjules

69,889 posts

229 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
FFS I can get 28mpg out of a 5.0 V8 TVR....

iloveboost

1,531 posts

162 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
Lowtimer said:
Of course, simply preventing a turbo engine from boosting doesn't turn it into the normally aspirated engine of the same range. It will almost certainly have lower static compression and therefore be inherently less efficient off boost than the engine built for normal aspiration.
True but modern direct injected turbo engines are all higher than 10:1 compression, I think. I guess the difference with them is something like 10% more fuel burned when cruising compared to an NA of the same capacity? Anyway it's not a lot compared to older, 8-9:1 turbo engines.

FreeLitres

6,047 posts

177 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
I remember seeing an old American advert on YouTube for a car that had a special key that was used in the dash to select or de-select the turbo/super charger. In the advert, the son used the car without the boost then the dad got in and used his key to activate it.

I quite like that idea

V8RX7

26,862 posts

263 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
FFS I can get 28mpg out of a 5.0 V8 TVR....
You're proud that you drive like a Granny confused

I averaged 13mpg on optimax from my 300bhp 5.0 Griffith.


trickywoo

11,789 posts

230 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
V8RX7 said:
You're proud that you drive like a Granny confused

I averaged 13mpg on optimax from my 300bhp 5.0 Griffith.
You'll probably want to get those binding calipers checked sooner rather than later.

Jasandjules

69,889 posts

229 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
V8RX7 said:
You're proud that you drive like a Granny confused

I averaged 13mpg on optimax from my 300bhp 5.0 Griffith.
Nope, but on a run she will do 28mpg. With "enthusiastic" driving, it is somewhat less than that....... The OP is saying his wife is hardly putting the pedal down hard yet still getting similar MPG figures..

ORD

18,120 posts

127 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
Wife's figures are average. 'On a run' is typical PH irrelevance. My 911 will get over 30mpg on the bloody motorway, but it averages more like 20mpg. I bet 2/3 of 'on a run' as the average is fairly typical (if not better than typical).

Nedzilla

2,439 posts

174 months

Saturday 28th November 2015
quotequote all
Lowtimer said:
Of course, simply preventing a turbo engine from boosting doesn't turn it into the normally aspirated engine of the same range. It will almost certainly have lower static compression and therefore be inherently less efficient off boost than the engine built for normal aspiration.
Many years ago I had a stage 1 sapphire cosworth which was pretty potent and remember once disconnecting the wastegate actuator and leaving it open to see what it was like. It was an absolute dog,and I'd be surprised if it had 100bhp!

themanwithnoname

1,634 posts

213 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
trickywoo said:
aka_kerrly said:
Assuming that the OP has a Forester of the 2002-08 variety a XT turbo manages to average 26mpg with 226hp and the non turbo with 155hp manages 30mpg (info from Parkers)



Keep the turbodriving
God that's st. I get 26mpg from an e60 545i without trying. 4.4 litre 330bhp v8 for the uneducated.
However the Forester will get to 60 from a standing start .3s quicker and is a full 1 - 1.2 seconds faster in a quarter mile dash. (The STI variant, make that 1.5 seconds to 60 and 1.7 seconds in the quarter)

Given a stretch of B road, or A road for that matter, the 545 wouldn't know which way the Forester went.

For the uneducated you understand.... wink



ORD

18,120 posts

127 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
You're kidding, right? It's a fking AWD soft-roader! It wouldn't outrun itself, let alone a 5 series.

V8RX7

26,862 posts

263 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
trickywoo said:
God that's st. I get 26mpg from an e60 545i without trying. 4.4 litre 330bhp v8 for the uneducated.
Your BMW is only turning 2 wheels and one diff the forester will never be as economical as it's turning 4 wheels and 3 diffs

xRIEx

8,180 posts

148 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
ORD said:
You're kidding, right? It's a fking AWD soft-roader! It wouldn't outrun itself, let alone a 5 series.
A forester is a soft-roader?

themanwithnoname

1,634 posts

213 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
xRIEx said:
ORD said:
You're kidding, right? It's a fking AWD soft-roader! It wouldn't outrun itself, let alone a 5 series.
A forester is a soft-roader?
Nope its an AWD estate car - Impreza WRX chassis with longer travel suspension. Supple in the bumps but something something poop and blanket....

Unless you're talking SH (2008) onward, then yes, they're quite soft.

Edit to add: This is also part of the reason some of us have them... for ORD's response.

Edited by themanwithnoname on Sunday 29th November 21:17

ORD

18,120 posts

127 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
No idea about back the day but recent ones are definitively SUVs

themanwithnoname

1,634 posts

213 months

Sunday 29th November 2015
quotequote all
ORD said:
No idea about back the day but recent ones are definitively SUVs
Enjoy - VBH with an Impreza STI and a Forester STI around Anglesey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uyPkavo66Y

biggrin