Will we eventually have no N/A cars?
Discussion
Eventually, I think that NA engines will confined to specialist, low volume cars for enthusiasts. The cost and complication of adding turbos to everything is less than the cost of developing clean yet powerful NA engines, and lower CO2 outputs are more easily achieved. There will be little reason to persevere with NA engines, and they have already started to die out.
currybum said:
You look at how much a part costs... Then work out how many parts are needed to build an engine then you add it all up.
Forget part cost, think development cost. If you order the parts in big enough numbers, the cost impact is minimised. Honda gave up on the Type R engine because they just couldn't get it low enough on CO2 output or fuel-efficient enough to keep up with the turbocharged competition, and when they bring out the new Type R in 2014 they'll be the last of the big hot hatch players to go turbocharged.Regardless of the cost per unit for an engine, it's earning the sales that manufacturers want. BMW wouldnt be developing tripe turbo engines, nor would be see the likes of the ///M and AMG NA engines disappearing, unless they really felt they had to as a business.
currybum said:
Technically what can you do you an n/a engine that provides the economy benefits of a turbo charger. Given that a turbo charged engine costs at least twice as much as the normally aspirated engine of similar power.
Turbos are about power output, not economy as such (I know there have been some low pressure engines which "swirl" the mix and make them more economical but I suspect they were gimmicks). Small displacement engines traditionally produce the best economy, the less air you draw in the less fuel you need to burnI'd be surprised if any modern mainstream blown engine would be twice as much as a non-blown engine. They're all very well made these days, and, whilst turbos are expensive, they're not that expensive.
Egines like the 1.0 3 cylinder unit that Ford sells are the way ahead I'm sure, even though I'd choose their current 4.6 v8 or 2.5 i5 to go 10 times around the world...
The turbo charger allows the engine management system to be able to control the amount of air going into the engine. This gives turbo engines a massive advantage over NA engines in emissions stakes, especially combined with the small capacities of the base engine.
small throttle opening = no fuel plus control of air (o2) = best economy = best CO2 = Best in tax
Wide open + Turbo charger = performance of a much larger NA engine.
Some of the engines on offer now are simply insane at the base end of the market. Shopping car with 0-60 in 10 secs was GTi versions only 10 years ago, now its just the first option up from the base spec car.
To be honest NA wont get a look in because small turbos look so fantastic on paper, and for most people are fantastic in the flesh. Car buyers have never had it so good.
small throttle opening = no fuel plus control of air (o2) = best economy = best CO2 = Best in tax
Wide open + Turbo charger = performance of a much larger NA engine.
Some of the engines on offer now are simply insane at the base end of the market. Shopping car with 0-60 in 10 secs was GTi versions only 10 years ago, now its just the first option up from the base spec car.
To be honest NA wont get a look in because small turbos look so fantastic on paper, and for most people are fantastic in the flesh. Car buyers have never had it so good.
PlankWithANailIn said:
The turbo charger allows the engine management system to be able to control the amount of air going into the engine. This gives turbo engines a massive advantage over NA engines in emissions stakes, especially combined with the small capacities of the base engine.
small throttle opening = no fuel plus control of air (o2) = best economy = best CO2 = Best in tax
Wide open + Turbo charger = performance of a much larger NA engine.
Some of the engines on offer now are simply insane at the base end of the market. Shopping car with 0-60 in 10 secs was GTi versions only 10 years ago, now its just the first option up from the base spec car.
You are right on the advantage of the turbo engines with good engine management. But even a golf gti was 7 secs 0-60 10 years ago and it was far from the quickest hot hatch back then.small throttle opening = no fuel plus control of air (o2) = best economy = best CO2 = Best in tax
Wide open + Turbo charger = performance of a much larger NA engine.
Some of the engines on offer now are simply insane at the base end of the market. Shopping car with 0-60 in 10 secs was GTi versions only 10 years ago, now its just the first option up from the base spec car.
Mastodon2 said:
Honda gave up on the Type R engine because they just couldn't get it low enough on CO2 output or fuel-efficient enough to keep up with the turbocharged competition, and when they bring out the new Type R in 2014 they'll be the last of the big hot hatch players to go turbocharged.
.
True, its just impossible to make a powerful n/a with good co2 emissions even with vtec vvttti super duper valve control. That's compared with a modern turbo anyway. .
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff