# Automobile Turbochargers **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 24, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820 "2013-03-24T15:35:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/21 "2013-03-25T13:50:02Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve never heard of turbos heating up intake temperatures, other than that they can make underhood temps somewhat higher. Intercoolers are used to reduce intake air temp as much as possible because it’s a simple linear relationship between cooler air and a denser intake charge. If you can knock ten degrees out of the intake air, you have a denser air charge to go with your added fuel charge, and thus more power. any time you compress air, the air will increase in temperature. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/22 "2013-03-25T13:56:41Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > any time you compress air, the air will increase in temperature. Yes, I noted that. The comment was a bit muddled between “intake air” - on which a turbo has no temperature effect - and “intake manifold air” - which it certainly does heat up. If the engine is designed for pressurized intake, the effects of air heating can be greatly ameliorated by both intercooling and internal engine design. The problem is greatest when supercharging or turbocharging a normally-aspirated engine without making substantial modifications to it. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/23 "2013-03-25T13:56:53Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > The car that won the F1 world championship in 1950 (Alfa Romeo 159 Alfetta) was a 1.5 litre with over 400 horsepower. And it would not be drivable on the street as a passenger vehicle. I don’t think people realize what peaky, temperamental beasts race engines are. As **NitroPress** already pointed out, F1 engines make that power by revving into the stratosphere. An engine making 700 HP at 19,000 rpm is going to have such a narrow powerband that even getting the car moving takes skill. The average motorist isn’t going to like a really buzzy, peaky engine. ---
**Author:** ![Beelzebubba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Beelzebubba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beelzebubba)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/24 "2013-03-25T14:08:43Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > ETA: This all assumes a \*designed \*turbo engine, not simply hanging a twister on an existing NA engine. Everything has to be redesigned to take maximum advantage of the compressed intake charge. You won’t get nearly as much from simply compressing an engine’s intake, as was done in the earliest era of modern turbos (1980-90 or so). Some of the ‘quickie’ turbocharged engines of the early 80s were bad enough to scare people away for life! Sort of like GM diesels did in the late 70s and early 80s. My best friend had a 1984 Chrysler Laser XE (‘upscale’ twin to the Dodge Daytona). It was Turd Brown (entirely appropriate) and had over 130,000 miles on it when he got it. That was the first year for the Laser/Daytona models and also the first year for the 2.2L (Turbo I) engine. It was a 5-speed but 3rd and 4th gears were very tough to engage. It had the ‘oh so 80s’ digital dash, which was seriously outdated when he got it in 1990. It also had the Chrysler Electronic Voice Alert, which actually used the same primitive voice chip that was used in the Speak & Spell toys. The voice was identical to the toy and it still haunts my nightmares! A few weeks after he got the heap, the head gasket blew. I can still hear that damn robotic voice, “Engine overheating! Engine damage may occur!” And it would repeat it over and over… After a few months, he “accidentally” ran off the road and into a cement-lined drainage ditch. The back side of the ditch was basically a 4-foot cement wall and when the car’s freakishly long snout hit the wall, the whole car fell apart! The engine ended up about three feet into the firewall and would have crushed the legs or worse of anyone in the front seats…..if there had been anyone in the car at the time! =) Did I mention that it sort of ‘rolled’ into the ditch while we were standing nearby doing absolutely nothing??? =) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/25 "2013-03-25T14:21:17Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > F1 is still limited to 1.5L, if my understanding is correct… Your understanding is incorrect. F1 banned turbochargers in 1989 and went to a single 3.5 litre normally aspirated setup, then to 3.0 in the mid-nineties and 2.4 recently. Having said that, F1 is going to a [1.6L + turbo](http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/01/24/f1s-v6-engines-2014-numbers/) arrangement for 2014. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/26 "2013-03-25T14:58:16Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > … > > I’ve never heard of turbos heating up intake temperatures, other than that they can make underhood temps somewhat higher. … Compressing gas most certainly increases its temperature. Just as an expanding gas sees a reduction in temperature. Go watch them fill up a scuba tank and it will all make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/27 "2013-03-25T15:05:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Your understanding is incorrect. F1 banned turbochargers in 1989 and went to a single 3.5 litre normally aspirated setup, then to 3.0 in the mid-nineties and 2.4 recently. Thanks. I haven’t followed F1 since about that first change, so my info is historical. I should have phrased it as “F1 once used” etc. rather than making it a current reference. The balance of the comment about RPMs being used to get enormous power out of small engines still applies, which was the intent. ETA: Sorry, this has been a “not enough caffeine yet” kind of morning. Fully engage brain before releasing posting clutch, that’s the ticket. ---
**Author:** ![westom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bbe5ce/32.png) [@westom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/westom)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/28 "2013-03-26T02:42:01Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > You can’t do that in street engines because of the machining tolerances (expensive), the low durability and the noise. That ‘business school reasoning’ also said VCRs could not be sold profitably. Required specially trained operators (like today’s current race cars). After all, a VCR, when marketed in California, cost $20,000. How could any consumer operate such an expensive and complex machine? A business school trained CEO was well rewarded by selling the technology to Sony. And then a $20,000 VCR eventually sold for massive profits at $200. Who got the jobs? A company run by someone from the product - an engineer. Who lost the jobs? Employees of a business school graduate who made decisions on costs and fears. Who could not understand and therefore stifled innovation. Either one makes decisions base in technology, innovation, a product, and the future. Or one is a cost controller whose opinions are based in obsolete technologies and fear. A 70 Hp/liter engine that ran on race tracks in the 1940s cost (in today’s money) $millions. That same technology is the only engine found in today’s minimally acceptable cars. Is found in every Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, VW, etc. When did you spend $1 million for your car? Innovation means items costing $millions today will likely sell for thousands times less money decades later. ‘Cost control reasoning’ (as taught in business schools) stifles technology. Causing less jobs, recessions, and economic downturns. Overseas innovators then prosper a decade plus later from those stifled innovations. Again, why did GM go bankrupt? Look at the so many innovations banned from GM products. That appeared ten and twenty years later in superior and imported products. Today’s expensive innovations are tomorrow’s commodities. Everyone is reading on a computer - another perfect example of how a $multi-million product costs so little a few decades later. Because the computer industry innovates rather than cost controls. Because the computer industry did not fear innovation. Turbocharged engine was an old technology for higher gas mileage from smaller and more powerful engines. An old solution. Current question, “what new technology will do better than what turbo chargers once did?” ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/29 "2013-03-26T03:06:54Z")
> [@westom](#): > > That ‘business school reasoning’ also said VCRs could not be sold profitably. Required specially trained operators (like today’s current race cars). After all, a VCR, when marketed in California, cost $20,000. How could any consumer operate such an expensive and complex machine? > > A business school trained CEO was well rewarded by selling the technology to Sony. And then a $20,000 VCR eventually sold for massive profits at $200. Who got the jobs? A company run by someone from the product - an engineer. Who lost the jobs? Employees of a business school graduate who made decisions on costs and fears. Who could not understand and therefore stifled innovation. just like “Big Oil” and the automakers conspired to suppress the magical 200 mpg carburetor. > [@](#): > > A 70 Hp/liter engine that ran on race tracks in the 1940s cost (in today’s money) $millions. That same technology is the only engine found in today’s minimally acceptable cars. Is found in every Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, VW, etc. When did you spend $1 million for your car? I don’t give a shit. hp/L is a meaningless metric if you don’t take drivability into account. a 70 hp/L engine in the '40s would have been a temperamental, peaky beast which would not have been usable in a street car. The fact that my Mustang’s engine produces over 80 hp/L has little to do with your putative '40s race engine aside from the fact that they both notionally burn gasoline. I mean, I have radio control boat engines that make 450 hp/L but that has no bearing on anything. > [@](#): > > Again, why did GM go bankrupt? because they were a “big company,” and were suffering from “big company” disease. They thought they were so entrenched and thought they could rely on customer loyalty so they could keep selling the same land barges they’d been offering since the '50s. GM started going bankrupt in 1973. > [@](#): > > Look at the so many innovations banned from GM products.That appeared ten and twenty years later in superior and imported products. Like what? give me a minute to pull up a chair, I want to hear this. > [@](#): > > Turbocharged engine was an old technology for higher gas mileage from smaller and more powerful engines. An old solution. Current question, “what new technology will do better than what turbo chargers once did?” It’s not just turbocharging. yes, yes, I know turbocharging has been around for decades. But one of the “dirty little secrets” is that in the past turbocharging has had a negative impact on an engine’s efficiency. see, in days of yore, if you incorporated forced induction on your engine, you had to lower the static compression ratio to stave off preignition/detonation. It’s only been within the past several years where gasoline direct injection has allowed powertrain engineers to design engines with both high static compression ratios _and_ turbocharging. In 1990, if you even hinted that you could build an engine with a 10:1 or 11:1 compression ratio _and_ strap a turbo or two onto it, you’d have been burned at the stake. But now, more than one automaker is doing just that. ---
**Author:** ![FordTaurusSHO94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f07891/32.png) [@FordTaurusSHO94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordTaurusSHO94)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/30 "2013-03-26T04:24:37Z")
Small, peaky engines in passenger cars would be awful. Ever ridden a 4 cylinder sport bike? Imagine a powerband like that in a car. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/31 "2013-03-26T06:19:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Like what? give me a minute to pull up a chair, I want to hear this. Get the popcorn, I’ll bring the beer. ---
**Author:** ![snailboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@snailboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snailboy)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/32 "2013-03-26T07:53:47Z")
> [@FordTaurusSHO94](#): > > Small, peaky engines in passenger cars would be awful. Ever ridden a 4 cylinder sport bike? Imagine a powerband like that in a car. The username/post combo here made me chuckle. The Taurus SHO had a Yamaha engine that could rev over 9,000 RPM with underdrive pulleys. That’s almost as high as an R1. ---
**Author:** ![Beelzebubba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Beelzebubba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beelzebubba)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/33 "2013-03-26T08:20:51Z")
Speaking of GM and innovations, two words I have rarely (never) used in the same sentence… Did you know that GM was the first automaker in the world to offer airbags on a production car??? They were optional on the following models- 1974-1976 Cadillac (all models except Eldorado Convertible and Fleetwood Limo) 1974-1976 Buick Electra 225 and Riviera 1974-1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88, Ninety Eight and Toronado It was called the Air Cushion Restraint System (ACRS) and approximately 10,000 cars were sold with the option during the three model years it was offered. ACRS included a driver’s airbag housed in a specially designed four-spoke steering wheel hub and a knee bolster installed under the dash to help keep the driver in place as it deployed. It also had a second airbag on the passenger side that was much larger to cover the center and passenger side of the front bench seat. GM expected to sell 100,000 airbag-equipped cars per year, but after three years only 10,000 had sold. Bad timing was largely to blame. Just as the option was introduced on full-size 1974 models, the fuel-crisis hit. Large car sales dropped like a brick and consumers who were still buying them weren’t interested in paying for the new-fangled safety system…hell, they didn’t care if the car had seatbelts! ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/34 "2013-03-26T08:28:57Z")
> [@westom](#): > > That ‘business school reasoning’ also said VCRs could not be sold profitably. Required specially trained operators (like today’s current race cars). After all, a VCR, when marketed in California, cost $20,000. How could any consumer operate such an expensive and complex machine? > > A business school trained CEO was well rewarded by selling the technology to Sony. And then a $20,000 VCR eventually sold for massive profits at $200. Who got the jobs? A company run by someone from the product - an engineer. Who lost the jobs? Employees of a business school graduate who made decisions on costs and fears. Who could not understand and therefore stifled innovation. > > Either one makes decisions base in technology, innovation, a product, and the future. Or one is a cost controller whose opinions are based in obsolete technologies and fear. Sometimes “cost” isn’t just monetary. **NitroPress** said that you can’t bring F1 technology to road cars and there are more reasons than just monetary cost. For example a F1 engine has to be fed preheated oil from an external source and be let to warm up for some time before it can be started. Tolerances are so tight that starting it right away will make it seize. Can you imagine having to do that every morning before going to work on your Hyundai? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/35 "2013-03-26T10:20:30Z")
> [@FordTaurusSHO94](#): > > Small, peaky engines in passenger cars would be awful. Ever ridden a 4 cylinder sport bike? Imagine a powerband like that in a car. Depends what you mean by “small and peaky” I clearly recall the introduction of the Honda VTEC into production cars. 1.6L engines, normally aspirated but pretty much 100bhp/litre. Revved to 9000 near enough and certainly it was best kept fizzing above 4000 but it was a very rapid engine, economical and reliable to boot. I think that fuel prices have stifled some innovation in the USA whereas in Europe and Japan the high fuel process have lead to the production of small, forced induction engines with excellent power and torque characteristics and high MPG. Necessity being the mother of invention. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/36 "2013-03-26T13:25:43Z")
> [@FordTaurusSHO94](#): > > Small, peaky engines in passenger cars would be awful. Yes, but modern high hp/L engines wouldn’t need to be all that narrow. This bit started on very high power engines of earlier eras, where 100HP/ci was only obtainable with very narrow powerbands - making them, as was pointed out, useless for street use. Between EFI/DFI, computer control and variable valve timing, we’ve squeezed enormous amounts of power out of bigger engines, and use the same tech to get adequate-to-damn good power out of smaller engines, with proportional mileage increases AND drivability. And if, say, a Honda 1L/200HP/40MPG engine was peakier than most drivers are used to, we have 6-7-8 speed transmissions and even CV transmissions now to handle the smoothing. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/37 "2013-03-26T17:23:31Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > And if, say, a Honda 1L/200HP/40MPG engine was peakier than most drivers are used to, we have 6-7-8 speed transmissions and even CV transmissions now to handle the smoothing. Exactly the route taken by VW with their 1.2 and 1.4 turbo petrol engines. They are superb when mated to the DSG automatic boxes. ---
**Author:** ![westom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bbe5ce/32.png) [@westom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/westom)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/38 "2013-03-27T04:08:45Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > This bit started on very high power engines of earlier eras, where 100HP/ci was only obtainable with very narrow powerbands - making them, as was pointed out, useless for street use. A myth invented to deny reality. Due to higher performance, Japanese engines, using technologies stifled in America 20 years earlier, also had wider power bands. Today’s ‘easier to drive’ cars used “1940 F1 type” technology. Better cars tomorrow are predicted by technologies found in today’s better race circuits. We know that from every decade of history - including 19th Century history. Honda S2000 (aspirated) does 120 Hp/liter. Is so easy to drive due to no obsolete, harder to drive, dog V-8. Superior cars have high performance engines that are smaller and need much less gas. That were once only found in exotic, high performance race cars. Turbocharging was an old solution. Newer solutions listed below. Why did a Ford engineer carry the new Ford engine on an airplane in his checked luggage? Because Ford removed naysaying designers starting in 2000. And because top Ford management drives cars. In 1960, Ford developed a stratefied charge engine. A superior design that Ford engineers wanted in all Fords. But Henry Ford (who did not even drive) used spread sheets and a naysayers fear of innovation to stifle that higher Hp/liter engine. Twenty years later, Honda discovered and implemented that technology. Old man Honda came from where the work gets done; not from business schools. He understood relevant numbers (including Hp/liter). The Accord became America’s number one seller; Civic was number two. Because Honda put another stifled American technology in all Hondas. Renamed it CVCC. > [@](#): > > We were getting about 50 horsepower per liter of displacement with pushrods. Then sixty Hp/liter with overhead cams, seventy to seventy five Hp/liter with four valves per cylinder, and 85 to 90 Hp/liter with tuned port induction. Then you add variable valve timing and you can push 100 Hp/liter or so. He then says the payoff makes an engine, transmission and structure smaller to improve the car’s efficiency (ie mileage) and handling. Improvements possible due to higher Hp/liter. Who was citing important numbers such as Hp/liter? Roger Heimbuch, executive engineer for GM’s power trains. A car guy. Why do others know engineers are wrong? Myths and lies invented by GM’s ‘bean counter’ management is difficult to unlearn. Heimbuch described, in 1990, innovations ready for GM products in the 1980s. He described stifled innovations that caused a bankrupt GM many decades later. Innovation means more horsepower from smaller engines, with less pollution, that last longer, reduce maintenance, cost less, higher mileage, and … more jobs created because American products can be exported. Stifled technology is a major reason for so many lost American jobs. Job losses created by larger displacement engines with less horsepower that consume excessive fuel. Because GM executives can only understand obsolete technologies. A number - Hp/liter - must be kept from consumers. Denying that most relevant number only encourages GM to make more inferior products. To destroy more jobs. Turbocharging was a long time old technology that, when implemented properly, increased gas mileage. Newer technologies that make better engines and therefore better gas mileage are listed above by Heimbuch with numbers. What did GM do after 1990? Stifled innovation using naysayer reasoning. Even designed engines with pushrods! Only crappiest engines use push rods. Top auto executives, who could not even drive, needed Americans to stay ignorant. To deny Hp/liters. And to buy cars with pushrods. Other technologies can do more than a turbocharger. Listed were 1980s technologies. Newer innovations have been proven since then. But will not be found in cars designed by business school graduates - who even deny a Hp/liter number. Many were deceived by displacement myths. Never knew the proven engineering number. And then deny it rather than learn what car guys have discussed for a century. Hp/liter also identifies some who never learned engine technology and innovation. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/39 "2013-03-27T05:23:57Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > Does incorporating a turbocharger in an otherwise standard internal combustion automobile engine improve, reduce or have no impact on gas mileage? > > I think it should improve overall performance, which I interpret to mean more power, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch, so I assume that mileage suffers as a result. Increased air flow requires an increase in fuel delivery or the engine will run lean, possibly so lean the mixture won’t ignite. Assuming you started with a stock 100hp engine (I4, V4, I6, V6, V8, etc) and added another 50hp (a big jump) by using a turbocharger, you could increase your MPG by changing your final drive ratio or using larger (taller) tires. Acceleration could be faster, slower, or about the same depending on your selection. Turbochargers also increase the compression ratio. An engine designed to handle 9 to 1 compression probably won’t handle 11 to 1 without a major upgrade in components (bearings, rods, pistons, bolts, etc). The turbo itself gets very HOT. You’re pumping your exhaust gas directly into the turbo housing. The intake air will become hotter and less dense as it passes thru the housing. Compressing the intake air also increases it’s tempurature. Adding an intercooler will counteract some/most of the increase. You also need to run an oil line to the turbo and a return. Turbo lag can be a problem. You have to A) increase engine speed to B) produce more exhaust pressure to C) spin the turbo faster in order to D) increase intake pressure. I think it’s easier to start with (buy) a production, turbo charged engine than it is to build one. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820/40 "2013-03-27T06:13:50Z")
**westom** , we’re interested in facts, not conspiracy theories and conjecture. stop spewing crap. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automobile-turbochargers/653820.md?page=3)