Automobile Turbochargers

[jz78817]

@westom

Numerous factors and history are ignored in some above replies. For example, if an eighteen wheeler (ie 70,000 pounds) needs a 350 Hp engine, then why does a 2500 pound car need 350 Hp? Intelligent thought or size of the owner’s penis?

maybe the owner wants a vehicle that can accelerate to highway speed in less than 90 seconds. Seriously, driving in my area it’s common to see truckers put their hazard flashers on when going up the overpasses over Telegraph Road, or on I-75 over the Rouge River. y’know why they do that? because their rigs *can’t even reach highway speeds going up a minor grade.

Cars have more than enough horsepower (as made obvious by previously posted numbers such as 10 Hp). Problems lie elsewhere. One problem was a narrow power range of low performance engines. Rather than innovate (make higher performance engines), autos designed by cost controls simply increased displacement. And then preached myths to the naive. The V-8 was an early and easy solution to that narrow power range. In the last many decades, autos designed by ‘car guys’ eliminated unnecessary displacement by making the same horsepower from a 4 cylinder engine. GM demonstrated that technology in the early 1970. It also increased gas mileage and reduced pollution. But ‘car guys’ no longer designed GM products.

the “problem” is that fuel prices in the US are still pretty cheap compared to the world at large. customers had no incentive to pay more for a smaller, more economical engine instead of a V8.

A low performance engine (on the road or race track) advertises itself. It makes more noise. Not just in parts that are poorly machined (only to 0.001 inch tolerances). But inferior designs burn (waste) more gas in the exhaust pipe. How to get that a noise that inspires the subjective and emotional? Burn gas in the exhaust pipe. Many kids now advertise insufficient knowledge by changing mufflers. Now they have a car that pollutes more, increased exhaust valve wear, less gas mileage, has less horsepower, and … well their naive friends are impressed by noise from a compromised engine.

The drop in back pressure from a muffler is insignificant. you won’t get burned exhaust valves nor pollute any more by installing a freer-flowing muffler. the back pressure from the exhaust pipes themselves is enough to prevent burned valves; and that’s not even considering the catalysts.

Better gas mileage could be obtained by designing a smaller engine with a turbocharger. That was 1960 technology.

yes, I know turbochargers existed back then. That doesn’t mean they worked well. Carburetors are too imprecise and turbochargers too non-linear to work well together. In case you forgot (or more likely never knew in the first place) GM had turbocharged cars on the market in the '60s. The Corvair was the first production car with a turbo, the Olds Cutlass Jetfire was the second. And you know what? They sucked. They were prone to excessive detonation/preignition and just plain didn’t work that well.

Back in the 50s and 60s, GM made spectacular new cars because everything was innovated by car guys. Innovations every year were numerous. Including power steering, automatic transmission, rotating valves, tuned manifolds, electronic ignition, superior spark control, better carburetors, new alternator designs, superior manufacturing tools, McPherson struts, and standardization. Actual list would probably be longer than all above posts combined.

everything you’ve listed here was “innovative” in the '50s and '60s because automotive tech was still in its infancy. The things you mention basically didn’t exist prior to then. And if you want to try to act like there hasn’t been any innovation on that scale since then, I would like to say the word “hybrid.”

Why did turbocharging not appear in the 1970s? Well GM did turbocharge some cars (ie Buick). Its design was so cost controlled as to constantly fail. Technology for superior and less fuel hungry cars was stifled by concepts still taught in business schools today.

the Turbo Trans Am in '80 and '81 tried to replace the 400 c.i. V8 with a turbocharged 301 c.i. V8. Like the ones before it, it was a pinging, unreliable piece of shit. I mean, electronic fuel injection was put on the market in the '50s by DeSoto, but it was so primitive and unreliable that there are less than a handful of surviving cars with FI since so many were converted back to carb by the dealers.

Turbocharging is an old technology to obtain higher gas mileage. Today, better solutions appear in products elsewhere in the world. GM was forced to admit their products are some of the world’s worst only when Rick Wagoner said there is nothing wrong with GM. GM’s only problems were the American economy. Only then did even dumbest Americans (ie Wall Street stock brokers) realize how bad GM products have become.

GM could have used an old technology called turbocharging to increase horsepower, increase gas mileage, decrease production costs, and decrease pollution. Instead, everything in GM was designed using the antonym of innovation - cost controls.

GM’s problems weren’t its engines. GM’s problems were that they had poor management, leading to high fixed costs, totally brain-dead “brand management” strategies, and vehicles that people didn’t even want to look at much less actually buy one. Read Bob Lutz’s Car Guys vs. Bean Counters. It’ll tell you all you need to know about what GM’s core problems were. I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t their engines. They could probably have gotten another decade out of the 3800 V6 and customers wouldn’t have cared so long as the car was good. The problem was, GM’s cars weren’t good.

[jz78817]

@westom

That might confuse GM, run by executives that once drove cars, with a GM whose executives do not drive. Are so introverted as to make laws so that GM executives could be protected from the public. GM, in denial, made rules to protect them from reality. According to GM, United and American airplanes were unsafe. Executives could only fly on private jets. GM even installed elevators so that executives need not see any common people in building lobbies.

westom, this is GQ. You’re going to have to start providing citations for this shit. Lots of large corporations have private aircraft at their disposal. I don’t know why you are singling out GM other than you have an axe you need to grind.

The most famous aluminum block was Vega. Aluminum so superior (due to 1960 innovations) that cylinders did not even need a ridge reamer. Steel blocks wore so much that a ridge reamer was required to remove pistons. But Vega, even well beyond 100,000 miles, had virtually no cylinder wear. Why did that innovation result in a worst engine in history? Learn technology facts. Bean counters so cost controlled everything as to make changes that warped each engine.

where’s your evidence for this? And yes, I also know that a large cause of the problems with the 2300 were due to an underspec’ed cooling system. And if aluminum is such a superior material for cylinder wear surfaces, ask all those European manufacturers how well Nikasil worked out for them. Hint: it didn’t go too well. The reason GM tried liner-less blocks for the 2300 and ze Germans went with Nikasil was to avoid the cost of casting in (or pressing in) iron liners. there is a very good reason practically all aluminum engine blocks still use iron cylinder liners, and it’s not because aluminum is a more durable wearing surface.

Oh, and the typical engine of the time wasn’t made of steel, but gray cast iron. Big difference.

One need only hear oil industry executives who routinely complained about this. GM cars required increasingly more gas because GM innovation died. The executives did not say that publicly. Being that honest was politically incorrect. But privately, oil industry executives discussed disasters they were being blamed for because GM products kept getting crappier. A perfect example - vapor lock. A problem only because GM bean counters removed parts that were ‘unnecessary’.

Turbocharging was an early solution to better gas mileage, superior designs, and less pollution. Unfortunately bean counters from business schools replaced car guys who did innovation. And still some have posted myths (lies) generated by those bean counter executives.

Innovation was alive and well in early 1960 GM. Then America started graduating plenty of MBAs. And less engineers every year. Engineers no longer designed the products.

you are embarrassing yourself. for your own sake, stop.

[westom]

@jz78817

Lots of large corporations have private aircraft at their disposal.  I don't know why you are singling out GM ...

Why should I also discuss Eastman Kodak? They are not relevant to the discussion. And GM’s policies of stifling innovation (ie keeping executive away from the public using private jets, special elevators, etc) are legendary. Do you know that GM executives routinely let private citizens drive them in all cars (including the competition)? Good. Let’s hear how Rick Wagoner and Roger Smith routinely rubbed elbows with commoners.

where’s your evidence for this? And yes, I also know that a large cause of the problems with the 2300 were due to an underspec’ed cooling system. And if aluminum is such a superior material for cylinder wear surfaces, ask all those European manufacturers how well Nikasil worked out for them.

Why did Honda and Toyota come from nowhere to have world class racing engines? Engineers did most of the test engines in cast iron and steel. Once designs were refined, racing engines were cast in aluminum.

Why do superior imported cars use aluminum engines? That answer should be obvious. Who designs them?

Or read it in DeLorean’s book “On a Clear Day You Can See GM”.

Meanwhile, I learned about cars (and why some manufactures would eventually seek bankruptcy protection) by even disassembling numerous 2.3 liter GM engines with well over 100,000 miles. And then asking damning questions. No cylinder wear. Those who know cars would also know why. GM engineers in the 1960s had learned silicon lapping. It made the aluminum so and more durable.

Few really know that cooling was one reason for those engine failures. GM bean counters intentionally redesigned that car with a radiator that was one third the required size. Then proved GM engineers were dumb by running that inferior design on a test track. If it did not overheat, then engineers were stupid. And so more bean counters replaced car guys as designers.

Same design that did not overheat on a test track routinely overheated in traffic. Many did not know these stories. Fewer who know cars do.

Just because GM bean counters designed the turbocharger, then that proves reliable turbos were not possible? No. That only proves that bean counters are the most common reason for automobile failures - including exploding Pintos that burned alive their occupants.

Rather than post accusations, instead post facts. If you know those inferior products were traceable to others, then prove it. And cite examples. Unfortunately too many only know innovations were not possible because obsolete technology was ‘good enough’.

If you know cars from GM such as Fiero, Citation, Corvair, or Cimmaron were traceable to other factors, then post your knowledge. Please do not waste bandwidth by posting useless, disparaging comments.

Topic is turbocharging and fuel economy. Please remember before posting disparaging remarks unrelated to the OP’s question. What could have existed in the 70s (ie turbocharger) did not happen due to management that would lie rather than admit to technical ignorance. Other technologies that also accomplished improved fuel economy were also stifled because top management in some auto companies (GM cited as an example) did not even drive.

Turbocharging was only one method for achieving higher gas mileage. Also cited were why innovations (for higher gas mileage) were kept from consumers.

[FordTaurusSHO94]

@westom

Numerous factors and history are ignored in some above replies. For example, if an eighteen wheeler (ie 70,000 pounds) needs a 350 Hp engine, then why does a 2500 pound car need 350 Hp? Intelligent thought or size of the owner’s penis?

I love how everyone jumps to that right off the bat when someone has a fast car. I’ve got a Cobra with around 470 horsepower and even more torque. What does that say about me? What if I told you it sits under a cover most of the time and my daily driver is actually a bright red Miata?

[jz78817]

@westom

Why should I also discuss Eastman Kodak? They are not relevant to the discussion.

you brought up the private jet thing. I’m asking you why it’s significant. Stop deflecting.

Why did Honda and Toyota come from nowhere to have world class racing engines? Engineers did most of the test engines in cast iron and steel. Once designs were refined, racing engines were cast in aluminum.

racing engines have to last one race. Passenger car engines are expected to live for 10 years/150,000 miles at minimum.

Why do superior imported cars use aluminum engines? That answer should be obvious. Who designs them?

the blocks may be cast out of aluminum, but the cylinders still have iron liners. But please, go ahead and tell my why my “inferior” Mustang GT doesn’t actually have an aluminum engine block. Go ahead.

Or read it in DeLorean’s book “On a Clear Day You Can See GM”.

Quoting a guy whose name is forever attached to an anemically underpowered, shoddily built piece of junk that wouldn’t have been even a blip on the radar if not for Back to the Future.

Meanwhile, I learned about cars (and why some manufactures would eventually seek bankruptcy protection) by even disassembling numerous 2.3 liter GM engines with well over 100,000 miles. And then asking damning questions. No cylinder wear. Those who know cars would also know why. GM engineers in the 1960s had learned silicon lapping. It made the aluminum so and more durable.

Where is your fucking cite for this?

Few really know that cooling was one reason for those engine failures. GM bean counters intentionally redesigned that car with a radiator that was one third the required size. Then proved GM engineers were dumb by running that inferior design on a test track. If it did not overheat, then engineers were stupid. And so more bean counters replaced car guys as designers.

Cite?

Same design that did not overheat on a test track routinely overheated in traffic. Many did not know these stories. Fewer who know cars do.

CITE?

Rather than post accusations, instead post facts.

Don’t you dare demand this from me after all of your unsupported conjecture.

If you know those inferior products were traceable to others, then prove it. And cite examples.

you haven’t cited shit.

If you know cars from GM such as Fiero, Citation, Corvair, or Cimmaron were traceable to other factors, then post your knowledge. Please do not waste bandwidth by posting useless, disparaging comments.

If you’re not going to support your arguments, you have no place demanding that I do so.

Topic is turbocharging and fuel economy. Please remember before posting disparaging remarks unrelated to the OP’s question.

Says the guy complaining about corporate jets.

What could have existed in the 70s (ie turbocharger) did not happen due to management that would lie rather than admit to technical ignorance. Other technologies that also accomplished improved fuel economy were also stifled because top management in some auto companies (GM cited as an example) did not even drive.

Turbochargers did exist in the '70s. They were temperamental, unreliable beasts. I mean, for fuck’s sake, Chrysler spent years going all in on turbochargers and still fell back on offering a V6 (the wonderful, oil-burning Mitsubishi 3.0L) because that’s what consumers wanted.

Turbocharging was only one method for achieving higher gas mileage. Also cited were why innovations (for higher gas mileage) were kept from consumers.

might as well bring up the Fish carburetor, so long as you’re posting crap.

[westom]

@FordTaurusSHO94

I love how everyone jumps to that right off the bat when someone has a fast car.

At no time did anyone criticize you for a car with (obviously) too much horsepower. Nowhere is a sentence to feel otherwise.

Now, buy and burn ten gallons of gasoline. How many of those ten gallons actually move the car? A little over one. More than 8 of ten gallons is wasted as heat and noise. Because gasoline even at $10 per gallon is so cheap.

Innovation means increasing that to at least 3 of ten gallons. Quite possible. Numerous tricks were implemented or can exist to increase that number. One earlier attempt was Ford’s 1960 stratefied charge engine. Burning a leaner mixture also resulted in higher performance - ie 1980 Honda CVCC.

Turbocharger was another attempt. Direct injection is a latest innovation. In every case, to use more of those ten gallons productively.

Yes, we waste that much energy from every ten gallons of gasoline.

[Rick]

@westom

Numerous factors and history are ignored in some above replies. For example, if an eighteen wheeler (ie 70,000 pounds) needs a 350 Hp engine, then why does a 2500 pound car need 350 Hp? Intelligent thought or size of the owner’s penis?

What did somebody point out your Aztec was ugly?

Anyway, don’t know much about horsepower, torque and red lines I see.
Pull up a chair son and let me school you.
You see horsepower sells cars, but torque is where it is at. Torque moves things.
horsepower is torque X RPM /5252 (wiki linky)
Working backwards to solve for torque we get HP X 5252/RPM = torque
So we have two 350 HP engines.
the Semi develops it max HP at 2100 RPM
The Sports Car at 7,000 RPM
Doing the math the Semi has a pavement ripping 875 foot lbs of torque.
The sports car has 262 foot lbs of torque.
Put the sports car engine in the Semi and it probably would have a hard time moving off from a dead stop.

[snailboy]

@westom

Numerous factors and history are ignored in some above replies. For example, if an eighteen wheeler (ie 70,000 pounds) needs a 350 Hp engine, then why does a 2500 pound car need 350 Hp? Intelligent thought or size of the owner’s penis?

Okay Grandpa… Just because you like vehicles that take all day to hit 60 doesn’t mean others can’t enjoy a little performance in their ride. For the record, mine hits 60 MPH in 4.2 seconds and gets 45 mpg. I wonder what kind of mileage you get.

@Rick

Put the sports car engine in the Semi and it probably would have a hard time moving off from a dead stop.

It could move it just as well as the truck engine with appropriate gearing. It just probably wouldn’t make it five miles before it overheated or blew up.

[doorhinge]

@westom

Numerous factors and history are ignored in some above replies. For example, if an eighteen wheeler (ie 70,000 pounds) needs a 350 Hp engine, then why does a 2500 pound car need 350 Hp? Intelligent thought or size of the owner’s penis?

Could you explain your personal fascination with another man’s johnson and how it relates to this thread?

[jz78817]

@snailboy

It could move it just as well as the truck engine with appropriate gearing. It just probably wouldn’t make it five miles before it overheated or blew up.

as an example, my area’s gas utility uses Ford F-750s with V10s instead of diesel (for obvious reasons, they run on CNG.) I was driving alongside one of these trucks and I couldn’t help but notice how the engine was positively screaming compared to what I would hear out of a diesel.

[Kevbo]

@jz78817

as an example, my area’s gas utility uses Ford F-750s with V10s instead of diesel (for obvious reasons, they run on CNG.) I was driving alongside one of these trucks and I couldn’t help but notice how the engine was positively screaming compared to what I would hear out of a diesel.

Most Diesel trucks are 6 cylinders now (even the fords have gone to a V-6). So the exhaust note of the V-10 is going to be 10/6 higher pitched,(almost an octave higher) even at the same RPM…but of course the Diesels ARE much lower revving.

The low low-rev/high torque Diesels make life tough for transmissions, especially as the the Diesels have much higher torque spikes on the power stroke, and large negative torque spikes on the compression stroke. People were very hopeful when Chevy put an Allison transmission behind the Duramax, but I haven’t tracked how well they have held up.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@snailboy

For the record, mine hits 60 MPH in 4.2 seconds and gets 45 mpg. I wonder what kind of mileage you get.

Cite? those figures (if they are an american car) equate to nearly 50 mpg UK. what kind of car does that?

[jz78817]

@Novelty_Bobble

Cite? those figures (if they are an american car) equate to nearly 50 mpg UK. what kind of car does that?

One with two wheels.

[snailboy]

@Novelty_Bobble

Cite? those figures (if they are an american car) equate to nearly 50 mpg UK. what kind of car does that?

It’s not exactly a car. I can’t find a reliable cite for the 0-60, but here’s one that lists the quarter mile at 11.3 seconds and 121 mph and here’s one that puts the fuel economy at 44.4 mpg though I doubt you’ll have a problem believing me when you see what kind of vehicle it is anyway.

[FordTaurusSHO94]

@westom

At no time did anyone criticize you for a car with (obviously) too much horsepower. Nowhere is a sentence to feel otherwise.

I see several other people have taken to you task over the issue.

About my car being over powered though? It sits under a cover most of the time. The rest of the time, it gets raced. If anything, it needs MOAR power.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@snailboy

It’s not exactly a car. I can’t find a reliable cite for the 0-60, but here’s one that lists the quarter mile at 11.3 seconds and 121 mph and here’s one that puts the fuel economy at 44.4 mpg though I doubt you’ll have a problem believing me when you see what kind of vehicle it is anyway.

Ah! I see…carry on.

[westom]

Diesels were cited. Without understanding why diesels are so popular on vehicles that must achieve superior fuel economy. How to use more fuel productively? A diesel has an even wider power range. Drive an obsolete technology V-8 that has excessive displacement because its low performance engine has a narrow power range. It also wastes uses more energy unproductively. Instead, install a higher performance V-6 that has a wider power range. Or install a diesel with an even wider power range.

Or do something even better. Use a diesel to drive a generator and motor. That provides a wider power range meaning a smaller engine does even better fuel economy.

Innovation is about adapting to changing loads. Rather than do that, bean counters simply increased displacement. They were not marketing to people who know engines. They were only worries about their own profits and bonuses.

What is a latest innovation? Hybrid. More fuel energy drives the wheels; less wasted as heat, noise, and pollution. An automobile answer to what was done originally on 1930s trains.

Of course, a diesel runs at a lower RPM compared to a gas engine. But are doing same work.
Torque is another useless number. Need more torque? Change gears. Engine torque says nothing useful about performance. Any engine of any size can achieve the same torque. Even a clock motor can be geared for high torque. Just change gears. As even taught in high school physics.

But can a clock motor also do the required speed? Due to less horsepower, that motor can provide sufficient torque but insufficient speed. Another reason why the important number is horsepower - not torque.

Engine specs list torque so that a user can select proper gear ratios. Torque says nothing about engine performance.

Old solution to sufficient horsepower and better fuel economy from a smaller engine? Turbocharge. Many newer innovations now do same. Only fewer who learned this stuff cited examples such as race cars that now only need 1.5 liter engines.

Those who fear learning post insults. As if insults prove knowledge.

[Rick]

@westom

Diesels were cited. Without understanding why diesels are so popular on vehicles that must achieve superior fuel economy. How to use more fuel productively? A diesel has an even wider power range. Drive an obsolete technology V-8 that has excessive displacement because its low performance engine has a narrow power range. It also wastes uses more energy unproductively. Instead, install a higher performance V-6 that has a wider power range. Or install a diesel with an even wider power range.

Or do something even better. Use a diesel to drive a generator and motor. That provides a wider power range meaning a smaller engine does even better fuel economy.

Innovation is about adapting to changing loads. Rather than do that, bean counters simply increased displacement. They were not marketing to people who know engines. They were only worries about their own profits and bonuses.

What is a latest innovation? Hybrid. More fuel energy drives the wheels; less wasted as heat, noise, and pollution. An automobile answer to what was done originally on 1930s trains.

Of course, a diesel runs at a lower RPM compared to a gas engine. But are doing same work.
Torque is another useless number. Need more torque? Change gears. Engine torque says nothing useful about performance. Any engine of any size can achieve the same torque. Even a clock motor can be geared for high torque. Just change gears. As even taught in high school physics.

But can a clock motor also do the required speed? Due to less horsepower, that motor can provide sufficient torque but insufficient speed. Another reason why the important number is horsepower - not torque.

Engine specs list torque so that a user can select proper gear ratios. Torque says nothing about engine performance.

Old solution to sufficient horsepower and better fuel economy from a smaller engine? Turbocharge. Many newer innovations now do same. Only fewer who learned this stuff cited examples such as race cars that now only need 1.5 liter engines.

Those who fear learning post insults. As if insults prove knowledge.

Seriously dude you don’t know what you are talking about.
Your hole is pretty deep, you really should stop digging.