What are the dis advantages of Turbo?

[sasha055]

A lot of my friends got themselves new cars for christmass (non porsche)

And while discusing it I noticed them most of them have around 220-240 HP (1.8-2.2L with turbo)

Why is porsche makes only 1 model of turbo? are there any dis-advantages of turbo.. other then cost?

Thanks
Sasha

[Flavor 987S]

Originally Posted by sasha055

Why is porsche makes only 1 model of turbo? are there any dis-advantages of turbo.. other then cost?

Thanks
Sasha

Only 1????

Let's see, in their recent/current line-up:

1) 911 Turbo
2) 911 Turbo S
3) Panamera Turbo
4) Cayenne Turbo
5) Cayenne Turbo S
6) GT2

[jmatta]

Porsche has a long history of producing turbocharged cars...first proven on the racetrack, the technology found its way into street cars back in the seventies.

Don't look too hard for new models being turbocharged, as Porsche appears to be focusing on the hybrid market presently. That being said, Porsche may introduce a smaller two seater or perhaps even an updated Boxster with a turbo four. This could really come into play if Porsche re-enters F1 as an engine producer, as they were extremely successful the last go around (partnered with TAG).

Turbo lag is often quite difficult to deal with...my '88 930 turbo was a pig "off boost" and would turn into a raging maniac when the boost kicked in.

[ekam]

NA engines in general have flatter torque curve and this is especially true for our flat 6 engines. In a track car you want steady power not power spike from hitting boost in big turbo units mounted on little 4-cyl engines. You'll often read about turbo lag on WRXs and they're slow on a tight track because it's hard for them to stay in boost.

Turbo engines also require bit more care than NA engines.

[blue2000s]

In general turbocharged engines require lower compression ratios to accomodate reasonable boost levels without preignition. This results in "lazy" engine response when off boost and a serious lack of torque off boost. The throttle response isn't particularaly great either. Direct injection is improving all of this, but still not eliminating it.

Often it's difficult to have a turbo system that can spool fast enough for low end torque yet still provide satisfactory power up to redline. Turbos just don't have the wide operating range that an engine requires. This is why Porsche has the variable vane turbo and Mazda had the twin sequential turbos. I can attest to the earlier statement about the powerband of the WRX. There's no power until 3000 RPM. Low speed turns in 2nd gear are frustrating. I find a 3 liter normally aspirated engine much much more satisfying to drive than a 2 liter turbo of equal power.

Turbocharged engines are more highly stressed, they run hotter, the combustion chambers see significantly higher pressure. Because of this the cylinders and pistons must be more robust and therefore heavier and more expensive. The former lowering redline. The turbo, piping, intercooler, ect add weight and expense as well. In general the turbocharged car is heavier and more expensive Kthan the naturally aspirated equivalent. All the extra stress means the engine and other parts won't last as long and need to be serviced more regularly. They are also more expensive when serviced.

Depending on driving conditions and habbits, there might be a fuel economy advantage to the turbocharged car. For exampleq, highway driving is off boost so consumption of a small 4 cylinder is better than a larger 6. But if the driver uses the car's powerband, the turbocharged economy will be worst than the non-turbo. Tubocharged cars tend to run more rich under boost to keep the intake charge cool.

[laphan]

Also, turbo performance is much more dependent on ambient air temperature and charge air cooler performance. In high elevation, turbo engines perform better than NA (pressurized intake and low ambient air pressure).

On the bad side, turbo engines have more moving components means their long term reliability might not be as good as NA engines.
DI adds into that issue too; high pressure fuel injectors and high pressure fuel pumps with all those turbo complexity (e.g. BMW 3.0L turbo has all kinds of issue with high pressure fuel pump and DI injectors).
It also needs better cooling for turbo components (turbo blade and bearings), many manufacturers run coolant or oil to cool the turbo components. The charge air cooler dumps a lot of extra heat, this usually translate to higher under hood temperature (for cars with front engine) which is usually not good for components such as battery, alternator, belts, etc.

[ekam]

Originally Posted by laphan

In high elevation, turbo engines perform better than NA (pressurized intake and low ambient air pressure).

I think you mean the opposite. Higher elevation = thinner air = less efficient turbo.

[Flavor 987S]

Sasha, your friends can alway buy a "faster car", with more HP, just remember:

[sasha055]

Thanks for answers everyone.

I was puzzled why they don't put Turbo in all cars..
Logically: Smaller engine, better MPG (when you want it) and same HP would be a no brainer
In reality.. it seems that having a flat 6 engine with 218HP is better then a smaller turbo engine with 240HP.

I'll test drive my friends car (mitsubishi lancer ralliart) and see how the turbo feels

He want to race me, in a straight line, he told me that he knows that otherwise he has no chance

Thanks
Sasha

[ekam]

Originally Posted by Flavor 987S

Sasha, your friends can alway buy a "faster car", with more HP, just remember:

As I always say, anyone(with enough money and/or knowledge) can make any car go fast in a straight line.

I just happen to know a guy who has a 500whp+ Turbo Camry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrYDPg8yMTU

Racing your friend's Mitsu is just dumb IMO.

[Flavor 987S]

Originally Posted by jmatta

Turbo lag is often quite difficult to deal with...my '88 930 turbo was a pig "off boost" and would turn into a raging maniac when the boost kicked in.

No turbo lag here! But, yes in a 930 I understand your point.

[sasha055]

Ekam, it's funny.. my first words to him were " racing you in a straight line is dumb"

Well, he's a good friend. and he's been bugging me for over a month now.. what can I do.. we have playdates with kids every other day and that's all he talks about

It seems that his car would make 6 sec 0-60 in tests, and I have 2000 base which should be 6.5 sec...

Time to finally install that underdrive pulley I've been putting it away for way too long (it's cold in my garage)

Thanks
Sasha

[laphan]

Originally Posted by ekam

I think you mean the opposite. Higher elevation = thinner air = less efficient turbo.

Nope,
turbo actually works better than NA in high altitude:

A turbocharger also helps at high altitudes, where the air is less dense. Normal engines will experience reduced power at high altitudes because for each stroke of the piston, the engine will get a smaller mass of air. A turbocharged engine may also have reduced power, but the reduction will be less dramatic because the thinner air is easier for the turbocharger to pump.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm/printable

[sparker]

Originally Posted by laphan

Nope,
turbo actually works better than NA in high altitude:

A turbocharger also helps at high altitudes, where the air is less dense. Normal engines will experience reduced power at high altitudes because for each stroke of the piston, the engine will get a smaller mass of air. A turbocharged engine may also have reduced power, but the reduction will be less dramatic because the thinner air is easier for the turbocharger to pump.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm/printable

Beat me to it, was about to come in and defend you there. Less atmospheric pressure is no problem with forced induction, you just run more boost. No such option with NA engines......

Also dont forget that density altitude is a figure that constantly changes (even in the one spot) meaning that your NA engine will always be adjusting to the amount of air pressure in the atmosphere and therefore never really be tuned perfectly.

Sam

[jacabean]

turbos also make massive torque considering their usually small engine displacement. you would need very large displacement on an n/a motor to produce those torque numbers. Turbos tend to be very fast up hill also.

[Lordblood]

Driving my sister's Audi A4 with the 2.0 turbocharged four, I personally feel more comfortable driving a naturally aspirated engine better. There is pretty much no turbo lag on the A4, but the problem is that there is a very flat torque curve and its actually quite hard to modulate power, it's either off on on. It might be something specific about Audi, but that's been my experience.

[cas951]

Originally Posted by Flavor 987S

Sasha, your friends can alway buy a "faster car", with more HP, just remember:

Flavor 987S has a good sample in the picture attached. Post #8

If you drive on long straights track or street a turbo would be perfect for you.

The picture to the right shows a lot of turns. A turbo engine with lag will be left in the dust.

However, there are other advantages/disadvantages to having a turbo. Specially if you want more power. Option are dependant on how much power you want and what you want to spend. Thise 2.0 turbo engines are capable of producing a lot of HP.

I have a 88 951 turbo S. A perf chip and boost controller can gain 40-60hp. I have friends who have more than 500hp. This is from a 2.5

[Flavor 987S]

Originally Posted by cas951

The picture to the right shows a lot of turns. A turbo engine with lag will be left in the dust.

Exsqueeze me! But, my 993 Turbo with +420 HP will dust my 987S with 280 HP...all day....everyday. But, I'm OK with that!

[Chuck W.]

Love my other car. It's a turbo........

[Brucelee]

Chuck,

The siliver 911 is a stunner.

NEVER sell that.