That's precisely what the new formula appeals for: people who are specsheet readers and are basically engineering hipsters. When you can't be bothered to actually learn a subject and will take propaganda to top level consequences, such as screwing a whole sport, why not stop pretending and letting people who actually know their stuff to continue a good job?Andres125sx wrote: I know nothing about engines, but you just need to compare some production engines data to realice how efficient turbo engines are, they provide more torque from very low rpm, they´re lighter, and they´re more efficient. I see no reason to continue using atmospheric engines, specially when old turbo problems (lag, reliability) are solved
The new turbo engines are more green and more cool and more and more and more... They are the old you need more approach as usual. Except that when you put "green" on it, that makes people feel it's ok to be misinformed and an over-consumer and your old-stile neighbour with an older car needs to be arrested for being some kind of green-ofobic. Where are the laws to ban these people, right?
The new turbo engines are used in less than 5% of the cars around the world and that will continue to be the situation as NORMAL, actually lighter and more efficient OVERALL engines keep proving the better choice as ever.
Tubo downsized engines are an European approach to the lack of good European HIGH POWER (again, high power) combustion engines. Europe has weird laws based on fetishism for egalitarian measures and pure engineering prejudice, like over taxing engines bigger than 2.0 liters of displacement instead of putting a restriction on consumption.
As a result, European manufacturers have had no good V6 and V8 engines for a long time. AND - that's an important and - they have so much scale on small, sub-2.0 liters, 4 cilinders engines as a result of an obsession of low consumption and not looking like Americans (lol
) that it's just better FOR THEM to have their HIGH POWER engine options based on the same 4 cilinders they use on normal to low power options - you just bolt on the turbo on them.When you consider a PACKAGE (a car is a package, that's why a Prius will spend MORE fuel than many more powerful, non hybrids - inspite the very efficient engine), the 4 cylinder turbo is not often the best choice. That's the reason Japanese manufacturers have took so long to adopt the downsizing route of turbo + small 4 cilinders. AND - another important and - they will only adopt it on... POWERFUL engine options.
Look at the new VTEC range. 1.6 Turbo as the new 200+ horse power engine, replacing the old aspirated version. All the rest are small (1.2 to 1.5 liter) aspirated and very conventional engines combined with valve variation and an efficient PACKAGE. That is, a package as light and compact as possible with an engine efficient enough - and you can't do that often with a heavier, more complex, much more space-consuming (look at an intercooler system and a nice V6 becomes not that big/heavy) turbo-charged engine.
That's the reason Ron Dennis said some months ago that the fastest formula would be... Light, powerful V10s! When you remove big minimum weight rules and other gimmicky made so that the current formula actually works, the OVERALL BEST PACKAGE is the light, compact (no batteries, no generators), efficient ENOUGH aspirated high powered engine.
When you have an engineering sense, you know that things are supposed to have a clear objective. The closest you are from it, the more OVERALL efficient you are. You can desing a combustion engine with 50% or more fuel efficiency for F1, but if it weights and takes 3 times more space than an "outdated" 40-45% fuel efficient one, you have an LESS efficient car overall.
A car less efficient overall is a car that will be slower, use more resources to build and keep (offsetting the gains on solo-engine efficiency) and will need artificial rules to be competitive. Sounds like the current formula and the current European obsession on downsized, turbo 4 cylinders.
A turbo is generally HEAVYER and uses MORE fuel than the same engine while naturally aspirated. In fact, a naturally aspired engine can be around 50% bigger in displacement and still be LIGHTER and more economical than a turbo engine. Diesels are a different story, though...
They are NOTHING what you said. The manufacturers know that and install them on SELECTED cars where the balance of the package works out and makes sense. And they will force that and make worse cars efficiency-wise as marketing and scale requires, as well. That's the key thing.
Small downsized turbos, like 1 liter/3 cylinder turbos, are only good to escape laws against bigger displacements that many countries have. A good 1.4 naturally aspirated engine will be smaller on the overall package, just as light and more reliable (near same low-regime response as well) and just as economical.
Do the math's: the same fuel economy with less components, more overall efficiency and cheaper on the long run. That's better for the car maker, the owner AND - another time - to nature.
Mid-sizes downsized turbos, like 1.4 to 2.0 liter/4 cylinder engines, are good to compact sports cars that can't use a 6 cylinders because of the space required. They use MORE fuel than a diesel or a good naturally aspired engine of the same size. Plus heavier, more complex and with higher maintenance cost over time. But they can offer more performance on a smaller size than a 6 cylinder engine.
That's what BMW does, for instance.
A bigger displacement 4 cylinder, such as an 2.4 liter engine, could match those numbers and still be cheaper and overall more efficient. That's where law restrictions, made by people who "seem to know" (like you), interfere. Let's not forget scaling issues, though. The manufacturers can save more by having the same 1.6 liter 4 cylinder in several configurations than making a special 2.4 or even 2.0 liter engine for the sport model options. That's ok as scale economy is actually a good thing for the environment.
Big "downsized" turbos, like 3 liters / 6 cylinder, are good for performance only. The overall package is better than a V12 or V10, for instance (Nissan GTR just screamed on my mind now
). Might not be better overall than a compact V8, though. Fuel savings compared to a V12 will be obvious, but look at where you had to arrive so that you had a clear victory...On all the other applications, which are over 80% of the cases for sure, either a traditional naturally aspired engine will be better overall - even on fuel consumption - or a nice diesel will blow the sh*t out of the OMG SO GREEN COOL TECHY F1 ENGINE OMG.
The history is the same for hybrids. End of it.
