godlameroso wrote:You're the one that keeps saying you can't think of these engines as just turbocharged engines, you are not even considering why the turbo needs to be sized in this specific way. I'll let you explain why moving to larger more efficient turbos would help heat recovery then. I promise I won't say another word on the subject, just please answer me this, why does a larger more efficient turbo aid heat recovery?
The reason Mercedes is going to a bigger turbo this year is - they need more airflow. They have found some improvements in the combustion area which is allowing a leaner AFR and probably higher cylinder pressures. The larger turbo might be a fraction of one percent more efficient due to the increase in size. There is no big power increase to be had from the minute efficiency increase that goes with a larger compressor or turbine. On the other hand, if the size is arbitrarily increased so that the flow capacity is no longer a perfect match for the engine airflow, there will be a large loss of efficiency. Have another look at the map. The best efficiency is only obtained over a very small range of flow (x-axis) and boost (y-axis).
The reason Honda is going to a bigger turbo this year is - they got it wrong last year.
Turbine sizing is a similar situation BTW. The mass flow and temperature of exhaust gas will dictate the size (swallowing capacity) of the turbine. From there, the engine developer will select the turbine housing to find the best compromise between - "low back pressure" (good for engine power) and "high back pressure" (good for turbine power). There is a lot of talk about using a "bigger turbine" to make more MGUH power but the fact is "more turbine power" requires a smaller, more-restrictive turbine nozzle (turbine housing).