hogmaw Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 OK I admit it I am a dumbass and I am no tech person, but I have some fuzzy ideas in my head about exactly how they work, can someone enlighten please, in non-tech speak? Ta much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptik Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 thanks what a brill site that is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 OK, I'm 'very' non-techie but this is my understanding... In your engine you need fuel, air and a spark to make the explosion in the chamber to move the pistons.... Obviously the more air and fuel you put in the bigger the explosion? the more power comes from the engine... What a turbo does is take air and condense it (spool up), then when the turbo is full of air it fires it into the engine... this results in extra power output from the engine and the explosion is bigger (more air involved)...but only for the time the turbo lasts.. The turbo uses a turbine to spool up - which is basically increasing the air pressure in the chamber.... the turbine is powered by the exhaust fumes from the engine. The difference between a turbo and a supercharger is that the turbo works on the exhaust fumes to spool it up whereas a Supercharger uses a motor... I think that's right....? I'm sure someone will come along with a more slick explanation soon.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 more or less correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptik Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Certainly better than my measley effort! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 It's pixies riding little excercise bikes. When you hit the throttle red hot pokers threaten their bottoms if they do not peddle quick enough. That's the woosh sound...they're saying Oooooooh noooooo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 In a nutshell, it uses some redundant energy in the exhaust gas (that otherwise goes straight out the exhaust pipe) to drive a compressor to push more air (and thus air/fuel) into the engine (i.e. forced induction) than would normally be possible at atmospheric pressure (i.e. normally asperated). Simple eh, that's about as short as I can get it, or maybe even: "It crams more mixture into the engine using a compressor driven by the exhaust gases." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 more or less correct. Certainly better than my measley effort! Go me with the technical knowledge!! I knew I contribute something useful to someone this side of 1000 posts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shovels Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 It's pixies riding little excercise bikes. When you hit the throttle red hot pokers threaten their bottoms if they do not peddle quick enough. That's the woosh sound...they're saying Oooooooh noooooo. Yep...That sounds like a good description to me! (just, there's something a bit strange about 'red hot pokers' and 'bottoms' being in the same sentance) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Rendar Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I once heard a turbo described as "the closest thing to a free lunch in engineering". I like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I once heard a turbo described as "the closest thing to a free lunch in engineering". I like that. There is no such thing as a free lunch:eyebrows: Turbocharging has the equivalent of vomit: reversion via backpressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 The idea of a free lunch makes me puke. So don't you get asked out to lunch very often, after you blew chunks over someone? edit: John ya quick editor you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 it's not a free lunch, it's more like 'not wasting the leftovers' lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 yep, reusing some of the leftovers more likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Rendar Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Picky, picky! I like the free lunch analogy! I mean, it doesn't really cost anything extra does it? Well... Apart from the cost of the turbo... And the cost of the extra fuel to go with all that extra air... And the cost of the intercooler... And the extra cost of fixing it when it all goes wrong!! Erm, apart from that... Free lunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 lol, it's free in the sense that the extra power is there to be taken if you can afford the petrol for it! But you don't really get something for nothing in this world. I wonder, is there a point under very light boost where you can actually improve the efficiency of a internal combustion engine using a small turbo, over that of a normally asperated engine? I expect there may be, in terms of efficiency of what goes it (petrol) verses what comes out (power/torgue) - anyone? Don't think that holds up once you start tuning for power, then efficiency kinda goes out of the window, at least Mr T would have tried to balance efficiency with power at the factory (even if we do get terrible MPG lol). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 ...Apart from the cost of the turbo... And the cost of the extra fuel to go with all that extra air... And the cost of the intercooler... And the extra cost of fixing it when it all goes wrong!! ...and apart from having to lower the static compression ratio, reducing efficiency off-boost ...and apart from inviting exhaust heat to camp inside the engine bay, baking everything around it ...and apart from introducing a massive restiction in the intake and another one in the exhaust (until it's on-boost they are parasitic devices) ...and apart from compromising throttle response Don't get me wrong, I'm a turbo person through and through, always have been since the day I felt boost (held on for dear life more like) But the lunch ain't free. It's cheap though, if you know where to shop:ecstatic: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I wonder, is there a point under very light boost where you can actually improve the efficiency of a internal combustion engine using a small turbo, over that of a normally asperated engine? If you had an identical engine and one had a turbo and the other didn't then the turbo engine would be more economical, because (unless the NA version has VERY well designed manifolds) it changes the way air flows in and out of the valves at certain opening times; basically it can only help to get a cleaner charge gas with less exhaust gas in the chamber for each cycle. BUT, as John just said, there are other things going on when you fit a turbo to an engine - mainly the compression ratio has to be changed - so it doesn't actually work out like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 cam timing also has to change, mainly to accomodate the new, increased reversion levels. But then we're getting far away from the 'layman' level expected from the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 cam timing also has to change, mainly to accomodate the new, increased reversion levels. But then we're getting far away from the 'layman' level expected from the thread. hey we're all here to learn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.