What car to get?

airborne said:
Yes you are clearly confused by default. Do you ever think about the op when you derail people's threads with your pointless debates over semantics?
Click to expand...

There is no pointless debate over semantics. The very nature of a turbo, in that is forces more air into the engine, means that more fuel is burned.

Does a turbo engine run leaner or richer?
 
A turbo engine is more efficient than a naturally aspirated engine as it uses waste exhaust pressure to produce more power...regardless of how you word it it is more efficient.Period.
 
Ocali said:
why so much hate for the opels.... *sigh...
Click to expand...
It is not hate, they just don't understand superior German cars. Same way apes are afraid of of spaceships.


SauRoNZA said:
Or it's simply cheaper...and the DSG is overkill for the smaller lower powered engine.

How you compare an ancient 4-speed to anything in the modern world is beyond me.
Click to expand...
DSG is overcomplicated and overrated.

Yes my 4 speed is old and was designed for the US market, but in sport mode it's nippy enough. Just goes to show slush boxes are tried and tested.
 
falcon786 said:
A turbo engine is more efficient than a naturally aspirated engine as it uses waste exhaust pressure to produce more power...regardless of how you word it it is more efficient.Period.
Click to expand...

But it also uses more fuel because of a more concentrated mixture at the same time.

But capacity vs capacity is irrelevant. Power vs Power a turbo gives more of it for less, which is what Postmanpot doesn't seem to be getting to.
 
Here's a definition for you to wrap your head around for the word efficiency,only pay attention to the technical definitely because that's what applies to engines.

" the state or quality of being efficient.
"greater energy efficiency"
synonyms: organization, order, orderliness, planning, regulation, logicality, coherence, productivity, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness More
an action designed to achieve efficiency.
plural noun: efficiencies
"the reforms will lead to efficiencies and savings"
technical
the ratio of the useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended or heat taken in.
"the boiler has an efficiency of 45 per cent""

You can't ignore the "work" part of the equation when talking about efficiency and work involves power and torque in this case.
 
Rouxenator said:
It is not hate, they just don't understand superior German cars. Same way apes are afraid of of spaceships.



DSG is overcomplicated and overrated.

Yes my 4 speed is old and was designed for the US market, but in sport mode it's nippy enough. Just goes to show slush boxes are tried and tested.
Click to expand...

Hey look I owned an Opel so don't throw me in with the haters.

Fact is though I never even test drove a newer one because there wasn't an auto option.

DSG is very expensive and very complex which is exactly why I said it would make sense for the little cars.

Using the right tool for the job (market) doesn't mean there's something wrong with the DSG/S-Tronic that they are purposely avoiding it.

Would be silly to fit a DSG into a car where the rest of the car costs as much as the gearbox and adds little benefit for it.


I generally dislike the fact that DSG is compared to automatics at all. It's a manual with an electronic clutch and therefore is a very different experience to most automatics and nothing at all like your old 4-speeder.

The newer conventional automatics are close as dammit to it though. The one thing I have been convinced of though is electronic suspension and my next car will have it for damn sure...regardless of the gearbox it comes with.
 
Last edited:
Manufacturers are moving to turbo charging because of
1. Better performance
2. Better fuel economy for the same performance of an NA equivalent motor
3. Greener (less emissions )
4. The manufacturing costs of FI engines are cheaper than an equivalent NA motor with the same performance

So many points in favour for FI

Like it or not the future will see all cars being forced fed and eventually all being double clutched (or some other efficient gearbox tech)... And hybrid tech will see its place in more production cars other than a 918, laferrari or P1 :)

Don't think there is an NA model in the Bmw lineup.... Porsche even Ferrari going the FI route. Primary drivers for the shift is efficiency and emissions (use less fossil fuels and emit less harmful "stuff" into the air)
 
Last edited:
adamr said:
Manufacturers are moving to turbo charging because of
1. Better performance
2. Better fuel economy for the same performance of an NA equivalent motor
3. Greener (less emissions )
4. The manufacturing costs of FI engines are cheaper than an equivalent NA motor with the same performance

So many points in favour for FI

Like it or not the future will see all cars being forced fed and eventually all being double clutched (or some other efficient gearbox tech)... And hybrid tech will see its place in more production cars other than a 918, laferrari or P1 :)

Don't think there is an NA model in the Bmw lineup.... Porsche even Ferrari going the FI route. Primary drivers for the shift is efficiency and emissions (use less fossil fuels and emit less harmful "stuff" into the air)
Click to expand...

Please don't use FI as an acronym. It's very confusing as it generally refers to Fuel Injection first.
 
PostmanPot said:
Thank you.
Click to expand...

You are still missing the point.

Power vs Power the turbo is more efficient.

OF COURSE bolting a turbo to a non-turbo car will use more fuel....because it generates more power.

You are again leaving "work" completely out of the equation as explained by falcon786 and and focusing on fuel economy alone (and in singularity) and completely ignoring efficiency overall.

So rather read it as...

"But it also uses more fuel because of a more concentrated mixture at the same time...and producing more power in the process".

The only thing a Turbo really does is stuffing more wood into the same fireplace and making a much bigger flame.
 
Last edited:
SauRoNZA said:
Please don't use FI as an acronym. It's very confusing as it generally refers to Fuel Injection first.
Click to expand...
But in the context of this discussion im sure we all know that FI means forced induction (turbo and supercharger)... Just too long to type forced induction :)

But for the discussions here power for power turbo/supercharger (just too long to type that also:)) is more efficient.. You are correct

Polo GTI 1.4 TFSI... Perfect example of this. Fuel economy is quoted I recall being less than the 1.4 base polo... Someone have a polo gti can verify this.
 
Last edited:
SauRoNZA said:
You are still missing the point.

Power vs Power the turbo is more efficient.

OF COURSE bolting a turbo to a non-turbo car will use more fuel....because it generates more power.

You are again leaving "work" completely out of the equation as explained by falcon786 and and focusing on fuel economy alone (and in singularity) and completely ignoring efficiency overall.

So rather read it as...

"But it also uses more fuel because of a more concentrated mixture at the same time...and producing more power in the process".

The only thing a Turbo really does is stuffing more wood into the same fireplace and making a much bigger flame.
Click to expand...

A lot of people believe that a turbo car driven conservatively uses less fuel than a non turbo car driven conservatively. The logic is usually based on more air meaning better fuel efficiency. Which is wrong.
 
PostmanPot said:
A lot of people believe that a turbo car driven conservatively uses less fuel than a non turbo car driven conservatively. The logic is usually based on more air meaning better fuel efficiency. Which is wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually that could be true for many cars since the throttle would have to be pressed less to get to the same speed and acceleration.There are other factors involved also though like gearbox etc but if everything else is alike and both cars are driven at the same speed then the turbo engine is more efficient.
 
PostmanPot said:
A lot of people believe that a turbo car driven conservatively uses less fuel than a non turbo car driven conservatively. The logic is usually based on more air meaning better fuel efficiency. Which is wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong.

As has been clearly pointed out by numerous other posters your understanding of turbos is rather poor. Suck it up, moving on.

Poor Op's thread is getting properly derailed.
 
I hereby submit that anyone claiming to be a petrol head and also trying to get the most economical vehicle around is confused and deluded.
Supercharger fuel guzzler for the win.
 
falcon786 said:
Actually that could be true for many cars since the throttle would have to be pressed less to get to the same speed and acceleration.There are other factors involved also though like gearbox etc but if everything else is alike and both cars are driven at the same speed then the turbo engine is more efficient.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought about my old Audi 2.0 N/A. I thought my new Audi 2.0 TFSI would be more fuel efficient. But the TFSI is less fuel efficient (plus the 2.0 N/A was non FSI).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X