TurboCharging

[Master_Shabz]

is a turbocharger avalible for standerd cars,
i was reading a article:
Renault ushered in the turbo era of Formula In 1983 Brabham became the first to win a championship in a turbocharged car. The technology reached a peak in 1986, helping extract 1300bhp from tiny 1.5-litre, four-cylinder engines before being banned the following year.

its seems ike a very effective was of making large amounts of bhp from a small engine

 

[Mark5290]

Have you just woken up from a coma or something - lol.

 

[rory182]

rally cars are a good example, they use 2.0 4 cyclinder engines with big turbos and intercoolers as u see in Evos and Scoobs.

turbo charging a non turbo car properly will require an engine rebuild with stronger components not to mention manifolds, turbo itself, intercooler, not cheap!!!

 

[TheCake]

Have you just woken up from a coma or something - lol.

PMSL genius.

 

[b3nje]

he has a civic type R...turbo charge it

 

[theduck]

its all about superchargers

 

[rory182]

supercharging is an alternative to turbo charging, turbos have what is know as lag i.e. a delay before they build up to speed as they are powered by exhaust gases. superchargers work straight from the crank so are always on i.e. no delay.

*edit* beaten to it by the duck lol

 

[tybo uk]

Have you just woken up from a coma or something - lol.

 

[Clio 1.216v Dynamique]

Have you just woken up from a coma or something - lol.

LOL

 

[edde]

The technology reached a peak in 1986, helping extract 1300bhp from tiny 1.5-litre, four-cylinder engines before being banned the following year.

its seems ike a very effective was of making large amounts of bhp from a small engine

For qualifying they used to get upto 1500hp from what I can remember.

Superchargers require hp to run them since they run off the crank, turbos don't since they use the exhaust gasses.

 

[GazCB]

I'm pretty sure those 1000hp+ engines are twin turbo also.

They had a 1000bhp 1.6 twin turbo cosworth engine in the entrance hall to my engineering building at uni.

 

[Ads_172]

I would be very surprised if he owns a CTR but doesn't know that you can turbo a car... well, no, I suppose that's par for the course with them Honda drivers...

 

[Master_Shabz]

a turbo charge is no driffrent to a turbo??, still seems abit to much hp just by adding a turbo

 

[TheCake]

A turbo is a turbo charger ffs. lol.

READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

Then you will understand.

 

[rory182]

shabz, take a 2.0 normally aspirated 4 cylinder engine and you'll be lucky to get 250 brake with heavy tuning.

take a 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder and 400+ brake is pretty readily available

 

[Master_Shabz]

cheers for the help guys you have opend my eyes to the light think i can now rest in peace

 

[edde]

shabz, take a 2.0 normally aspirated 4 cylinder engine and you'll be lucky to get 250 brake with heavy tuning.

take a 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder and 400+ brake is pretty readily available

You can get soe serious Hp out of a 2.0 if you want depends how it is after all the F1 engines were 3.0 and made about 900~100hp I think so a 2.0 in thery if allowed to rev would make 600hp+

The 172 engine can be tunned fgiven enough money (forged bottom end etc) to about 350hp.

 

[lawrence]

rally cars are a good example, they use 2.0 4 cyclinder engines with big turbos and intercoolers as u see in Evos and Scoobs.

turbo charging a non turbo car properly will require an engine rebuild with stronger components not to mention manifolds, turbo itself, intercooler, not cheap!!!

take off the restrictors and lets see what those engines would really achieve as opposed to their measly 300bhp.

 

[dick]

arent CTRs turbo charged anyway?

 

[edde]

take off the restrictors and lets see what those engines would really achieve as opposed to their measly 300bhp.

There so much desinged to do there 300hp limit (i'm sure they make 330hp now adays) that removing the limiter won't do much.

 

[lawrence]

arent CTRs turbo charged anyway?

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


thats the funniest thing ive heard all year. do you always live up to your name?

 

[Limca]

lol.

 

[edde]

arent CTRs turbo charged anyway?

Nope, normally aspirated engine just like mr Honda liked I belive.
They make there power due to better designed engines (BenR is them man to talk to about this) and higher RPM.

 

[cat171]

Originally Posted by dick
arent CTRs turbo charged anyway?

thats the funniest thing ive heard all year. do you always live up to your name?

Pmsl - Quality !!!

 

[tidyclio]

You can get soe serious Hp out of a 2.0 if you want depends how it is after all the F1 engines were 3.0 and made about 900~100hp I think so a 2.0 in thery if allowed to rev would make 600hp+

The 172 engine can be tunned fgiven enough money (forged bottom end etc) to about 350hp.

iirc the f1 3 litre v10s were making about 600bhp and about 1500bhp per tonne!
bhp is related to engine speed and any engine thats revving to anywhere near 20k isn@t going to last long.these engines can rev so high because with a budget the teams have got and running them so loose they don't need to last long.
to get even 350bhp out of a n/a 2 litre would cost silly money,the new mercs etc with twin turbo's big and small are the way forward.
on the f1 note though imagine how good it would sound having a v10 revving to 20k under the bonnet like this one
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-236345357158387520&q=f1
or maybe a v8 like this one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7393939630149644203&q=f1+renault+engine

 

[Munson]

This thread shuld be archived

 

[Munson]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-236345357158387520&q=f1

I've seen that before, and it's the reason you can stick diesels uo your ass :evil:

 

[edde]

iirc the f1 3 litre v10s were making about 600bhp and about 1500bhp per tonne!
bhp is related to engine speed and any engine thats revving to anywhere near 20k isn@t going to last long.these engines can rev so high because with a budget the teams have got and running them so loose they don't need to last long.
to get even 350bhp out of a n/a 2 litre would cost silly money,the new mercs etc with twin turbo's big and small are the way forward.
on the f1 note though imagine how good it would sound having a v10 revving to 20k under the bonnet like this one
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-236345357158387520&q=f1
or maybe a v8 like this one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7393939630149644203&q=f1+renault+engine

I'm sure They were up to at least 900hp Evo magazine did an article and Toyota admited to that sort of level.
BHP is rlated to a lot of things its toque you realy want to think about as torque related to rpm gives you hp.
SO long as an engine is built well rpm isn't an issue Honda's are a great example but yes it is higher loads and Revolution Destroy Motors.
In racing terms though regadless of the cost if you have to use original bits and none forced induction then the high costs of N/A tunning is acceptable.

 

[Ricardinho]

great stuff here, while were askin questions, my mate tells me if you put a spare wheel in the boot, therefore having 5 wheels you can go 20% faster?

 

[rory182]

great stuff here, while were askin questions, my mate tells me if you put a spare wheel in the boot, therefore having 5 wheels you can go 20% faster?

25% faster cause 100% / 4 = 25% and 25 x 5 = 125% innit

:quiet:

 

[Ricardinho]

yeh i thought so, my mate dont know what hes on about

shoulda thought more on the subject, i did get a B for gcse maths! honest

 

[Thomss]

haha funny stuff guys do love them videos man