MINI Cooper Forum banner

21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
Canyon Mini
Joined
·
310 Posts
Turbos are old technology....

fatredcircle said:
I don't believe the statement that turbo chargers are less reliable due to the heat produced and the RPM's of the turbochargers. All diesel 53' 18-wheelers are turbocharged, and probably put more km/miles on in a day then we do in a month. They've been proven to go for long distances and have little problems. Sure, turbos do require more preventative maintence though.

It's also misleading to say turbochargers take a while to spool up to usable boost. If that were the issue, the tuner either mated too big of a turbo [without getting into specifics] or has suited his turbo for a higher rpm power band. You can almost eliminate turbo lag by using a smaller turbo for your given application, or fitting the proper sized turbo.

What most people don't realize though, is that a lot of torque at low rpm on a fwd application, makes it really hard to launch, control and use. I say, if you want quick 1/4 mile times or something to rip the track up with, you need more usable power higher in the power band, cue turboing. I'm a little biased on turbo charging if you haven't noticed :)
You'll have less problems getting traction on the fwd, higher trap speeds, and on the track more power in your powerband. turbo's can push more psi, more cfm and as a result, more power. :D

In response to Charlie Brown's post (how the throttle body being after the compressor on a turbo setup) You can't put a throttle body pre-compressor just because the way turbochargers are setup. Turbo's require the exhuast gases from the engine to spin the impellers which in-turn spins the compressor. Putting a throttle body pre-turbo yet after the engine would mean you would have no control of air entering the engine. Unfortunately you have to have the trottle body post turbo and before the engine.

ps: You also need bov's for Centrifugal superchargers under high psi ;)

I'm not saying turbos are better then superchargers or vice versa, I'm a little turbo biased myself. I just wanted to clear up some misinformation regarding turbochargers.

Peter.
:redblack:
Thats why the FIA dropped them in F1. Thats why CART is going to drop them. Thats why IRL never used them. They are not reliable in high performance cars and they are very expensive to replace. Look around at used tubo Z's, turbo Mazdas, turbo Supras, turbo Stealths, Turbo 3000GT's. Most have had the turbos replaced at low milage at a price that is more expensive then replacing a hole nonturbo motor. Semi turbos are huge and have huge bearings and are able to cool themselves better because of their size. I think some are even water cooled. With todays technology it is easy to build a small, reliable 4 cylinder engine without turbos or superchargers. I wish the MCS didnt have a supercharger but I don't have much choice. I would have bought a WRX STi if it wasn't a turbo car.
:redblack:
 

·
Blue is the colour!
Joined
·
13,507 Posts
I think that is a gross generalisation you are making there CYNMINI. Turbos can work effectively, especially if left to factory standards. Overboosting a turbo, well, you're asking for trouble.

And I think you may find the FIA dropped trubos because they were too powerful, not due to unreliability. F1 turbo cars were just 1.5litres and were pumping out close to, or over 1000bhp.

;)
 

·
So close I can almost....
Joined
·
82 Posts
I don't know a huge amount about turbos but I definately understand the principal of both systems.

No one mentioned the "Waste gate actuator" that I assume all turbo'd engines have. That deals with latent boost during closed throttle situations and limits the boost psi too doesn't it? Dump valves (we call them in the UK) are more a fad to let people know you're all tubo'd up??? Correct me if I'm wrong...........

I can't say I've noticed any rally cars Pssssssst-ing at every gear change :p
 

·
Canyon Mini
Joined
·
310 Posts
The FIA outlawed turbos because....

minigolf said:
I think that is a gross generalisation you are making there CYNMINI. Turbos can work effectively, especially if left to factory standards. Overboosting a turbo, well, you're asking for trouble.

And I think you may find the FIA dropped trubos because they were too powerful, not due to unreliability. F1 turbo cars were just 1.5litres and were pumping out close to, or over 1000bhp.

;)
:redblack:
of costs, reliability issues, turbo fires (there were a lot of them), and yes because they made to much power and were very difficult to drive. The biggest reason was cost. Turbo charged engines doubled the cost of the average F1 teams engine program. If they wanted to keep the turbos and cut power they could have made the teams use sealed pop off valves like they use in CART racing. F1 is all about the best technology. How can engine technology progress to the point where you don't need them if you never get rid of them. With todays technology they are simply not needed. And todays technology came about because F1 outlawed turbos. Today in F1 there are a lot less engine failures at a much cheaper price!
:redblack:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Somehow I don't see a comparison between f1 cars and passenger cars.
F1 cars are fast, whether if they're turbo/na/on steroids or using a jet engine :D but their budgets far exceeds what we will ever make in a lifetime, or atleast me :(

F1 cars are expensive, they're meant for one race and then rebuilt after.
We can't compare F1 cars with passenger cars, it's like saying the banana will rott faster then the apple. F1 cars are going to the absolute limit of engineering thresholds, passenger cars are just meant to putt-putt around town with some zip, and have relaibility as a main factor.

I've never known many people that have had problems with their OEM supra's, subarus, vw's, volvo's in regards to their turbos. As long as you aren't an idiot who drives the car hard and shuts down immediately, you don't have a problem with starving the turbo of oil on the cool down period (which leads to many problems)

pssssttt (lol had to use that) - rally cars do vent excess pressure, if I recall correctly they're using ssbov's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
Enders said:
I don't know a huge amount about turbos but I definately understand the principal of both systems.

No one mentioned the "Waste gate actuator" that I assume all turbo'd engines have. That deals with latent boost during closed throttle situations and limits the boost psi too doesn't it? Dump valves (we call them in the UK) are more a fad to let people know you're all tubo'd up??? Correct me if I'm wrong...........

I can't say I've noticed any rally cars Pssssssst-ing at every gear change :p
Turbocharged vehicles typically have two different control mechanisms, which serve different purposes. One operates on the exhaust gas, the other operates on the intake air.

The wastegate is a portal that allows exhaust gas to exit the engine without going through the turbine, in much the same way that a hydroelectric dam has pathways that bypass their turbine. This wastegate opening can be varied from allowing none of the exhaust to bypass the turbine (initiall acceleration at wide open throttle) to allowing almost all of the exhaust to bypass the turbine (while idling or cruising). This wastegate is essential for allowing car control as well as preserving reliability.

Most turbocharged vehicles also have a bypass valve (also known as blow-off valve, dump valve, etc). This has nothing to do with the exhaust gases, only with the intake air entering the engine. When the throttle is closed suddently (you are accelerating when suddenly you see a police car :D ), the bypass valve allows the compressed air that was headed to the engine to be dumped somewhere else (either to the atmosphere or into the air supply upstream of the turbocharger). The bypass valve's primary job is to keep violent and destructive shock waves from bouncing off the throttle plate, returning to the turbocharger, and trying to make the very fast-spinning turbocharger spin backwards. The bypass valve also enhances driveability by making power application less "jerky" and in some cases, provides an audible PSHHHH sound.
 

·
racing is in my blood
Joined
·
203 Posts
CYNMINI said:
:redblack:
of costs, reliability issues, turbo fires (there were a lot of them), and yes because they made to much power and were very difficult to drive. The biggest reason was cost. Turbo charged engines doubled the cost of the average F1 teams engine program. If they wanted to keep the turbos and cut power they could have made the teams use sealed pop off valves like they use in CART racing. F1 is all about the best technology. How can engine technology progress to the point where you don't need them if you never get rid of them. With todays technology they are simply not needed. And todays technology came about because F1 outlawed turbos. Today in F1 there are a lot less engine failures at a much cheaper price!
:redblack:

WRONG WRONG WRONG! the f1 engines in the 80s were not majorly expensive, it was that they had too much power for the tyre and aero specs of the time and the FIA or (FISA as it was then) knew that serious injuries and deaths were on the cards. much like group B in rallying which was banned on safety grounds, the costs were incidental. no-one goes racing to make money.

BMW used road car blocks in the F1 turbo program. they were bench driven for 100,000 miles to work all the stresses out of them and to counter metal fatigue. they put out around 1200bhp in qualifying trim. for more about F1 engines in the 80s, and how cheap the engines were, research Brian Hart who was/is a genius engine builder. most of his F1 engines from the 80s are still doing service in Hillclimb cars in the UK. if they were unreliable, people wouldn't use them. if they were expensive to maintain, people wouldn't use them.

turbo engines on road cars are no more unreliable than non-turbo engines, IF they are left standard. tuned they put far more stresses on components and then things can go wrong. turbos are not that expensive when they go wrong as there is very little inside them, it's only on j-spec stuff the boost is so wound up by owners, then when the turbo lets go, it takes a lot of stuff with it.
 

·
Canyon Mini
Joined
·
310 Posts
If costs in F1 are so "incidental"...

tuscan_thunder said:
WRONG WRONG WRONG! the f1 engines in the 80s were not majorly expensive, it was that they had too much power for the tyre and aero specs of the time and the FIA or (FISA as it was then) knew that serious injuries and deaths were on the cards. much like group B in rallying which was banned on safety grounds, the costs were incidental. no-one goes racing to make money.

BMW used road car blocks in the F1 turbo program. they were bench driven for 100,000 miles to work all the stresses out of them and to counter metal fatigue. they put out around 1200bhp in qualifying trim. for more about F1 engines in the 80s, and how cheap the engines were, research Brian Hart who was/is a genius engine builder. most of his F1 engines from the 80s are still doing service in Hillclimb cars in the UK. if they were unreliable, people wouldn't use them. if they were expensive to maintain, people wouldn't use them.

turbo engines on road cars are no more unreliable than non-turbo engines, IF they are left standard. tuned they put far more stresses on components and then things can go wrong. turbos are not that expensive when they go wrong as there is very little inside them, it's only on j-spec stuff the boost is so wound up by owners, then when the turbo lets go, it takes a lot of stuff with it.
:redblack:
Why the "only one engine per weekend rule?" F1 at times has been very concerned with costs when it serves their purpose. As in the 80's when world economies were suffering. Now that competition is suffering F1 is again trying to cut costs so teams can afford to be there and the teams that are there can be more competitive. F1 is also concerned with speed, they make rule changes almost every year to address that. The turbo outlaw also had a lot to do with fuel mileage as F1 was being pressured by certain groups about this issue. The turbo outlaw had a lot to do about a lot of things, not just power. Oh by the way, one person building reliable turbo engines doesn't make all turbo engines reliable.
:redblack:
 

·
racing is in my blood
Joined
·
203 Posts
CYNMINI said:
:redblack:
Why the "only one engine per weekend rule?" F1 at times has been very concerned with costs when it serves their purpose. As in the 80's when world economies were suffering. Now that competition is suffering F1 is again trying to cut costs so teams can afford to be there and the teams that are there can be more competitive. F1 is also concerned with speed, they make rule changes almost every year to address that. The turbo outlaw also had a lot to do with fuel mileage as F1 was being pressured by certain groups about this issue. The turbo outlaw had a lot to do about a lot of things, not just power. Oh by the way, one person building reliable turbo engines doesn't make all turbo engines reliable.
:redblack:

the only one engine per weekend rule came in in 2003. turbo engines have been out since 1988 (end of 1987 season). fuel mileage restrictions were already in place in during the turbo era. watch any footage of cars of that era and at the end of the races watch the drivers trying to shake the fuel in the cars.

just one person making reliable turbo engines? i said CHEAP reliable engines. if you want reliable turbo engines look at at Honda, Renault, BMW as well as Hart.
 

·
" Wooooosahhh! "
Joined
·
46 Posts
actually, if you want a blow off valve for your mini S, vortech makes one for superchargers. Vortech bypass valve. My friend James Wei has a very well done 1999 SLK Kompressor and he has one.

on the right side next to the intake
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
As for replacement cost of turbos, it's not so expensive - about the same as replacing a clutch, including parts and labour.

I too am a big fan of turbos - very efficient, and so easy to tune. Heat is not an issue, except perhaps intake temps, but that applies to any forced induction. Many modern turbos are watercooled and a good fully synthetic oil protects them well. Reliability and longevity is not an issue either. The Mitsubish turbos that are found on most Volvos for example, last about 150,000 miles.

Adam.
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
Top