Petrol price to jump in the weeks ahead

No, but if you have a reading comprehension problem, I'm the wrong
person to be asking for help.

All the best to you.

 

I can't understand why you would say that. Not only have I said it
several times before (which indicates I'm not kidding), I would
actually say the same to you - it's a nonsensical comparison. The
turbo charger provides exactly the same benefit to both engines - by
compressing the air to greater than atmospheric you enable a greater
amount of fuel to be burnt each combustion cycle.

So why on earth would you give the diesel a free kick by allowing it
to squeeze more juice in per combustion cycle than the petrol - it's a
purely disingenuous apples to oranges comparison.

errmm, no, a supercharger has both advantages and disadvantages over a
turbo, you would utilise the blower that best suits the performance
characteristics you wish to create. The supercharger has discernible
parasitic drag while compressing but on the plus side will produce
boost over a wider rpm range. A turbo has negligible drag on the motor
(through the resistance to exhaust gas flow) but disadvantages include
heat load on the intake air (hence the intercoolers) and sizing can be
hard to optimise between coming in early enough against generating too
much boost at the top end and when you lift off throttle (hence the
blow off valves so beloved of rice boys)

The narrower rpm range of most diesels mean the turbo sizing is much
easier and hence they are de rigeur, whereas it has to be right for
your application for a petrol to go with it.

OK now I know you're just fishing - not enough to do in retirement
hey ? Out of bloody mindedness I'll answer anyway (can't help myself).

Current turbo petrol motors :
BMW 135, 335, 535 X5M and X6 (twin turbo 3.0)
540 and 740 (4.0 twin turbo)

Audi X5 A4, A3, S3, A6 RS6 (v10 twin turbo ! mmm I want one)

Oh sod it I can't be arsed looking at websites- there's more than
these but also...
Ford Falcon (whatever the model of the turbo 6 is)
Mazda RX8 and 3
Nissan GT-R
Citroen C4 (and prob the same engine in other models)
Peugot 308 XTE 1.6 turbo
Subaru Impreza Liberty and Tribeca
Saab Volvo Ferrari Lambo, Porsche etc etc

There's dozens of them.

 

*shrug again* You're the one claiming people don't understand. I'm just
curious who you think it is.
If you can't come up with a name then it's hardly any dermis off *my*
nostrils.

 

Erm, sorry, but it's you who is asking the question, not me. The
answer is clear and in black and white, so I an not going to be
dragged into another pointless discussion with you or anyone else.

Your strawman is pretty crude, by the way. I'm sure there are a few
who will be impressed though, so all is not lost for you.

Once again, good hunting.

 

No need to get yourself into a lather George. I'm happy to just pretend
you never even made the silly
I'm-the-only-one-who-knows-how-Hybrids-work statement if it'll make you
happy (and I'm sure no-one else cares!).

 

Don't see why I would have followed what you said Nev
But then again, you always claim that what I have said is drivel, then I
happen to post something you may or may not have said and you say bravo

Get yourself together Nev, If I talk drivel but repeat what you have said
already, allegedly, then by your reasoning, you also sprout drivel?"

 

It is clear to see that you know **** all about the legal system Nev or the
workings of the bench

 

I quote -:

According to legend, the ancient Olympic Games were founded by Heracles
(the Roman Hercules), a son of Zeus.

Yet the first Olympic Games for which we still have written records were
held in 776 BCE (though it is generally believed that the Games had been
going on for many years already). At this Olympic Games, a naked runner,
Coroebus (a cook from Elis), won the sole event at the Olympics, the
stade - a run of approximately 192 meters (210 yards). This made
Coroebus the very first Olympic champion in history.

The ancient Olympic Games grew and continued to be played every four
years for nearly 1200 years. In 393 CE, the Roman emperor Theodosius I,
a Christian, abolished the Games because of their pagan influences.


Heracles was roman






G-S

 

According to legend, the ancient Olympic Games were founded by Heracles
(the Roman Hercules), a son of Zeus.


G-S

 

Oh you're being harsh (ok so it's harsh week), but some of the denizens
still own motorcycles.

Johno even visits his letterbox now and then with his...


G-S

 

You seem to care about what was said despite your bleats to the
contrary. This is a written forum - just thought I'd mention that. Go
and look up what's *actually* been said, and the context in which it
was said. All of the answers are plainly there for you to see, often
in several places. Go on, it's easy and you know you're curious,
otherwise you wouldn't have started this stupid sub-thread.
Or else just **** nicely of, if that's not too much trouble, thank
you.

 

Where'd the name come from?... : )

 

Didn't you say a fairer comparison was by HP (just below) so why is a
130KW 2 Litre an ourageously disingenius comparison to a 115KW 2 litre
if the 130Kw unit give better fuel consumption?

In my experience small petrol turbos are a real pain to drive because
of turbo lag. Ever driven a Saab 9000? Terrible thing and sucks fuel
like there's a bowser at the end of every street. Takes of from
traffic lights like Georges Morris Major. They are OK on something
with a lot of base (uncharged) power, like the Falcon 4.0 six, and
some of the other exotica you mentioned below, where the primary
concern is performance, with the secondary concern is also
performance. Or do you want to compare the fuel consumption ofthe Audi
RS6 with the Prius? I'm not familiar with the Pug and the Citroen.
I'll have to look up their efficiency. I'm interested in learning more
about the VW TSI.

I do understand the difference and their operation thanks John.

Here is what you must admit to being a fair comparison.
Goto
http://www.volkswagen.com.au/etc/me...fications.Par.0022.File.pdf/golf-brochure.pdf
Page 37 and compare the HP (your comparison of choice) of the two 1.4
TSIs and the turbo diesel options, the compare the performance and the
fuel consumption.

Have fun.

Theo

 

As mentioned, there's the double conversion penatly, but more
seriously, is that cars are meant to be able to go uphill as well.
Once you deplete the battery on a long alpine climb, it'd suck to have
500cc of power slowly haul you up at a slug's pace.

Diesel electric locos can do that because they vary the diesel output.
But the stated aim here is to always have the diesel operating in its
sweet spot, where it will be wasting energy most of the time, but
won't be able to keep up on a long alpine climb.

 

Well, you just keep believing your legends then

 

Well duh, I'm aware of that. What I was referring to was that 1/ your
chances of getting caught ar very low and 2/ I would find it very hard
to believe even the most **** of a cop would book you there and 3/ you
are hardly likely to start the car up and kill someone compared to a
car in the middle of a major city
The situations are just not comparable.

 

Didn't you say a fairer comparison was by HP (just below) so why is a
130KW 2 Litre an ourageously disingenius comparison to a 115KW 2 litre
if the 130Kw unit give better fuel consumption?

In my experience small petrol turbos are a real pain to drive because
of turbo lag. Ever driven a Saab 9000? Terrible thing and sucks fuel
like there's a bowser at the end of every street. Takes of from
traffic lights like Georges Morris Major.

*************************************


**** off Theo, itr's a Morris Oxford thank you.


****************************************
They are OK on something
with a lot of base (uncharged) power, like the Falcon 4.0 six, and
some of the other exotica you mentioned below, where the primary
concern is performance, with the secondary concern is also
performance. Or do you want to compare the fuel consumption ofthe Audi
RS6 with the Prius? I'm not familiar with the Pug and the Citroen.
I'll have to look up their efficiency. I'm interested in learning more
about the VW TSI.

I do understand the difference and their operation thanks John.

Here is what you must admit to being a fair comparison.
Goto
http://www.volkswagen.com.au/etc/me...fications.Par.0022.File.pdf/golf-brochure.pdf
Page 37 and compare the HP (your comparison of choice) of the two 1.4
TSIs and the turbo diesel options, the compare the performance and the
fuel consumption.

Have fun.

Theo

 

G-S wrote:

I assume, from the smilie, that you do know what that comment really means.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I don't have a lot of experience with late model 4 cylinder turbo
petrol engines but the ones I have driven could not be compared, even
cheekily, to my Morris Major or even the MGs, 6 cylinder Jags,
Bristols etc of that era. Turbo lag is always around but it is masked
to a great extent in modern engines, admittedly at the expense of
annoying unload blow-offs with some. At least that's the case with the
few that I've driven - your experience could differ, of course.

[...]

 

Seems my original response to this has disappeared - at least from my
server. Anyway, if it should turn up, just ignore this.

You alone instigated and continue to sustain this stupid threadlet,
not I nor anyone else.
There are two possible reasons for this: that you alone care about
what was said and genuinely want an answer; or that you have invented
and embellished an implied lie meant to discredit - a strawman attack
to some purpose known only to you.
So which is it? Or are you going to invent another reason to try to
confound the issue again?
Take up my challenge and go back over what was written. The answer to
your question is written there in several instances, and there is no
room or need for pretence by anyone.
If you don't care to do that, then stop digging that hole before you
get buried in your own bullshit.