Wing mirrors on cars

You should have been arguing this around 1920

The world has changed

Not really. Even today the vast majority of petrol engine blocks are still made from iron and for diesels its about 99.9%.

But then the turbo is a pretty expensive part to replace.

And the power output is a red herring. You simply can't get the same torque curve on an NA engine of the same size as you can with a turbo. So the comparison has to be between a turbo and NA of a larger capacity and similar torque curve.

Thought you, being a 4x4 driver, would have realised this.

You must live in the USA

Yes, to a rough approximation, a turbo allows a smaller (and therefore lighter) engine to deliver the same torque/power as a larger N/A engine. I'm not sure what the typical ratio of engine capacities is for turbo versus N/A.

I'm led to assume you wrote something you regret and don't want to admit it.

Wrong.

The latest Boxster has a turbo 4 cylinder of approx 2 litres, but produces more power than the old NA 6 cylinder 3.2.

Cars should always be driven close to their limitations. Otherwise you're holding me up!

Pillock.

About bloody time too.

Hook an electric turbo generator on the exhaust. Most of the time you don't need the boost, and you can even feed the spare power into a hybrid driveline.

Put an electric blower on the inlet too, and you can have supercharger performance without the fuel costs.

People don't realise quite how much power flows through a turbocharger.

Andy

They use turbochargers because superchargers wasted far more fuel. What you appear to describe is an inefficient supercharger.

Does it matter when most cars are scrapped before the engine wears out?

I expect people have been muttering what you have just said since cars were first made. I think the industry's track record of getting more power with longer life from smaller engines speaks for itself.

They bloody don't. I destroyed my Honda CRV engine by converting it to run on propane gas. It couldn't handle the slightly higher combustion temperature.

Just imagine the power you'd get out of a 3.2 if they did the same to it that they've done to the 2.0.

Sadly that is the cynical point of view manufacturers take. Of course cars are only scrapped early because they become impossibly expensive to maintain because of the silly money charged by suppliers for various components, especially ones deemed by our esteemed DoT to be essential to pass the MOT such as antilock braking, anti skid control etc. Its no lie that most cars are worth more as component parts than is as a whole unit hence the nicking and stripping down of lots of expensive cars.

And they'd get even more power if the engines stayed the same size and they did the upgrades to those instead of downsizing to keep the power the same.

Would it make a difference to the number of old cars? I doubt it. People buying a new car don't care about what happens in 10 years time and they're feeding enough cars down to keep the bottom of the market well supplied.

Does it have much effect on scrappage rates?

Back in the 80's a 1.6 gave 75-90hp. Recent ones have been giving 130hp. Except cars have got heavier and even if the headline power/weight has increased the combination is not satisfactory.

True - but that NA 6 is a very sweet unit. Personal thing, but I prefer an NA petrol engine to any turbo - assuming they both have approximately the same torque curve.

Diesels are a different matter. Anything improves an engine better suited to a truck. ;-)

In the UK, is is also down to supply and demand. A 15 year old car even in perfect condition is worth so little it's never going to be economical to repair anything major.

Of course keep it for a few more years so it becomes rare, and it then shoots up in value as being a collector's item.