The only turbochargers my family, in all its generations, "had" was the B-17 my father flew. (It was no match for the flak over Germany, however.) ... Since a turbocharger allows a given engine to create more power, wouldn't it wear out quicker than a naturally-aspirated one?
You will find turbos on most all new marine diesels today A turbo is necessary to meet the Tier 3 and Tier 4 emissions regulations..
Ski: people often dont understand that the same engine may be rated are 150 HP or 400HP the primary difference being turbo and fuel rack settings. Modern fuel control doesn't over fuel at low loads like the old 2 strokes did.
Don,
I doubt the turbo would give better economy. There's a lot to a turbo and a lot of losses. The big advantage of a turbo is that it gives more power from the same sized engine. I see only a disadvantage with boats and cars and would never have one (again). In an airplane, where you get more power at altitude they will be faster but not usually more efficient. I've had them, too.
I could argue strongly for a the largest engine you can get, normally aspirated and operate is at lower power for economy, but have the option to go fast, if money was no object.
Im not a turbo fan this week.
I could argue strongly for a the largest engine you can get, normally aspirated and operate is at lower power for economy, but have the option to go fast, if money was no object. .
Where can you buy a new non turbo Diesel engine?
One example of a just released model: http://www.yanmarmarine.com/theme/y...tasheet/English/Yanmar-4JH57CommonRail-HR.pdf
The superchargers on some of the Volvos were to provide boost from idle rpm up to approx 2300 rpm, when the turbo started doing its work. They are belt driven and have an electric clutch. They work very well getting planing boats up on step. Also, even though the term common rail was not around, weren't Detroit Diesels, say the 71 series common rail. I realize the pressures are a lot different and the injectors work differently, but the fuel did flow thru a common line.
Turbo in cars has Chrysler to thank.
Turbos in cars have European taxes to thank. They tax cars according to engine volumes there. I have no idea why anyone would want a turbocharged car in America if they wanted to keep it past 4/50 warranty term. Good bye, BMW.
Performance. The reason I've had turbo after turbo, from Chrysler to SAAB, you name it. And I've averaged keeping them 7 years with no problems, putting about 85,000 miles on average on them.
I have no problem with a naturally aspirated Lexus GS performance.
That's you. I have no problem with Turbos.
Nor do you have a performance advantage.
0 to 60 in 3 seconds
Good. Almost like an electrocar.