Why supercharged 4 cyl is not popular

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
ikeepmychevytoo - I have had many many millions of kms from my own heavy diesel engines without a turbo-charger failure

I had two non wastegate turbochargers replaced under warranty via an "urgent" recall as they were a "faulty batch"

The modern turbochargers used in heavy diesel engines is very very relaible. It sure beats the "...replace every 70kkms..." service directive by Volvo of the late 1970s!

 

[ikeepmychevytoo]

My examples are HDI engines of the French PSA, reagarded as efficient and reliable in the market. One was 2.8lt 1.5-ton Peugeot van, antifreeze proportion neglected and a rather gradual death from cavity corrosion -as expected. Other was similar Citroën variety, well maintained and got a sudden failure while registering 140K kms. I must say they were being pushed hard, not shy of 90 mph cruising and this is after factoring in the speedo error. But so my remnant of 1984 v block 2.8, right side of the speedo doesn't left unused for long, but don't shut it down suddently after a hill climb even as an atmospheric low revver iron.

Still no fears... I guess I may portray myself more a motorist than a driver. I actually heavily considered a new VW Golf with displacement of 1.4 liters and a turbo. If you pay a little more there is also turbo and supercharged (bi-charged) version avaible producing ~160 PS. All iron engines. Real tax dodger, as good or better than my 2.8 (at least on paper) but prices are so adjusted one needs to pay projected tax savings to the VW. I'll wait to see what competition does to see future prices. I heard PSA/Renault is also designing an engine like this.

 

[JustinH]

Its not popular here in the US for a few reasons.

Number one is that Insurance companies will love to jack the rates up for anything turbocharged, I don't care if it is a turbocarged van or a sporty 2 door.

Number two is a turbo car will usually require a higher grade motor oil, or more maintenance. People won't pay for it, and people don't like to maintain cars.

Number 3 is that turbo cars need to have premium fuel. Again, people don't want to put good fuel in anything.

Think of average joe-blo driver, they want the cheapest car possible, and cheap ownership costs.

 

[tenderloin]

Ford is giving it a shot with 4 bangers and V6 called EcoBoost


http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27455


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgilKUwMl2A

 

[bruno]

'Number one is that Insurance companies will love to jack the rates up for anything turbocharged, I don't care if it is a turbocarged van or a sporty 2 door'

Gee maybe my insurance company never got the word that my Passat is a turbo !

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: tenderloin
Ford is giving it a shot with 4 bangers and V6 called EcoBoost


http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27455


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgilKUwMl2A


Yup, the 3.5TT looks very promising.

 

[DaRider34]

Looks like turbos won out. Yet most of the factory highest hp vehicles under 100k are supercharged

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: DaRider34
Looks like turbos won out. Yet most of the factory highest hp vehicles under 100k are supercharged


Holy necropost batman

This thread is from 2009.

 

[meep]

I like the low-p turbo in the s60. we've also had an NA one. The t model develops all the torque you need without having to downshift on steep grades at just about any speed / gear. Even 1500 rpm.

At 70 mph, I'm pretty sure it's spinning and in mild boost, as there's no lag if you vary the throttle, unlike 35 mph. I've read these cars are useless above 40 mph if the wastegate gets stuck open.

The bottom end torque promotes a relaxed driving experience.

-m

 

[HemiHawk]

When you're reading through a thread from 2009 without realizing it....

I should have known when I saw someone say ford is "trying it" with the ecoboost.


To maybe add to this... Volvo is bringing twin-charge to the US lately. So supercharging still has some life left.

 

[Ursatdx]

My PWC is a 1.8L supercharged 4 cyl.

 

[barryh]

What has happened since the start of this thread in 2009 is that turbo's now dominate and naturally aspirated engines have become very much the minority at least in Europe. Small capacity turbo engines are in every manufacturers line up chasing low emissions and fuel economy.

I have one of the very last M271 supercharged engines that Mercedes fitted to the C class cars and I love it for the instant torque at low revs and the fuel economy when cruising. MB had developed the supercharged engine for so long that when it was finally replaced by a turbo there was little if any improvement in economy and emissions were actually a little higher.

 

[oilpsi2high]

FYI - The Cobalt SS Supercharged died because it couldn't pass emissions testing.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted By: HemiHawk



To maybe add to this... Volvo is bringing twin-charge to the US lately. So supercharging still has some life left.

I think it's VW who also wants to bring the turbosupercharged TFSI motor over as well - or did they in an Audi?

GM was a big cheerleader for supercharging in the 1990s - they did market the blown 3800 in the Buick/Olds/Pontiac lineup quite a bit. The late 1980s-1990s were a good time for forced induction. Even Toyota had a supercharged Previa but still was a little weak compared to the Chrysler vans and the Windstar with the 3.3/3.8L V6s. They offered a Eaton blower for the V6 Camry/Sienna and the Tacoma/Land Cruiser as a TRD dealer-installed option but it wasn't a hit.

 

[DaRider34]

Originally Posted By: nthach

I think it's VW who also wants to bring the turbosupercharged TFSI motor over as well - or did they in an Audi?

GM was a big cheerleader for supercharging in the 1990s - they did market the blown 3800 in the Buick/Olds/Pontiac lineup quite a bit. The late 1980s-1990s were a good time for forced induction. Even Toyota had a supercharged Previa but still was a little weak compared to the Chrysler vans and the Windstar with the 3.3/3.8L V6s. They offered a Eaton blower for the V6 Camry/Sienna and the Tacoma/Land Cruiser as a TRD dealer-installed option but it wasn't a hit.


But how complicated is that gunna be to fix or service when you have to deal with a dual boosted setup. Looks like the prices on superchargers hasn't come down either. Maybe if they had opted for them instead of turbos maybe they would have moved from roots blower to twin screw similiar to the twin scroll turbos everyone using.

 

[mightymousetech]

I think the two main reasons are cost, and better low end torque from a turbo. A modern turbo can be at full boost below 2000 RPM, can't do that with a supercharger. So turbos are much better for driveability with more low end torque.

 

[supton]

I'm not sure that a supercharger couldn't make full boost below 2k... just a matter of pulley drives, really. What's harder is to make the boost variable. I would think it easier to design, and use, a setup where boost is non-linear--it comes on harder in the upper rev's. Need more power? Downshift, get a double-whammy.

Could get around that with some sort of CVT drive on the belt, but then I'm not sure if power losses come up too much, and the effort to turbo becomes either less work or more efficient.

 

[d00df00d]

I'd imagine a supercharger that did its best work at such low RPMs would have to be smallish (to minimize parasitic losses) and run a very small pulley. That's all well and good, but how do you then keep the speed from going too high as the revs climb? At least with a turbo, you can use the wastegate to bleed off pressure and keep the turbine speed within a reasonable range.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Agree with reliability issues. Seems awfully demanding of 4 crankpins to not only carry an impressive drive output from the engine, but also burdoned with the continuous parasitic load of the supercharger. Probably not too appealing for OEMs.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: DaRider34
Originally Posted By: nthach

I think it's VW who also wants to bring the turbosupercharged TFSI motor over as well - or did they in an Audi?

GM was a big cheerleader for supercharging in the 1990s - they did market the blown 3800 in the Buick/Olds/Pontiac lineup quite a bit. The late 1980s-1990s were a good time for forced induction. Even Toyota had a supercharged Previa but still was a little weak compared to the Chrysler vans and the Windstar with the 3.3/3.8L V6s. They offered a Eaton blower for the V6 Camry/Sienna and the Tacoma/Land Cruiser as a TRD dealer-installed option but it wasn't a hit.


But how complicated is that gunna be to fix or service when you have to deal with a dual boosted setup. Looks like the prices on superchargers hasn't come down either. Maybe if they had opted for them instead of turbos maybe they would have moved from roots blower to twin screw similiar to the twin scroll turbos everyone using.


Eaton's TVS series of supercharger has higher thermal efficiency and takes less power to drive than the screw-type superchargers.