370tt?

gzoom

This is the toque curve from a Golf R, looks like a very good amount of usable power from just about any where in the rev range to me - This graph applies to nearly all current turbo cars. Having owned two very good NA cars and a very good turbo car, I can tell you from first hand experience force induction is way forwards.



As for F1, again, your lack of knowledge is truly astounding....maybe a quick history lesson is needed..

Turbo charged cars back in the 1980's were producing 1300bhp+ in qualifying trim from a 1.5L turbocharged lump. They were BANNED for been TOO FAST.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Formula_One

gzoom

As far as I know, the P1, La Ferrari, DONT have anything like the complex MGU-H or MGU-K system used in F1. The P1 is essentially running a more complex versions of the hybrid setup found in the Prius. Even my wifes Lexus has a 'KERS' system, recovering kinetic energy from the brakes to store in a battery and use later.

The real advance in F1 is the MGU-H units, which essentially uses heat generated from the turbos to provide a constant stream of sustained power to help boost the engine. The P1 also has tiny battery - it's just 4.7kWh, its bigger than the battery in a Prius (1.1kWh), but alot smaller than any BEV, my Leaf has 24kWh.

The job of the hybrid system in the P1 to help assist the petrol engine and fill in any drops off in power at any specific power ranges. In essence it allows to run a mega boost, and have no worries about turbo lag. Therefore you can take full advantage of turbo charging, and have instant throttle response.

richy999

Hi Dannyrst,

Having owned, turbo charged (diesel/petrol) and normally aspirated cars, I would say how you drive the it is the major factor for fuel consumption... don't put too much stock in advertised MPG figures.

My advice is to buy the car you want, rather than fixating on if it's got a turbo charger and is it 5 mpg more efficient than the other one.

If you decide 6 or 12 months down the line that you have compromised your choice, the cost to change cars will far outstrip any mpg savings you might have made.

dannyrst

Silversurferz wrote: »

Firstly I am not DM. Secondly I did not bring up the laferrari/Porsche. Someone else did. And I was making a relevant point about them - not suggesting in anyway anyone here should buy them. Please read my posts before making outlandish comments.


Oh and anyone who buys such high performance cars (and have some common sense) wouldn't care much for the difference in MPG especially if it is only 5 mpg more. The cost could easily be negated by repairs/servicing. MPG will be near the bottom of priorities

But the thread was about finding a suitable car for me to purchase. As I've stated I won't be buying a supercar, hypercar or indeed an F1 car, you can stop talking about them now thank you. And if you think your discussion about these cars is justified to prove NA or Turbo is better/worse, then you are very disillusioned. Technology in cars that cost upwards of £1million isn't going to help when comparing cars worth around £20,000.

As for your comments on whether I should be concerned with MPG or not, I'd rather have a car that has the same performance but with 5MPG better economy given the choice.

BeenThroughItAll

Silversurferz wrote: »

Firstly I am not DM. Secondly I did not bring up the laferrari/Porsche. Someone else did. And I was making a relevant point about them - not suggesting in anyway anyone here should buy them. Please read my posts before making outlandish comments.

Oh and anyone who buys such high performance cars (and have some common sense) wouldn't care much for the difference in MPG especially if it is only 5 mpg more. The cost could easily be negated by repairs/servicing. MPG will be near the bottom of priorities

We've heard that one before, I think.


We've also heard:

Silversurferz wrote: »

I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to cars but please point me to a car that has decent power, fun to drive and not a bomb to run.

You've learned a lot very quickly. Another one of DM's 'talents', that is.

BeenThroughItAll

Silversurferz wrote: »

The car was designed and created by the Germans

Actually, the BMW MINI was designed by a Norwegian, IIRC.

motorguy

Silversurferz wrote: »

Or maybe that's another way of you saying you cannot accept you were wrong

Seriously - please stop derailing this thread.

You start one thread saying you know nothing about cars, but here you are now, a self proclaimed expert, and sounding an awful lot like another one of dark matters guises.

Respectfully, butt out, as you are adding nothing to this thread.

dannyrst

Silversurferz wrote: »

Like it or not I have added knowledge to this thread and I've backed up all my arguments.

You suggested I should buy....

A Lexus?

motorguy

Silversurferz wrote: »

Like it or not I have added knowledge to this thread and I've backed up all my arguments.

Then you've made your "point".

Now Let Go and move on.

gzoom

Silversurferz wrote: »

Indeed, F1 used turbo in the 1980's and they were too fast but what lap times did they produce? They had reliability issues and were no way as good as the 2004 F1 cars round corners

Again your total lack of knowledge is quite astounding....Have you heard of tyres, brakes, and suspension?? Have you also heard about 'Ground effect' cars that were around in the 1970's and got banned.

I seriously think you need to go and educate your self on F1 history before coming out with rubbish.

As mentioned non of this has anything to do with OPs query, but the long and short of it, turbo cars are quicker and more economical.

Which is why the mass market have gone down the force induction route.