Turbocharge Supercharge (TSI)

[Wt_know]

Is Turbocharge Supercharge (TSI) the direction for car development to push more power ?

 

TSI seems like a good idea where a small engine displacement can produce a lot of power and yet it is fuel efficient. Fuel efficiency is the key selling point for car now, isn't it ?

 

Can other car also implement TSI ? Is TSI VW proprietary technology ?

Edited June 16, 2009 by Wt_know

[Ladykillerz]

TC and SC are already in the market for ages.

But to insert the two monsters into a small engine is not an easy task.

Overall layout and a strong gearbox are crucial.

 

Let's take for an example,

Just like you can imagine if you were to try to install a TC and a SC to a Lancer GLX(SOHC engine) plus a 4-speed CVT gearbox.

The next thing you know is, you need to scrap your ride.

 

Ladykillerz

[Wt_know]

i see. so, Golf TSI designer must be damn good

 

TC and SC are already in the market for ages.

But to insert the two monsters into a small engine is not an easy task.

Overall layout and a strong gearbox are crucial.

 

Let's take for an example,

Just like you can imagine if you were to try to install a TC and a SC to a Lancer GLX(SOHC engine) plus a 4-speed CVT gearbox.

The next thing you know is, you need to scrap your ride.

 

Ladykillerz

 

[Beehive3783]

TC and SC are already in the market for ages.

But to insert the two monsters into a small engine is not an easy task.

Overall layout and a strong gearbox are crucial.

 

Let's take for an example,

Just like you can imagine if you were to try to install a TC and a SC to a Lancer GLX(SOHC engine) plus a 4-speed CVT gearbox.

The next thing you know is, you need to scrap your ride.

 

Ladykillerz

your example not good enough.. TSI technology was designed from the ground up.. whereas your example is quoting aftermarket mods. there's no room for comparison at all.

[Qr25vet]

Is Turbocharge Supercharge (TSI) the direction for car development to push more power ?

 

TSI seems like a good idea where a small engine displacement can produce a lot of power and yet it is fuel efficient. Fuel efficiency is the key selling point for car now, isn't it ?

 

Can other car also implement TSI ? Is TSI VW proprietary technology ?

if u look back in the early 80s....lancia pioneered that technology with their insanely fast lancia delta S4...it has 1 .8L turbo/supercharged engine producing 475 BHP on a mid engined 4WD chassis that weighed 650Kgs [sweatdrop]

[Beehive3783]

ah.. the days of the monster rally cars.. Lancia Delta Integrale, Ford RS2000, Audi Quattro..

[Wt_know]

rally aside, is turbocharged and supercharged car "suitable" for street-driving ?

i always assume a car maker will either choose turbocharged (use exhaust to force air) or supercharged (use a charger to force air)

i have never thought of both force induction techniques are installed in a car. it must be damn complex to manage 2 boost and timing.

[Beehive3783]

ok my layman view of twincharging:

 

1. turbocharger has lag and only starts spooling after X rpm

2. supercharger, on the other hand, is belt driven and thus has no lag. it can offset the lag that is present in the turbocharger

3. however, supercharger has a certain limitation and efficiency starts dropping after Y rpm.

4. turbocharger can make up for the supercharger deficiency because it spools up at a later stage.

 

so in essence, twincharging takes the advantages of both super and turbocharging and puts them together to complement each other so as to eliminate the weaknesses of both.

 

** above is my own layman knowledge, i may be wrong **

Edited June 16, 2009 by Beehive3783

[Watwheels]

All your minds are so corrupted by power and call it a "monster".

 

The supercharger is first activated in the low rpms to build up enough exhaust gas fast(thru more efficient combustion) to power the turbocharger. If the 1.4L is only turbocharged, the 1.4L NA on its own(before the turbo kicks in) will struggle to move exhaust gas thru the turbines to build up boost bcos of the weight of the car. This is called turbo lag. It takes some time to have the power delivery kicking in. SC is to eliminate that lag to have a more responsive engine from low rpms.

 

If the engine capacity is larger eg. 2.0L dan the SC is not really necessarily needed. Cos the 2.0L NA is able to accelerate the car with all its weight with ease with or without the turbocharger. So on low rpms it relys on the torque from the 2.0L NA , on mid rpms the boost from the turbocharger takes over.

 

That's why in VW range you only see the 1.4L have both SC & TC while the 2.0L have only TC.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Watwheels

[Hutan]

All your minds are so corrupted by power and call it a "monster".

 

The supercharger is first activated in the low rpms to build up enough exhaust gas fast(thru more efficient combustion) to power the turbocharger. If the 1.4L is only turbocharged, the 1.4L NA on its own(before the turbo kicks in) will struggle to move exhaust gas thru the turbines to build up boost bcos of the weight of the car. This is called turbo lag. It takes some time to have the power delivery kicking in. SC is to eliminate that lag to have a more responsive engine from low rpms.

 

If the engine capacity is larger eg. 2.0L dan the SC is not really necessarily needed. Cos the 2.0L NA is able to accelerate the car with all its weight with ease with or without the turbocharger. So on low rpms it relys on the torque from the 2.0L NA , on mid rpms the boost from the turbocharger takes over.

 

That's why in VW range you only see the 1.4L have both SC & TC while the 2.0L have only TC.

 

simi charged also "key".. as long as u got VTEC

[Beehive3783]

you cannot deny that rally cars of the past were monsters compared to the tame dogs in the WRC now..

 

oh hell yeah i'm corrupted to power..

[Wt_know]

ok. just for discussion purposes :

 

car a = 1.8L TC or SC engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

car b = 2.5L NA engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

is it an easy no brainer answer that car a is better than car b ?

 

why pay more where you can pay less to have the equivalent output assuming a 2.5L car is probably more expensive than a 1.8L car.

 

not to mention another few hundred dollars $$ saved in road tax per year.

 

 

 

 

[Amortifiedpenguin]

ok. just for discussion purposes :

 

car a = 1.8L TC or SC engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

car b = 2.5L NA engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

is it an easy no brainer answer that car a is better than car b ?

 

why pay more where you can pay less to have the equivalent output assuming a 2.5L car is probably more expensive than a 1.8L car.

 

not to mention another few hundred dollars $$ saved in road tax per year.

 

hmmm... looks like a good starting point for a comparison someone with a 2.5L (or 2.4L) NA car please state his insurance premium, coe and road tax, someone with a 1.8L TC and/or SC engine please state his insurance premium, coe and road tax too. those who lup turbo on their NA rides can GTFO, just kidding.

[Iliketodrive]

ok. just for discussion purposes :

 

car a = 1.8L TC or SC engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

car b = 2.5L NA engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

is it an easy no brainer answer that car a is better than car b ?

 

why pay more where you can pay less to have the equivalent output assuming a 2.5L car is probably more expensive than a 1.8L car.

 

not to mention another few hundred dollars $$ saved in road tax per year.

 

i choose car C 1.8L NA 200hp 180nm VTEC !!!

 

&

 

car D 1.8L NA 190hp 180nm VVTL-i !!!

Edited June 16, 2009 by Iliketodrive

[Ladykillerz]

ok. just for discussion purposes :

 

car a = 1.8L TC or SC engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

car b = 2.5L NA engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

is it an easy no brainer answer that car a is better than car b ?

 

why pay more where you can pay less to have the equivalent output assuming a 2.5L car is probably more expensive than a 1.8L car.

 

not to mention another few hundred dollars $$ saved in road tax per year.

 

Howdy Wt_know,

 

For 1.8L TC cars, indeed you can saved on RT but need to maintain the TC and moreover, the engine with TC will be under stress and lifespan/performance for the engine will degrade more significantly than a NA cars when time to come, which lead to FC increases..

For 2.5L NA cars, what I want is the smooth ride rather than the broom-broom thingy. Some prefer to have a macho engine than another thingy to push the ride further..

 

So it depends on what you want.

The best is to get a macho engine with TCs.

 

My two cents worth.

 

Ladykillerz

[inlinesix]

ok. just for discussion purposes :

 

car a = 1.8L TC or SC engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

car b = 2.5L NA engine to produce 200bhp & 250Nm torque

 

is it an easy no brainer answer that car a is better than car b ?

 

why pay more where you can pay less to have the equivalent output assuming a 2.5L car is probably more expensive than a 1.8L car.

 

not to mention another few hundred dollars $$ saved in road tax per year.

If 2.5L NA is IL-6, i will definitely take it.

[Vega]

Howdy Wt_know,

 

For 1.8L TC cars, indeed you can saved on RT but need to maintain the TC and moreover, the engine with TC will be under stress and lifespan/performance for the engine will degrade more significantly than a NA cars when time to come, which lead to FC increases..

For 2.5L NA cars, what I want is the smooth ride rather than the broom-broom thingy. Some prefer to have a macho engine than another thingy to push the ride further..

 

So it depends on what you want.

The best is to get a macho engine with TCs.

 

My two cents worth.

 

Ladykillerz

 

you brought out a very good point on "what you want". The 1.4L SC+TC Golf is in fact very torquey but i find it not very comfortable esp for the passenger. its like a raging bull. always want to "cheong". If you like the cheong sensation, this is the engine for you. step abit on the accelerator and the car is very willing to cheong.

where as the 2.0L TC Golf GTi is more refine on the low end but once the turbo kick in, you got that smile on your face. i find the 2L GTi easier to "control" at the low end too.

[Ladykillerz]

you brought out a very good point on "what you want". The 1.4L SC+TC Golf is in fact very torquey but i find it not very comfortable esp for the passenger. its like a raging bull. always want to "cheong". If you like the cheong sensation, this is the engine for you. step abit on the accelerator and the car is very willing to cheong.

where as the 2.0L TC Golf GTi is more refine on the low end but once the turbo kick in, you got that smile on your face. i find the 2L GTi easier to "control" at the low end too.

 

You forgotten the VW Scirocco.

Now the "IN" thing is Scirocco, no longer Golf. Haaaaa...

 

Ladykillerz

Edited June 16, 2009 by Ladykillerz