[Vwdiesel] Turbo vs. Non-turbo [was My TURBO test (more scientific)]

[Nate Wall]

My take on this:

I've heard turbos increase efficiency by extracting
some of the heat energy/gas expansion from exhaust
gasses. In our case, I believe the economies of fuel
usage of the VW TD vs NA to be almost identical. I
tend to believe that driven really hard, a TD will use
a little more fuel, because it is capable of being
driven faster easier, which increases fuel usage due
to greater wind drag. Driven gently they should be the
same. I think that SAE paper Roger B./ posted on his
site gives the fuel consumption amounts in grams per
KW-Hr. and it states they are the same as the NA.
I believe the overall cost of the TD to be more,
though, because of the possible need to rebuild the
turbo, etc. Mine's been rebuilt twice at a total cost
of about $900, plus a $75 oil line from VW (The turbo
rebuilder said no warranty offered if the line was not
replaced--BS I thought). I think the life of both
motors are about the same.

--Nate


--- greg rich <greg4vwparts at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tyler
> I have to disagree with your statement about turbos
> increasing fuel economy.
> They only increase fuel economy UNDER FULL LOAD.
> Hence, if you drive  your
> cars or trucks hard, a turbo will increase your
> economy. Similar with all
> big rigs, they are under heavy load all the time and
> a turbo increases the
> engines efficiency. Under light loads however the
> turbo is awful! Take for
> example two 1986 Jettas, a straight diesel is
> capable of (imp gallon, 4.54
> liters) 75-80 mpg going 90 km/h (55 mph) on a
> straight road, a turbo one
> however will never see better then 70 mpg. If you
> increase the speed to 110
> kmh (70 mph) the na diesel would get 60 mpg, the
> turbo around 65mpg. Because
> the na diesel is working so much harder it is using
> more fuel, the turbo
> engine is able to use the fuel more effectively. The
> turbo engine does not
> breath nearly as well as a na diesel due to the
> intake piping etc.
> I have owned MANY (12) VW diesels all Jettas diesel
> and turbo diesel. I have
> also owned many Mercedes diesels and a Toyota truck
> td. We also have two
> Jetta TDIs in the family. I have been able to
> consistently get 70+ mpg from
> na diesel VWs, never from the turbos under the same
> conditions, but if I am
> in a hurry I know which car will be better. Now, the
> TDIs are another story,
> both are automatic and neither get anywhere near the
> economy one would
> expect, so far the best is 61mpg going to Florida at
> 60mph (I made it to
> Orlando FLA from Ottawa ON Canada on one fill up,
> 2500 kms, left with a full
> tank). I was hoping for much more but never got it,
> and I never used the a/c
> or other power robbers. It barely got better then
> the gov rating of 59 mpg.
> The same gov rating that said the 1.6 would only get
> high 50s yet I get way
> more. Anyways, enough babbling, I have never found
> the turbo to increase
> economy giving my driving style, it is useful in the
> mountains and if your
> in a rush, but not at the pumps in your average
> drive going the speed limit.
> Towing of course, (though I would never subject the
> general population to
> towing with one of my diesels)  would be another
> story, here a turbo is
> necessary- I have a big ol Lincoln for that (460 CI
> of gas burning power).
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: vwdiesel-request at vwfans.com
> >Reply-To: vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> >To: vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> >Subject: vwiesel digest, Vol 1 #538 - 8 msgs
> >Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 09:22:58 -0400
> >
> >Send vwdiesel mailing list submissions to
> >	vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> >
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> >	http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/vwdiesel
> >or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> >	vwdiesel-request at vwfans.com
> >
> >You can reach the person managing the list at
> >	vwdiesel-admin at vwfans.com
> >
> >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> >than "Re: Contents of vwdiesel digest..."
> >
> >
> >Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. turbo testing (Mark Kostreva)
> >    2. RE: Turbo vs. Non-turbo [was My TURBO test
> (more
> >        scientific)] (James Hansen)
> >    3. 2 way radio antenna placement (Val
> Christian)
> >    4. Re: Turbo vs. Non-turbo [was My TURBO test
> (more scientific)] (Tyler
> >"Casioqv" Backman)
> >    5. RE: Diesel   Hagar  the third person ??? .
> (Shirley, Mark R)
> >    6. RE: Turbo vs. Non-turbo [was My TURBO test
> (more scien
> >        tific)] (Shirley, Mark R)
> >
> >--__--__--
> >
> >Message: 1
> >Date: Tue, 8 Apr 03 03:46:30 -0400
> >From: Mark Kostreva <flstgla at hubcap.clemson.edu>
> >To: <vwdiesel at vwfans.com>, <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca>
> >Subject: [Vwdiesel] turbo testing
> >
> >Your accelerator cable may be misadjusted. Get a
> friend to push the
> >pedal, and make sure that when you floor it, the
> springloaded arm on the
> >pump hits the stop, including pressing the little
> bellows part at the end
> >of the travel. This made a big difference for me.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> > >>
> >
> >If the turbo really does THAT much (I have no idea
> myself WHAT kind of
> >diff=
> >erence I should be experiencing) I should "see" a
> decrease in
> >power/torqe/r=
> >evs or SOME type of effect shouldn't I ?
> >
> > >>
> >
> >--__--__--
> >
> >Message: 2
> >Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 01:57:31 -0600
> >From: James Hansen <jhsg at sk.sympatico.ca>
> >Subject: RE: [Vwdiesel] Turbo vs. Non-turbo [was My
> TURBO test (more
> >  scientific)]
> >To: Vwdiesel <vwdiesel at audifans.com>
> >
> > > Please correct me if I am wrong about any of the
> below. I have also
> > > noticed another very significant difference
> above and beyond the
> > > horsepower/torque increase when turbocharging a
> diesel, as I own 4
> > > diesel vehicles, a turbo and non-turbo 6.2l
> suburban, and a turbo and
> > > non-turbo 2.4l (VW engine) volvo. A turbocharged
> diesel responds much
> > > more like a gasoline car, because the
> turbocharger spins up quicker than
> > > the engine, and causes the motor to rev much
> more freely, and is able to
> > > utilize more throttle without just converting
> the extra fuel to soot. On
> > > a mechanically injected non-turbo diesel at
> lower rpms there is a point
> > > (between half-full) throttle where more throttle
> just makes it smoke
> > > more, but won't put out more power, because
> there is no more air. A
> > > Turbo Diesel seems to produce maximum boost only
> at full throttle at
> > > these rpms, and will therefore respond to the
> entire range of throttle
> > > input, just like a gasoline engine with a
> throttle body.
> >
> >Not really.  It is dependant on a number of
> factors.  TIming, fuel
> >settings,
> >boost enrichment, camshaft design which dictates at
> what rpm your torque
> >and
> >hp will peak, etc. Mine makes full boost any time
> you press on the pedal.
> >It's all in the setup.
> >
> >  A non-turbo
> > > diesel revs and responds so slowly, that I think
> under a light enough
> > > load, a gasoline engine with less horsepower
> would outperform it
> >
> >
> >Depends on the definition of perform. Quarter mile
> times or how far you go
> >on a gallon of fuel. The diesel will win the latter
> hands down.
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com