Elio Turbo

[skygazer6033]

Adamant --- A smaller engine gets better MPG. What a turbo does is allow you to use a smaller engine with the added flexibility of having a larger engine when you need it. So if you pussyfoot around you'll get great mileage, put your foot in it and it comes on like gangbusters. Best of both worlds.

 

[outsydthebox]

Adamant --- A smaller engine gets better MPG. What a turbo does is allow you to use a smaller engine with the added flexibility of having a larger engine when you need it. So if you pussyfoot around you'll get great mileage, put your foot in it and it comes on like gangbusters. Best of both worlds.

Well said.
I think (pure speculation) that "If" EM adds a turbo (year 2 or 3) it would be more for sport than for mileage. To get better mileage from the turbo might require a smaller displacement engine... maybe around 750cc?...Maybe 2 cylinders?..."V-twin"?

 

[W. WIllie]

You have to take into account, the weight of the vehicle, so around a 1L engine size is right, IN MY OPINION.
I can stay off of the turbo in my G1 and still get better mpg than the average G1 Insighter. (Not HYPERMILER)
(From Experience)

HTH
Willie

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

The turbo charger was designed to maintain full rated horse power in a low density environment, generally for airplanes.

Like all things engineering, it's a compromise.
You CAN boost the HP of a given engine with the cost of more weight, complexity, and cost.
There would be no MPG boost from a turbo. NONE.
I do not know of an example of an economy car that had a better cost of ownership with a turbo charger installed.

 

[slinches]

There would be no MPG boost from a turbo. NONE.

That's not entirely true. You can get improved mileage if the gearing ratio and engine power curve is non-optimal for mileage at speeds and road conditions that you normally drive. For example if you live in a hilly area, you can potentially avoid downshifting on uphill grades by having the turbo be slightly into boost at cruise RPMs, that would significantly improve the overall mileage over a stock vehicle (though likely not over the rated MPG).

 

[TCBronson]

I think the point of having a turbo is more performance for a more fun driving experience while also being able to get decent MPG when NOT in the boost. The new Ford Mustang 4 cyl Eco boost gets pretty good mpg for a sporty car and it can be fun to drive as well with the turbo. So I have read.

 

[pistonboy]

Adamant --- A smaller engine gets better MPG. What a turbo does is allow you to use a smaller engine with the added flexibility of having a larger engine when you need it. So if you pussyfoot around you'll get great mileage, put your foot in it and it comes on like gangbusters. Best of both worlds.

Adament. The above quote says it all.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

That's not entirely true. You can get improved mileage if the gearing ratio and engine power curve is non-optimal for mileage at speeds and road conditions that you normally drive. For example if you live in a hilly area, you can potentially avoid downshifting on uphill grades by having the turbo be slightly into boost at cruise RPMs, that would significantly improve the overall mileage over a stock vehicle (though likely not over the rated MPG).

If a turbo lowered the total cost of ownership, every economy car would have one.

 

[slinches]

I disagree with that because people aren't rational and will buy the "cheaper" naturally aspirated car with a higher TCO rather than pay a bit more up front for the turbo.

The general rule of thumb is that a properly designed turbocharged powerplant will be ~20% more efficient than a naturally aspirated engine with equal performance (peak HP)

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Most cars aren't driven at peak HP....