Why didn't more manufacturers opt for supercharging over turbocharging in their 6 cyl saloons?
>>28941573money
>>28941573Government fuel economy tests. A supercharger reduces your gas mileage regardless of if you drive fast or slow whereas a turbocharger will only affect your mileage if you give it the beans so turbos can game the system on fuel economy tests by driving so sedately that the turbo doesn't kick in.
>>28941583To be fair the Jag hasn't been that bad, I've been averaging about 29 MPG (UK, so 24/25 US) with 40 possible on a motorway runIt's what you'd expect for a fairly heavy 350hp saloon IMO
>>28941583It always goes back to the absolute clusterfuck of a retardation of Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency, those regulations ruined car culture while doing barely anything for corporate efficiency other than corporations being more efficient at gaming the system. Fuck this bullshit
>>28941614>Corporate Average Fuel EfficiencyCorporate Average Fuel Economy
>>28941583Yes. They cheat the tests by planning their boost around the prescribed epa fuel mileage test duty cycle. Superchargers are always making boost and can't cheat the test as easily
>>28941596The most I got out of my F-type was 39.1 mpg on a motorway run of 200 miles. So they really aren't that bad.
>>28941573Superchargers are trash dude why the fuck would you drive a compressor with the engines power lol, jaguar/landrover is chinkshit btw the whole engine is plastic.
>>28941854With what power do you want to drive the charger if not the engine's?
>>28941573>>28941583A turbo is also just ... better. It's the same logic as a hybrid. It converts something that otherwise gets totally wasted back into reusable energy. A supercharger does the exact opposite by taking energy away from the engine.
>>28941573>lets rob engine power to make boostSupercharging is gay.
>>28941874The abject power of zionist world jews
>>28941879That power would rip the cylinders apart in the aspirating cycle....
>>28941883Total holocaust 6 gorillion psi intercoolers with wooden pipes
>>28941876>gets totally wastedNo, turbocharger increases pumping loses of an engine. As it's a exhaust restriction engine has to push air through.It's just less wasteful than a roots blower, and can be controlled much easier.>inb4 turbo lower mpgIt's built to workaround normie driving habits. Gains are bigger than inherit loses so it's a good thing.
>>28941902>less wastefulMASSIVELY less 'wasteful'. So much so, that wasteful isn't the correct term
>>28941583>>28941624Modern superchargers are clutched
>>28941573
>>28941902>No, turbocharger increases pumping loses of an engineA 4 cyl 2.0L turbo engine can match the performance of a 3.0L 6 cylinder NA engine with much lower fuel consumption, even with spirited driving. And those pumping losses aren't losses because that energy goes right back to the intake; that's the point of a turbo, it recovers waste energy.
>>28942151>even with spirited drivingOP here, I disagree with thisI had a Golf R a few years ago and the MPG was basically the same as the Jag unless I was town driving. The supercharged 3.0 gets abysmal urban fuel economy that improves while cruising. On the flip side the EA888 absolutely gulped fuel when I drove it hard, and didn't seem to get loads better than normal on motorway drives. That might be due to the AWD system though
>>28941573fuel economy, turbo is more efficient
>>28942151Thermodynamic brainlet detected.The turbo backpressure raises temps in the entire cycle and forces the mechanical compression ratio to get dropped radically even if a big intercooler is present. The "turbo is more fuel efficient than a larger NA" comes from not comparing apples to apples - take a Mazda 2.5L NA versus a 2.0 TFSI or an Insignia 2.0 Turbo, the Mazda sips between 0.5L/100km and a whopping 1L/100km less than those. If you compare a significantly newer turbo to an old NA car (which you will regularly do, since EU/Japan displacement tax cuckoldry forces 1.0T engines globally and is killing NA), then yes, you will see massive uplift with "adding a turbo", but that's correlation, not causation.Truth of the matter is, you're robbing the crank of a big % of power by adding a turbo, which you then recover with the turbine, but that power gets injected in the compressor, not the crank. Volvo work trucks and Porsche 911s fix this by coupling the turbine to the crank, which is expensive to manufacture.Between an NA and a turbo, you can generally get an extra point of compression ratio within the same generation, two even (11:1 vs 13.5:1) when comparing the strongest, most expensive brands.Subsize turbo gasoline engines are specifically designed to game the current WLTP standard, which assumes you're crawling in a jam most of the time, forces unreasonably often and long idling times, and doesn't even feature a proper 130+kph highway segment, so the turbo engine sits off-boost most of the time. Why do you think the lowered boost thresholds plateau'd at 1500RPM and won't go lower? It's counterproductive to passing emissions and getting nice fuel economy scores.As for mechanical superchargers, a mechanical centrifugal blower generally outperforms a turbo, but that a niche race system that only adds top end power, while the bad efficiency rep comes from the roots blower. You can have the best if both, but progressive geometry screw blowers are $$$
>>28942181A mazda 2.5L NA produces nowhere near the power of a 2.0L TFSI. I have both a mazda 2.5L turbo and the latest gen 2.0L NA in the miata. Mazda greatly overstates their fuel economy in my experience. I get 9.8L/100km from both engines despite the 2.5T putting out 40 more HP on regular gas vs the 2.0L NA needing premium to get the full 187HP, some of that is the added drag from the miata being a convertible, but it's mostly because I have to rev the fucking piss out of the engine to get any power from it. Meanwhile the 2.5T produces so much torque at low rpm that the engine is already close to peak power at only 4000rpm. Fun fact, mazda 3 turbos were breaking rear differentials left and right because the engine produces too much torque and any sort of slip causes that torque to smash the spider gears in the diff.T. had to replace my rear diff.
>>28941573Because when driving through mountain passes across the continent a turbo performs better, but also because diesel engines do the trick.
>>28941573Efficiency. For forced induction, using waste energy from the exhaust to spin a compressor is more efficient than taking usable power from the crank to do it.Also, a supercharger leeches power all the time, while in most turbo setups if you're easy on the throttle the fuel usage can be similar to if the engine was naturally aspirated, allowing manufacturers to fudge the fuel economy numbers while still being able to boast higher power numbers.
>>28942151>energy goes right back to the intake
>>28943422Yes, retard, that's what an energy scavenging device does.
>>28943422>the combustion process is 100% efficientnice to post a selfie of yourself
