Originally Posted by
LeonOfTheDead
It's not a miracol, it's colled volumetric efficiency, and it's math.
And yes, it works at almost all rpm, but as opposed to what you said at low rpm, it isn't a better situation, just equal to having a naturally aspirated engine, as the turbo isn't working.
VGT mono turbo systems in diesel engines (low end torque so) start having an effect at at least 1.500 rpm.
Not even answering the "after market" thing, as if after market parts for naturally aspirated engines are better and provides better emissions as a given fact.
A turbocharged improve the efficiency of an engine, take a mech book and have a good read.
For the record, better efficiency doesn't mean better mileage.
Every engine at higher rpm is more efficient than at lower ones, but it also takes more fuel to have an engine running at 6.000 rpm than 3.000. Still the efficiency is better at 6.000. Always (given the engine is decently designed, assembled, mated to the gearbox etc etc).
Seriously, turbos don't break if they aren't defective. My father drove an Alfa 156 JTD (one of the first cars to have a common rail system) to 190.000 km in 3 years, then I took it to 230.000 km with my mother. Want to know what went bad? The clutch, at 190.000 km.
Saying than with more parts on your cars more things could go bad...are you using a car without A/C perhaps?
You just said the two cars have a similar fuel efficiency (what's that?!). Assuming that means a similar fuel consumption...that means that the SHO's engine, albeit being 40 bhp more powerful and the car about 500 lbs (your figures) heavier, is a hell of a better engine.
Even getting emissions' level for the two cars, those aren't eally directly comparable, as between what happens in an engine and what arrive to the exhaust or at the wheels, a lot of other things happens. The SHO's engine could be a hell of an engine, but perhaps the gearbox is the worst on the Earth, and screws everything.
If they did an average job designing the SHO's engine, it will be a good engine. Than perhaps Nissan did a better job using a standard technology engine. In which case, you should wonder what Nissan could do applying that tech to one of their designs.
Breaking news, Tata owns Jaguar since a year or so.
And if you keep considering a turbo just a source of problem, than goodbye and stick to your thinking.
The Jaguar V8 is expensive, first reason for not using it on a Ford, second, it's old and thirsty.
It's also pretty large (4.2), while at the moment having a smaller engine and with modern tech (even if useless) is what helped Ford trough the recent period. For the record, emissions level of the V8 naturally aspirated from Jaguar are 269 grams of CO2 per km, on the old XJ.
The double turbo 3.0 I6 on the new BMW 7 Series is good for 326 bhp, and emits 232 grams of CO2 per km.
Would you say a BMW is unreliable as a Ford? No, the BMW is excellent as it costs 80.000 €. The SHO uses a pretty similar technology (not exactly the same, still two turbos), so I don't see why it should be a shitty and unreliable engine.
Perhaps Ford fits the engine with gremlins, who knows...
Correct, the weight has to do with the performance, not with the power as YOU said.
And don't trow in mods and tuning, it's just unfair and pointless to compare a tuned car to a stock one.
never said the opposite, still it isn't that simple. a car may be lighter, and still worst. A car isn't made only of the power/weight ratio.
Dude, I mean every year new cars are designed, and they weights mroe than those designed the year before for a bunch of reasons, as safety devices, gizmos, comfort, noise deadening and so on. nothing sci-fi.