Your ideas for future sports car market

[MemphisR]

Just wanted to let you know that the Mk1 MR2 was supercharged not turbo. That was the second gen.


[QUOTE=RaceR;330109]
If you could decide how the future sports car market should look like in the future, or say 2015. Which cars would you add to the market?

Ill focus more on the japanse market. And since I am living in a country where CO2, and HP costs huge amount of money Ill focus more on low emissions. Im not going to mention all cars here.. (genesis, mustang, 370Z, WRX, Exige.. etc)

Toyota MR2
Cheap, Roof (or targa), MR, 2 seater, LSD, 150bhp, 1,4l turbo, 970kg
This would be the modern day 1. gen MR2. And the only cheap and affordable MR sports car on the market with some power. Should have som go-kart feel to it.
(the affordable version of Lotus Elise and Alfa Romeo 4C)

__________________________________________________ _

[MemphisR]

would have made it more practical as well

Originally Posted by Bonburner

that's how I wish the 'trunk' opened, was always my favorite sporty/sports car setup

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by MemphisR

Just wanted to let you know that the Mk1 MR2 was supercharged not turbo. That was the second gen.

Oh.. was not aware of a superchared version. I could only remember the 1. gen MR2 with NA engine. (used google and learned the supercharged version was available for the US market)
But since everything modern these days use turbo for efficiency (and cost?), I would think a modern day MR2 would use turbo over NA, or supercharger.
I used to own the MR-S spyder. And it could defenetly use some more torque. It was a fun car tough!

Originally Posted by MemphisR

would have made it more practical as well

Yupp. I have always been a fan of the hatchback roof. Even on coupes. Basically same design, more practical.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by RaceR

But since everything modern these days use turbo for efficiency (and cost?), I would think a modern day MR2 would use turbo over NA, or supercharger.
I used to own the MR-S spyder. And it could defenetly use some more torque. It was a fun car tough!

Audi S4 is S/C right? Turbo being "more efficient" is only at high loads on most engines, and you trade response for that.

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Audi S4 is S/C right? Turbo being "more efficient" is only at high loads on most engines, and you trade response for that.

I would gladly have the response of a supercharged engine! I love NA. But they usually have to be 2l+ for them to have some decent torque.
I am no fan of turbo lag, even tough modern day engines are not that bad. But I like efficiency of turbo engines (due to extreme co2 taxes). And I like the torque of turbocharged engines. We have HP taxes here, not torque taxes. Torquey and highly efficient engines = WIN in terms of bang for you buck.

The 1.4-litre TSI Twincharger from VW seems great tough!
Using both S/C and turbo. 180hp, 250nm, 139g co2 in a VW polo with DSG (international engine of the year 2012)
1,6L in Peugeot RCZ. 200hp, 270nm, 155g co2 (turbo, international engine of the year 2012. Shared with Mini Cooper and Citroen)
GT86 in comparison. 200hp, 200nm, 181g co2 (2l na)
BMW 328I, 2L, I4 . 245hp, 350nm, 149g co2 (turbo, international engine of the year 2012.)

Based on numbers above, I think we could see a modern 1,4l turbo with 150hp,220nm, and 127g co2 if put in a lightweight MR2 with say Primacy HP tires.
If car manufacturers could do those numbers with SC only than bring it on!
But, I do not know of S/C engines that can match the numbers of the mentioned turbo engines above. Do you?

______________________________
According to international reports, Volkswagen is thinking of cutting the 1.4TSI twincharger engine from production. The engine, both turbocharged and supercharged, is said to be too complex and too expensive for Volkswagen to continue making.

The engine has been praised for its torquey yet powerful nature since its debut in 2007, offering low-down torque off the mark thanks to its supercharger, but also presenting plenty of peak power once revved thanks to the turbo unit. Volkswagen is apparently now working on a new turbocharged engine to replace the popular unit.

Volkswagen engineers have reportedly said that using a new single turbocharged engine could keep costs down without sacrificing engine performance or efficiency. The new engine is likely to produce similar if not higher power and torque figures yet still consume a relatively small amount of fuel.
______________________________

Seems like all small good and efficient (small) displacement engines today use turbo. The older Cooper S models, pre 2006 used S/C. Then they switched to turbo. HP went up, consumption went down. Engine mentioned above are also used by Peugeot and Citroen with different variations. The reason for changing form S/C to Turbo was cost, and fuel efficiency.

VW currently use both turbo and S/C on their 1.4l twincharger. Going for turbo only in the future. Not S/C only..

Some years ago BMW were all about NA and throttle response. They could have gone the S/C route (what I consider the throttle response route) or the turbo route (what I assume is the the efficiency route).
Today all BMWs i know of use turbo. Except the M3. But next generation will get turbos.

I am no engineer. I just see what happens in the industry.

[blur]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

LOL thanks!

Don't worry, I've gave targa & hatch 86 to Tada-san.
These ones

I shopped those wheels on it... right? lol that was sooo long ago!

loved this:

[MemphisR]

But it isn't more efficient because the toyotas of the time all had their supercharger on an a//c clutch to turn them on only when there was enough throttle given. plus there is much less maintenance with a super because they also had their own oil supply separate from the engine's.

Originally Posted by RaceR

Oh.. was not aware of a superchared version. I could only remember the 1. gen MR2 with NA engine. (used google and learned the supercharged version was available for the US market)
But since everything modern these days use turbo for efficiency (and cost?), I would think a modern day MR2 would use turbo over NA, or supercharger.
I used to own the MR-S spyder. And it could defenetly use some more torque. It was a fun car tough!



Yupp. I have always been a fan of the hatchback roof. Even on coupes. Basically same design, more practical.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by blur

I shopped those wheels on it... right? lol that was sooo long ago!

I think so...

Seriously... some shop need to make the front part of the concept car. Hood, bumper, fender kits. IF someone did really make it and just say around $4k~$6k, I'm totally willing to fork it out

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by MemphisR

But it isn't more efficient because the toyotas of the time all had their supercharger on an a//c clutch to turn them on only when there was enough throttle given. plus there is much less maintenance with a super because they also had their own oil supply separate from the engine's.

What are you trying to say? Turbo isn't more efficient and cost effective compared to SC, therefore all engineers from several car manufacturers have it wrong when going for turbo?
Or they have no idea what they are doing when going from S/C to turbo?


Loving the pictures/car design above!

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by RaceR

What are you trying to say? Turbo isn't more efficient and cost effective compared to SC, therefore all engineers from several car manufacturers have it wrong when going for turbo?
Or they have no idea what they are doing when going from S/C to turbo?


Loving the pictures/car design above!

What do you mean by "efficient"? Fuel economy tests never run in the peak load range where turbos win out.

I think the deal with turbo vs. sc is that throttle response is not important at all in most cars, and because a turbo is slightly more efficient at full load, you get better numbers within in the same design specifications for the engine.

Unfortunately, fuel economy testing and real world fuel economy are very different things, and most drivers are completely clueless about how fuel economy works (admittedly, there's a lot behind it).

Eaton makes a good case for superchargers and fuel economy, they have some pretty slides about it. Current bypass valve controls could be a little better to improve the fuel economy advantage a bit more.

[MemphisR]

What i mean to say is that at the time there was a good chance that the mr2's super was more efficient fuel-wise at the time than a turbo because once a turbo spools up an some one cruises at that rpm, the turbo stays on and spooling. The super in my mr2 turns off when maintaining a steady speed. it is only running when there is a lot of throttle given and a computer senses a need for boost. I could be wrong about the turbo but the turbo in my Hyundai Scoupe was always on when I was on the free way and made my 1.5 ltr very hungry for a small car. My MR2 on the other hand gets for better milage and has a 1.6 ltr engine with more power and is 4 years older. I think that with some thought that supers could be made to work just as well as a turbo though. I didn't mean to offend you though.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by MemphisR

What i mean to say is that at the time there was a good chance that the mr2's super was more efficient fuel-wise at the time than a turbo because once a turbo spools up an some one cruises at that rpm, the turbo stays on and spooling. The super in my mr2 turns off when maintaining a steady speed. it is only running when there is a lot of throttle given and a computer senses a need for boost. I could be wrong about the turbo but the turbo in my Hyundai Scoupe was always on when I was on the free way and made my 1.5 ltr very hungry for a small car. My MR2 on the other hand gets for better milage and has a 1.6 ltr engine with more power and is 4 years older. I think that with some thought that supers could be made to work just as well as a turbo though. I didn't mean to offend you though.

Yea in short, you want the turbo to spool quickly and at low rpm for good punch, so you put a small restrictive turbine on it. But then when you're just cruising around, that restriction wastes energy, even with a fancy electronic wastegate that can stay open.

On a lossless load control type valvetrain (one that controls intake duration, namely Valvematic, Valvetronic, VVEL, or Multiair), a turbo helps part load efficiency because you can reduce the intake volume with nearly no losses, but the turbo will "pre-pressurize" the charge by recycling some exhaust blowdown. This is why the BMW 335 gets basically the same gas mileage as the 328 despite having lower compression and much more power. Throttle lag is still a problem though.

The best setup would be a variable drive centrifugal SC + turbine hooked either directly to the crankshaft or to an electric motor, and a fancy valvetrain. When you don't have the fancy valvetrain, IMO positive displacement SC makes the most sense, but that's just me.

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

What do you mean by "efficient"?

To make it simple. Example of better efficiency:
Engine 1: 150 hp, 180nm, 150g co2
Engine 2: 220 hp, 250nm, 150g co2 - More efficient compared to engine 1, same milage, more power.
Engine 3. 150hp, 180nm, 125g co2- More efficient compared to engine 1. Same power, less consumtion
(Wont bother going into detail about the power curves, and potential lag)

In Norway, a country with extreme taxes. The difference between 180g co2, and 130g is currently 8 grand in taxes! (USD)

Originally Posted by MemphisR

I didn't mean to offend you though.

No offence, and thanks for clearing up. Sorry if I offended you with my reply.
I was just stating what I see in the industry, nothing personal.
:happy0180:

The new Toyota Auris (on the EU market) will feature BMWs turbo diesel btw..

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by RaceR

To make it simple. Example of better efficiency:
Engine 1: 150 hp, 180nm, 150g co2
Engine 2: 220 hp, 250nm, 150g co2 - More efficient compared to engine 1, same milage, more power.
Engine 3. 150hp, 180nm, 125g co2- More efficient compared to engine 1. Same power, less consumtion
(Wont bother going into detail about the power curves, and potential lag)

In Norway, a country with extreme taxes. The difference between 180g co2, and 130g is currently 8 grand in taxes! (USD)

I see.

The transmission actually has a much greater role in engine efficiency than the engine itself, so it's not really a valid question to ask whether a supercharger or turbocharger would be more efficient, it depends on how you want to run the engines.

One consideration though is having reserve power available, which a supercharger delivers faster. A turbo will be super laggy in top gear.