Click here to return to the home page.
Image of a road.
Who's Online
18 registered (Hodge, JBu1, Stringers Best Mate, deano, Ian B, Rog G, MDS61, Gerhard, Budster, Craig Jezzard69, Stewart S, Mogdavid, auster, Alistair, M3W55, ch44, teifistar, twotribes), 94 Guests and 13 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Photos from Thrill on the Hill Prescott
New Sifab radiator and K&N airfilter on 2016 4/4
Pickersleigh 3
Thrill on the Hill
My Plus 4 in Acrylics
Newest Topics
SUPERSPORT AEROSCREENS
by KEVFITZ
Today at 02:16 PM
Looking for owner of a 1928 Mog, reg "## 3204"
by WaveyD
Yesterday at 10:29 PM
Sorry If Its been Posted - Spanner Metric or What
by Biglewey
Yesterday at 09:49 PM
The Road to Saigon
by Stringers Best Mate
Yesterday at 08:03 PM
Morgan Power Steering Fluid Colour
by Peter J
Yesterday at 04:19 PM
Last of the Breed..?
by Stringers Best Mate
Yesterday at 04:19 PM
The Queen of Soul passes away
by +8Rich
Yesterday at 03:21 PM
Newest Members
DavidC, Wilfried Derksen, david1956, Joe90, Gareth H
6122 Registered Users
Shout Box

Forum Stats
6,122 Registered Members
33 Forums
32,690 Topics
517,727 Posts

Most users ever online: 341 @ 11/02/18 10:30 PM
Today's Birthdays
DougM
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#513362 - 16/05/18 03:26 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: howard]
PaulJ Offline

Talk Morgan Addict

Registered: 16/10/11
Posts: 3100
Loc: Somerset, UK
Originally Posted By howard
no way do "revvy" and turbo relate. To the contrary, the idea of a turbo is to pressurise the input gas and in doing so to put a larger volume of combustible gasses through an engine than would happen if it were N/A. Or to put it another way, at a boost of say 1.22 bar, the turbo engine is passing the same amount of gasses through at 4000rpm as an NA engine of the same size would at 4800 rpm.

not only that but a lot of these turbo engines dont rise to s decent crescendo at 8000 rpm but make exceeding 500 rpm a bit pointless when you get the same sort of acceleration at 2500 rpm. and since power generated relates directly to fuel used, the only real gain is in pumping losses on a smaller / slower revving unit.

work of the devil I say. Or at least of the eco-devils.

P.S. Remember the old F1 days when the option was either a 1.5 litre turbo engine of a 4.5 litre NA engine of roughly the seame power.


Of course Howard is right in his assertion that n/a engines are more revvy, building their power up to a peak, then asking for a gearchange so it can all be done again, however I would contend that most drivers, on this forum at least, do not want to drive like that all the time. Ask anyone who has swapped a Plus 4 for a Roadster what makes for the better drive, and I would wager it will be the V6 because of its' torque, so if engine manufacturers are able to get bagfulls of torque from small engines, without the dreaded turbo lag, which they can, then surely this has to be the way to go?

It will be very interesting to see which way MMC go in the next few years.
_________________________
Paul
[Beginning to get the best out of the ARP4]

Top
#513363 - 16/05/18 03:27 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: Peter J]
howard Offline
Talk Morgan Addict

Registered: 01/01/09
Posts: 3697
Originally Posted By Peter J
This all reminds me of the debate about ABS on motorcycles in the run up to it becoming mandatory on all bigger bikes.




I have two cars that produce just under 400bhp. One has 6 cylinders and two turbos, is 3.0L and the other is has 8 cylinders, natural aspiration and 4.8L.

In the real world both use about the same amount of fuel, but the Turbo produces 50% less CO2 on the EU Test Cycle, mostly because it produces torque at virtually no throttle opening.



If the two engines use the same amount of fuel in daily use then they have to be producing the same amount of co2

What you are illustrating is the use of turbos to deceive the EU test regime A pc eco nonsense.

The realistic way of reducing co2 is to reduce the size and weight of modern cars. You can add into that a reduction in traffic jams by enlarging roads for example.

What you are seeing is a conflict between the public who regard say a range rover as a sensible size and the eco warriors who want you all on bikes or busses


Edited by howard (16/05/18 03:28 PM)

Top
#513365 - 16/05/18 03:49 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: howard]
Peter J Offline
Formerly known as Aldermog
Member of the Inner Circle

Registered: 13/08/13
Posts: 10300
Loc: Salisbury, UK
Originally Posted By howard
Originally Posted By Peter J
This all reminds me of the debate about ABS on motorcycles in the run up to it becoming mandatory on all bigger bikes.

I have two cars that produce just under 400bhp. One has 6 cylinders and two turbos, is 3.0L and the other is has 8 cylinders, natural aspiration and 4.8L.

In the real world both use about the same amount of fuel, but the Turbo produces 50% less CO2 on the EU Test Cycle, mostly because it produces torque at virtually no throttle opening.



If the two engines use the same amount of fuel in daily use then they have to be producing the same amount of co2

What you are illustrating is the use of turbos to deceive the EU test regime A pc eco nonsense.

The realistic way of reducing co2 is to reduce the size and weight of modern cars. You can add into that a reduction in traffic jams by enlarging roads for example.

What you are seeing is a conflict between the public who regard say a range rover as a sensible size and the eco warriors who want you all on bikes or busses


Absolutely right, the "lower CO2" on the Turbo demonstrates perfectly the scientific deceit inherent in the EU tests (and the "new" one is little better) on emissions. What makes me really annoyed is that the tax paid is based on data that is scientifically flawed.

Removes "grumpy" jacket.
_________________________
Peter,
Tarka the 'Otter Mog
2014 Plus 8



Top
#513367 - 16/05/18 04:08 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: madmax]
Paul F Offline

Talk Morgan Enthusiast

Registered: 20/08/10
Posts: 1873
Loc: Costock, South Nottinghamshire...
Understand all the arguments above.

However, we have just swapped a 4 cylinder 1.6 normally aspirated MINI for a 3 cylinder 1.5 turbo MINI. The turbo car is a fair bit heavier (MINI ONE 3 door vs MINI Clubman 6 door) and the engine generates a bit more power - the good bit is that it uses around 20% less fuel both locally and on a run than the NA 1.6.
_________________________
Paul
Costock, UK
2014 4/4 Rolls Royce Garnet Red
Disco 4
Teddy - 17h1 Irish Draught cross

Top
#513370 - 16/05/18 04:27 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: Peter J]
howard Offline
Talk Morgan Addict

Registered: 01/01/09
Posts: 3697
Originally Posted By Peter J
Originally Posted By howard
Originally Posted By Peter J
This all reminds me of the debate about ABS on motorcycles in the run up to it becoming mandatory on all bigger bikes.

I have two cars that produce just under 400bhp. One has 6 cylinders and two turbos, is 3.0L and the other is has 8 cylinders, natural aspiration and 4.8L.

In the real world both use about the same amount of fuel, but the Turbo produces 50% less CO2 on the EU Test Cycle, mostly because it produces torque at virtually no throttle opening.



If the two engines use the same amount of fuel in daily use then they have to be producing the same amount of co2

What you are illustrating is the use of turbos to deceive the EU test regime A pc eco nonsense.

The realistic way of reducing co2 is to reduce the size and weight of modern cars. You can add into that a reduction in traffic jams by enlarging roads for example.

What you are seeing is a conflict between the public who regard say a range rover as a sensible size and the eco warriors who want you all on bikes or busses


Absolutely right, the "lower CO2" on the Turbo demonstrates perfectly the scientific deceit inherent in the EU tests (and the "new" one is little better) on emissions. What makes me really annoyed is that the tax paid is based on data that is scientifically flawed.

Removes "grumpy" jacket.


But it goes a lot further than that Peter. Cars are vilified by the eco warriors depite producing far far less CO2 than many other machines from CH boilers to busses, trucks and cows.But the mainly left leaning academics who run the anti car campaign simply dont accept the idea of personal choice. Take plane flight - less CO2 per passenger mile than busses but you wouldnt believe that from the propaganda.

I'll give you one significant CO2 saver - a statutory limit on the weight of cars to 1000kg.

Top
#513378 - 16/05/18 05:09 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: howard]
madmax Offline
Part of the Furniture

Registered: 18/08/14
Posts: 4007
Loc: East Anglia
Originally Posted By howard
Originally Posted By Peter J
Originally Posted By howard
Originally Posted By Peter J
This all reminds me of the debate about ABS on motorcycles in the run up to it becoming mandatory on all bigger bikes.

I have two cars that produce just under 400bhp. One has 6 cylinders and two turbos, is 3.0L and the other is has 8 cylinders, natural aspiration and 4.8L.

In the real world both use about the same amount of fuel, but the Turbo produces 50% less CO2 on the EU Test Cycle, mostly because it produces torque at virtually no throttle opening.



If the two engines use the same amount of fuel in daily use then they have to be producing the same amount of co2

What you are illustrating is the use of turbos to deceive the EU test regime A pc eco nonsense.

The realistic way of reducing co2 is to reduce the size and weight of modern cars. You can add into that a reduction in traffic jams by enlarging roads for example.

What you are seeing is a conflict between the public who regard say a range rover as a sensible size and the eco warriors who want you all on bikes or busses


Absolutely right, the "lower CO2" on the Turbo demonstrates perfectly the scientific deceit inherent in the EU tests (and the "new" one is little better) on emissions. What makes me really annoyed is that the tax paid is based on data that is scientifically flawed.

Removes "grumpy" jacket.


But it goes a lot further than that Peter. Cars are vilified by the eco warriors depite producing far far less CO2 than many other machines from CH boilers to busses, trucks and cows.But the mainly left leaning academics who run the anti car campaign simply dont accept the idea of personal choice. Take plane flight - less CO2 per passenger mile than busses but you wouldnt believe that from the propaganda.

I'll give you one significant CO2 saver - a statutory limit on the weight of cars to 1000kg.



Tax cars by weight as well as Co2 and car tax and vehicle VED and fuel tax ....
_________________________
Geneva 2016 plus 8' The Green Godess' 4 side exits .



Top
#513392 - 16/05/18 05:55 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: howard]
Hamwich Offline

Talk Morgan Sage

Registered: 28/04/08
Posts: 6191
Loc: Gloucestershire, UK
Originally Posted By howard
Take plane flight - less CO2 per passenger mile than busses but you wouldnt believe that from the propaganda.


Only if you completely distort the comparison by taking long-distance flight with short inner-city bus journeys.

Short flights create around 0.18kg/passenger mile, bus journeys of comparable distances are around 0.08.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/co2-emissions-from-passenger-transport/image


Edited by Hamwich (16/05/18 06:01 PM)
_________________________
Tim H.
1986 4/4 VVTi Sport, 2002 LR Defender, 1957 R4 CV, 2005 Ferrari Vipar

Top
#513396 - 16/05/18 06:03 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: howard]
Peter J Offline
Formerly known as Aldermog
Member of the Inner Circle

Registered: 13/08/13
Posts: 10300
Loc: Salisbury, UK
Originally Posted By howard
[

But it goes a lot further than that Peter. Cars are vilified by the eco warriors depite producing far far less CO2 than many other machines from CH boilers to busses, trucks and cows.But the mainly left leaning academics who run the anti car campaign simply dont accept the idea of personal choice. Take plane flight - less CO2 per passenger mile than busses but you wouldnt believe that from the propaganda.

I'll give you one significant CO2 saver - a statutory limit on the weight of cars to 1000kg.


I'll buy that... Introduce a "small car" concept, like the Japanese Kei cars. The Honda
S660 was amazing. Flat road tax of £75.00
Then a band structure for the rest that takes in weight, total footprint and purchase price, so LWB Range Rovers would be taxed at £2500 a year.

As for sources of CO2, you are right, personal motor transport is a bit part in the CO2 generation game. The US Department of energy stated recently that Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source.

Other sources of natural CO2 include animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions.

There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in rock layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources.

All of this is ignored by the eco-mentalists and academics. swear
_________________________
Peter,
Tarka the 'Otter Mog
2014 Plus 8



Top
#513400 - 16/05/18 06:13 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: Peter J]
Graham, G4FUJ Offline
Salty Sea Dog
Member of the Inner Circle

Registered: 03/07/07
Posts: 20615
Loc: Cheltenham, Glos. UK
Guess I'd better find a MINI for everyday grin2

My garage pal said one of his customer's wanted to sell a cheap car he'd bought for a son. Allegedly 12 month test, cam belt all the bits done. Didn't give me any details on vehicle just that it was an early collaboration that Honda had an input to. I frightened myself with the "Triumph Acclaim" thought! eek
Though any that are still running are probably considered "emerging classics" laugh2
_________________________
Graham (G4FUJ)

D8921 L44FOR '93 4/4 Sunny yellow 2 seat smile
'90 LR 90 SW

Top
#513417 - 16/05/18 09:15 PM Re: Ford 3cyl 1500cc turbo engine - 197 bhp [Re: Peter J]
David_E Offline

L - Learner Plates On

Registered: 26/12/15
Posts: 244
Loc: Bedfordshire
Originally Posted By Peter J
Originally Posted By howard
[

But it goes a lot further than that Peter. Cars are vilified by the eco warriors depite producing far far less CO2 than many other machines from CH boilers to busses, trucks and cows.But the mainly left leaning academics who run the anti car campaign simply dont accept the idea of personal choice. Take plane flight - less CO2 per passenger mile than busses but you wouldnt believe that from the propaganda.

I'll give you one significant CO2 saver - a statutory limit on the weight of cars to 1000kg.


I'll buy that... Introduce a "small car" concept, like the Japanese Kei cars. The Honda
S660 was amazing. Flat road tax of £75.00
Then a band structure for the rest that takes in weight, total footprint and purchase price, so LWB Range Rovers would be taxed at £2500 a year.

As for sources of CO2, you are right, personal motor transport is a bit part in the CO2 generation game. The US Department of energy stated recently that Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source.

Other sources of natural CO2 include animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions.

There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in rock layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources.

All of this is ignored by the eco-mentalists and academics. swear


But most of that natural CO2 is absorbed at a similar rate that it is generated, which is why the level stayed pretty much constant for so long until we started making significant use of fossil fuels.
_________________________
"this means the end of the horse-drawn Zeppelin!" - N Seagoon

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Moderator:  Aeroman, Boshly, Simon