Fuel consumption at low speed?

[Bruce B]

Good. Almost like an electrocar.

Except BandB can drive until he is out of fuel, stop get more and drive off again.

As for turbo charging the technolodgy has been around forever now (1962 Olds Jetfire and weeks later the Corvair Spyder) and if designed well there is nothing wrong with it. Like anything automotive there are good and not so good examples. The same can be said of naturally aspirated engines for that matter...
We used to routinely see customers turbocharged cars with hundreds of thousands of miles on them, original turbo and engine and running along just fine.
Bruce

 

[FF]

"Might have bought a Tesla i"

Buy it sooner rather than later ,

Tesla is loosing money on every car , and only stays afloat by selling Indulgences to gas hog car builders.

Cheap batteries might save them , but with diesel having far more power in a pound , batt cars with out gov largess is still a hard sell.

 

[Fletcher500]

Their stock price has got ahead of itself, but I personally would not bet against E Musk and his fancy E cars. Their cars are here to stay. Keeping rockets from crashing is a different story, but they are doing a respectable job to date.

Has anyone driven one of the new hybrid boats?

"Might have bought a Tesla i"

Buy it sooner rather than later ,

Tesla is loosing money on every car , and only stays afloat by selling Indulgences to gas hog car builders.

Cheap batteries might save them , but with diesel having far more power in a pound , batt cars with out gov largess is still a hard sell.

 

[BandB]

"Might have bought a Tesla i"

Buy it sooner rather than later ,

Tesla is loosing money on every car , and only stays afloat by selling Indulgences to gas hog car builders.

Cheap batteries might save them , but with diesel having far more power in a pound , batt cars with out gov largess is still a hard sell.

I think perhaps their ultimate money maker will not be in cars. I don't drive a car enough to justify electric. As my wife implied, we did look at the Tesla Spider online, but then saw it had been discontinued. I drive my car about 4,000 miles a year. She drives hers the same. And we have an SUV we drive about the same.

At this point they can capture a few customers but building a real market requires too things they can't offer yet-Convenience of "fuel" stations and financial justification.

As to their stock, I don't and never will understand. I'm sure gambles like that have made many wealthy, but I don't invest in a promise.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Turbos in cars have European taxes to thank. They tax cars according to engine volumes there. I have no idea why anyone would want a turbocharged car in America if they wanted to keep it past 4/50 warranty term. Good bye, BMW.

LH,
I bought a 2014 Jetta w 1.8 turbo .. 170hp. Didn't like the turbo lag and a few other things. Fly by wire steering was too heavy.
Now I have a 2013 Jetta w a 2.5 NA .. 170hp. Like the smooth seamless power and much prefer the old fashioned and light hydraulic steering.

Some people buy what they like and some like what's popular. I did take a hit on gas millage but it seems about the same.

LH I almost bought a Lexus ES. Wonderful car.

 

[markrkrebs]

Lepke - I agree with you on the maintenance issues but not sure about your statements on fuel consumption. ("The high hp turbo version of the same engine burns up to 30 gallons an hour at full power and 2.5x hp. The 12v71 natural (non-turbo) burns about 12 gallons an hour at about the same hp as the turbo 671.") At http://boatdiesel.com/Engines/Engines.cfm?TZ=-4&SC=1366.768
I found that the 671M burns 6 gal/hr at 80hp and the 671TI burns 5 gal/hr at 80hp both at 1400 rpm and I took the data from the prop hp curves. So the turbo does burn about 20% more fuel than the non turbo but not twice the fuel.

I believe that in the case of 4 stroke diesels (at least some) the turbo charged version gets a little better fuel consumption. I'll check the data sheets and post when I get more time.

Happy cruising - -

strange the turbos should be MORE efficient. Higher compression ratio, and recovering more heat energy would be the theory. I've read it too, somewhere. Have seen 0.35 to 0.37 sfc written over and over again, and calculated it off the engine perrformance curves more than once. Specific Fuel Consumption: lb (of diesel) / hp-hr. It's close to that number across many diesel engines. Fancy new ones can gert down to 0.33, ancient Lehmans, 0.4. Anyway, that number's worked well for me, figuring out how economical the engines are. (I run 8v92ta)

 

[O C Diver]

strange the turbos should be MORE efficient. Higher compression ratio, and recovering more heat energy would be the theory. I've read it too, somewhere. Have seen 0.35 to 0.37 sfc written over and over again, and calculated it off the engine perrformance curves more than once. Specific Fuel Consumption: lb (of diesel) / hp-hr. It's close to that number across many diesel engines. Fancy new ones can gert down to 0.33, ancient Lehmans, 0.4. Anyway, that number's worked well for me, figuring out how economical the engines are. (I run 8v92ta)

Those numbers are based on running an engine in its peak efficiency range. The numbers are reflective of the entire range from idle to WOT. If you need 20 HP, a 300 HP Cummins running near idle isn't going to have the same efficiency numbers as a 40 HP Kabota running in the peak efficiency range.

Ted

 

[mikehar]

Northern Marine 64
Volvo D9 1800rpm
1340 RPM, 5.8gph, 1.8mpg