Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 18:48:18 GMT From: "charles stoyer" <interpexnopsamhlink.net> Subject: Re: Saab V8
"Dave Finnegan" <dfinnegannopsamhronicity.com> wrote in message news:3D9B4CCC.9020108nopsamhronicity.com... > Why do you like turbos better than normally aspirated engines? > Just curious. In addition to better gas mileage and less weight for the same performance, for those few of us who live at high elevations, the turbocharger compensates for loss of air at high elevations. The Eisenhower Tunnel on I-70 is at 11,000 feet (3,300 m) where there is 2/3 the air that there is at sea level. So your 250 hp NA car now has 167 hp. To compound matters, the grade approaching the tunnel is very steep. Now the turbo will lose some power, but not nearly the amount that a NA engine will. I have a Jeep Cherokee and a SAAB 900 Turbo. Jeep weighs 3,100 lb and SAAB weights 2,900 lb. Jeep has 177 hp and SAAB has 160 hp. Jeep will make 65 mpg on the tunnel approach in third gear with the engine screaming, but only barely. SAAB makes 70 mph easily (I don't know how much more it would do) in 5th gear, even with 4 people, ski rack, etc. Both vehicles are high miles (190k vs 220k) and the SAAB will suck the doors off the jeep. In Colorado, the turbo diesel pickup trucks outperform the gas engines, which is pretty much the opposite most anywhere else. Charles. > > I would think that given a 250 Hp turbo engine and a 250 Hp > normally aspirated engine, in the same car, that the normally > aspirated engine would "perform" better. > <snip>
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
