In discussions about turbo engines, one can often find the opinion that this is a direct path to fuel saving, and most likely some of the readers are already outraged by the heading, how is the atmospheric engine more economical than the turbo, and then the example of any atmospheric engine that consumes as it consumes as Elephant water, but do not rush, let’s delve into the essence of the processes.
So, the turbocharged engine has the so -called “snail” on the release, which consist of two parts: cold and hot. The essence is clear to everyone, the exhaust gases promote the impeller of the hot part due to which we get more pressure on the inlet. Everything would be fine, but we also get a lot of resistance at the release, the turbine actually works like a plug.
In the atmospheric engine, due to a well -calculated release, you can create a resonant effect when gases from one cylinder, moving along the exhaust tract, begin to cool, expand and thereby create discharge, that is, to carry out exhaust gases that have just left another cylinder, from Turbo doesn’t work out.
Everything would be nothing, because At idle and at low loads, the entire volume of the combustion chamber is not needed at all, but it is worth drowning a gas pedal a little, and we will not forever stroke it, as the engine goes into a power mode, where it would be good to use the entire volume of the combustion chamber for To fill it with a working mixture.
We can solve the issue with power quite easily, there is a turbine, it allow you to “cram” a lot of air into the combustion chamber, everything will be fine, but the next nuance arises — here —
Thus, we smoothly approach
To deal with detonation in modern turbo engine, the features of the fuel injection are used, cooling occurs due to the evaporation of gasoline directly in the combustion chamber, but this is not enough.
In real conditions of the turbine, it is only worth pressing the pedal, how inevitably such a process as a “safe” (preservation) occurs to avoid the occurrence of detonation, a very rich mixture is formed in relation to 9: 1, in fact it will burn out in the pipe, but the engine is not itself Destroy. (I think many have heard about the stories with the first batches of TSI, when people split the piston partitions on our gasoline).
Thus, we have: poor occupancy, low compression and a rich mixture that burns out in the pipe — all this leads to a low efficiency, do not confuse with power. And low efficiency = low efficiency.
This is all the effect of downsus, let’s say to take 1.4 TSI 150 forces, it is commensurately good for a 2-liter atmospheric motor. So, the 2-liter ICE of the 2-liter ICE will be much higher, you need all this good (pistons, crankshaft, chain, etc.) to rotate. Plus, 1.4 will be more technological, it uses direct fuel injection.
It should also be borne in mind that the efficiency of the atmospheric engine also needs to be revealed, a good example of Skyactiv Mazda. Take the right 2.5 SkyActiv 192 forces, the consumption in the city on an average of 10 liters at a hospital at an average speed of about 25 km/h, the route at an average of 100 km/h (and this must be drove 120-130 km/h) 7 liters, and like it like Do you think what expense will have in 1.8 TSI in approximately the same modes? I will leave this question for you, you can look through D2, or maybe there are honest owners in the comments.