01-21-2015, 07:29 PM
Natural aspirated vs Supercharger vs. Turbocharger
Until now (1946) for me the difference between the systems seems to be quite small. I made a test, in which I put almost all the values to maximum. I only changed between the 3 systems. The result was the following:
2355 cc natural aspirated: 78 hp / 120 nm - 100%/100%
2355 cc supercharged: 83 hp / 127 nm – 106%/106%
2355 cc turbocharged: 83 hp / 127 nm – 106%/106%
So both systems increase the performance by about 6% in horsepowers and torque at a horrible cost increase. I checked some real life examples:
Renault Clio III had one basic engine with 1149 cc (yes, we have such tiny engines in Europe). 3 Versions existed:
1149 cc 8 valves natural aspirated: 57 hp / 107 nm - 100%/100%
1149 cc 16 valves natural aspirated: 75 hp / 107 nm – 132%/100%
1149 cc 16 valves turbocharged: 100 hp / 145 nm – 175%/135%
So in this case the ratings are much higher and it makes sense to pay more for the turbo, because the car is getting much stronger.
further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Clio
Seat Ibiza has one basic engine with 1390 cc. 3 Versions exist:
1390 cc natural aspirated: 85 hp / 132 nm - 100%/100%
1390 cc turbocharged: 150 hp / 220 nm – 176 %/166%
1149 cc supercharged and turbo: 180 hp / 250 nm – 211%/189%
So also in this case the ratings are much more higher and it makes sense to pay more for the turbo, because the car is getting much stronger.
 
4-Stroke (Petrol) vs. (4-Stroke) Diesel
Same test as above in the game. Nothing changes, but the fuel system:
I took 4-stroke (petrol) - turbo and exchanged it with (4-stroke) diesel – turbo
4-stroke turbo 83 hp / 127 nm – 100%/100%
diesel turbo 84 hp / 130 nm – 101%/102%
So almost no difference. Consumption is more or less the same.
For the real life comparison I checked the Volvo S60 engines, which have been built between 2001 and 2009. They were all 5 cylinder engines. They were with or without turbo and either petrol or diesel or bi fuel (ethanol and petrol).
Here you can find a list of the engines:
Configuration, Displacement cc, Power kW/hp, Torque Nm:
Engines Petrol
2.4 I5 2435 125/170 225 – nat.asp 100%/100%
2.5T I5 2521 154/210 320 – turbo 123% / 142%
T5 I5 2401 191/260 350 – turbo 152% / 155%
Bi-Fuel (methane power with petrol as back-up fuel)
2.4 I5 2435 103/140 192 – nat.asp 82% / 85%
Turbodiesel
D I5 2401 92/126 300 – turbo 74%/133%
2.4D I5 2401 120/163 340 – turbo 96% / 151%
D5 I5 2401 136/185 400 – turbo 108%/177%
So once again you can see the increase in power and torque by addition of a turbo. But you can also see the difference between the diesel and petrol engines. Torque of the diesel engines at the same level of displacement is much higher.
So maybe in the game the difference of performance should be more drastic in both cases.
Consumption:
The consumption of a turbocharged petrol engine is better, than of a naturally aspirated engine with the same performance, since the non turbo has to have a much higher displacement.
Interesting example is the 2011 BMW 5 series, which has two engines with about 250 hp.
528i is a 2 liter - 4-cylinder turbo with 258 hp and consumes about 10,80 liter/100km (28 mpg)
530i is a 3 liter- 6-cylinder nat asp with 272 hp and consumes about 11,50 liter/100km (26 mpg)
If you take a diesel it is almost always a turbo diesel and it will consume about 75 – 80% of a similar petrol engine.
Hopefully this data helps to make this superb game a bit more realistic. Finally a real car industry simulation.
Until now (1946) for me the difference between the systems seems to be quite small. I made a test, in which I put almost all the values to maximum. I only changed between the 3 systems. The result was the following:
2355 cc natural aspirated: 78 hp / 120 nm - 100%/100%
2355 cc supercharged: 83 hp / 127 nm – 106%/106%
2355 cc turbocharged: 83 hp / 127 nm – 106%/106%
So both systems increase the performance by about 6% in horsepowers and torque at a horrible cost increase. I checked some real life examples:
Renault Clio III had one basic engine with 1149 cc (yes, we have such tiny engines in Europe). 3 Versions existed:
1149 cc 8 valves natural aspirated: 57 hp / 107 nm - 100%/100%
1149 cc 16 valves natural aspirated: 75 hp / 107 nm – 132%/100%
1149 cc 16 valves turbocharged: 100 hp / 145 nm – 175%/135%
So in this case the ratings are much higher and it makes sense to pay more for the turbo, because the car is getting much stronger.
further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Clio
Seat Ibiza has one basic engine with 1390 cc. 3 Versions exist:
1390 cc natural aspirated: 85 hp / 132 nm - 100%/100%
1390 cc turbocharged: 150 hp / 220 nm – 176 %/166%
1149 cc supercharged and turbo: 180 hp / 250 nm – 211%/189%
So also in this case the ratings are much more higher and it makes sense to pay more for the turbo, because the car is getting much stronger.
 
4-Stroke (Petrol) vs. (4-Stroke) Diesel
Same test as above in the game. Nothing changes, but the fuel system:
I took 4-stroke (petrol) - turbo and exchanged it with (4-stroke) diesel – turbo
4-stroke turbo 83 hp / 127 nm – 100%/100%
diesel turbo 84 hp / 130 nm – 101%/102%
So almost no difference. Consumption is more or less the same.
For the real life comparison I checked the Volvo S60 engines, which have been built between 2001 and 2009. They were all 5 cylinder engines. They were with or without turbo and either petrol or diesel or bi fuel (ethanol and petrol).
Here you can find a list of the engines:
Configuration, Displacement cc, Power kW/hp, Torque Nm:
Engines Petrol
2.4 I5 2435 125/170 225 – nat.asp 100%/100%
2.5T I5 2521 154/210 320 – turbo 123% / 142%
T5 I5 2401 191/260 350 – turbo 152% / 155%
Bi-Fuel (methane power with petrol as back-up fuel)
2.4 I5 2435 103/140 192 – nat.asp 82% / 85%
Turbodiesel
D I5 2401 92/126 300 – turbo 74%/133%
2.4D I5 2401 120/163 340 – turbo 96% / 151%
D5 I5 2401 136/185 400 – turbo 108%/177%
So once again you can see the increase in power and torque by addition of a turbo. But you can also see the difference between the diesel and petrol engines. Torque of the diesel engines at the same level of displacement is much higher.
So maybe in the game the difference of performance should be more drastic in both cases.
Consumption:
The consumption of a turbocharged petrol engine is better, than of a naturally aspirated engine with the same performance, since the non turbo has to have a much higher displacement.
Interesting example is the 2011 BMW 5 series, which has two engines with about 250 hp.
528i is a 2 liter - 4-cylinder turbo with 258 hp and consumes about 10,80 liter/100km (28 mpg)
530i is a 3 liter- 6-cylinder nat asp with 272 hp and consumes about 11,50 liter/100km (26 mpg)
If you take a diesel it is almost always a turbo diesel and it will consume about 75 – 80% of a similar petrol engine.
Hopefully this data helps to make this superb game a bit more realistic. Finally a real car industry simulation.
