

Chevrolet Volt  (Source: Brandon Hill, DailyTech)

Cadillac Provoq  (Source: Brandon Hill, DailyTech)

  (Source: Brandon Hill, DailyTech)
GM uses CES to display its highly computerized automobiles















Comments     Threshold


RE: Props to GM
By mdogs444 on 1/9/2008 10:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
LOL - i think i typed it wrong. I did not personally turbocharge my car. I meant that I owned a turbocharge audi - a 1.8T Quattro.

I wouldnt trust myself working on a motor either.

RE: Props to GM
By Spuke on 1/9/2008 12:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
It did read funny. What kind of problems were you having with the turbo? A turbo is a mechanical device and a simple one at that. I find it hard to believe that there would be many turbo failures.

RE: Props to GM

RE: Props to GM


RE: Props to GM
Honestly, it's not the turbo, it's the Audi.

RE: Props to GM



RE: Props to GM




RE: Props to GM
By MrX8503 on 1/9/2008 2:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Turbos are forced induction. Forced being the keyword here. Theoretically a turbo charged engine would be less reliable than a non-turbo charged one. Unless the cylinder walls are thick enough, a turbo charged engine would be less reliable by nature of forcing more pressure into the engine to create more horsepower.

On another note, diesel engines would theoretically be less reliable than gas engines because diesel uses high pressures to ignite the gas/air mixture, whereas gas engines uses a spark plug. Pressure ignition is a lot more efficient because it ignites every molecule resulting in better mileage, but it puts an incredible strain on the engine from high pressures.

RE: Props to GM
By masher2 (blog) on 1/9/2008 4:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "diesel engines would theoretically be less reliable than gas engines because diesel uses high pressures "

True. In practice, however, diesel engines are nearly always more reliable, because they're built to withstand those higher pressures.

> "Pressure ignition is a lot more efficient because it ignites every molecule... "

No. A diesel engine is more efficient because it runs off a higher temperature differential. The efficiency of a heat engine is based on the difference between its high and low temperatures.

RE: Props to GM
By theapparition on 1/10/2008 8:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
So wrong I don't even know where to begin.

Forced inductions (Turbo/Superchargers) are certainly more harsh on engines, and the cylinders have to cope with much higher pressures. However, no engine I've ever seen has had a direct cylinder wall failure from pressure. You'll usually get piston/rod or head/valve problems before every having to worry about cylinder integrity. In fact, usually the only reason a cylinder wall gets damaged is from failure of the other components (like a snapped valve being thrown around the clyinder at 6500RPM), or from very high heat, which forced inductions are prone to. There are ways to combat heat, like both my SC cars have meth injection.

Turbo's are far less reliable because they use exhaust pressure (very high heat) to spool a turbine. Those turbines spin at very high speeds to make any appreciable boost. ANYTIME you spin something faster, it is prone to wear out sooner. That's a core tenent of mechanical engineering. Bearings wear out faster, material fatigues quicker, etc. Add the high heat were dealing with and that only accelerates this effect. Plus, oil can cook in the turbos if driven too hard.

Many reasons that turbos are far less reliable than NA engines, but cyliner wall integrity is not one of them.

