Mpg: Turbo vs. Supercharger
Originally posted by livelyjay
You really can't compare mpg of an EVO and a Galant, no matter what the Galant is running for boost.
The GTZ weighs in at 3300 lbs, with the RIPP mods it probably weighs in around 3500 give or take some weight. There you have a lot more displacement (3.0 liters), plus some boost, pushing a car weighing in at 3500 lbs, and only driving two wheels.
The EVO weighs in at 3300lbs as well, so the Galant with the modifications will weigh a bit more. With the EVO, however, you are running at 19.5 psi, with only 2.0 liters of displacement, and all wheel drive. All those factors force the engine to work a lot harder, and therefore, eat up a lot of fuel.
Poor comparison in my opinion. I feel the turbo setup for the Lancer will yield better gas mileage, especially if the RRM turbo ECU is used along with the RRM turbo. Of course all this is heresay, and if you're still unsure, wait until more people install the SC and post results.
You really can't compare mpg of an EVO and a Galant, no matter what the Galant is running for boost.
The GTZ weighs in at 3300 lbs, with the RIPP mods it probably weighs in around 3500 give or take some weight. There you have a lot more displacement (3.0 liters), plus some boost, pushing a car weighing in at 3500 lbs, and only driving two wheels.
The EVO weighs in at 3300lbs as well, so the Galant with the modifications will weigh a bit more. With the EVO, however, you are running at 19.5 psi, with only 2.0 liters of displacement, and all wheel drive. All those factors force the engine to work a lot harder, and therefore, eat up a lot of fuel.
Poor comparison in my opinion. I feel the turbo setup for the Lancer will yield better gas mileage, especially if the RRM turbo ECU is used along with the RRM turbo. Of course all this is heresay, and if you're still unsure, wait until more people install the SC and post results.
Evolved Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
From: Kelowna, B.C., Canada
Okay, I phoned a guy from GT Racing. This guy knows turbos and superchargers unlike anyone. He used to drive a WRC Audi in the famous Group B class and has been retired for many years with his own performance shop, specializing in turbos and superchargers.
This is what he had to say on the matter with his heavy accent.
"Look something, there are too many variables on the matter. Depends on compression, boost, air volume, air fuel ratios, blah, blah, blah."
In short he didn't think there would be enough of a difference between the two to be of any significant difference. Sorry.
This is what he had to say on the matter with his heavy accent.
"Look something, there are too many variables on the matter. Depends on compression, boost, air volume, air fuel ratios, blah, blah, blah."
In short he didn't think there would be enough of a difference between the two to be of any significant difference. Sorry.
Last edited by evo_dan; Sep 6, 2003 at 02:14 AM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
From: Up to 80 miles north of Gilroy
Originally posted by pjal84
It's really based on a lot things like how the car behaves on and off of boost, how much boost you're going to be running, the rate of the injectors and any fuel map changes etc.
It's really based on a lot things like how the car behaves on and off of boost, how much boost you're going to be running, the rate of the injectors and any fuel map changes etc.
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Originally posted by neilscully
I think what everyone's saying about it being too early to tell is probably right... but my understanding of turbos vs blowers as a general rule is that turbos are more gas-efficient specifically because of turbo lag. The turbo isn't always spooled, so the air/fuel mixtures at idle and low speeds aren't any different than normal. Only during boost will more fuel need to be injected. Superchargers too will require more fuel when boosing, but they are always boosting once the engine is on.
What ChrisOaty said above regarding the leaner mixtures with blowers may have an effect, but I'm really not too sure about that from a logical standpoint and not sure it would counter the always on part of blowers.
-N
I think what everyone's saying about it being too early to tell is probably right... but my understanding of turbos vs blowers as a general rule is that turbos are more gas-efficient specifically because of turbo lag. The turbo isn't always spooled, so the air/fuel mixtures at idle and low speeds aren't any different than normal. Only during boost will more fuel need to be injected. Superchargers too will require more fuel when boosing, but they are always boosting once the engine is on.
What ChrisOaty said above regarding the leaner mixtures with blowers may have an effect, but I'm really not too sure about that from a logical standpoint and not sure it would counter the always on part of blowers.
-N
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
From: Mackay (Qld)
Supercharged Fuel Economy
I have a supercharged 1.8 Lancer coupe in Australia. Boost is 7.5psi.
My Lancer
I used to get about 42 mpg on average before supercharger. After adding supercharger I get 48 mpg on same stretch of road using no boost.
On stop go it is still around 30-35 mpg but if boost is used this goes to nothing!! Like one decent squirt is a line on the fuel gauge!!
I am extremely happy with the fuel economy from my setup, can't really imagine that it could be any better than this anyway.
well what if u compared a supercharged and turbo'd car that both have an output of 250hp..then u can compare them since u are going for power to fuel effeciency on this right?
now the next question is, where are we gonna find a 250hp lancer.. :P
now the next question is, where are we gonna find a 250hp lancer.. :P
Supply the car
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kenshinx001
Lancer Aftermarket Forced Induction Tech
47
Jul 31, 2005 07:46 AM
sykou
Lancer Aftermarket Forced Induction Tech
17
Aug 25, 2004 10:07 AM
Striker_Thao
Lancer Engine Tech
37
May 3, 2004 02:06 PM
car, difference, effect, efficient, engine, gas, harder, mileage, mpg, reading, supercharged, supercharger, turbo, vacuum, vs
