Audi to axe engines with superchargers + turbochargers?

[tailpipe]

According to a report in the UK's Autocar magazine, well-placed insiders suggest that VW group engines that combine both turbochargers and superchargers could be on the way out. They are too complex and expensive to produce creating both cost and reliability issues. Moreover, the latest turbocharging technology can achieve the same results without the need for a supercharger.

I wonder if the RS3's 5-cylinder engine might find its way into S4 and S5 models?

[darkop]

The only such engine that exists in Audi line up is just the one in latest 1.4 TFSI A1! All the others are either super or turbocharged...

[tailpipe]

Aren't you forgetting the 3.0-litre TFSI in the S4, A5, A7, A6 and Q7?

[darkop]

No I am not! As I already wrote, those are JUST supercharged (no turbo, just a compressor)... 2.0TFSI is with turbo only! I thought this was widely known fact at least on this forum...

[tailpipe]

I think you're splitting hairs, isn't a compresser just another words for turbocharger?

[Benman]

I don't see this as that bad of a thing. I think it is likely true that from an engineering aspect, combining supercharging AND turbocharging makes it just too complicated. Like your first post points out, the newer variable turbos just about do the trick. However, I have never had the opportunity to try the super/turbo charged motors.

:cheers:

Ben

[The RS6]

Aren't you forgetting the 3.0-litre TFSI in the S4, A5, A7, A6 and Q7?

LoL you had something mixed up there...that engine is only supercharged, no turbo there...


I think you're splitting hairs, isn't a compresser just another words for turbocharger?

Huh?! What? LOL

Serious lack of knowledge detected...

[darkop]

I think you're splitting hairs, isn't a compresser just another words for turbocharger?
Of course it's not! Big difference my friend, totally different concepts! But I am not here to teach anyone...

[tailpipe]

Of course it's not! Big difference my friend, totally different concepts! But I am not here to teach anyone...

No, no, darkop, I've clearly got it wrong. please do explain. I'm a marketing guy not an engineer. (Tailpipe blushes a deep red colour!)

[Joker]

http://www.cubiccapacity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/volkswagen-14-tsi-twincharger-450x408.jpg

Here's a really good diagram explaining the twincharged complexity of this engine.

[darkop]

No, no, darkop, I've clearly got it wrong. please do explain. I'm a marketing guy not an engineer. (Tailpipe blushes a deep red colour!)


http://www.cubiccapacity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/volkswagen-14-tsi-twincharger-450x408.jpg

Here's a really good diagram explaining the twincharged complexity of this engine.

Once again a picture says more than 1000 words... And that only if your question, tailpipe, was sincere - not just making mock of me...
cheers

[tailpipe]

Joker - brilliant. Thanks for that picture. It's both interesting and helpful for non-techies like me.

Darkop, I'm certainly not mocking you. I don't know everything and am always glad when someone explains technical things. Perhaps you can explain how the S4's 3.0 litre V6 is different from this, please?

[Joker]

The 3.0TFSI only has a supercharger to force the air into the cylinders, so what you have is the air input connected up to a belt driven supercharger (turbos are driven by exhaust gases). Unlike a turbo unit the supercharger uses the engines power to make it work, how much actual power it requires I honestly don't have a clue but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the figure was as much as 50-60hp, so effectively the S4 is actually making 380-390hp but only 330hp makes it to the crank.

[The Pretender]

Nothing new here, is already longer on the cards, 1.6 TFSI will replace it with up to 220 hp.

[Joker]

Nothing new here, is already longer on the cards, 1.6 TFSI will replace it with up to 220 hp.

I take it you are talking about the engine to be used in the S1.

[The Pretender]

I take it you are talking about the engine to be used in the S1.

No, i mean the 1.4 Twincharger engine general.
It appears that the S1 will get a 2.0TFSI with approx. 230 hp.

[Rosefors]

Here is a small crash course in forced induction:

A Turbocharger is a unit consisting of a centrifugal compressor on the intake side, driven by a turbine wheel on the exhaust side. The turbine wheel converts thermal energy + pressure into kinetic energy. This is a Turbo.

A Supercharger is a compressor that is (generally) mechanically (could be electrically, but have never seen on any production cars) driven by a non exhaust source. The most common techniques are lobe compressors, a lysholm screw or a centrifugal compressor (same as compressor part of a turbo).

One of the advantages of a turbo is that it has a better efficiency because we are converting heat into energy that otherwise would be spilled right out into the air. One of the disadvantages is that there is always a lag before pressure builds up on the exhaust side. So here is why this 1.4 TFSI-engine uses both these techniques.

/patrick - former S4-iser

[tailpipe]

Nice one, Patrick. Thank you.

[Rosefors]

I don't see this as that bad of a thing. I think it is likely true that from an engineering aspect, combining supercharging AND turbocharging makes it just too complicated. Like your first post points out, the newer variable turbos just about do the trick. However, I have never had the opportunity to try the super/turbo charged motors.

:cheers:

Ben



Just to comment this post.

Using turbos with a variable geometry turbine housing to reduce spool up time has been used for a long time in diesel applications. The problem comes with petrol applications since exhausts temperature are much much higher and moving parts in the turbine generally don’t have the durability needed in petrol engines because such high temperature cycles results in material fatigue and cracks sooner or later.

So variable turbo's in petrol engines are very rare. Modern engines with faster spool up are instead achieved by combining several different methods, like using correct sizes of the turbo-parts with a better geometry design of both housing and wheels, designing good pulse type manifolds, designing smarter intercoolers with less volume, shorter piping, better plenum chambers and above all using engines with higher compression ratios so that engine efficiency and power is higher even when boost is low.

[Benman]

Just to comment this post...

Usi Thank you for that. I learn something new every day. :cheers:

Ben :addict:

[Rosefors]

Happy to be of any use. =)

Patrick :s4Addict:

[ChicagoAudi]

Variable Geometry Turbochargers ("'VGT") are only one technology important to VW's decision to move away from the technologically advanced, but costlly Twincharger solution. BMW is using twin scroll turbochargers on many of its engine with much success. The use of the twin scroll design is the reason why BMW has moved away from the twin turbocharger design to the single turbo implementation.

A twin scroll turbocharger is designed to separate exhaust pulse interference which leads to poor exhaust gases evacuation from the combustion chamber. By separating the individual exhaust pulses, an exhaust scavenging effect is observed, allowing greater amounts of fresh intake air into the combustion chamber. The more fresh air in the combustion chamber, the lower intake charge temperature and the greater the amount of oxygen available for combustive purposes. All this means greater power and a more accessible torque curve at lower RPMs.

[Rosefors]

Interesting discussion. From my knowledge, things work like this.

Twin Scroll turbochargers are nothing but a turbo with a turbine house with two inlets and that is divided into two parts (two chambers) but still uses one single scroll wheel. They have just like VAT/VGT/VNT turbos also been available for quite some time (20 years at least) but require pulse designed manifolds to match the turbine flange to actually work the way they are intended (but still work as ordinary turbos when not). What we are after here is just as ChicagoAudi explains, to separate exhaust pulses in their way from the exhaust valve to the turbo so that they don't overlap with gases from another cylinder, because overlapping pulses (meaning more than one exhaust valves is open at once sharing the same manifold channel) impedes gas flow. This is also one of the reasons why people fit headers on naturally aspirated engines. So what this means is that the development progress isn't really a turbo charge design issue but a manifold design and production technique issue, primarily because it is more complex casting a manifold with separated exhaust channels and more costly to weld one with individual pipes instead.

Because of the duration of exhaust valve open times, optimal gas flow is achieved when combining three cylinders to one single inlet turbine, and also as in some SAAB 6-cyl turbo engines, only one turbo works asymmetrically connected to only the 3 cylinders on one of the V-sides. Here there is almost always constant flow of gas to the turbo without the risk of any back flow because of open valve overlap. So this is why these twin entrance turbos are common in 4 cyl petrol engines, and probably on 5 cyl too, but as far as I know not on diesel engines because if we would combine these with variable geometry mechanics it would only have effect on one of the chambers, and valve times are probably a lot different too.

Turbos on diesel engines differ from petrol engine turbos not only in design but in choice of turbine house and scroll wheel material. To implement variable turbine geometry on petrol engines manufacturers have to find better material compounds that can withstand the heat while still mechanically work with enough precision and these compounds are costly.

/patrick rosefors - happy amateur

[tailpipe]

Thank you for that. I learn something new every day. :cheers:

Ben :addict:

I second that! Nice one, Rosefors. And also ChicagoAudi.

Have to say, I prefer simpler systems - less to go wrong. It is interesting that Audi chose to 'Supercharge' the 3.0-litre engine in the S4. Any reason why they went for this instead of a regular turbo?

[AndyBG]

Man, I just looked at this thread, and I'm totaly SHOCKED !!!

Is it possible that some one discuss about cars, loves Audi and isn't aware of what is under the bonnet of the car...!? :/

[Benman]

Man, I just looked at this thread, and I'm totaly SHOCKED !!!

Is it possible that some one discuss about cars, loves Audi and isn't aware of what is under the bonnet of the car...!? :/
How so Andy? Shocked that Audi seems to be scrapping the super/turbo charged combo?

[The RS6]

How so Andy? Shocked that Audi seems to be scrapping the super/turbo charged combo?

I think he's refering to tailpipe's complete lack of knowledge :D

[AndyBG]

I think he's refering to tailpipe's complete lack of knowledge :D

ALL THE WAY...!!!

That was the member with biggest number of posts regarding futere E N G I N E S !!!! And now we have learned that he doesn't know the BASIC things...

[Joker]

Variable Geometry Turbochargers ("'VGT") are only one technology important to VW's decision to move away from the technologically advanced, but costlly Twincharger solution. BMW is using twin scroll turbochargers on many of its engine with much success. The use of the twin scroll design is the reason why BMW has moved away from the twin turbocharger design to the single turbo implementation.

A twin scroll turbocharger is designed to separate exhaust pulse interference which leads to poor exhaust gases evacuation from the combustion chamber. By separating the individual exhaust pulses, an exhaust scavenging effect is observed, allowing greater amounts of fresh intake air into the combustion chamber. The more fresh air in the combustion chamber, the lower intake charge temperature and the greater the amount of oxygen available for combustive purposes. All this means greater power and a more accessible torque curve at lower RPMs.

Twinscroll have advantages and disadvantages, great low down, less so up high. Just look at some dyno charts for the N54 and the improved 'iS' version and you'll see what I mean. Given the choice I would stick with the supercharged v6 of the S4.

[The RS6]

ALL THE WAY...!!!

That was the member with biggest number of posts regarding futere E N G I N E S !!!! And now we have learned that he doesn't know the BASIC things...

Oh well, who are we to judge, after all, we all drive tractors over here :D


I know you're all still probably driving tractors in Croatia...

[tailpipe]

I used to be a naturally aspirated fan until the green revolution forced us all to embrace turbo-charging. I hated the lag you used to get before twin-scroll devices appeared. Indeed, I am ignorant when it comes to twin-charging and supercharging. This used to be an exclusively V8-loving community, now we've sunk so low, we're debating the merits of 1.4 litre 4 pots. God help us! I hate driving anything less than 2.0-litres.

I can't say I much like the idea of the 3.0-litre engine in the S4, which was why I was never really interested in learning much about it either. I always thought it should have been a V8. Now that the the 5-cylinder 2.5 litre is here, I love it. I think it is a truly marvellous engine and one that might sell very well in an A4, if it were available.

I have never pretended to be an all-knowing source of information, but hopefully I do contribute interesting posts to RS6.com. So you'll have to excuse my ignorance in the finer details of forced induction.

AndyBG/ RS6, I think your remarks were unnecessary and mean-spirited. If you cut down the trees, the birds won't sing.

[darkop]

No worries 'pipe! Even if appear ''mean-spirited'' they ARE just that - JOKES! that's just the way we savages form "Balkans'' love to joke, but nothing ill-minded, mate! It's hard to swallow sometimes, but as you come from UK you should be able to understand and not to be offended, since British way of joking is not much different either!
salute

[Benman]

... but as you come from UK you should be able to understand and not to be offended, since British way of joking is not much different either!
salute so true for British humor!

"It's only a bunny!"

Keep posting Tailpipe, non of us are infallible. :)

[Rosefors]

I second that! Nice one, Rosefors. And also ChicagoAudi.

Have to say, I prefer simpler systems - less to go wrong. It is interesting that Audi chose to 'Supercharge' the 3.0-litre engine in the S4. Any reason why they went for this instead of a regular turbo?

I could think of several reasons why a supercharged engine would be more favorable in a car like the S4. But before I say anything I would just like to express that I am not a professional, nor do I (yet) have a relevant education. But I am a hobbyist, read stuff and talk to people. So if anyone with appropriate merits wants to correct me or complement what I am saying, feel free to do so.

I think that it is important to remember that the Audi S and RS lineup, just as the BMW M lineup and AMG cars have a customer target group that is different from for instance say a BMW 335i or one of the hottest fastest fanciest Volvos, in the way of how these cars are suspected to be driven. Although a high percentage of the BMW M customers are executive business men with big wallets, these cars are used extensively on track as performance cars as well, or if we just call it “heavy duty” use. There is a major difference between a MTM tuned VW golf R with 330 whp and a bone stock S4 where I think the latter has some kind of mean time to failure diagram or chart showing how many sequential hours in a row these machines can withstand maximal power output without falling apart, and the former has not. There is not much effort to it to bump up the performance of an RS3 with another 60hp. The question is, for how many hours did we shorten the life of the engine before some kind of failure? An S4 or RS5 or an M3 have other quality requirements because the manufacturers know the demands are different on these cars compared to the rest of the lineup. They are prone to be more actively driven compared to a 335i or to an Opel OPC or, actually, even the RS6. Because, hey, the RS6 is no track car and will never be. For the absolute majority of people, this car has the freeway as being the most demanding part of their life cycle and has nothing to prove on the track.

The fact of the matter is that, serial produced cars with great track use potential are rarely turbo charged, if not named Subaru or Mitsubishi or Nissan Skyline or Porsche. Now I don’t know what magic these manufacturers do to their cars, but although these are turbocharged cars with great handling, they are quite different in their design compared to a modern high standard sport business sedan or wagon.

Manufacturing teams using their cars in professional applications such as rallying, always use some tweaks to their engines to diminish the drawbacks of a turbo’ed engine, primarily the responsiveness of the engine. Most high performing professional turbo cars have some sort of response system fitted to them like constantly flooding the exhaust system with fuel and igniting it to keep the boost pressure up making the engine more responsive. This is what often sounds as “bird twitter” from rally-cars or the constant back firing. But we can’t fit these systems on serial produced cars. Building a high performance engine for track use is not about power as much as it is about how the engine behaves and how its holding up.

So why the supercharger on the 3.0L TFSI in the S4? I would guess it’s about.. :

- saved space and making the engine more compact. Since the charge cooler is integrated within the supercharger package we save us selves a lot of piping and external accessories such as intercoolers and make this engine an easier fit into the engine bay. The lack of an intercooler also means we can opt for a more subtle front design since we don’t need the same amount air intake area.

- gives a much more responsive engine, because of….
a) A Turbo is always a compromise since the compressed air piping runs through half the engine bay. This means, the more volume this piping consists of, the longer it takes for pressure to build up. A twin turbo setup with a turbo on each side of the engine is even worse!
b) A supercharged engine is easier to optimize because it is much easier to predict boost. A turbocharged engine still has to be designed and tuned for good response with negative intake air pressure while a supercharged does not (since its pressure build up is almost instant and can be controlled much faster/easier).

I also believe this supercharged solution could have more to do with meeting environmental demands and lowering gas consumption in a way that we don’t really think about. Let me take an example to try to prove my point.

Back in 2007 when sales of big petrol hungry engines sank drastically, Volvo faced a huge dilemma since their owner at the time, Ford, had tried to push the brand into the premium segment by introducing big thirsty engines into all of their models and until then had effectively killed all engine development projects in any way connected with the environment and low consumption in mind. Volvo could not meet the huge sudden demand of energy efficient engines. But Volvo still managed to develop what they call their DrivE concept in just 6 months, meeting the necessary carbon dioxide emissions limit of 120 g/km to achieve Swedish environmental tax and city parking subventions by mainly working with the aerodynamics of the car. One major thing they did was to block a major part of the front grille leading the air away from the coolers and the engine bay. The first year model of some of the bigger models were no longer certified to have a trailer hitch mounted on the car because the car was no longer able to dissipate the heat developed driving with that much extra load.

Back in the early turbo era, the turbo was always mounted high, visible under the engine bonnet with a lot of room around it. Heat was dissipated by air flowing through the coolers in front and out by the windscreen. Today turbochargers are hidden somewhere deep down and the entire engine bay is capsulated with skid plates hindering any air to enter the engine bay because manufacturers don’t want air flowing up the engine bay resulting in a higher drag coefficient. Today Turbo’s are well isolated and leading of heat require huge amounts of oil flow which in turn requires more and bigger coolers mounted in the front of the car. Of course these extra oil coolers, bigger water coolers and intercoolers means more stuff, more weight and shifts weight further to the front of the car, which we don’t need in a well-balanced front engine mounted car. There are a lot of heat issues needed to be dealt with in modern turboed cars that are intended to be actively driven on track. Just look at the R8 V10 Bi-turbo test mules for example.

If anyone has more detalied technical documents of the 3.0 TFSI engine, I would love to get my hands on it. :hahahehe:

/patrick rosefors

[darkop]

I could think of several reasons why a supercharged engine would be more favorable in a car like the S4. But before I say anything I would just like to express that I am not a professional, nor do I (yet) have a relevant education. But I am a hobbyist, read stuff and talk to people. So if anyone with appropriate merits wants to correct me or complement what I am saying, feel free to do so.

I think that it is important to remember that the Audi S and RS lineup, just as the BMW M lineup and AMG cars have a customer target group that is different from for instance say a BMW 335i or one of the hottest fastest fanciest Volvos, in the way of how these cars are suspected to be driven. Although a high percentage of the BMW M customers are executive business men with big wallets, these cars are used extensively on track as performance cars as well, or if we just call it “heavy duty” use. There is a major difference between a MTM tuned VW golf R with 330 whp and a bone stock S4 where I think the latter has some kind of mean time to failure diagram or chart showing how many sequential hours in a row these machines can withstand maximal power output without falling apart, and the former has not. There is not much effort to it to bump up the performance of an RS3 with another 60hp. The question is, for how many hours did we shorten the life of the engine before some kind of failure? An S4 or RS5 or an M3 have other quality requirements because the manufacturers know the demands are different on these cars compared to the rest of the lineup. They are prone to be more actively driven compared to a 335i or to an Opel OPC or, actually, even the RS6. Because, hey, the RS6 is no track car and will never be. For the absolute majority of people, this car has the freeway as being the most demanding part of their life cycle and has nothing to prove on the track.

The fact of the matter is that, serial produced cars with great track use potential are rarely turbo charged, if not named Subaru or Mitsubishi or Nissan Skyline or Porsche. Now I don’t know what magic these manufacturers do to their cars, but although these are turbocharged cars with great handling, they are quite different in their design compared to a modern high standard sport business sedan or wagon.

Manufacturing teams using their cars in professional applications such as rallying, always use some tweaks to their engines to diminish the drawbacks of a turbo’ed engine, primarily the responsiveness of the engine. Most high performing professional turbo cars have some sort of response system fitted to them like constantly flooding the exhaust system with fuel and igniting it to keep the boost pressure up making the engine more responsive. This is what often sounds as “bird twitter” from rally-cars or the constant back firing. But we can’t fit these systems on serial produced cars. Building a high performance engine for track use is not about power as much as it is about how the engine behaves and how its holding up.

So why the supercharger on the 3.0L TFSI in the S4? I would guess it’s about.. :

- saved space and making the engine more compact. Since the charge cooler is integrated within the supercharger package we save us selves a lot of piping and external accessories such as intercoolers and make this engine an easier fit into the engine bay. The lack of an intercooler also means we can opt for a more subtle front design since we don’t need the same amount air intake area.

- gives a much more responsive engine, because of….
a) A Turbo is always a compromise since the compressed air piping runs through half the engine bay. This means, the more volume this piping consists of, the longer it takes for pressure to build up. A twin turbo setup with a turbo on each side of the engine is even worse!
b) A supercharged engine is easier to optimize because it is much easier to predict boost. A turbocharged engine still has to be designed and tuned for good response with negative intake air pressure while a supercharged does not (since its pressure build up is almost instant and can be controlled much faster/easier).

I also believe this supercharged solution could have more to do with meeting environmental demands and lowering gas consumption in a way that we don’t really think about. Let me take an example to try to prove my point.

Back in 2007 when sales of big petrol hungry engines sank drastically, Volvo faced a huge dilemma since their owner at the time, Ford, had tried to push the brand into the premium segment by introducing big thirsty engines into all of their models and until then had effectively killed all engine development projects in any way connected with the environment and low consumption in mind. Volvo could not meet the huge sudden demand of energy efficient engines. But Volvo still managed to develop what they call their DrivE concept in just 6 months, meeting the necessary carbon dioxide emissions limit of 120 g/km to achieve Swedish environmental tax and city parking subventions by mainly working with the aerodynamics of the car. One major thing they did was to block a major part of the front grille leading the air away from the coolers and the engine bay. The first year model of some of the bigger models were no longer certified to have a trailer hitch mounted on the car because the car was no longer able to dissipate the heat developed driving with that much extra load.

Back in the early turbo era, the turbo was always mounted high, visible under the engine bonnet with a lot of room around it. Heat was dissipated by air flowing through the coolers in front and out by the windscreen. Today turbochargers are hidden somewhere deep down and the entire engine bay is capsulated with skid plates hindering any air to enter the engine bay because manufacturers don’t want air flowing up the engine bay resulting in a higher drag coefficient. Today Turbo’s are well isolated and leading of heat require huge amounts of oil flow which in turn requires more and bigger coolers mounted in the front of the car. Of course these extra oil coolers, bigger water coolers and intercoolers means more stuff, more weight and shifts weight further to the front of the car, which we don’t need in a well-balanced front engine mounted car. There are a lot of heat issues needed to be dealt with in modern turboed cars that are intended to be actively driven on track. Just look at the R8 V10 Bi-turbo test mules for example.

If anyone has more detalied technical documents of the 3.0 TFSI engine, I would love to get my hands on it. :hahahehe:

/patrick rosefors

WOW
Speechless...
We should all go back to our cave and think of doing something else!
We just got a new King!

[tailpipe]

Patrick,

Great post! You make a very compelling case for supercharging versus turbocharging. That being the case, I don't understand why more car companies don't do it?

[Rosefors]

One of the biggest advantages of a turbo over a supercharger is that limiting the maximum amount of boost over the entire rpm range of the engine is real easy. We can just mount an actuator that opens at say 20 psi on our wastegate and then be done with it. This is favorable because there are two things that put strain on a force induced engine, namely what boost and what rpm. A too high rpm means that we have too much moving mass moving too fast that can lead to material fatigue and a busted rod, but is no different from a N/A engine and is since long prevented with ignition cut of when hitting the limiter. Too high boost on the other hand can mean say, our piping does not hold up and cracks, our cylinder wall gives way, our crank won’t stay in place or that we have uncontrolled detonation/knocking going on and we have a melted piston, if we’re lucky. So if we know how much boost our engine can handle, we can limit this boost through the entire rpm range if our turbo can handle it and blow enough air even when the revs get high too. The boost pressure is also, not always but often closely related to the torque of the engine. And while boost and rpm can kill an engine, torque is the sole enemy of the transmission (actually, heat is too). There is a huge misconception that horsepower is what is killing the tranny, while it actually isn’t. So the same goes here. If we know how much torque our clutch and the rest of our tranny is designed for, we can actuate our turbo to that max psi through the entire rpm range. So in the end of the day this gives us an engine with the maximum amount of power through its entire power band that is within the cars design specifications.

But, instead of heading towards an endless debate about turbo vs supercharger that seems to be going on here and there, maybe we could look at this from a different point of view with the help of another example that I am keen on using when trying to explain how the consumer market works. =)
One of the biggest investments in almost any household is the television. The electronic stores have walls clothed with televisions with different figures and symbols on them with as high numbers as possible trying to attract the buyer. Two of the most common figures on a TV is the “hz” rate and the contrast rate. Most are 100hz, some are 200hz and now there even are 600hz TV’s. What does this hz rate stand for anyway?

Some of you maybe know this but not long ago when we still had cathode tube TV’s, there was an electron fired at the screen, sweeping it from side to side top to bottom. In the US using the NTSC standard the entire screen was swept 60 times a second, giving us 60hz. The TV did this at 60hz because the cable company sent out the signal with 60 frames per second. However, some TVs were sold as 120hz screens, multiplying the screen sweeping frequency in two. This way, the screen put less strain on the eyes because, even if was not noticeable to our mind, the screen actually darkened after the electron had passed. A faster sweep rate meant the flicker was less and the image felt smoother. In the same time, movies, the ones we watch at the theatres and even when watching them at home or on TV, have a native recording rate of 24 images per second. Less than half the frame rate from a TV show or a news feed.

On todays plasma and LCD screens, the hz-rate does not have this meaning at all. The pixel is either lit or it is not. A higher or lower hz-rate does not have any effect on the strain of our eyes at all. But somehow manufacturers want us to believe that a faster refresh rate gives us a better viewing experience, and at the same time the movies are still recorded and shown in 24hz. So whats going on?

Its all a marketing hoax. The hz-figure has somehow managed to still live on inside of peoples heads as some kind measurement figure to distinguish a good product from the bad. So manufacturers have invented this algorithm to artificially “create” a frame in between two frames to make the screen run more smooth and fluid and using this as this huge sales argument because this hz-figure is really easy for folks who know nothing, to use and do an active choice on the base of something they think they know and feel good about themselves. We can see this everywhere, especially with cameras where we use megapixels and ISO-numbers instead. A couple of years ago Nikon gave out their DSLR D40, a 6Mpixel camera directed towards the lower segment that actually was really good and quite popular. But, they soon had to exchange it with the D40x. The only real difference compared with the D40 was that it had another sensor of 10Mpixel but in the same time less light sensitive, meaning it had more noise grain compared to the older model. So why did they do it? Because their main rival Canon Rebel XTI/400D was a 10Mpixel camera and customers compared these two cameras by these two numbers.

So why this babbling about TV’s and cameras? Because the question a developer asks is, how do we develop an engine that makes the customer happy? A customer does not care about how good an engine is if he can’t understand it. A customer cares about what he can read on paper, find on the internet and interpret when talking to the sales person and then the manufacturer cares about the customer’s loyalty. The advantages of a supercharged engine can’t be “sold” to a customer on a simple sheet of advertising. It can’t be sold through a test drive outside the showroom either. But one thing the customer understands is if something goes wrong and he gets disappointed, and disappointments affect loyalty so one important factor to consider is, what is the most reliable solution?

Its also worth having in mind that building a car is like building computers. There are so many with so many colors and sizes and different stickers attached to them and some are plastic while some are machined out of a single block of aluminum but underneath it all, they’re all fitted with chipsets from Intel, hard drives from Seagate and screens from Samsung or one of the other huge suppliers. Manufacturers have to choose from what is available. Just look at what is happening with the screen formats of the notebooks these days. 4 years ago they started shifting from 4:3 format to 16:10 and now they’re changing once again to 16:9 even on professional notebooks where 16:10 actually is more usable and therefore favorable. They don’t do this by choice but because the suppliers have stopped producing the older formats or because prices on 16:9 screens are lower because the biggest demand on screens come from the home industry where people watch movies where 16:9 is enough. Building cars is just the same. Brakes from Brembo or Lucas or Bendix, electronics from Bosch or Magneti Marelli, piping and plastic parts from Valeo and Turbos from Garrett, KKK, BW, Schwitzer, Holset or some other. Developing a car is as much about contracting trustworthy suppliers at a good price as it is about finding the best solution. So... who is a supplier of superchargers to the automotive industry? Besides 3rd party producers, I don’t know of any.

/patrick rosefors

[RXBG]

can we invite rosefors to a few rounds of drinks and tech car talk at a bar somewhere? just let me know when and where to be. thanks.

[Rosefors]

That would be wonderfull and I would love that but you just have to wait untill I come by the US. =)

[AndyBG]

Oh well, who are we to judge, after all, we all drive tractors over here :D

I just can't belive that this ''car enthusiast'' wrote that!?
I wonder was he ever in a position to see all those ''tractors'' with RS, AMG, M, F and all other badges on them driving around... :D



AndyBG/ RS6, I think your remarks were unnecessary and mean-spirited. If you cut down the trees, the birds won't sing.

You just have to be more realistic, your complete lack of knowledge in TOTALY BASIC things, have to make you understand that is best for you to read and learn from people that actualy know what they are saying...

[tailpipe]

@AndyBG,

Listen mate, just because I am not familiar with one particular engine - because I'm not particularly interested in it, doesn't equate to a total lack of knowledge. You probably don't know how the chip in your computer works, but that doesnt stop you having valid opinions about why you chose to buy it. So don't be a troll. I don't know how old you are, but your general lack of courtesy suggests you are well under twenty. In case you're older, perhaps you might give a bit more consideration to how you come across, that way we can take your posts more seriously.

[AndyBG]

Nothing to ad...

I will continue to enjoy this forum, as I'm doing that for more than a five years now, reading posts and disscusing with people that actually knows what they are saying... :cheers:

[Joker]

I just can't belive that this ''car enthusiast'' wrote that!?
I wonder was he ever in a position to see all those ''tractors'' with RS, AMG, M, F and all other badges on them driving around... :D



You just have to be more realistic, your complete lack of knowledge in TOTALY BASIC things, have to make you understand that is best for you to read and learn from people that actualy know what they are saying...

We all can learn from others but it's how you suggest to someone to improve their knowledge might be the problem here. Everyone here is enthusiastic about cars, some have real technical know-how and others don't, we are a sizeable family here so let's all just get along. :cheers:


Nothing to ad...

I will continue to enjoy this forum, as I'm doing that for more than a five years now, reading posts and disscusing with people that actually knows what they are saying... :cheers:

Read above, no matter what you think Tailpipe does add a fair amount of valuable input to this forum and seldom is there any of his starting thread without a decent amount of posts attached which says somethings.