Talk:Turbocharger

message: Typ932. Please do not remove valid tags and templates. You're certainly correct that the whole article needs better references, and more of them. That necessity, however, does not preclude the use of templates in specific sections to focus editors' attention on an article's particular needs. Also, it is not okeh to remove tags simply because you consider the assertion to be common knowledge; the standard for inclusion of information on Wikipedia is not what we know (or what we think we know, or what we think everybody knows). It is what we can prove. If the assertion in question is as commonly known to be true as you say, then it should be very easy to document reliably. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Typ932, I need to ask you again to please stop removing valid tags and templates without addressing the needs they indicate, for it's neither helpful nor productive. I've moved the  template to the top of the article, because as you have observed, the whole article needs improvements. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a coöperative effort, not a combative one; we make edits to improve the project, not to express our opinions of other editors. Everybody's productive contributions are welcome; might you look into finding and supplying good refs for the tagged assertions? Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T·C16:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags & templates

message: The first section is contradicted by the second section. The second is correct. The fist should be changed.
A turbo charger is not "like a supercharger", it is a type of supercharger. Supercharging is pressurizing a manifold. It is a turbine driven supercharger.
:Well, technically you are correct. In the context of engines, however, turbochargers are always exhaust-driven, and superchargers are always belt driven. They do the same job, but one is a turbomachine and the other is not. Perceptually, they are two totally different machines that serve the same purpose (pressurizing the intake manifold). I think we should be mindful of this fact and realize that common usage and the proper scientific nomenclature conflict. Msaunier (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Heat is incidental to a turbocharger. While a turbine engine is driven by heat (expanding exhaust gases), a turbocharger is driven by pressure. Exhaust gas is being forced out of the engine by the pistons during the exhaust stroke, and is forced through the turbo input vanes. While it is true that the exhaust gases are quite hot at this point and that their expansion inside the turbocharger gives greater output and is desirable, a turbo is burning no fuel and ultimately is powered by the differential pressure between the exhaust stream and the outside atmosphere. Even if the exhaust coming in to the turbo was somehow cooled to the temperature as ambient, the turbo would still perform useful work. Msaunier (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turbos are superchargers driven by heat 

message: I've just gone through and hacked about 13k out of this article, and reorganized a bunch of stuff. Before anyone panics and starts reverting, read through it and see what you think. Criticism and suggestion are welcome. Shreditor (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article overhaul

message: In the year 1902, in the Paris to Vienna motor car race, Marcelle Renault invented a Turbo and installed it onto his car and won the race. Someone needs to look over the data on who actually invented the turbo and when it was first used on a race car, as there seems to be some discrepancy on when it was first used in a race car too.
Badmoonryzn (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who invented the turbo and when was it first used in a car race 

message: "" Diesel engines are optimized to operate within a relatively narrow rpm range, reducing problems with turbo lag and compressor stall caused by sudden accelerations and decelerations. ""
is there a mathematical proof for this??
car diesel  600 to 5000 rpm
car gasoline 600 to 6000 rpm
hp=rpm*torque
Wdl1961 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that's a questionable assertion. What's needed isn't a "mathematical proof", but one or more reliable sources to support the claim. I've tagged the assertion; let's see if someone can demonstrate the assertion's veracity. —Scheinwerfermann T·C14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the above text, replacing another uncited bit that was just obviously wrong. I agree it needs a cite, but it's better than what it replaced. I'll see if I can find a source. Shreditor (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  in my not humble opinion his myth is caused by the fact that diesels are used in all the heavy jobs that require  almost always  maximum power output like all heavy trucks industrial engines and generators and diesel locomotives . this requires more gearing or continuous  electric power generation as in locomotives interspersed with no  power requirements at all . anothe example  of strength being changed into a weakness.  a car a diesel will be just as flexible as a gasoline engine  with the same load and HP.  i am sure there are a lot of refs copying each other and look long enough  one can find somebody . regardless of wiki  refs acceptance  my mind on this is closed .  the      universal  formula used is ( high - low)/high . i may  change it once  after some  time    and that will for me be the end of it. Wdl1961 (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is just a rule of thumb; most diesel engines sold are relatively large displacement (semi tractors and large pickup trucks), and in those applications, have a relatively low max RPM, but diesel use in passenger cars is on the rise, and those engines do have a much higher maximum RPM, and do suffer from turbo lag just as gasoline engines do. I don't have the time now, but I will try to get some numbers pulled together and add some references. Msaunier (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is kinda true; The highest RPM diesel engine I know of tops out at something like 6000rpm but normal diesel cars are normally in the 4500-5000 range. Actually usable range is much narrower; Even in my Yaris, which tops out a 5500rpm, you wouldn't run it past 3500-4000rpm even driving hard, and in normal use you'd shift at 2000-2500rpm. By comparison, petrol engines have been run into the 18,000rpm area; Even my brother's Corolla can rev up to something like 9000rpm (And doesn't even hit 'lift' with the valve timing until something like 6000rpm!). Petrols are very gutless at low RPM compared to diesels so you generally have to run them up to higher RPMs to get power out of them - You use MUCH more of the available rev range in normal driving use. Diesels OTOH have all their power at the low and mid of the rev range, so the used power band is a lot narrower.  -- 92.234.58.169 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diesel engines narrow rpm range 

message: Does Citation needed refer to Peugeot and M-B as first production automobiles or "Today, most automotive diesels are turbocharged"? It may be hard to find research numbers for claim "Today, most automotive diesels are turbocharged", but at least in Europe no vehicle maker has introduced new diesel-engines without turbo since end of the 1990's. Ford, VW, Toyota etc all have been using turbos in their production diesel-engines for say at least last 10-12 years, after introduction of direct injection diesels in about 1.0L to 3.0L displacement range. Therefore, I think it's reasonable thing to remove "Citation needed", if it refers to "Today, most automotive diesels are turbocharged". There are certain things that are common knowledge, just like "it's dark in the night".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.138.83 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production automobiles / Citation needed 

message: The section on sequential turbocharging is mostly correct, but the advent of ball bearing turbos has made this obsolete (since ball bearing turbochargers spool up much faster).  Some newer diesel engines use compound turbocharging (not sequential), which means that one turbocharger feeds air into a second turbocharger.  If there are no objections, I will add a section on compound turbocharging and correct the sequential section. Dusty duster (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Compound Turbocharging vs. Sequential Turbocharging

message: Talking about turbo technology in automobiles, Saab is the first carmaker to come into my mind...I think it was the fisrt automaker who moved to a mass production of turbocharged petrol engines...
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.114.183 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saab? 

message: I believe this sentence "To obtain more power from higher boost levels and maintain reliability, many engine components have to be replaced or upgraded such as the fuel pump, fuel injectors, pistons, valves, head-gasket, and head bolts." is extraneous and is inserted without context.  This is obviously referring to adding a turbo to a non-turboed engine.  You would have to do these things to a naturally aspirated engine if you put a turbo on it.  But there is nothing in this section talking about adding a turbo to a n/a engine and what you would have to upgrade to that engine.  An engine that is designed for a turbocharger would not need any "upgrades" or "replacements." 68.98.117.11 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of Pressure Increase 

message: There should be one section talking about the reasons and effects of charge cooling.  "Charge cooling" is basically only talking about automobile applications and is very incomplete as its own section.  "Temperature considerations" in aircraft is more complete, but the volumetric efficiency argument is inaccurate.  Charge cooling is mainly to increase the thermodynamic efficiency because the engine efficiency is greater when the inlet temperature and exhaust temperature difference is greatest, not because the air is denser when cooler.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.117.11 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge Cooling and Temperature Considerations 

message: "With a supercharged aircraft engine, the pilot must continually adjust the throttle to maintain the required manifold pressure during ascent or descent" - not true for many aviation applications. Both the Merlin & DB 605 engines had barometric (atmospheric pressure) control of boost, the pilot simply opened the throttle lever and the barometric unit continuously adjusted the actual throttle opening (RR) or supercharger speed (DB) to maintain constant engine power up to the supercharger's limit.DesmondW (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Supercharging 

message: The article describes a turbocharger as a radial fan pump.  The discussion on this particular issue is comprised of two parts, the descriptor "radial" and the descriptor "fan pump".  I wish to address the usage of "radial" without definition when it is not the most widely used or understood term.  Also related to the definition statement is the term "fan pump" which is redundant and incorrect as the terms are used today.
Turbochargers operate in some type of gas working fluid which passes through both portions of the turbocharger, compressor and turbine.  Consider the turbine and compressor as seperate stages and it is clear that the working fluid enters the compressor wheel on axis and exits perpendicular to the axis.  Thus the use of the term "radial compressor" is acceptable, however I propose that the usage of the geometric terms "axial compressor", "radial compressor", and "centrifugal compressor" be defined within the statement due to high level of reader confusion.  If the turbocharger is considered as a whole the flow of the working fluid is entering on axis and exiting on axis and one could erroneously presume that since the flow is axial.  It is important to break the stages apart and investigate how the energy is added or taken away from the fluid, which leads to questioning the term "radial fan pump" in the context of the mechanisms at work within turbochargers.
Since "radial compressor" is used less frequently than "centrifugal compressor" when describing a turbocharger one of two things needs to exist;  either an in-line definition statement to reinforce the term "radil compressor" should be used, or the term "centrifugal compressor" should replace "radial compressor."  This might seem overly specific since the terminology is technically correct, but this it not a technical detail correction but rather a documentation correction intended to increase understanding by the reader.  The reason I feel that this is also more correct is that there are many radial compressors which do not rely on the change in angular momentum to produce their effects, whereas angular momentum change is the primary mechanism behind the compression within a turbochargers compressor stage.
The term "fan pump" is redundant and incorrect technically.  A fan refers to either a centrifugal or axial flow used to move a low density working medium.  Pump is used to describe a device which moves a higher density medium, or a medium which resists flow signifigantly, with no consideration as to the type.  In both these cases the working fluid undergoes very little compression.  In fans there is no mechanism for increasing pressure and in heavy fluids compression doesn't typically occur.  
Compressors are similar to fans and pumps in that they move a working fluid adding energy to the fluid as it passes, but compressors signifigantly increase the density of the working medium as the medium passes the compressor.  By these widely accepted but admittedly subtle differences in definition, the turbocharger can operate as a fan at ultra slow speeds but it is avoided intentionally. The desired operation of a turbocharger is as a compressor and it's operation as a fan is considered a flaw.
So, to summarize, turbochargers are not fans nor pumps when considerd in the context of thermodynamic machines, and the term radial compressor is confusing and not precise enough for a definition statement.  Though centrifugal compressors are a subset of radial compressors, the term centrifugal compressor is more widely used and understood.  A turbocharger is a device which mechanically couples a working medium in two different states through centrifugal expansion and compression.  More simply, a turbocharger is a centrifugal compressor joined to a centrifugal turbine.  
New turbocharger designs incorporate transitional effects and are more generally described as turbine powered centrifugal compressor, though both the compressor and turbine can be mixed-flow hybrids resulting from fluid effects related to centrifugal/radial and also axial effects.  This discussion should be moot within 10 years as multi stage mixed mode compressors and turbines already exist today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.192.237 (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turbos are a small radial fan pump?" 

message: these 2 sections play very loose with the technology and results in an inaccurate non neutral point of view.  point of fact is there is spinning going on. it will be very difficult to rewrite worst 2 paragraphs because the conclusions are false. yet, they bring up well informed facts that are interesting and valuable in a different dialogue. It almost seems like 3 authors climbed all over each other to cook up a serving of mashed potatoes with peas and corn mixed in. the author who suggests that superchargers are power parasites is correct only with respect to a very specific technical point. the statement that turbos don't do this is correct. the implication that turbos are thus free from this sin is a very gross error and is ignorant of any  basic thermodynamic understanding. turbos waste a portion of the power that they could generate via exhaust back pressure. supercharging while more punishing of the hardware can be more efficient because of an efficient drive system.Mkoronowski (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  temperature considerations and comparisons to supercharging 

message: It has just occurred to me that automobile enthusiasts are using the turbocharger article to detail the use of turbochargers and automobiles and automobile racing.  It would seem to me that I would be appropriate to start new articles on turbochargers in automobile performance.  I think there's a need to look at this further.Mkoronowski (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is this article about 

message: while not a turbocharger expert, it is evident that the turbocharger article was a mess. multiple threads of logic where presented. the outline is updated and paragraphs resorted. a few technical errors are being corrected. please help consolidate sections where ever possible. 2 paragraphs with a skewed point of view were removed, as they represented a historical opinion that had little to do with turbochargers.Mkoronowski (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  organization and current revisions 

message: the use of turbochargers neither begins or ends with automotive applications. equal voice should be given to all applications. is there enough room to cover all applications equally? the answer is likely no. the answer is likely sub articles, each addressing the unique interests of that application. such as aircraft turbochargers, locomotive and marine diesel turbochargers, truck turbochargers and automotive turbochargers. in this way the main article turbochargers can deal specifically with turbos and briefly introduce the wide variety of applications. turbochargers are actually turbo-machines that enhance primarily otto and diesel internal combustion engine performance. think tooth brush, is anyone interested in who uses a tooth brush? the article on tooth brush does not have your name in it. Mkoronowski (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  not an auto enthusiast dumping ground 

message: is it wiki standard to say 5 ft and at the same time say 5m? note the space before ft and no space before m.Mkoronowski (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting units 

message: Turbosupercharger is an obsolete term for a turbocharger - they are the same thing. Both the (orphan) turbosupercharging page and the supercharger page support this, and in fact, turbosupercharger redirects to turbocharger; you have to specifically search for turbosupercharging. I think that all of the content there could be added as, essentially, a historical footnote here. Msaunier (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the merge - CZmarlin (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge turbosupercharging and this page 

message: I have a paid COI with Honeywell. I would like to help improve the page following COI best practices. I respect the community's autonomy, understand the rules and would like to collaborate with neutral editors that share an interest in providing encyclopedic information on the topic to the public, consumers and aftermarket users. 
For starters, I've collaborated with Stanford's Department of Chemistry, who had published a diagram showing how a variable geometry turbocharger works. I received permission to upload under a creative commons and the image is available here. Combined with a great annotation, it could really help communicate the concept.
User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done I added the image (with no annotation) to the 'Operating principle' section. If you have an idea for an annotation, feel free to post it here and/or let me know. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the sources. I've put a few of them in- they could certainly be better used, but it's a start. 1292simon (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honeywell Contributions 

message: # How Stuff Works 
# Automotive News  
# The National (road test)  
# CNN  
# Stanford  
# Turbokart 
# The Gazette
# Turbocharging Performance Handbook 
1 & 2 discuss giving smaller displacement engines the same power of their larger counterparts, while 3, 4 & 7 discuss specific vehicles that did just that. The Stanford source #5 has a lot of academic metrics on turbocharger performance. This is the source I obtained image permission from. Hope these are helpful. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the sources. I've put a few of them in- they could certainly be better used, but it's a start. 1292simon (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The text under "motorsport" and inclusion in External Refs smell of advertising. Maybe the land-speed record stuff would be notable on a page about land-speed records, but not here. Removed.1292simon (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gale Banks 

message: I assume these are vehicles which pioneered turbocharging in some way? It would be good if their notability could be explained in the article.
Also, where does it stop? Would the first DI turbo engine deserve inclusion? First variable-vane? First twin-impellor? First rotary? First injected? First intercooled? (just suggestions) 1292simon (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the regular problems of recentism and bias towards favourite topics with visible sources. Very little innovation happened with road cars, and even racing cars didn't contribute much until the '80s. Before that it was extremely dull generator sets and ship engines that were where the innovation in turbochargers was happening. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not unexplained list, its very clear if you read the automotive section thru, its showing who pioneered turbocharging, its very sought after info so I think it deserves to be in this article, I think the 1980 is good line, after that almoist every brand got turbos. Anyway it needs to be referenced better than now. Those "Would the first DI turbo engine deserve inclusion? First variable-vane? First twin-impellor?" can be in prose text -->Typ932 T·C 10:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The current intro ("Cars which pioneered the use of turbocharging include") is just something I added (hope it's ok!), before that it was just a list of some turbocharged cars with no explanation about their significance. Pioneers in DI, variable-vane, etc, etc are just my suggestions for other cars which may be significant in the development of turbos. Sorry if I seem to be picking on it (you sound a bit defensive Typ932), it's just something I thought could possibly be improved. 1292simon (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: This article has much more unexplained data than this what about section "Manufacturers of turbochargers" this list has nothing at all explanations why they are in this article -->Typ932 T·C 10:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Also in the main text is car brands with turbos that has no explanations or why they deserves to be in this article "Volvo, Saab, Audi, Volkswagen, and Subaru have produced turbocharged cars for many years; " so if if you are going to change something take car of NPOV. -->Typ932 T·C 10:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, thanks for the tips. 1292simon (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of these car articles is always, that editors are supporting their "own brands" , be it on the list or in the main text. Yes  might sound a bit defensive because the list was deleted earlier by someone, before taking care of the NPOV aspect. The list is easy way to handle NPOV aspect , all brands that "deserves" creditability are easily seen and not hided between main text lines, its also very intresting info among car enthusiasts -->Typ932 T·C 14:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  unexplained list of cars 

message: The opening paragraph ("It is also important to understand...") applies to all forced induction engines, perhaps it should be moved to the forced induction article. It could also do with the odd citation... 1292simon (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  motorsport 

message: I believe the text about compensation for altitude is most relevant for aircraft applications. Therefore I propose to move this content from Operating Principle to Aircraft Applications. 1292simon (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of altitude 

message: I am confused by the terminology used in the turbocharger article. there are centrifugal compressors driven by energy from exhaust gas. this seems to be called a turbocharger.
there are positive displacement compressors driven by mechanical shaft energy. this seems to be called a supercharger. 
there are centrifugal compressors driven by mechanical shaft energy. what do you call this?
               	centrifugal/kinematic	roots/positive displacement
exhaust turbine	turbocharger         	???
gear/chain/belt	???                  	supercharger
Mkoronowski (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all 'superchargers'. Centrifugal superchargers are termed just that, 'centrifugal superchargers'. Those driven by gas turbines, rather than mechanical coupling, are termed 'turbosuperchargers'. This is usually shortened to 'turbocharger' or 'turbo'. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  direct drive vs exhaust gas, positive displacement vs kinematic 

message: They have been tagged for merge, but no rationale has been posted. 
* oppose  Turbocharger's scope is much broader. The engines article can also useful cover issues of mechanical supercharging in petrol engines, not just turbocharging.Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Turbocharged petrol engines]] 

message: This feedback came through the Wikipedia mobile site - I no nothing about this subject but thought I'd forward you his feedback in case it was useful.
I would like to bring to your notice about an error present in the operating principle of turbocharger. Let me know if you require any clarification.    
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger
 
Operating principle
 
Error : This is achieved by recovering waste energy in the exhaust and feeding it back into the engine intake.
 
Truth: This is achieved by recovering waste energy in the exhaust and rotate the compressor to compress the air into the engine intake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlrobson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  error present in the operating principle of turbocharger (?) 

message: I've just reverted this:
"The great majority of World War II American heavy bombers used by the USAAF - particularly the Wright R-1820 Cyclone-9 powered B-17 Flying Fortress, and Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp powered Consolidated B-24 Liberator four-engined bombers both used similar models of General Electric-designed turbochargers in service, as did the twin Allison V-1710-engined Lockheed P-38 Lightning American heavy fighter during the war years. "
Emphasis mine.  Now I agree that this statement is worth making, and the P38 certainly stands up. However the sticking point is the B17 and particularly that "great majority" claim. Wasn't the Cyclone a mechanical supercharger, albeit centrifugal, rather than a turbocharger? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've restored this, as it's citeable. However our engine articles need work! Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US heavy bombers and turbochargers? 

message: ข้อเสียของ turbocharger (ไร้ข้อดีของ turbocharger) ในทุกยี่ห้อ
เครื่องยนต์เบนซิน ติดตั้ง 1-4 turbocharger พร้อม intercooler เป็นเทคโนโลยีที่ล้าหลังไป 200 ปี ต่อให้เครื่องยนต์เบนซิน ติดตั้ง 1-4 turbo พร้อม intercooler ในยุคปัจจุบัน ก็ยังล้าหลัง เป็นรูปแบบที่ไม่ประเทื่องปัญญาในด้านวิศวกรรม  เนื่องจากเป็นรูปแบบที่ทำให้เครื่องยนต์เบนซิน ติดตั้ง 1-4 turbo พร้อม intercooler เสื่อมประสิทธิภาพเชิงกล 90 % ไม่สามารถใช้แรงขับเคลื่อนได้ 100 % มีอัตราสิ้นเปลื้องเชื้อเพลิง 1-5 กม. ต่อ ลิตร(มากกว่า 20 ลิตร ต่อ 100 กม.) และต่ำกว่า 1 กม. ต่อ ลิตร (มากกว่า 100 ลิตร ต่อ 100 กม.) และแพ้เครื่องยนต์เบนซิน ใหญ่กว่า ปราศจาก turbocharger intercooler ในทุกด้าน กับเครื่องยนต์ เบนซิน supercharger intercooler ตามกรณีแรงม้าเท่ากัน แรงบิดเท่ากัน﻿  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.222.143 (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: turbo

message: I think the images, especially those early in the article, don't really put the turbocharger in relation to the overall engine very well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.10 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Turbocharger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402123651/http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20045466-48.html to http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20045466-48.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The https://web.archive.org/20150402123651/http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20045466-48.html link redirects twice and ends up on https://web.archive.org/web/20150403085733/http://www.cnet.com/news/turbo-title-honeywell-or-borgwarner/ which does talk about turbochargers but does not support the text in the Wikipedia article, at least not the first time it is referenced. As the original reference also lacks any kind of title and other information (it was just a plain URL) it should perhaps just be deleted. By the way, the  is not thought through – what to do if it was actually checked but turned out not to work? --Jhertel (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a list on wikipedia somewhere? It out to be mentioned/linked in this article. --RThompson82 (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest useful list to this would be some sort of timeline of turbocharger adoption, listing the novel, early and significant introductions of turbos.  A feww cars for that might include the Corvair, the Audi Quattro, the BMW 2002 ti, Renault 5, the MG Maestro Turbo, the Maestro diesel turbo and others, all of which had some historical significance to their adoption of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of turbocharged automobiles? 

message: I'm trying to figure out the competition parts availability.  In the current vernacular there are a lot of references to T1, T2, and T3 Turbos for automotive applications.  Is the T1 designation a reference to a one stage turbocharger? .. the T2 to a two stage Turbocharge, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.2.125 (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The new section is good. One thing I don't get is how it reclaims electrical energy. Does it have a generator in addition to the electric motor on the turbine shaft? Or does the electric motor also work as a generator when it is not driving the compressor? Or something else?  Stepho  talk  15:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Anybody is allowed to edit - so have a go. We'll lend a hand via advice or corrections if you needed.  Stepho  talk  09:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: =T1 vs T2 vs ??

message: The last paragraph of this section states something like "two stroke engines cannot naturally aspirate". I've seen a lot of naturally aspirated two stroke engines that seem to belie the statement. Does anyone have insight to what the author may have meant? I would simply change it but would like some reinforcement in case I'm missing something. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Legato (talk • contribs) 07:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in "Turbocharging versus supercharging"? 

message: I have added a E-turbo section to this page as I feel that this technology is becoming a lot more feasible, and we may start to see it in production cars within the next 5-10 years. There is already a page specifically for e-turbos but it is very short and non descript. I believe the Normal Turbocharger page is a better place for this info anyway, since it is a variant of the traditional turbo. Also since it is newer technology, many people may not know about it, especially those who are just learning about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mconor47 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The new section is good. One thing I don't get is how it reclaims electrical energy. Does it have a generator in addition to the electric motor on the turbine shaft? Or does the electric motor also work as a generator when it is not driving the compressor? Or something else?  Stepho  talk  15:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-Turbos  

message: This section mentions the Garret eturbo and that it's not clear how they will work.
However, this technology has been used for years in formula 1 engines. It's called the MGU-H (Motor / Generator unit - Heat)
https://f1.fandom.com/wiki/Motor_Generator_Unit_-_Heat
It is referenced on wikipedia in the formula one engine page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines
Basically this technology is developed and works already. I have never edited an article and don't have an account but if it's kosher to do so I will add this detail to this section  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.115.132.9 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody is allowed to edit - so have a go. We'll lend a hand via advice or corrections if you needed.  Stepho  talk  09:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eturbochargers