But this inequality is taken out when comparing efficiencies. Afterall, is defined as the ratio between net extracted energy on the drive shaft devided by the total amount of energy that is released by burning the fuel. Ergo, if diesel has a higher energy content per liter then say gasoline that still doesn't mean that a diesel engine is more efficient in extracting this energy then a gasoline engine.

Supercharging an engine (of which a turbo charger is one implementation) only allows a smaller engine to be used to generate the same amount of power. In general, it does not have a large impact on efficiency if the supercharging is done efficiently. Again, the cylinder volume of the engine is not a factor in energetic efficiency of the motor. Again, the equation is very simple. How much fuel in energetic units (not liters !) is burned per second to acquire a given power output at the driving shaft. Whether the engine is big or small (cylinder volume) or super charged or not is not a direct consideration.

You are confusing yourself with what are mainly sound bites from automobile advertisements.




This can never be the energetic efficiency of the motor. The fundamental upper limit of real life expansion cycle engines is limited to about 50-60 % as proven by the idealized Carnot process. (Look it up). This idealized proces does not include any parasitic loses that any real life implementation will have. Ship diesels and powerplant regenerative gas turbines typically operate at 45% to 55% efficiency and that is as high as you can get. To a large extent this is possible to the huge scale of these engines. The smaller the engine to larger the relative loses of the parasitic losses. Typical car engines max out at 30% energy conversion efficiency.

Your 80% quote is something completely different. Probably some power output to cylinder volume output when compared to some arbitrary reference. If you think sport bikes are impressive then try to find the numbers for this ratio for a gas turbine. Those things pump several thousand HP out of a 2 feet by 4 feet round tube.




You must explain to me how you ever believe that this 110% number can relate to energy conversion efficiency ? Basically it says you can get more energy on the drive shaft then you into the engine as fuel. I would start requesting patents on that engine right now !

Wouter