@“Honda Blackbird”
When you consider that Volvo currently markets an engine with both turbo and supercharging or than you can get a an Audi with 5 valves per cylinder or a Ferrari with an F1-style KERS system. A turbocharged engine with direct injection isn’t particularly exotic. I mean direct injected and turbocharged diesels have been around for decades.
You’d have to assume those are average numbers over multiple passes. These are not computers executing the 0-60 times, they are stock cars without benefit of technology that helps repeatability in elapsed times and the track conditions do change over time. Having done a fair share of drag racing in my life, I would find it almost impossible with a stock car to achieve consistent passes in fractional second range. There will be variation. But let’s assume they averaged a fair number of passes in a short period of time. You really consider 0.3 seconds a significant difference? For all practical purposes they are nearly identical IMO.
Same for 1 mpg. For all we know they rounded up or down on whole numbers. Maybe it was 0.8 or 1.2, who knows. But from my perspective neither of those results would push me to buy one version over the other. In real life, the variation in those numbers is in the noise band…
Speaking of that Volvo with supercharger AND turbocharger . . .
That reminds me of the time I mentioned reading about some aircraft from the 1940s or so that was supercharged AND turbocharged
And one of the regulars essentially told me I MUST have misunderstood what I read 
I personally like manuals and seek cars out with them. One of my aunt and uncles have a manual Ford Fusion which they bought used. I told them that must have been really hard to find, especially used. The car is in great shape and they had been looking for one. The dealer told them only like 2% of all of them made came in manuals so it was going to be hard to find one. The dealer was having one shipped down from another state for a customer in line before them but that they would keep an eye out. Well, that other customer backed out of the deal after the car arrived on the lot and my aunt and uncle ended up getting this car.
Most new economy cars seem to come with a manual option. The Kia Rio even has a 6 speed. I don’t know if Ed ever bought a new car but I am sure all the 2015 Mirages are gone by this time. Both myself and my GF were able to get one of these in a manual and in our preferred color. Most sports cars still have them but even some of them are doing away with the option.
I think the DDCT automatics have potential to be a great unit. This is basically an automated manual transmission with no parasitic torque converter to rob power and mileage. While these sound great on paper, there have been LOTS of problems with them. One of my buddies comes from a longtime Ford family. His grandparents worked on the Ford line assembling cars so the family has quite a few Fords to say the least. Well, there are two Ford Focus DDCT models in the mix and they have been nothing but problems. One is on the 2nd transmission and the other is on the 3rd. It appears to be a 30,000 mile service on them! I understand this same transmission or a variant of it are used in other cars and problems have been common with those as well.
I personally think the DDCT will eventually have the bugs worked out of it and become more common. For now I will wait. I believe both the Focus models in question are 2014’s. http://www.carcomplaints.com/Ford/Focus/2014/ Note that transmission and clutch problems are more of an issue than all the others combined.
I am showing my age, but I preferred the three speed manual with the Borg-Warner automatic overdrive transmission. This gave the car five forward speeds. The rear axle had a lower gear ratio which gave the car better acceleration around town. On the highway, the rpm of the engine dropped by 30% and it really saved wear on the engine. The last vehicle I drove with the Borg-Warner overdrive was a,1969 Ford half ton truck with the 302 V-8 engine.
It seems to me that using a small supercharger that kicks in early and a larger turbo for more power later would be a bit more efficient than two turbos.
@db4690 Because you DID misinterpret what you read. In aviation terms, “turbocharged” means a turbo is used to retain max sea-level power output, up to a specified altitude. “Turbosupercharged” means a turbo is used to exceed the NA engine’s sea level power output. You can retrofit an engine to “turbocharged” status a lot easier than “turbosupercharged” because you don’t have to redo the durability testing at the new rated power…
I’m thinking he was referring to something like this, aviation engines with both turbo and mechanical supercharging:
“Also the Allisons on the P-38, the PW R-2800 on the P-47, the PW R-1830 on the B-24 and the CW R-1820 on the B-17 had the turbos feeding a single stage engine mounted supercharger. The CW R-3350 on the B-29 had two turbos feeding a single engine mounted supercharger.”
Yeah, @cwatkin Ed bought a Mirage on April 1st. He even thanked you by name on his thread “Sorry Guys, Not Hatin’ On M’New Car Yet” for making him aware of the deal. Got an alleged 49.5 mpg on 1st tank of gas although have reasons to suspect that number is suspect. Possibly got one of the last 3 2015 Mirages in his state with a manual. Dawdled too long to get his first or second choice of color, but got cargo net and rug as bonus. The color is growing on Ed as he has taken to referring to it as ‘snowflake’.
I thought it was you, but because I wasn’t sure, I didn’t want to mention any names :neutral:
I threw some bait out, and you took it 
You’ve cleared up . . . that it was you
@texases nailed it. That sounds very much like what I read, but it was years ago
But I promise you this . . . the book I read, which was NOT published by some fly-by-night author, specifically referred to aviation engines which were both turbo- and supercharged
It may have been literally decades ago, but I read what I read :trollface:
You know what you know, and that’s just fine
But I know what I read, and that should be fine 
Detroit Diesel also offered engines with a turbo sending air into a supercharger. Although I am not sure if they still do.
@db4690 Some of the Me-109 variants had direct injection as well. They could fly inverted for much longer than say an early Spitfire or Hurricane.
Good information there
Yet another example of the aviation industry having a certain technology before it’s common in the automotive industry
Detroit Diesel also offered engines with a turbo sending air into a supercharger. Although I am not sure if they still do.The "supercharger" on Detroit Diesel engines is actually a scavanging blower. These are two stroke engines and it's job is to purge the cylinder of exhaust and replace it with fresh air for the next power cycle while the piston is near bottom dead center. Disconnect the supercharger of a four stroke engine and you have a normally aspirated engine. Disconnect the scavanging blower on a two stroke Diesel and the engine won't run, period. With the turbocharger boost feeding the scavanging blower, the blower is no longer a parasitic load on the engine and indeed, it now windmills and returns power to the engine instead of stealing power from it.
Most gasoline two stroke engines use the bottom of the piston pressurizing the crankcase to provide scavanging for the cylinder but the Diesels use a separate blower, allowing the crankcase to hold lube oil just like a four stroke.
@Fodaddy,I am curious ,did they ever make a side valve diesel that you know of ?
@ DB,it wasnt "reciporcating aircraft engines " by Smith was it?I think that was the title and author. Anything supercharged will have the intake pressurized above ambient pressure and increase the amount of availible oxygen ,one reason supercharged engines can run at higher altitudes.Exhaust turbo chargers usually incorperate a small turbine ran by escaping exhaust gases to power the stages (thus a little efficiency gain too ) while other superchargers can be ran by various means ,some are even electrically driven .a common type of blower( supercharger ) (the Rootes TYPE is used for an airpump in a lot of different applications they used to be used on two cycle diesels and were very popular with the hotrod set,noisy as heck though,they were developed in the late 19 th century as an air pump for mining usage,very long lasting ,but consume a fair amount of power as does any mechanical airpump ,while an exhaust turbocharger has . basically little parasitic power draw.
Another popular supercharger(mechanical I do believe ) was the Paxton blower first used by Ford ,I believe , the designer was William Paxton McCullough of McCullough chainsaw fame ,so it goes ,basically all a supercharger is an airpump .
No, that wasn’t it 
I believe many WWII aircraft engines had engine driven centrifugal superchargers. Later, they added exhaust turbines to capture some of the wasted exhaust energy and returned it to the engine offsetting the power needed to drive the supercharger. Then they just let the exhaust turbine drive the supercharger directly giving us “turbochargers”.
Then someone figured out the piston engine itself could be left out and we got the gas turbine.
Yup, “turbo compounding.” They used TC engines on the Lockheed Constellation; from what I hear, they use them to this day on certain Diesels, and they’re talking about them as a way to meet CAFE goals. They’re really interesting in that they’re essentially a “supercharger in reverse”: they take exhaust energy, and feed it back to the crankshaft, as opposed to a supercharger, which turns crankshaft energy into pressure.
The girls were having a used book fundraiser sale today. Among the books I got was one on the B24 Liberator with lots of pics and original drawings. Got it for $1 along with an old Tom Sawyer book. The girls painted on some of them would get you drummed out of the service today but helped win the war in 1944. At any rate, I’m anxious to look at it further.