By on September 18, 2013

113_0708_25_z+vw_beetle+cb_performance_turbo_kit

According to a high ranking Volkswagen executive, within four years conventional naturally aspirated gasoline engines will be extinct at the automaker, replaced with diesel powerplants and turbocharged gasoline engines. Mark Trahan, VW of America’s executive vice president for group quality, said that the few conventional naturally aspirated engines the company sells will eventually be replaced with forced induction engines. “You have to have a turbo these days,” Trahan told The Detroit News. “We only have one normally aspirated gas engine, and when we go to the next generation vehicle that it’s in, it will be replaced. So three, four years maximum.”

Trahan’s comments follow on the heels of remarks by Joe Bakaj, Ford Motor Co. vice president of powertrain engineering, who said that naturally aspirated engines could may see their end in Ford’s lineup.
“At some point in the future that will be an option,” he said. Bakaj did say that hybrid vehicles, which pair conventional gas engines with electric motors, would be exceptions. Ford has invested heavily in its EcoBoost line of turbocharged engines and it has also advertised the EcoBoost brand heavily as combining the power of larger displacement engines with the fuel economy of smaller motors. Analysts estimate that 3 million vehicles will be sold in the U.S. this year equipped with turbocharged engines, up from 2.1 million last year.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

199 Comments on “Natural Aspiration Expiration At VW, Will Go All Turbo Within Four Years, Ford May Too...”


  • avatar
    dwight

    The 1.4L turbo they offer in the Jetta Hybrid could easily replace the 2.0 8-valve and the 2.5 5cyl engines as a base engine. Hopefully, that is the base engine offered in the 2014 Golf. If so, my MK4 City Golf might be traded in for a new one.

    However, I’m intrigued by the 1.0 3-cyl turbo in the 2014 Fiesta. I will be testing that when it comes available. Just waiting for official North American fuel economy numbers.

    • 0 avatar

      Don’t. We rented a Suzuki Celerio while visiting an island. It is a liter-class car made by Suzuki of India (first subcontinent built car ever driven-woo-yes, I’m too geeky). It had a one liter three cylinder. At idle, it feels like a coil isn’t firing. I know BMW, etc are experimenting, but the three cylinder is unbalanced. Remains slightly rough even at cruise.

      Tops out at 80 mph…would pull to 60 easily but pulls after that. Comfortable interior even small. It would be a tough sell in any country where there were actual highways with highway speeds. I’m also pretty sure that despite belts and driver’s side airbag, that this wouldn’t pass US or EU standards….I saw it is sold in AU and Asia, per the owners manual.

      While we miss the occasional “cherry on top” sports package, our typical cars are still luxo barges compared to most of the world.
      Our Zook would be the sign of middle class success if I lived in India….Small, but functional design inside. You are in the US. We can afford that fourth cylinder.

  • avatar
    Detroit-X

    Well then, VW had damn-well better test those expensive turbo components much better than that arrogant VW Chief Engineer suggests they test (ignore) the durability of their water pumps.

  • avatar
    hoff02

    I mean this in a good-natured manner of course…did DeadWeight’s head just explode?

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      No, and this has little impact upon the lease & return every 2 or 3 years crowd, nor the buy and trade in before warranty expiration crowd, but for the own-it-for-the-long-term-crowd, the value of natural aspiration just took one giant leap.

      Ago course, cue the comments from those who are about to lecture me as to how turbocharged motors are just as reliable & durable as naturally aspirated ones, because in Europe, “well made & reliable” VWs sell at a ratio 20x higher than the number of Hondas + Toyotas that are sold, and most of those VWs are turbocharged and bullet proof.

      • 0 avatar
        jmo

        It seems strange that you base your entire car purchase on a $1,000 repair you may or may not have 15 years down the road

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          You may or may not have a engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, front end rebuild in 15 years, why add to the cost to yourself in the future, rather than buying something with less Parts to break now?
          Plus there’s the chance a turbo failure could cause damage to other components. I’ll take a turbo diesel any day, but there’s no sense in turbocharging a gas engine.

          To add to the problem, this is VW we’re talking about, not exactly known for producing reliable anything.
          Reliably unreliable.

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            “why add to the cost to yourself in the future,”

            So you can enjoy 15 year of a better driving experience.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Like you would experience from a larger N/A?

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            “Like you would experience from a larger N/A?”

            The flat torque curve of a modern turbo is going to offer a better real world driving experience than a larger N/A engine.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Ask Prius owner the same thing about the $3,000 battery change.

            Jmo says, ” It seems strange that you base your entire car purchase on a $1,000 repair you may or may not have 15 years down the road.”

          • 0 avatar
            Wheatridger

            If I can offer any of you fretful folk some reassurance, let me say that I’ve owned and driven turbo fours for about 20K+ miles per year, for the last two decades. Half those miles were in TDIs, half in SAABs. Believe it or not, I’ve never had to repair a turbo.

            My used TDI turned out to have a coked-up turbo because the previous owner had never driven it hard. This prevented the variable vanes from adjusting, creating a mild underboost situation. The only symptom was a burp of soot on heavy acceleration. The car was plenty quick and clean in everyday use, so it wasn’t worth fixing. That’s it for all my turbo tales of woe. The cars had other endemic problems, but turbos weren’t to blame.

            Now, I don’t want a car without one — in part, because I live in Colorado. When I drive the car hard, it’s at high altitudes. I’ve read that a turbocharged car can produce 90% of its sea-level power at 10,000 feet, while a NA engine is struggling to make 75% of rated power. That may not matter to lowlanders, but this does– a turbo fours is lighter than a V6 (aiding handling), and should be easier to work on (one cylinder bank, more accessible), and cheaper to maintain (less expensive oil needed, fewer plugs, etc.).

            Thanks VW, this is a good move.

          • 0 avatar
            White Shadow

            Hummer said, “…but there’s no sense in turbocharging a gas engine.”

            Really? That’s funny because everyone else seems to disagree with you, as evident by the HUGE number of manufacturers who now offer turbocharged gasoline engines. Everyone is doing it precisely because there are plenty of good reason to do it. Get with the program. Today’s turbos are incredibly efficient and reliable as well.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          Turbo repair kits, not needed until 300,000+ miles, run around $49.00 on up. I’ve personally have rebuilt a Garret 17 and a Mistubishis TD04. You can do the. Job yourself with no special tools except for a large snap ring pliers. This has been going on since 1990′s in Saabs. The last major break-through with water cooled turbos and proper maintence(7,500 miles on GM’s synthetic blend today.) But that was over 20 years ago so some of you need to be brought up to speed.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Depends how the turbo fails, that repair kit it great if the seals dry rotting is your biggest issue.
            Metal getting worn down or bearing failing? You got a slightly bigger problem,

            I say everything I’ve said with a love of turbos believe it or not, I just don’t believe the premise of better this that an the other should be attached to marketing, an N/A will suit the majority of drivers just fine with more linear and predictable fuel usage.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            The seals are metal and support a steel journal bearing. When oil maintence schedule is followed the steel support wears out allowing oil slip by in the exhaust, resulting blue smoke at start up. This happens way before the turbine and compressor blades make contact with the housing. Some rebuild kits do have an outer rubber o-ring but is not the root cause of turbo wearing out.

            Youtube “turbo rebuild” to see what mean.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Most modern turbocharger replacements cost far more than $1000 and will into the forseeable future. The days of off the shelf generic turbo replacements are mostly gone.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Do you change the fluids on your car or just replace the pump(power steering, water pump…)? No you replace the maintence part or the fluids. Just like a turbo it can, and often get rebuilt at around 300,000 miles or less. awell befor that you’ll replace just about everything else.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Only Norm can get 40+ mpg hooning his Encore while not having to deal with any turbocharger or turbo related problems for an average of 300,000 miles, and at the same time, only then (300,000 miles) have to spend a maximum of $1,000 to make his motor “like new” again.

            He lives in Turbo Disney World.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Often the labor to rebuild assemblies plus parts exceeds the cost of assembly replacement for those items you mentioned (if a rebuilt kit is even available). That’s why it’s rare that automotive repair shops rebuild much anymore. Turbocharger assemblies, especially modern water cooled or integrated designs are no different.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            There is no way a turbo engine will be as reliable as a similar n/a engine. You just ad so much more to fail with a turbo engine. You have higher temperatures everywhere, boost leaks, oil leaks, etc.. I am a very big fan of turbos, but that’s just reality. I rented a Cruze with the 1.4L turbo, and while it was fine, a 2.0l n/a would be very similar in performance and real world economy. The small turbo will give you better epa economy numbers and that’s why they are becoming popular.

          • 0 avatar
            White Shadow

            At a dealership, yes. Do it yourself, no. And anyone with any kind of mechanical aptitude and a basic set of hand tools can easily replace a turbo in the comfort of his garage without a problem.

            Last turbo I replaced (which was strictly as an upgrade, not because of any kind of failure) costs me $600 for the turbo and new oil lines and about 2 hours removal & installation time. No problem…

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            Which of these new engines was it that you upgraded the turbo in? 1.4l turbo Ford, 1.4l turbo GM, 1.6L turbo Hyundai? Or some older engine design in a much bigger engine bay?

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            @mbella: this has three bolts holding the heat shield and three on the downpipe as I just replaced mine in this very same vehicle. On my 9-5 it was easier to remove the radiator fan. But as you can see not everyone puts their turbos on the backside of the engine.

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/04/review-2013-buick-encore-video/

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            But most do put them in the back. So a 9-5 is your example of a car with a modern downsized turbo? Some of these even have the turbo exhaust housings cast with the exhaust manifold as one piece.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        I have no actual experience, except with my ’02 Saab Aero. At 100K miles, the turbo is one of the few things that hasn’t required a repair!

        I suppose I’m in the minority but I, for one, don’t particularly like the torque curve characteristics of a turbo engine. I think the increasing torque with increasing engine rpm characteristic of a normally aspirated engine makes a more driveable car, even with a slushbox. And I don’t find having a small displacement 4 cylinder lugging away at 1800 rpm on full boost, like a Cummins turbodiesel in a semi, to be a particularly pleasant driving experience.

        The Honda folks, with their “Earth Dreams” normally aspirated 4 cylinder, seem to have shown up a lot of the turbocharged competitors in both real-world fuel economy and performance.

        I still think turbos work best with medium-speed diesels that will tolerate insane amounts of boost and with gasoline engines intended for racing, where they are operated in a fairly narrow power range.

        I would agree that with today’s water-cooled bearings, turbos in gas engines seem to be at least as durable as automatic transmissions.

        • 0 avatar
          Wheatridger

          SAAB’s high-pressure turbos are peaky beasts, enjoyed for their explosiveness. It’s all part of the package and the purpose of the car. If you had bought a low-pressure, less tuned turbo instead of an Aero, you’d have a more mellow drive, barely noticing the onset of boost (I know, I had a 9000 CS). And the modern 2.0 TSI engines in both my current VWs reach peak torque at a low, low 1,800 RPM, and it stays flat for thousands more. The Tiguan’s autobox keeps the engine at diesel-like RPMs in normal use.

          There’s a lot of variety in the turbo world, so don’t judge all of them by your hot rod.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        I am a DW kool aid drinker. My F150 has a 5.0 in it. It also has 3 assembly and supplier quality warranty issues.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    >>advertised the EcoBoost brand heavily as combining the power of larger displacement engines with the fuel economy of smaller motors. <<

    That should be considered false advertising when CR and other professional reviewers found the Fusion Ecoboosts got poorer economy and performance than competitors' naturally aspirated larger displacement motors.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      It’s fun watching the japanese fanboys cry foul to turbo-4′s. Would you trust these guys on Fuelly?

      Motortrend like comparison shows turbo-4 is smaller displacement by 1/3 under an all out test at matches the bigger motor Japanese CUVs. Its a better comparison between cars but not ultimate example of someone’s daily commute or mostly highhway cruising where the turbo-4 will rule the big fours.

      http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1209_2012_2013_compact_crossover_suv_comparison/

      Not that Ford is the best at turbo charging either.

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        Yes, and the “old-school” NA fanboys are starting to get crowded out by WRX, Evo, Mazdaspeed, GTR, GTI, Cooper S and Focus ST owners. Turbos are where the enthusiast market is.

        The NA 4-cylinder Japanese fanbase is dwindling. You have the FRS, the Si and those that preserve their old Type-R’s and real Si’s.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        CR results are the best.

        Your Buick 40 mpg claims define you, hence your comments are generally w/o merit.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          Thornmark you got to be kidding? ” CR results are the best.”

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            CR saves me money.

            By the way, your MotorTrend article doesn’t necessarily prove your point. In fuel economy, the turbos placed 3rd and 4th out of a field of 5. They only beat the Kia, which had an astonishingly bad score.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Given the smaller engine in the Escape the fuel economy is not that far off the bigger engines all the while being flagged for testing. Under light load highway cruise is where you’d see the turbo-4 pull ahead.

      • 0 avatar
        Wheatridger

        I think Japanese makers are avoiding turbos because they don’t want to ask their penny-pinching, anti-car-enthusiast clientele to step up from regular grade gas.

    • 0 avatar
      rnc

      My girlfriend was just in for five days and had an escape titanium ecobooost (one hell of a rental and car), regarding the engine and mpg, drive like I drive my saturn and yeah it got what would be expected from a 4 cyl, when I was enjoying the turbos, not so much. Its really no different than someone getting off on the Honda VTEC, running your engine at the RPM’s to keep that going and your mileage may vary too.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      I was wondering the same. Have the VW turbos done the same in testing as the Fords? IIRC, CR said in general turbos don’t live up to the hype, but I don’t recall them specifically calling out VW.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Does turbocharging really improve fuel economy? Or does it test well?

    Vehicle, Fuelly Reports (avg, last 2 years), EPA
    CR-V, 26.3, 23/31/26, (2WD)
    CX-5, 28.0, 26/32/29, (2WD, 2.0L)
    Escape, 23.6, 23/33/26, (2WD, 1.6L)
    Equinox, 24.6, 22/32/26, (2WD, 2.4L)
    Rav4(13), 26.7, 24/31/26, (2WD)
    Rav4, 22.1, 22/28/24, (2WD, 2.5L)

    When there were choices, I picked the drivetrain I though most likely to be most popular for the EPA scores. There’s a lot of potential for error, here but the two vehicles that appear to be hitting their EPA combines scores are not turbos.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      I’d think you’d need to altar your driving habits to try to stay out of the boost *but* many t/c vehicles are tuned to be on the boost early in the rev range so they don’t feel anemic.

      For my money I’d rather have a n/a engine and call it a day.

    • 0 avatar
      toplessFC3Sman

      Downsized turbo engines now tend to test better, but do offer the ability to get better real-world fuel economy too. They’re just more sensitive to the driver.

      For example, lets look at a larger naturally aspirated engine & a smaller turbo engine at low & high loads (for the moment assuming the transmission uses them the same way):

      NA engine at low loads is pretty heavily throttled, since its only really un-throttled at WOT, so it has higher pumping losses, hurting efficiency. Also, because it’s a larger engine, it has more friction, also hurting efficiency.

      Smaller turbo engine at low loads is much less throttled, since its a smaller engine being asked to do the same amount of work, airflow needs to be about the same and so the intake pressure needs to be higher for a lower displaced volume (P*V ~ mass). This gives less throttling losses & higher efficiency. Also, it’s smaller, so there’s less friction to contend with.

      Larger NA engine at high loads is now mostly un-throttled, so it doesn’t have much pumping work to contend with. In addition, it’s less thermally stressed (doesn’t have the turbo increasing backpressure & hot residual gasses in-cylinder, as well as cramming air at a higher P into it) so it doesn’t need to run richer than ideal, helping efficiency.

      Smaller Turbo engine at high loads doesn’t have much pumping either, and may actually be getting a benefit in pumping from the turbocharger (higher intake P than exhaust P if the turbo is well-matched to the condition), but does need a bit more fuel enrichment (can be more than 20%) to prevent knocking. This extra fuel’s energy is basically wasted, it’s only being injected to help cool the cylinder at high loads to keep the engine from autoignition. This severely hurts efficiency of the turbo engine at high loads

      Now, the drive cycles in the US are low-load, especially compared to how people drive every day. No full-throttle, pretty low speeds, pretty slow accelerations (Europe’s cycle is much worse, thus one of the reasons for better fuel economy numbers posted for cars there). These conditions play to the turbo engine’s strengths, whereas once you start getting into boost & higher loads (as most people do when driving), the NA engines can pull ahead. Add to this that many times, the naturally aspirated engine is less powerful & torquey than the turbo engine offered in a car (and thus has less capacity to burn a lot of fuel quickly, at least in daily driving), and you see the situation that you just described.

      Some caveats to the above argument:
      - Friction doesn’t increase proportionally to only engine size – turbo engines have higher displacement-specific loads & generally need proportionally bigger bearings & more combustion chamber sealing due to the higher pressures – both of these will increase friction a bit. Plus, there’s the amount of accessory loads demanded by the vehicle for the electrical architecture, power steering, AC etc, which is the same regardless of engine.

      - NA engines tend to have higher compression ratios than turbo engines since they’re less prone to low-speed, high-load knocking (although this is changing with direct injection, better turbos & intercoolers), which helps their efficiency everywhere.

      - VVA, valve phasing & atkinson/miller cycles, cyl deactivation etc can change help unthrottle gasoline engines. For NA engines this helps them all the time except at WOT, while for turbo engines this will only be a benefit at lighter loads since they’re already throttled less of the time.

      - Turbo engines are more expensive than NA engines due to the turbo, intercooler, more robust components, so for a given price NA engines tend to have VVA or other advanced tech which equalizes the field

      TL-DR: Turbos better at low load (& can be more sensitive to load), NA at higher loads, EPA tests are mostly low-load while most driving covers a broader range of loads & speeds, thus the reason that Turbos tend to “test better”.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Probably not adding anything to the discussion, but it is well known that EPA test cycles don’t match most people’s real-world driving habits, hence the perpetual complaints.

      IMO, since boosted engines only deliver advertised fuel economy if you aren’t using the boost, to borrow Fors’s line–you have to choose mpg or power–I’d rather have the larger, NA engine.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        However, I’d expect EPA test scores to indicate which cars will generally do better or worse. With turbos, it looks like the guidance from the EPA score is not as useful.

        Also, as regards EPA usefulness, generally, Ford was reported here dissembling about the skew in EPA vs real world results with hybrids a couple of weeks ago. Their C-Max real-world fuel economy was way short of the EPA tests. What Ford didn’t point out was that the Fuelly reality reports for each Prius is within a couple per cent of the EPA combined score.

        In the list above, the CR-V and the Rav are hitting their combined score and the CX-5 is very close (and it may miss partly because I picked the 2.0L score but the 2.5 engine might be more popular).

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Another one bites the dust…

    Just a real shame BMW was the first company to jump ship.

    It’s a real, real, real shame this “turbo over everything” revolution is coming right as cars are beginning to lighten up. But VW’s legacy has been somewhat defined by turbos anyway.

    RIP VR6

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @sportyaccordy
      BMW was actually the first vehicle manufacturer to seriously look at developing and producing turbo gasoline engines that exhibit high low to mid rpm torque.

      BMW’s aim was to significantly increase low to mid range torque with minimal increase in power, this equates to much lower fuel usage. Less power equals less fuel which equals lower CO2 and NOx.

      BMW’s ambition was to produce a gas engine to achieve very similar characteristics as a diesel.

      If you look at the Ford Eco boost (3.5) they do deliver better FE, but like any gas turbo once even slightly loaded the FE deteriorates.

      Chrysler with the Phoenix in the early 2000s tried to create a V6 that would provide a 10% better FE in comparison to the then V6s, it failed as well. It didn’t reach an 8% improvement.

      Fiat with it’s Multi Air has tried as well. A 3.2 Pentastar is fitted with Multi Air technology and is used in a Maserati.

      Fiat will not allow Multi Air to be used by Chrysler because the costs would make it unviable in the US. The US requires cheap engines, hence the ‘lower’ tech engines of larger capacity that are used Stateside.

      It seems the very small capacity gasoline engines are best suited to this new turbo technology. The larger engines don’t seem to be giving the FE advantage. This could be another reason for the V8s longevity so far.

      But as gas engines improve, especially the smaller turbo units, ie, 1 litre 3 cylinder Eco Boosts, etc. diesels will surpass them, but at a cost.

      Ford in the UK are running a diesel Fiesta that is returning 71mpg if using the US standard of FE measurement.

      Gas has a long way to go as diesel will always deliver superior FE.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        BAFO, as usual, wrong again.

        Chrysler manufactures the Fiat 1.4 Multiair at its Dundee, Michigan plant. The 2.4 Multiair fir the Dart and Cherokee is made at Trenton North in Michigan.

        You are a fount of misinformation.

        Now, if VW and Ford got off their respective duffs and tore apart the new Accord 4 cylinder engine, the existing Nissan and Camry 4 cylinder engines, they would learn how to make normally aspirated engines with flat torque curves. I’ve driven the Honda recently with 6MT, hauls the car around effortlessly. No turbo, better mileage, but these VW engineers know best. I mean they’re German.

        • 0 avatar
          hubcap

          Add the Accord uses regular fuel instead of the premium turbo engines require.

          The Accord Sport 6MT is an impressive piece of machinery.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            87 octane can be used in most turbocharged 4-cylinder engines today. If not sure check the owners manual. Most OM can be downloaded online in .pdf form

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            The Fords can run on 87, but with reduced power. IIRC, the loss is not quite 10%.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            @redav: no loss of power for GM turbos on 87 octane at highway cruise as they are all exceeding EPA highway ratings.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          Car & Driver tested the Accord 6MT 4 cylinder, and the GTI.

          0-60 for the Accord, 6.6, for the GTI, 6.4

          quarter-mile for the Accord, 15.3, for the GTI, 14.8.

          0-100 17.9 for the Accord, 16.0 for the GTI.

          50-70 mph top-gear roll-on for the Accord, 10.6 seconds, for the GTI, 7.5 seconds.

          EPA fuel economy 24/34 for the Accord, 21/31 for the GTI, but in the test, the Accord got 22 and the GTI got 24.

          So, the GTI is a slightly faster car when winding it out in every gear, but way faster rolling on in gear, at the penalty of a couple of mpg, according to the EPA. Sounds like a judgment call to me – don’t you expect the slightly slower car to have slightly better fuel economy? Why do you think the Accord is so superior?

          The Mk7 GTI they tested, that will go on sale here next spring, did 0-60 in 5.6, quarter-mile in 14.2 at 100 mph – so 0-100 is also 14.2. That’s like an order of magnitude faster. And they estimate EPA will be 23/33.

          And really – you want Honda to teach the rest of the industry how to make torque – ?

          • 0 avatar
            Jacob

            Actually, a slightly smaller car is not necessarily good for fuel economy at highway speeds. A large midsize car like Accord is as good as it gets in terms of aerodynamics. Even Accord Coupes are not as aerodynamic, and get slightly lower mpg. Small cars are just not that aerodynamic.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            “Small cars are just not that aerodynamic.”

            That’s because they’re tall and narrow, meaning that they don’t push much air out of the way. They often have higher ground-clearance than their larger counterparts, meaning that a lot of air passes underneath. They are often slabsided, too.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @wombat:)
          Sorry, I meant to state a the Pentastar as in the Maserati. I was discussing the larger engines.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @wombat
          Also, don’t jump the gun and read the article you would have noticed I was discussing the larger engines.

          Read what we the type of person that is describe as a Wombat in Australia.

          Or you can call be Big Al, thanks mate. As you can see my response to the guys who call me BAFO.

          Got that Wombat:) What else have I misinformed on, some of your paradigms? Really, I will not misinform regarding engineering. I’m not a any form of brand fan.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        @BigAl

        I think Saab would have a serious bone to pick with you about that statement. They were an all-turbo linup for years in the 90s-00s,
        and always tuned for strong low to mid-range torque. Ahead of their time in so many things, Saab.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Are you correct with that?

          Was the objectives the same as BMW’s?

          • 0 avatar
            Athos Nobile

            Of course he is correct. The Saab 99 Turbo was one of the first mass produced turbocharged cars.

            And Saab was always a proponent of using boost to get more power from little engines. They really went in with both feet with the first 93 and 95 of the GM era. 10 years+ before the trend started becoming mainstream.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Athos Nobile
            Sort of like Chinese Whispers?

            Look at my statement, then look at krRhodes1 comment.

            I’m stating that BMW is searching for low down torque, I would have thought SAAB was chasing 0-60 times.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Sorry, the Chrysler Phoenix engine was the code name for the Pentastar.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Here is some fantastic reading for someone interested in understanding the challenges facing turbo charging a gas engine. You can see turbo charging a diesel is much easier and probably cheaper.

    Here a damn good link to read. A lot is in layman terms and some graphs and formula.

    Have a read as this is directly related to this article on future turbo charging of gas engines.

    http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/120202-EN-Vienna-Motor-Symposium-Presentation.pdf

    • 0 avatar
      schmitt trigger

      Very good presentation, lots of information that require to be digested and understood by people with a better grasp of the technical details.

      Something that I can understand, though, is the very first image. Turbochargers run very hot. I know, I know, during normal driving turbos will get nowhere as hot as the one shown on the image, but the fact is that they still run very hot. And heat is the enemy of long term durability.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    Turbocharging boosts thermodynamic efficiency- the amount of work done per unit of fuel consumed. It will provide better efficiency, without any doubt.

    Real world factors confound results reported by users. A big factor in fuel consumption is the acceleration rate the driver chooses. More powerful engines inspire faster acceleration, at the expense of fuel economy. In other words, a driver tends to use the power. Simply, when you put your foot into it, you will consume more fuel. Heavier vehicles with more powerful engines tend toward higher fuel consumption than would occur on the limited speeds and accelerations of the FTP the chassis dynamometer emission testing from which fuel economy ratings are derived.

    Other factors that come into play are aerodynamics, powertrain efficiency. It would be difficult to compare turbo vs. naturally aspiration using road test reports. The only way to be sure of the differences are comparison under identical conditions. The FTP does this, though it has its weaknesses.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      “Turbocharging boosts thermodynamic efficiency- the amount of work done per unit of fuel consumed. It will provide better efficiency, without any doubt.”

      Only if you disregard the limits of the fuel you are burning and it’s resistance to knock. With the turbo, you have to run lower compression, and retard the ignition timing a bit to run pump gas.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        At highway cruise their are no pumping losses on a turbo engine compared to an NA because there is pressure sitting on the throttle body plate. On NA there is the intake tubing, filter, more intake tubing and finally the throttle body plate as restrictions. That’s why turbo-4 can see better gas mileage than NA on freeways.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          A turbo motor is not going to produce boost at a cruise so all those things are still there affecting the engine, along with a turbocharger that is also slightly restricting air flow. How does a turbo eliminate pumping losses at cruise when it’s basically an n/a engine anyway at that point? The turbo is more efficient at a highway cruise because it is a smaller engine.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            What do you thing waste gates and blow off/recirculate operations do?

            At cruise the wg and blow off/recirculate open and close producing back pressure to spin the turbine side and compress the intake. On my Saab I have those values in millibars showing about 1000 atmosphere, a little over 1000 before throtle body, and slightly less in the manifold. So there is pressure in the intake plenum,just not positive pressure over atmosphere.

            The turbo maybe a restriction in the exhaust manifold but the heat that is retained drives the turbine overcoming the restriction. The heat energy is wasted in a hybrid and most other NA engines. And yes, it is free persay.

            SN123, some intakes near the front of the car may have some poistive pressure but the filter, MAF and intake temperature sensors, and every bend provide resistance. Also on autospeed is how many feet of straight intake is equal to every bend something like 3-6′ feet of straight for every bend.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            How did that disprove anything I said. Yes the wastegate and bypass valve open and the engine is basically an n/a engine at that point. Being an n/a engine, it has all the same downsides of one with the intake restriction with the addition of a turbocharger in that intake tract. Why do you think that when you compare two completely identical engines, turbocharge one of them, the turbocharged engine will suffer a large loss in power and torque until the boost comes on?

        • 0 avatar
          SN123

          Norm, errr, there’s no intake restriction at part throttle openings for all those elements you mention. At full throttle and max rev’s/power intake restriction is at it’s highest, but much below that point, it’s normally zero.

          Build an intake restriction measuring device if you’re ever modding an intake and you’ll see what I mean.

          See ‘Making a Manometer’ (from tube and a soft-drink bottle) here:

          http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=0637

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    I am all for turbos – they are the closest thing to a free lunch you can get in automotive engineering. I like the n/a six in my 328i, but I will freely admit that for 90% of driving the 2.0l turbo 4 in my previous Saab 93 was the better engine. More efficient, MUCH more flexible and much less highly strung. Just as fast too. The Saab engine in the BMW chassis would be heaven.

    I’ve owned more than a dozen turbo cars over the years, most at 2x-3x warranty expiration mileages. I have never had a turbo related problem, ever. Of course, I don’t buy crap cars either. YMMV.

    • 0 avatar
      Chris FOM

      Their turboed I6 is fantastic. For normal driving you never need to get above 4k RPM but still have plenty of torque (more like way more torque than you need), but still has the ability to come alive above 5k. When you really lay on the throttle you can hear the turbo, but otherwise it almost sounds naturally aspirated all the way to redline. I’ve had a 328 as a loaner and the revvier, higher-strung NA 6 is a ton of fun, but for day-to-day practicality I prefer my 335..

  • avatar
    Athos Nobile

    Downsizing works if the customer keeps its foot out. And it´s a marvel. I’ve seen the curves that prove it. At partial loads and low RPMs, the engine will effectively behave like the small powerplant it is.

    Step on it and you will get the FE of the bigger engine being replaced or possibly worse.

    I rather have a good NA engine than one of these squirrels on cages on steroids. But the future is what it is, and chances are at some point I’ll end with one of them. I’ve already learned not to mess with newer cars with turbo engines as they smoke my torquey V6 in a regular basis.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    Turbocharged engines promise high MPG and high HP…but not at the same time! Pick one. There are no free lunches.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Check out the Motor Trend comparison I linked above. Similar test results in acceleration and fuel economy, 1/l3 the displacement. Which means less pollution.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Maybe I’m in the middle of a brain fart, but explain, if a small turbo engine uses the same amount of fuel as a slightly larger N/A, how does it “pollute” more. Even ignoring the fact that most larger engines have bigger cats than smaller, where exactly is the increased “pollution”

        If a Mkz 2.0 turbo is averaging 18, and my H3 5.3 N/A averages 18, where is all the added “pollution” coming from?

        • 0 avatar
          aristurtle

          Two engines that each pull 18 MPG may well have differing amounts of NOx, particulate, and hydrocarbon emissions … but I’m not sure how one of them being turbo’ed directly ties into that, either?

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @aristurtle- it does not. and all engines have to meet exceedingly low emissions targets in the US, so the difference between engines is insignificant.(one of those technical barriers BAFO prattles on about.)

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      LeMansteve
      “Turbocharged engines promise high MPG and high HP…but not at the same time! Pick one. There are no free lunches.”

      That’s a very 80s comment.

      The modern 21st century turbo gas engine for everyday hacks are designed to maximise torque first. That is basically above 1 500rpm.

      If I remember correctly BMW were try to gain 15-20% power gain with an increase of 50% in torque starting at 1 500rpm, hence the diesel characteristics.

      This will require less fuel to move a vehicle along.

  • avatar
    ash78

    I’d like to chime in as a multigenerational VW owner. The family has had 27 VW products over the years, starting with Beetles in the late 50s, all the way through my parents’ new Audi Q5 just purchased last month. The wife and I have normally aspirated V6 Passats, dad has a VR6 R32, and little bro has a 1.8t GTI. I’ve spent more than 12 years doing self-taught DIY on my cars and for friends/family, as well as countless hours on message boards.

    VW going full-turbo is not a good idea. For any given model year, the normally aspirated engines have been far more solid and trouble-free, at the expense of ~10% worse fuel economy. The 1.8t and 2.7tt were the poster children for problems and the former, IMO, was almost singlehandedly responsible for setting back VW’s reputation (and growth plans) in the US over the past 10-15 years. Of all the VW owners I’ve known, the 1.8t people are the only ones who tell me “Never again.”

    I know the 2.0t is a lot better on paper, and in terms of reliability so far, but my parents’ last car (’07 Passat) suffered from numerous problems related to the FSI’s high-pressure fuel injectors — culminating in a fire a couple months ago. I can’t believe they just bought another 2.0t, honestly.

    I know turbo is the wave of the future and they’ve come a long way in the past few years, but I’m a fan of simplicity. Unless you’re a tuner looking to crank up the boost, a turbo engine just doesn’t offer enough benefit in fuel economy to make up for the added complexity (and ultimately, cost). In the aggregate, I see turbos as a temporary solution to fuel economy, but also a massive shift of extra expense to the consumer in order for manufacturers to meet some semi-arbitrary fuel economy and/or emissions standards — depending on where in the world you live.

    EDIT: I give turbos a thumbs-up for diesel engines because they’re basically a necessity there. But that’s a whole different discussion about the merits of diesel vs direct-injection gas and hybrid…

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Turbo is the wave of the 80s, friend.

    • 0 avatar
      jimbob457

      My son owned a 1.8t so I can second your observation about its lack of long term durability. In all fairness, it was originally designed as a rally car. This made it a nightmare to work on, and it turned out to last not so very long. It wasn’t just the turbo.

      More on the topic of this thread, I see some manufacturers putting tiny turbocharged gas engines in big, heavy cars. How can this be right? My prediction is that gasoline prices will go down within a year, and all this turbo talk foolishness will fade away.

  • avatar
    Quentin

    If you buy a turbo engine to save money (especially if you pay more up front for it), you aren’t very good at looking at the whole picture when it comes to vehicle costs. I honestly think that the depreciation on turbo vehicles is higher than an equivalent naturally aspirated one. Maintenance is most certainly higher (shorter oil change intervals, potentially replacing the turbo, tossing a complex turbo system into the mix increases your failure mode opportunity, cooling system is further taxed).

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      An oil change in a Prius is expensive, full sythetic 0w20, as there is no dino equivalent and needs to be done every 10,000 miles. Oil life monitor in my 1.4T and 2.0T pings “change me” at 7,500 non-full synthetic. So you need $49.00 turbo rebuild at 150,000, how does that compare to $3,000 change at the same mileage?

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        Google shows 1qt of 0W-20 being $7/qt. 5qts on a Prius would be $35. Another $15 for a filter. $50 is an expensive oil change? My DYI on my GTI oil changes were $55 or so at every 5000 miles. Ford recommends 5000 mile intervals.

        I also love how you assume that the turbo will only need a slight rebuild at 150k miles (versus a full on replacement) and the Prius battery will need a full replacement (and your quoted price is far too high) despite data showing that the Prius batteries are very robust.

        And finally, I was comparing to a naturally aspirated 4 cylinder… not a hybrid.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          The Escape forum says anything from 7500-10,000 miles, not 5,000 miles.

          I only recommended 150K mile turbo rebuild for $49.00. Some have gone 300,000 miles. So what does a prius battery cost if not $3,000 at 150,000 miles?

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            I searched the Fusion. Someone mentioned that Ford recommended 5000 for the 1.6T in the Fusion.

            What makes you think the battery has to be replaced in 150k miles? Consumer Reports grabbed a random 2001 Prius with over 200k on the original battery and ran it through the exact same tests as their original review. All of the numbers were near identical. There are loads of hybrids out there with 300k miles on the original battery. Either way, a new battery, from the dealer, is ~$2200 after the core credit. I’ve seen salvage batteries on ebay for $750 shipped.

            And, again, I’m not talking about hybrids. Compared to a 4cyl Camry or Accord, there is an extra level of parts and complexity on the 1.6L Fusion. The turbo and hybrid battery cannot fail on the Camry and Accord because the non-hybrids simply don’t have those things to fail.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            There more than just turbo charged cars. My Encore can see 40 mpg per tank on 87 octane(others have seen mid 30′s in mixed driving as they are getting broken in at 5,000 miles). Accelerates faster than your Prius V while holding similar cubic feet with the front seat folded down. Definitely out handles and brakes your V. Uses non-full sythetic every 7500 miles and probably will not need a $49.00 turbo before you need a $2,200 Prius battery. There is just not enough fuel savings with a hybrid vs turbo-4

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Norm-

            I have driven many a turbocharged vehicle, and none were close to the MPG I see on my C-Max Hybrid. I’m not saying that I dislike turbocharged vehicles. I’m saying that for any given driver, a Toyota Prius will most likely return better MPG than a turbocharged subcompact CUV. You should have no problem getting 60-70 MPG out of a Prius.

            I keep hearing about Prius battery replacements, but i don’t know anyone that has had to do it, including someone I know that has 235000 miles on their Prius. One of my employees replaced a battery on his Escape hybrid, and it cost all of $900. He also has over 200000 miles on the vehicle. I’m sure there are plenty of junkyards that have batteries.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Bbal40: I have 40+ mpg turbo charged cars that are not economy cars rolling on 235mm width rubber and 18″ wheels.

            Again there isn’t much of savings of a Prius V vs my Encore at 40 mpg per tank…and its AWD.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Only you get those numbers. Honestly, I will drive myself down to wherever you live so you can show me how you get such great fuel economy out of your vehicles. I’m not trying to be a jerk or be funny. I genuinely want to know how such fuel economy is possible.

            Now is your time to silence all your critics. I’ll even submit a B&B penned TTAC article about it. Help me help you.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I will drive myself down to wherever you live so you can show me how you get such great fuel economy out of your vehicles.”

            I’m sure that you’d be disappointed by the results.

            My own car has a real-time MPG display. I’ve achieved numbers on the display as high as 200 mpg.

            But then it comes to add fuel to the tank, and I’ll be damned if I manage to get about 24 combined, and about 30 or so on the highway (the latter depending upon how much of a hurry that I am in.) Getting 200 mpg for a nanosecond doesn’t make up for the 0 mpg that the car produces at idle, or the low figures that come from slogging through traffic.

            I haven’t figured out how to reinvent the laws of physics, and I’m pretty sure that Norm hasn’t, either.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Maybe I’ll do a youtube video of my two hour commute so you can watch the guages.

            I google bball’s screen name, scary.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I want you to be right Norm. I really do. I’d even watch your YouTube video.

        • 0 avatar
          Jacob

          A 5 qt jug of 0W20 oil is about 23-26 dollars at Walmart.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Try finding anybody who has actually changed a Prius battery.

    • 0 avatar
      TCragg

      I’ve owned multiple turbo VWs over the years, both gas and diesel, including the 1.6 TD, 1.9 TD, 1.9 TDI (rotary pump and PD), 1.8T gas, and two 2.0T gas models. Some of the cars have gone as far as 600,000 km (400,000 miles), and the one thing I have never replaced, or even serviced is a turbo. Change the oil at the specified intervals (currently 15,000 km for the VWs), and they run for the life of the car. I don’t get the big hoo-ha over turbos.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The Ford turbos are 7500 and the VW 10000. You can change early if you want. The oil life monitors help too.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    This just in, Volkswagen looks to add to its stellar reliability reputation with a bold move to add turbocharging to their all of internal combustion engines, which should go great with recently introduced leaking interior option. In a related story the company is projecting 250,000 annual sales of its new Phaeton sedan, due out next year.

  • avatar
    raph

    @ Joe Bakaj if you read this site, Mustang and N/A V8 better be a sacred cow!

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    Lower CO2 from 1.6l Ecoboost than the bigger 2.4 in the CR-V and Kia:

    http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1209_2012_2013_compact_crossover_suv_comparison/

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @NormSV650- CO2 emissions from a gas powered vehicle are inversely related to fuel economy. Two gas vehicles that get the same fuel economy have precisely the same C02 emissions. The example you cite results from the Ecoboost’s higher fuel economy.

      CO2 is necessary for plant life, it is what we exhale, and humans contribute a small share of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, 96% of which comes from natural sources. Vehicles contribute only 1/8 of human CO2 emissions, or about 1/2 of 1%, regardless of what the money grubbing politicians want you to believe. CO2 is not pollution in the sense of HC, CO, and NOX emissions.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Every car company is moving in this direction. It’s the only way that they’re going to be able to comply with the EU’s carbon emissions standards, which are effectively similar to CAFE, but stricter.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      PCH; wahy are the Japanese holding out?

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        They aren’t reliant on China or Europe for survival, so they can build cars that work instead of cars that comply with the wants if ignorant bureaucrats.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Toyota has had no problem with building a reliable turbo in the past.

          And there will be a 2.0-liter turbo appearing in the Lexus IS.

          Americans like cubic inches, so that’s what Toyota has focused on providing to the US market. The turbo itself is not an issue.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Even if a turbo has Toyota reliability, it still isn’t as efficient or inexpensive to maintain as a naturally aspirated engine of similar performance. If the IS is getting a turbo, it is in response to market pressure from low information buyers.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            No, but at 40 mpg in my Encore you”ll never want more handling and braking ability over a Prius V.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Bingo. It’s the EU/carbon footprint set and EPA/CAFE that are driving the proliferation of turbos. I can’t speak to the European bureaucrats, but the EPA is loaded with people who don’t like cars. They’ll get us down to econoboxes with turbo/supercharged one cylinder engines until we give up on cars and get a horse.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    For “TTAC Staff”: where did you get the photo of the lovely turbo setup for the VW Beetle engine? Although my guess is that, without things like a wastegate (not in evidence here), this engine very well could end up in the “blow engines I have known” category if the driver got too enthusiastic.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    These turbo engines certainly are starting to become mainstream. To wit: Ford is getting ready to offer the 2.0L EcoBoost engine as an option on the Taurus Police Interceptor. And given the demands placed upon a police interceptor, I really hope that Ford and other manufacturers are building these turbos with longevity in mind. Whatever reservations you had about the old 4.6L “Modular” V8 that was in the old Crown Vic interceptors, reliability (or a lack thereof) wasn’t one of them….

  • avatar
    juicy sushi

    It is interesting that Ford and VW are commiting to turbos so readily when other companies feel that they won’t be useful down the road. Mazda points out that HCCI engines and turbos won’t mix…

    http://www.caranddriver.com/news/mazda-skyactiv-g-and-skyactiv-d-engines-news

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      That’s not to mention the fact that, aside from special cars like the first-gen Acura RDX and the Nissan GT-R, the Japanese automakers are pretty much ignoring turbocharged engines…

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        And yet there are some who either willfully or ignorantly gloss over the fact that all major Japanese manufacturers have stuck with tried & true normally aspirated motors, not even hinting at “going turbo” at any point in the future, while being able to match or beat competitors’ turbocharged motors in terms of fuel economy, and by a wide margin.

        It’s not some random decision or coincidence that turbocharged mills are extraordinarily rare in Honda, Toyota, Nissan & Mazda vehicles; it’s due to a very conscious decision on the part of all of them after their engineering departments studied the pros and cons inside and out, and decided that the. One outweighed the pros by a significant margin.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Europe is moving toward CO2-driven fees and regulations (read: fuel economy standards.) That motivates automakers to build turbo gas engines, turbodiesels and hybrids.

          Japan taxes engine displacement, with taxes increasing in 500 cc increments. That motivates automakers that sell in Japan to produce engines under 2.0-liters.

          Brazil taxes engine displacement, with steep increases for anything above 1.0 liter.

          China also has tax bands based upon engine displacement.

          The US is actually fairly unusual in its failure to tax engine displacement.

          The Japanese automakers do much of their business in the US and at home. Much of what they do is shaped by those two markets. For Americans, they usually just add cubic inches, since that’s what Americans are used to.

          VW is a marginal player in the US, but is obviously important in the EU, Brazil and China. The decision making is being driven by the need to serve those other markets.

          These choices are driven more by the markets that are being served and the regulations that prevail than by the superiority or lack thereof of the technology. You’re more than a wee bit paranoid about turbos; they’ve improved considerably over the decades.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I just haven’t had any issue with meeting or beating EPA ratings with turbocharged engines. Out of the last 7 cars my wife and I have owned, 6 have been turbocharged. The only cars that didn’t consistantly beat EPA estimates were the VW GTI and Focus ST. I was addicted to boost and the cars cannot be blamed.

          The 3.5 GTDI in our MKT has been beating highway averages during my wife’s everyday commute that does not include highway driving.

          I am of the opinion that turbocharged engines do best when you don’t need the boost to get the car to accelerate. The 1.6/2.0L turbos on compact cars and 3.5L turbo on the Ford crossovers give you basically the same day to day fuel economy as the base engine (as long as you stay out of the boost), but with more power on demand. I don’t like the 1.6L in the Escape or Fusion. The 2.0L is fine, but a 2.3L or 2.5L would be better. Tuned for economy and not performance, I think many people would see better MPG than with the smaller 1.6L turbos.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            The Ford 1.6L turbo and the GM 1.4L turbo are indeed tuned for everyday use, as they should be, since they’re volume engines (and also because cars like the Cruze are quite heavy). As far as a 2.3L turbo goes, I think Ford is saving that for the next Mustang…

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            They are saving it for the Mustang. It will most likely end up in other vehicles. It would be a great fit for the Fusion or Edge. Then again, I would perfer the future downsized V6 ecoboost in either.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          If an NA car beats a turbo model in mpg, but it’s slower, what about that car’s powertrain engineering is surprising or extraordinary to you?

          A Civic SI gets better mpg than a GTI – yeah – it’s also down by about 75 lb/ft of torque at the wheels. Next year that will be more like 100 lb/ft at the wheels. That was due to a conscious decision on the part of the VW engineers – they didn’t want an engine that has to be taken to redline in order to make power.

          You talk about pro and cons but seem able to see only one aspect of that.

          So the Japanese are ignoring turbocharging – so what? They ignored direct injection (hell, they ignored fuel injection, period), rear disc brakes, multispeed transmissions, too. They’re still ignoring styling. That makes them better?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I hate to say it, but yes. There will always be a market for reliable appliance cars and for the most part its what Japan Inc. specializes in. Even if they eventually adopt those technologies it will be well after everyone else has experienced the kinks in them.

          • 0 avatar
            stuntmonkey

            >So the Japanese are ignoring turbocharging – so what? They ignored direct injection (hell, they ignored fuel injection, period), rear disc brakes, multispeed transmissions, too. They’re still ignoring styling. That makes them better?

            Yes.

          • 0 avatar
            84Cressida

            “So the Japanese are ignoring turbocharging – so what? They ignored direct injection (hell, they ignored fuel injection, period), rear disc brakes, multispeed transmissions, too. They’re still ignoring styling. That makes them better?”

            You are thinking of Detroit circa 1987.

          • 0 avatar
            Fordson

            Well, ok then. You guys enjoy your 2013 Corolla with the beam axle, 132 hp engine and 4-speed automatic with the hairshirt upholstery. I’m sure you could retrofit crank-up window regulators into it, too.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    I would imagine Europe has had turbo-4 in service for years now. Considering most of the time the cruisers are idling, the less mass of the smaller engine should prove more efficient.

  • avatar
    pragmatist

    Good news for mechanics!

    A whole system of complex mechanical parts added to every engine (and the engines are themselves smaller hence less robust at a comparable quality level) . Some helpful business.

    Yeah, yeah “new ones are better ” yada yada. A larger displacement NA engine is simply missing a lot of potential failure points at the cost of a little gas. Government regulations poison the marketplace again.

  • avatar
    slance66

    I guess this means that I bought my E90 with the 3.0 at the right time (since it has already been replaced with a turbo 4). Should hold up for many years.

    But I’m shopping for a car for my wife and the Volvo XC60 is on the radar in underpowered 3.2 and turbo 3.0 trims. Hmmmmm. If a turbo saved me $300 in gas a year, a $1000 rebuild @ 100k is no big deal. But where it costs me in gas? For better or worse, the competition is the same: X3 Turbo 4, Q5 turbo 4. The RDX is a N/A V6 though, may need a second look.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      The turbo can be rebuilt down the road for less than $100 at about the same time your tranmission goes out and costs $2,000+ 15 years from now.

      • 0 avatar
        aristurtle

        Look, Norm, you may well enjoy rebuilding turbochargers in your garage. More power to you! The average customer, however, is going to need to pay labor on that turbo rebuild in addition to the $100 parts kit.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          Turbo rebuilds start around $49.00 on ebay. So I’m. Not sure where you guys are getting $1,000? Not all turbos need replacing.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            Rebuild kits, not rebuilds. The labor to remove, rebuild, and re-install the turbo will exceed $1000, especially in the ways they are being mounted on these new engines. Of course, most service facilities will only replace the turbo, and not rebuild it, just like most other parts. You are also missing all the other parts that will fail sooner on the turbo car, along with other parts in the system that have to be added that will also fail, and the added diagnostic time for those systems.

            Although an amazing engine, the new 4.6L twin turbo Mercedes engine will have way higher repair costs than the outgoing naturally aspirated 5.5L. Even if the turbos, and everything else associated with them are 100% reliable, and never fail, the same repairs between the two engines will be way more expensive because you have to remove all the turbo stuff to do anything. It’s in the way. This adds cost at almost every engine repair.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            @Mbella, what other parts and at what costs?

            A turbocharger can removed in less than an hour and there are two journal bearings and some metal rings(seals) and maybe a gasket or two depending on the turbo.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            How can you tell me how long the turbo will be to remove when we haven’t even mentioned a particular car. On a DSM or 80s rwd Ford product maybe. Most modern turbo engines not so much. On many of these you can barely even see the turbo until you take a bunch of things off.

            Plenty of other parts to fail. Your number of perishable seals goes up ridiculously. The intercooler, the bypass valve, the waistgate control, including many vacuum points with the potential for leaks, auxiliary coolant pumps to pump coolant through the turbo when you turn off the engine. A more complicated pcv system,, all causing your repair bills going up. This also doesn’t include removing it all when servicing something not turbo related but in the way none the less all adding to service costs.
            Alos, most of the turbos on these modern cars have ball bearings, and not journal bearings, and you have more seals because of them being water cooled.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Norm, only in your fantastical world could one possibly lead off with a rebuttal of the problems associated with the inherently more complex motors – and cooling systems – and many other accessory systems of forced induction with the ridiculously vacuous statement that “turbo rebuild kits start off at only $49 on eBay.”

            I don’t really know whether you truly believe many of the claims, from your alleged average 40 mpg of your Encore, to the turbo related statements you make, or if you’re just trolling hard.

            If it’s the former, and you really are so misguided, pop on over to the Cruze forums, where you’ll find that the textbook repair procedure for a turbo gone bad under warranty is a “plug & play” removal of old unit and replacement with new unit, at an average cost of around $1,200.

            Do you really think GM would authorize the $1,200 replacement + unit labor time charged if these could be rebuilt for anywhere close to the ridiculously low figures you’re constantly citing?

            Turbos have their economically justifiable place in certain applications such as in truck diesels used for towing or hauling large tractor trailers full of commercial products cross country (due to torque, fuel economy & because of the robustness built into those severe duty motors and cooling systems), or in expensive high performance sports cars, where motor compactness & a need to offset a reduction in displacement with higher output is a competitive necessity, but when utilized in garden variety commuter cars they are a measure to game the EPA fuel economy loop testing, despite the fact that their higher boost (especially coupled with today’s GDI motors) and thermal envelopes will, on average, cause them to suffer statistically significant higher rates of mechanical problems than their normally aspirated counterparts.

            Your minimizing the complexity & maintenance and repair costs of FI GDI engines, while exaggerating their fuel efficiency gains, has now risen to the level of pure silliness.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            FWD turbo-4 like used by Ford and VW are relatively easy to work on. One heat shield, turbine side and compressor side plumbing. Coolant and oil lines and your done.

            I love you guys that dream up stuff but never repaired anything?

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            I’ve repaired more this week than you likely have in your life chief, so you can try to school me all you want. Look at this picture of the engine bay of this Fiesta ST.
            http://i.ebayimg.com/00/z/EFMAAOxy4XNSOcib/$(KGrHqR,!lQFIek87hOeBSOci,m7Sg~~_4.JPG
            The turbo is nicely positioned for your convenience right below the cowl. I’d like to see you replace this guy in an hour with your magic skills.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Automakers do know that many Americans aren’t super keen on vehicle maintenance, right?

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Of course.

      And they’ve used unobtanium alloy parts, robust cooling systems, and spared no expense building commuter cars to a price point so that their turbocharged powerlines can do as well or better than a Honda Accord N/A 4 banger when dealing with Phoenix, Atlanta or Dallas traffic in August.

      • 0 avatar
        White Shadow

        Gotta love guys who continually find a need to suggest that turbo engine failures are somehow more prevalent than N/A engines, without any kind of data to support that assumption. Fact of the matter is that modern turbo engines are very reliable and need no special maintenance other than basic oil changes, which are needed in any car anyway.

        I’ve owned 8 different turbo cars since my first one in 1990. Not one of them ever had any turbo-related failure. My latest is an Audi 2.0T and I expect that it too will easily make it well over the 100K mark without issue. Actually, I’d be surprised if it didn’t see 200K miles without a turbo problem. Unfortunately, I probably won’t have it that long.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I have mixed feelings to turbo’s on gassers. They have been used on diesel engines with great success. Reliability has not been a big issue either.
    I went with a F150 with 5.4 in the fall of 2010 more because I distrust any new engine lineup. (12k off of msrp helped too). Ford has had some issues with condensation in the intercooler with the EB3.5 in pickups. Humid and wet environments have been the reported problem zones. Ford has supposedly fixed those issues on subsequent trucks. True Delta has shown a drop in reliability since 2011 but Ford’s My Touch is a huge culprit as well.
    I know a few guys with the EB3.5 in F150′s. They have identical trucks. They both love the power and both state that loaded, it is as hard on fuel as any gasser they’ve owned. One says empty mpg is no better than a V8, the other says it is vastly superior to any V8 he has owned. It all boils down to how you drive them if mpg is a concern.
    I’ve noticed that the company my brother works for has some EB3.5 powered Fords. It will be interesting to see how they hold up in the hands of a fleet driver in the forest resource industry.
    I’d rather see turbo diesels in large vehicles like pickups. Ram is going to use the VM Motori 3.0 and Nissan is going with a 5.0 V8 Cummins. Both will be up to the task. The 5.0 seems to be serious overkill in a 1/2 ton.
    Ford will loose customers if they go away from V8′s in pickups. There are some customers that will worship V8′s to their grave. REminds me of that “gun slogan” You can have my V8 if you pry it out of my cold lifeless hands. LOL

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      CleanMPG got 32 mpg, not the most ethical methods, out of F-150 3.5 EB. The audio interview has interesting insight.

      http://m.green.autoblog.com/2011/05/12/ride-along-as-cleanmpg-teaches-us-how-to-hypermile-a-ford-f-150/

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @NormSV650 – I read that story too. Out of the 2 guys I mentioned, one gets aroound 25 empty and the other guy gets 18-20 empty with the EB3.5. Driving habits are a key determinant to mpg. The funny thing is, people would rather spend a few grand to improve mpg instead of change driving habits. I’ve been on several 500 mile trips with my 5.4 powered 4×4 supercrew and average 20 mpg. 20.4 – 20.5 mpg has been my best. That truck is EPA rated at 18 mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Yes, if a diesel is going into a half-ton, it probably doesn’t need to be a 5.0L—unless it’s a heavy-duty truck. Still, that’s not as much of an overkill as when VW puta V10 turbodiesel in the Touareg (as well as the W12 from the Phaeton and Continental; not sold in the States). The 3,0L in the RAM 1500 (I presume the same diesel that is available in the Grand Cherokee) is worth investigation, as long as it doesn’t carry a giant price-premium over the 3.6L Pentastar V6 and 5.7L HEMI V8…

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @Kyree S. Williams – the funny thing is that there are V8 stalwarts that say diesels in 1/2 ton pickups are a waste of money and V8′s will never go away. Looks like Ford is going down the path of the I-4 Turbo replacing the V6 and the TTDI V6 replacing the V8. Ford is offereing the EB 3.5 and an I-5 diesel in their upcoming USA Transit vans. Even that debate has been funny, there are guys clinging to the E-Series as the best thing ever and are dissing a van that is the global standard.
    We still see truck guys arguing that pushrod V8′s are superior to OHC V8′s. Coincidentally, those battlelines follow the badges on the hood.
    Pickups are the last bastion of V8′s, pushrods, and anything pre-20th century. I’m amazed that many of those guys are modern enough to own a computer. LOL.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Progress!

      Well, not really…

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Seriously people, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

      What does a ford OHC V8 have over a pushrod chevy V8?

      Pushrod is a s#%t ton cheaper
      Weighs much less
      Has more power an better upgradability
      Gets better fuel mileage then similar OHC
      Smaller dimensions
      More reliable
      Less parts to break

      Arguing that an OHC is the better engine is at best laughable, if not mindnumbingly insane.
      I’m probably around your age or even younger, you want to act as if your making a salient point because your views are somehow superior, yet you offer no answer to any benefit of using OHC engines?

      By your logic we should just put a wankle in everything.

      No one needs to make a point that e series vans are better, their sales numbers prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
      You’ve also never heard of a sports car I see, quite a large recipient of small v8s with less than 400 C.u.
      You don’t care much for facts I see.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        No, the reason ford is going down the path of V6 is because their OHC V8s are uncompetitive with GM and Dodge.
        They cannot match the fuel economy because of the limits imposed on them by the OHC design.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Hummer – your indignation related to my post shows that I was for the most part correct.

        I wasn’t slagging pushrod V8′s, V8′s in general,or even the E-Series. I was pointing out that as things change, people will stubbornly stick to what they are familiar with.
        Truck guys are incredibly conservative.

        Every time I’ve read a news story about the new Transit Van, or Ram’s ProMaster, guys go on and on as to how vastly superior the E-Series or even GM’s vans are to these Euro-vans and they haven’t even shown up in North America for sale.

        The pushrod V8 versus OHC debate rages too.
        Your screen name and your defending of the pushrod V8 is just a coincidence?
        North American V8′s tend not to rev high enough to give an overhead cam design a real advantage.
        Are you saying that GMC’s cam in cam variable valve timing design and all of those solenoids to run cylinder deactivation are less complex than DOHC?
        There are advantages and disadvantages to SOHC, DOHC, and cam in block engines.

        How many NEW engines run cam in block pushrod engines?

        I wasn’t talking about SBC V8′s that has become THE generic hot rod engine for the last few decades. The story is about the future and I’m talking about the now and how it relates to change.

        We see the same debate occur with diesels in HD’s and the arrival of diesels in 1/2 tons.

        The same thing has been going on throughout this tread with Turbo 4 bangers versus normally aspirated V6′s.

        Change, especially big change never goes over well in a traditional conservative crowd. With that being said, Ford sells more V6′s in 1/2 tons than they do V8′s. That surprises me.

        Did I mention Ford other than the E-Series? or maybe because I said I own a Ford. Does that automatically make me a blind loyal bleed blue type?
        The Tundra 5.7 I-Force is DOHC and is one excellent motor.

        Truth be told, if I had to replace my truck in 2014, I’d most likely buy a Sierra with the Ecotec 5.3. Ram still isn’t as reliable as I’d like, a 2014 Ford means spending 45K to get a 4 year new VIN number as the only real improvement over what I own. Tundra’s are too expensive for the options you get. Nissan is a joke unless they build something worthy around that Cummins 5.0.
        I wasn’t trying to ruffle anyone’s feathers but like I said at the beginning of my rebuttal, thanks for supporting my argument.

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          @Lou_BC- “Are you saying that GMC’s cam in cam variable valve timing design and all of those solenoids to run cylinder deactivation are less complex than DOHC”

          YES!

          Far, far less complex, less expensive to produce. Those solenoids and other associated parts are quite inexpensive. Camshafts (DOHC has FOUR times as many!), valve train and cam drive components add tremendous machining expense. GM estimated the cost advantage of the small block over Fords SOHC engine to be $500-$600 in 2008. DOHC is more costly yet.

          Beauty is, as beauty does. Corvette’s new LT1 V8 offers more power and torque in a much smaller, lighter package than a 4 Liter BMW turbo DOHC V8. It undoubtedly costs much less to produce the small block, even with the extra cost of DI. I expect the truck small block is cheaper to build than even GM’s NA 3.6L V6.

          If it is superior in every attribute, doesn’t that make the pushrod engine better? Don’t misunderstand. DOHC is wonderful for high end power and I love high RPM. I would not be surprised to see a DOHC variant of the LT1 small block. The need is marketing image, more than function, though.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Of course people will stick with what they know, they’ve worked reliably for half a century, while you look at the added costs associated with turbos and you realize there’s no sensible reasons for turbos in high production vehicles.

          Smaller engines are not in the people’s best interest, and turbos are the last thing the average person needs to worry about.

          It doesn’t matter what the rest of the world buys, America isn’t the rest of the world, what we buy has no affect on the rest of the world, and contrary to popular belief your normal American citizen has no desire to emulate European ways.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Look, automakers can power their vehicles by whatever method they want.

      But, some people are not interested in being the tip of the sword. Or even in being the blade of the sword. I personally prefer to be the hilt.

      I don’t think people are well served by “You got to avoid years xxxx to xxxx but by year xxxx they fixed the problems” or “You need to follow THIS super-special internet maintenance schedule if you want your car not to melt down.”

      Would you have told someone to buy a ’93 Seville with the new Northstar just because DOHC is “the future”?

      How about an original Volvo S80 T6? Everyone knows Volvo makes good turbo car right?

      6.0L Powerstroke? No way Navistar screwed that up.

      Oldsmobile diesel? Sure my Rocket 350 is awesome!

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    So, like people years > dog years, will we be converting horsepower > dogpower to represent how much more they’re stressing the little engines?

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Well since the 1980′s Saabs and Volvos have been in the turbo charged, small displacement game.

      http://www.mr2.com/forums/general-mr2-discussion/Toyota-MR2-77840-turbo-mkiis-over-200k-miles-what-they-worth.html

  • avatar
    RS

    There will be more turbos because there will be more turbo diesels. MPG regulations are pushing the manufacturers that direction.

    Consumers will head that way too – because turbo gas motors are failing to consistently deliver better MPG’s.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    There are 2 people in my office with turbo issues right now:

    My guy’s Verano got a new turbocharger under warranty at 50k miles.
    Another fellow’s Golf TDI has an issue with the variable vanes in his car.

    In other news, Tesla has announced that they’re going all electric. Something about high torque, simplicity, lower emissions, and being quieter.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Turbos were meant to be ‘power adders’ for engines that could stand alone, N/A. And turbos were meant to be a kick in the pants while giving a 4 banger the power of a V6 or more. And aimed for 2X the power at full boost. But with dramatic weight savings and a very loud swoosh that had you looking around for a Lear Jet, all while getting pulled deep into the seat. That was then.

    The notion of simply trading cylinders for turbos is an exercise similar to chasing one’s own tail. There’s no point in it outside of Europe and other places with similar taxes based on displacement with no regard for boost. They’re not doing anyone any favours.

    But could a 1.0 liter engine in a mid-size car stand alone with a loss of boost? The SVO got around just fine with complete loss of boost. Just not near as fun.

    Turbocharging a diesel, I can understand. Otherwise, there’s no replacement for displacement. At least not with modern gas engines. Just put a normal if not, simple I4 or V6 in it that’ll likely never need any kind of repairs for the life of the car. Turbos are for sports cars and hot hatches. If it makes sense to turbocharge, it makes sense to supercharge. There’s no FREE lunch either way.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @DlM
      I know some concepts are hard for you to comprehend.

      But the reality is at cruise on a highway not many horsepower is required to move a vehicle along.

      Believe it or not even a F-150 will successfully run on a 2 litre 4 cylinder Eco Boost.

      They develop about 170kw and 360nm of torque, adequate to move a 1/2 ton pickup.

      Even with the disgusting aerodynamics of a pickup a 2 litre normally aspirated engine will move one at 100kph.

      V8s are nice, but not a necessity for most things.

      I’m not saying to have 2 litre engines in 1/2 ton pickups, but they will work.

      The best option to maximise a US pickup is to use a 2.2 turbo diesel. They will not be a rocket ship, but it will move a load around. Even at a high constant speeds and really economically.

      Within a few years you will see diesel gradually replace V8s in your pickups as they are the most capable engines to give the required FE and towing/load carrying abilities needed.

      Base model pickups will come with a small turbo V6 of around 3 litres or slightly less.

      I would think within several years or so even a Ram will use a 2.7 litre turbo Pentastar.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Sorry BAF0, you’re wrong on all counts.

        The gas V8 will never go away. Nothing has come close to beating them, and will always be in demand in full-size SUVs and trucks. Even in commercial trucks, up to ‘class 6′ (F-650), gas V8s will survive indefinitely. There’s currently dramatically increased uptake in gas V8s and V10s, up to class 6.

        Yes a tiny turbocharged 4 cylinder engine (gas or diesel) will fit any gas V8 or 6 cylinder diesel application. Yes they’ll do fine getting a vehicle moving and get excellent MPG cruising along on a flat road. Long term, something has to give. And will. There’s no FREE lunch in nature. Or physics. Eventually you have to pay. We’ve already seen the EB 3.5 get worse MPG than the 5.0l V8, especially when put to work. So what’s the point of it?

        You could easily tune an HD pickup’s diesel for simi-truck, 18 wheelers applications, and it would do just fine for a while. But let’s not outsmart ourselves. It’s no different in light duty applications.

        You can crank up the boost in a 1.0 liter (gas or diesel) engine to insane power, but what’s the point. In the end, you’ve proved nothing. You can fool people into buying it, but who’s gonna pay when it’s time to replace the engine? Where will BAF0 be and will you have a credit card handy?

        I’m not trying to sell ‘normal’ gas engines. Just some sanity.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          This, a basic V8 will always be an infinitely cheaper and better choice in the long run.

          People in Australia may not work trucks very hard, but here on the west coast we push them to their limits and beyond, at the end of the day nothing can compete.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          This, a basic V8 will always be an infinitely cheaper and better choice in the long run.

          People in Australia may not work trucks very hard, but here in the western hemisphere we push them to their limits and beyond, at the end of the day nothing can compete.

        • 0 avatar
          White Shadow

          DenverMike, you get my vote as the most clueless fool posting on these pages. The sad thing about that is the fact that you try your best to come off as some sort of authority on the subject, but anyone reading your comments can easily see that you’re far from an authority on anything.

          What’s your hangup with any engine other than a V8? Time and time again you try to convince people that the V8 engine leads this magical life where it is just loading along mile after mile and therefore will last forever, while anything with fewer cylinders (such as a V6 or 4-cylinder engine) will blow head gaskets left and right because they are just too underpowered to propel a vehicle on the roads. Seriously, kiddo? Get a grip already. There’s nothing special about the V8 engine that makes it any longer lasting than an average 4- or 6-cylinder engine. Nothing.

          And as for your “no free lunch” comments….well, wrong again. A turbocharged application does in fact provide better fuel economy and higher power output that is similar to a larger displacement engine, when compared to a naturally aspirated engine of the same size. So yeah, better fuel economy and more power….that’s the free lunch right there. Oh, but you’ll argue that the turbo engine won’t last because it’s too stressed out. LOL. Wait, didn’t you try time and time again to make that argument against ANY engine that’s not a V8? Are you starting to see the hypocrisy in your argument yet? If not, let me know and I’ll spell it out for you in simple terms.

          And I hate to burst your bubble, but the fact of the matter is that the V8 engine is dying a slow death. Will it ever go away completely? Probably not in our lifetime, but that doesn’t matter. The problem is that it will be harder and harder to find cars with a V8 engine because technology has given us V8 levels of power without 8 cylinders. And we have to ask ourselves why that has happened. Well, that one is easy–fuel economy standards. Even cylinder deactivation hasn’t been able to save the V8 engine. More and more manufacturers are abandoning the V8 engine simply because it’s simply unnecessary. I’ll miss the V8 engine as much as anyone when they’re gone. Hey, enjoy the end of the era for as long as you can. In 10 years, you’ll have an extremely hard time finding a V8 in a new car. That’s a fact. I can’t wait to see the crying that goes on when the Mustang no longer comes with a V8. Then again, there probably won’t be much crying at all because it will be replaced by a V6 Turbo engine that makes even more HP & torque, just like the new BMW M3/M4.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      @DenverMike, only tail chasing wil be Ford’s 5.0l playing catchup with the Ecoboost 3.5l, towing or not.Even Ford’s 6.2l hasn’t the same area under the torque curve as the EB3.5. Though the 6.2l has more peak power it has a hard time besting the EB 3.5 for the whole operating range. Especially the all important lower half of the rpm range

      Check out the Ford sourced dyno graph on pickup’s website.

      http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html

      So there is a replacement for displacement and i’d happily take broad torque curve that is extended high in the rpms vs a V8 with higher peaks.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Actually a 8.1l chevy has a much better torque curve then an EB 3.5, an will get similar mileage while towing anything size able.

        And the lame argument you make for turbos replacing displacement, fails to acknowledge those same turbos can be fitted to a larger engine.

        Now tell me an apples to apple comparison TT 3.5 or TT 5.0, which produces more power? Which has a better torque curve?

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          @Hummer, is that true? Want to compare turbo diesel to gas equivalent? Turbos. Rule!

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Actually for the first couple years the 8.1l had Better HP better torque and could tow 2k more.
            Finally GM stopped updating the 8.1 and the dmax surpassed it.

            Again your putting apples to oranges.
            Diesels are much different than gas

            Turbo 8.1l?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        You can keyboard compare, small boosted engines vs big V8s all day, but in reality, the V8 trucks will still be chugging along while the turbo 6′s are dead and gone.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike…those are dyno graphs of engine output? Is that all you got?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Not all problems can be solved on a graph or chart. There’s no question a boosted small engine can accomplish the same tasks as a regular, but modern V8. That’s not the problem. Long term engine life and reliability is what’s at stake.

            Fuel economy is secondary, but the graphs don’t chart FE when under a constant load. These small boosted engines cost you more upfront and every step along the way.

            Trust the old guys when they say there’s no replacement for displacement.

            And I am a big fan of turbos too. For the right engine and the right sports car/specialty, I’m all for them. But undersized engines with a turbo aren’t for everyday cars and trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            More torture than most owners will see going to church. I actually think they did this test just for the naysayers.

            http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like.html

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            That was an ad campaign and very good one at that. It’s still a V6 under pressure and excess heat. And even normally aspirated V6s are good for blown head gaskets now and then, often without suffering trauma, like overheating. V8s can take much more use and abuse before a serious event, like a holy piston or block window.

            Unless you run a side by side test, turbo V6 vs normal V8, the study is unscientific. And it needs to be conducted by an independent firm with randomly selected vehicles from dealer stock. Even then it says nothing of long term reliability on aging engines (and seals) after 10′s of 1000′s of heat cycles

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The whole debate as to whether or not gasoline burning V8′s are better than smaller turbo engines is interesting, and there are those that just assume that V8′s will be around forever.

    But……. no seems to be asking the obvious question, will vehicle makers continue to see a business case for gasoline burning V8′s and keep making them?

    Ford does seem to be heading towards smaller and smaller engines. Do they care if we the consumer think that a large gas V8 is “the be all end all”?
    Don’t kid yourselve’s, if they can make more money with TTDI V6′s, they’ll dump V8′s faster than a political party dumps a presidential candidate who lost.
    Ford already sells more V6 engines in pickups than V8′s.

    Cost savings for Ford come not just from the cost of building the engine but in packaging. A smaller lighter engine requires a smaller engine compartment which saves money. The rest of the chassis can be lightened because of less load upon the chassis from that lighter engine. It all adds up across the board.

    The “we don’t want, need, or care about what goes on in Europe” types are also missing the boat when it comes to global markets. “One Ford” is a global plan to pare down badges, maximize platforms and engine configurations. It is much cheaper to use the same platform and drivetrains in all of their markets as opposed to building “special stuff” just for “special” places.

    What is going on in the rest of the world will eventually come to the USA and Canada.
    Case in point – Transit Van. The only engines choices are 3.7 litre NA gasser V6, 3.5 litre TTDI gasser V6, and the Duratorque rebadgesd as Powerstroke I-5 diesel. No big V8′s. If one looks at the 5.0 Mustang, most rumours say that the GT500 will not use the larger 5.4 due to clearance problems.
    There are enough signs out their indicating that V8 gasers will be replaced by TTDI V6′s and diesels.

    Just like DrOlds pointed out with the SBC, if a car company shows that a certain configuration is cheaper to build, that is what they will build.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @Lou_BC – The rest of the world may kill off V8s in everything except high end performance and or luxury, but if OEMs that offer V8s for the US market, can’t figure out how to keep everyone happy, they need to remember who pays the bills. I’m sure Ford V8s will clear the next gen Mustang’s engine bay if TTV6s can. I wouldn’t start the celebration just yet.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        You need to re-read my post: “If one looks at the 5.0 Mustang, most rumours say that the GT500 will not use the larger 5.4 due to clearance problems.”
        Translation – the downsizing process is already beginning.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @DlM
    Here is a link. This link contains information of the Australia 2 litre Ford Falcon Eco Boost.

    Seeing your vehicle/vehicle industry seems to be limited to some distorted local US issues I’ll explain to you what a Ford Falcon is. The Falcon is a large rear wheel drive family car. Something that is a rarity in the US and will become rare here. It is an Australian manufactured vehicle.

    This 2 litre Eco Boost is an alternative engine to the 4 litre in line Australian Ford 6.

    Have a read, it you might become enlightened and more knowledgeable with turbo vehicles. I also posted a Honeywell link. This will increase your limited mechanical knowledge base. I know you aren’t mechanically minded so if you have any issues comprehending some of the Honeywell material I’ll assist. Or is you have any trouble comprehending any vehicle related questions/issues, feel free to ask me for help.

    http://www.caradvice.com.au/207497/2013-ford-falcon-ecoboost-review/

    http://turbo.honeywell.com/assets/pdfs/120202-EN-Vienna-Motor-Symposium-Presentation.pdf

    http://www.caradvice.com.au/207497/2013-ford-falcon-ecoboost-review/

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @Big Al from Oz – I wonder if Denver or Mikey will answer? Just mention chicken tax, tariffs, and technical barriers to trade and he will surface.
    I find that fact oddly amusing.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    GM 2.0T putting down the power for years now:

    http://m.cobaltss.net/forums/showthread.php?t=272372


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India