By on October 8, 2014


Once the biggest thing in the auto industry in the 1980s, turbocharging is back and screaming for vengeance, with the United States market expected to see double the boost pressure over the next five years.

According to Autoblog, the U.S. is the second-fastest-growing market, with 38 percent of all new vehicles possessing a turbo by 2019 per a forecast by manufacturer Honeywell. The growth is fueled by both the CAFE target of 54.5 mpg by 2025, and consumer demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Mated to ICE engines, turbos provide consumers with gains 20 percent to 40 percent in fuel economy even as the engines themselves shrink in size and cylinder count. On the other hand, adding a turbo boosts the cost of a given vehicle by $1,000 to $2,000. That said, consumers might not mind too much when hybrid power doubles those costs, according to Honeywell senior marketing director Peter Hill.

As for the engines themselves, Hill believes diesel power will follow turbos on the path to growth, going from 3 percent to 7 percent over the same period so long as the infrastructure is there, and differences in diesel fuel taxes are overcome. He adds that diesel power may wane a little in Europe, but expects to make it up with gasoline engines, while China will see the biggest growth, moving from 23 percent now to 41 percent in 2019.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

52 Comments on “Honeywell: US Turbo Market To Double By 2019...”

  • avatar

    >>Mated to ICE engines, turbos provide consumers with gains 20 percent to 40 percent in fuel economy even as the engines themselves shrink in size and cylinder count.<<

    Other than EPA tests and the like, there's little evidence that occurs in real life. For instance, CR and others found the 2.0 Ecoboost in the Fusion was both slower and more thirsty than competitors' sixes. Same for the Fusion Ecoboost 1.6/1.5 against competitors' larger non-turbo fours.

    • 0 avatar

      Exactly. Long Toyota 2.5s.

    • 0 avatar

      Do you have a link? Everything I can find says the ecoboost is 37mpg vs. 31 for the V-6 Camry.

      • 0 avatar

        Its my understanding that while the new turbo cars are doing ok in the EPA cycles, that doesn’t translate well into real world MPG.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          Seems that this “understanding” is entirely confined to those who don’t own turbocharged cars.
          Having owned a Saab for over 10 years, it’s my understanding that turbocharged cars have much better real-world gas mileage than anything that even comes close to their performance.

          I’ve done road trips with friends where they used up to a third more gas to do the same distance at the same speed, while carrying less stuff, in a similar-sized car.

          • 0 avatar

            You’re comparing a different animal. Your Saab had a four cylinder above 2 liters that has enough power off boost to drive normally. You can drive it similarly to a normal 2+ liter 4 cylinder. When you want to be more spirited, you give it some gas and the turbo spools up. At this point your fuel economy vaporizes, but it’s only a small part of your time spent driving. Now these small 1-1.4l turbos are being spooled up every time the car accelerates, and therefore delivering way worse fuel economy.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle


            Technically, my Saab is just under 2 liters. The boost gauge shows that the turbo is working almost all the time. The slight boost provided at partial throttle and normal loads compensates for intake pumping losses. Win-win.

            The car obviously uses more gas at full throttle, but then it’s providing just as much push as a 3+ liter non-turbo car. Comparing it to a non-turbo car of the same displacement is pointless: that’s 60-100 mph in seconds vs. (seemingly) minutes.

          • 0 avatar

            heavy handle, As the owner of a twin turbo Audi I do not see those gains. 16mpg from 2.7 liters :D

        • 0 avatar

          Then a link should be forthcoming. Or are you just repeating what you heard in some comment section somewhere?

          • 0 avatar

            Here are two C/D tests where the turbo vehicles got the worst fuel economy on their road trip test. I don’t know who has tested the Fusion 2.0 vs the Camry V6 though.



          • 0 avatar

            “For instance, CR and others found the 2.0 Ecoboost in the Fusion was both slower and more thirsty than competitors’ sixes.”

            I’m looking for support of that claim.

          • 0 avatar

            >> Then a link should be forthcoming.

            I found one. Consumer Reports on Youtube discussing the Ford EcoBoost 1.6 in the Fusion and Escape.

            “Small Turbo Engines Don’t Deliver”

            Don’t shoot the messenger.

          • 0 avatar

            The Fusion weighs more than the Altima and Accord.

            The Ford’s EPA fuel economy rating is also lower than the Altima and Accord. It’s misleading for CR to report that the Ford delivered lower fuel economy on its tests when Ford’s figures already told us that.

            What might be relevant is that CR’s results for the Altima and Accord matched the EPA, while the Ford fell short. But since YMMV, it’s hard to know whether this is just a matter of a testing difference or if it indicates that the Ford suffers from a shortcoming.

      • 0 avatar

        From CR’s 2014 Fusion road test/review: “Ford’s pair of EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder engines fall short in both acceleration and fuel economy, compared with competitive models. For example, the gas mileage of our SE, equipped with an EcoBoost 1.5-liter four cylinder, is only 24 mpg overall, which is below the 26 mpg average in this class and far below the 30 and 31 mpg we got from our Honda Accord and Nissan Altima, respectively, even with their larger 2.4- and 2.5-liter engines. Moreover, 0-to-60-mph acceleration is about a second slower than many peer models. Similarly, at 22 mpg overall, our Titanium, with its 2.0-liter four cylinder, gets 4 mpg less than the larger 3.5-liter V6s in the Accord and Toyota Camry. And it’s a second slower to 60 mph.”

        • 0 avatar

          Using the Fusion vs. Accord or Camry isn’t apples to apples because the Fusion’s chassis is 200+ pounds heavier.

          And one example does not prove that all turbos are less efficient than NA.

          • 0 avatar

            You make too many excuses, bro.

          • 0 avatar

            >>Using the Fusion vs. Accord or Camry isn’t apples to apples because the Fusion’s chassis is 200+ pounds heavier.<<

            ???? Maybe Ford should pay attention to that since the Fusion is not the largest or most commodious in its class.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          I’m coming from a Saab background here, so I may be totally off-base, but those Fusion numbers are suspiciously bad. Did they stick a pack of tube socks in the intake? Did they use bad gas, forcing the CPU into safe mode? Did they deflate the tires? Did they drive like idiots? Are non-turbo Fusions just as bad?

          Have CR investigated this further? You would expect them to have a closer look when they come-up with outlier results.

        • 0 avatar

          How does that translate to the typical buyer?

          I’ve mentioned before helping a female friend buy a car and on her very timid test drive I jokingly asked her if she ever pushed the gas pedal all the way down. She replied, “No! I would never.”

          So, I wonder if the average midsize sedan buyer is going to get closer to the 37mpg EPA in the Fusion vs. the 31EPA of the Camry.

    • 0 avatar

      Just my own anecdotal evidence, so take it with a grain of salt;
      In general, turbo 4s appear to use more fuel at WOT or under spirited driving vs V6s (mainly due to higher rpms), but at steady state and highway cruising, they consume less.

      That may also be the reason why there’s more variance/not meeting EPA figures more with the turbo’d cars.

      As always, YMMV.

      • 0 avatar

        Ford (and others) has the same problem in Europe too:

        “The move to small turbocharged petrol engines such as Ford’s Ecoboost units or the TSI range from Volkswagen is also resulting in fuel figures which are not replicated in real life, since many owners are tempted to make use of the extra performance provided by the turbocharger.”

        Too bad the “extra performance” is actually worse than the competitions’ regular performance. I might add that the Accord’s V6 operates as a 3 cylinder when 6 cylinders are not needed.

        The gist of the UK article is that manufacturers play games with the testing parameters to achieve mpg that does not happen in real life.

        • 0 avatar

          A lot of that is the required air fuel ratio under high load conditions, especially with port injected turbo engines. Things improve slightly with direct injection, mostly due to fuel dispersion, multiple fueling events per cycle and the cooling effect of DI, but it’s not the magic bullet.

          My old Civic got better mileage under light load and cruise even with an aftermarket turbo kit and proper tuning versus NA, so I’d suspect manufacturers built in precautions could have something to do with it as well. [My turbo was also larger so it wasn’t constantly trying to spool up at every prod of the accelerator. Granted my peak torque still occurred at a higher rpm by design as well — the fun didn’t stop until 8200rpm]. My current NA build goes 9000rpm but really the turbo was more fun.

          • 0 avatar


            ” Cars with the smallest engines are not necessarily the most efficient, as road tests contradict manufacturers’ claims ”

            ” The discrepancy between manufacturers’ claims and the road data was especially stark for vehicles with smaller engines, which generally have to work harder to accelerate. ”

            Cars w/ 0-1 litre engines got worse real mpg than cars 1-2 litres did.

    • 0 avatar

      Well, I guess if you are going drive it like you stole it….but seriously where is Dead Weight when you need

  • avatar

    Stop the planet I want to get off.

  • avatar

    My 2010 MKS 3.5 twin turbo is averaging 24.6. This is with a 60 rural/city drive here in the southern MO area. In and around our Stuart. Fl home we average 24…ish.
    This seems a lot better than the EPA. I am not a heavy foot. In fact, I drive rather smoothly.
    I have the new 2.0 Escape FWD…it started out kind of low…but this week is setting at 27 MPG here in MO. It usually was around 25.5.
    This car is confusing since it should be doing far better than the big, heavy MKS. And for some reason it drops several points after every drive my wife takes!

    They are not the MPG saviors with in town driving…since I love the torque and seems to bring it on myself.
    But these are good numbers for the MKS. right?

    So perhaps the MPG is in the hands of the driver…not the turbo. If you stay off the big foot and only use the big power when you need it, it is all good.

  • avatar

    1) Victim of Changes.

    2) Deal With the Devil.

  • avatar

    Someone mentioned the C&D comparison between the turbo Escape and the NA Kia. I noticed the Kia had 173 bhp at 6700 rpm and 136ft/lb at 4500 vs. 170bph at 5400 and 179 lb/ft at 1500 on the Ford. In real world driving, the Ford is going to feel far more powerful and responsive than the Kia.

    • 0 avatar

      6700 RPM?! That’s ins–

      Well, maybe it’s insane. I wouldn’t know–most of my experience is with old-school tractor engines that hit peak HP at 2000, peak torque at 1500, and redline at 2500.

  • avatar

    Turbo Lover, and indeed the rest of Turbo was far from Judas Priest’s finest hour. Very evocative of the times, however, when everything from hair driers to vacuum cleaners to cars were called “turbo” something or other. There was even a really bad Saturday-morning cartoon called “Turbo Teen”, about a kid that turned into a red sports car. Gotta love the ’80s.

  • avatar

    ICE engine, close cousin to the ATM machine. And the PIN number.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    Mechanics all over rejoice, your work load in the future is guaranteed to increase quite a bit

    • 0 avatar

      You should see what’s happening with the Ecoboost Turbos. People using chemicals to clean the carbon from their vales are finding their turbo’s taken out as well. Ford’s fix for carbon crusted valves, new head… FAAHHHHH

      • 0 avatar

        If true – and I think Ford has earned a guilty until proven innocent designation given their dreadful reliability the last 4 years (from PowerShift to MT-86 transmissions, to Ecoboost D and lower grades across the board according to Consumer Reports, to cooling system and electrical, not electronic, system woes – I would be the “bad” guy for even mentioning this.

        Just stick with non-Ecoboost motors and manual transmission (when offered) or the joint GM/Ford automatic trans Fords in order to increase one’s odds of getting a reliable one.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    I eagerly await the influx of turbo cars for my own hoonage.

    I cringe at the thought of buying my wife a turbo-equipped appliance so she can go to and from the office and mall. Give her something understressed and simple, please.

    • 0 avatar

      My wife has been driving turbos for the past oh… 18 years with no problems! An ’96 Eclipse GS-T, ’00 VW Passat 1.8T and ’08 Volvo C30 T5. The Eclipse did have a habit of burning oil slightly which required a top up (1 qt) of juice between oil changes.

      My experience with turbos in the real world is they do get better mileage. The kick in the pants you get due to the increase torque makes them a blast to drive. For example our Eclipse got 4 cylinder mileage (30+ MPG) while still being able to do 0-60 under 6.5 seconds. I’ve always said turbos have that “Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde” duo personality: they can be very frugal or pretty quick depending on how much time you spend on boost.

      I LOVE turbos and glad they are making a comeback. Another turbo bonus? Extra power is just an ECU flash away. Just look at what APR does to a VW’s like my brother’s Golf R.

  • avatar

    When did the use of turbos become the equivalent of SEX is for procreation ONLY!!! (???)

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    This a pertinent article regarding the future of the motor vehicle.

    Turbo charging between gasoline and diesel engines are almost chalk and cheese.

    The advantages of either a turbo gas and turbo diesel is quite varied.

    The primary advantage of a turbo gasoline engine is the weight and cost of manufacture of the engine. There are other advantages with emissions like NOx.

    Diesel seems to be a better engine to turbo due to the characteristics of a diesel engine, ie, masses of torque at low rpms. Diesel engines are renown for their longevity.

    For a gasoline to achieve the same levels of torque at low rpms it will consume a significant amount more fuel, which equals CO2.

    I did read an interesting document by a British university regarding the direction Ford was heading in regarding naturally aspirated vs turbo gasoline vs turbo diesel.

    The recommendation was for Ford to go the path of gasoline due to the initial cost of vehicle purchase for the consumer. Consumers are cost conscious at this level of vehicle ownership.

    The document did state that diesel would of been the best all round option as the future of Ford engines.

    This was in 2004. Since then you can see that not only Ford, but many manufacturers are indeed going down the path of gasoline.

    But for how long? Will turbo diesels in the US improve?

    The EU has altered it’s diesel emissions to be closer aligned with the US.

    I do see the demise of V8s and even turbo V6’s down the track. If a F-150 can use a 2.7 litre turbo engine to move a truck, why can’t it a few years down the track even use a turbo 2.3 or even a 2 litre turbo diesel.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      “Clean” diesels have yet to establish themselves as resounding successes, in terms of either reliability or longevity. Just ask any owner of the previous two generations of the Ford Powerstroke diesel. Depending upon how often it has to cycle to burn off the accumulated crud, the diesel particulate filter is something of a fuel sucker.

      Interestingly, the new 2.7 liter “Ecoboost” gasoline engine from Ford has water-cooled exhaust manifolds to lower exhaust temperatures ahead of the turbos. Perhaps this will avoid running the engine rich (to lower combustion and exhaust temperatures) when approaching full output. Reportedly, this explains the 3.5 liter Ecoboost’s higher fuel consumption (by 20%) as compared to any number of n/a gasoline engines doing the same amount of work (i.e. pulling a 10,000 load up a 7% grade for 7 miles).

      The question of how to clean the intake valves of a DI gasoline engine appears to be somewhat unanswered, on a long term basis.

  • avatar

    quote: Diesel engines are renown for their longevity.

    That is like saying MB makes the most problem free and highest build quality cars in 2014.

    The longevity image of diesel engines is from 70’s and 80’s when most diesels were non-turbo or only the first turbocharged diesel engines started to appear. These engines were very simple and often over-engineered (like most engines of yesteryear). Today’s diesel engines are exactly the opposite. To get the best mpg numbers, highest torque and hp numbers and lowest emissions all at the same takes some seriously advanced technologies and engineering. In the longer run this causes high oil consumption, DPF failures, clogged valves, injectors, intakes etc, failing turbochargers (sensitive to oil quality and change intervals) – I could go on and on. If anyone is interested there is a whole bible of failures of VAG TDI engines. And this is 10-15 years ago produced engines which were quite complicated, but nothing like today’s latest diesels. And future engines are not getting any simpler. Second big issue is cost cutting in automotive industry, 30-40 years ago computers were not so advanced, engineers couldn’t calculate exactly the longevity and strength of different materials, details and systems, so everything was over engineered just to be safe. Today you can calculate everything so precisely that all the details are durable as they have to be for the amount of money agreed with the supplier, not even 0,001 % more. Maybe the simplest example is intake of the engines – 90’s was the last decade when most manufactures still used mostly alloy intakes, now basically all series production cars use plastic intakes.

    So if you want to buy a new car and use it for more than 3 years, then stay away from turbocharged engines :) Best combination of frugality and longevity would be a japanese made 2.5-3.5L 6 cylinder naturally aspirated petrol engine with 6+ speed gearbox.

    PS! Even EU is going form turbo diesel to turbo petrol engines, because of the strict emissions rules (upcoming Euro 6), which specifically limit the particulate emissions of diesel engines.

    • 0 avatar

      “so everything was over engineered just to be safe.”

      Is that why it was a miracle when a car in the 70s made it to 100k miles?

      What the frak are you talking about.

  • avatar

    -you have to make them reliable (EcoBoost isn’t)
    -you have to make them take any garbage gasoline so that idiot Americans who are illiterate and can’t be bothered to read/understand/notice the instructions on the gas door saying “premium fuel only” and pour high-altitude 85 octane in
    -cars need dual turbos to fight lag, since only the same kind of morons who think the FR-S is a legitimate sports car will appreciate a car that’s a slug until it hits 6500 rpm
    -diesel trucks don’t count, and that’s a completely different application of turbocharging
    -turbos need to be competitively priced to cars with bigger displacement that make similar power
    -you have to convince that a V6 pickup with an overall untested (Ford doesn’t really bother to test the longevity of any of its new technology anymore) gasoline turbo system is better, more reliable, and a bargain compared to a V8

    Speculating that “turbos will rule the future” is about as halfassed as saying how the Chinese car demand will rule the American car market in the “near future” (pure nonsense).

    • 0 avatar

      where do get your data on the Ford engines not being reliable? my 2010 has 68K and never had an issue.

      the ford ecoboost engines require only regular fuel

      my escape 2.0 single boost has no lag whatsoever…zero. nadda. zilch.

      the competiveness of the ford turbos with any other for price is pretty well proven. as with the forester turbos, etc.

      just very confused with your comment

      • 0 avatar

        “my escape 2.0 single boost has no lag whatsoever…zero. nadda. zilch.”

        Is this true? It’s important info to me because one of the things that has made me hesitant in replacing my 2nd gen V6 Escape with a 3rd gen 2.0T Escape is the fear of the dreaded turbo-lag

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • dal20402: The Taiwanese are entirely familiar with fighting with the CCP. They lost the last fight because they bit...
  • dal20402: “Droughts and wildfires in the west are not new.” I’ve spent 34 of my 45 years in western...
  • Inside Looking Out: Frampton opened the landmark July 9 1971 show at Shea Stadium for Grand Funk Railroad – the...
  • speedlaw: The buyers and the US OEM. Any imported car has traditionally been shorted, decontented, and eventually...
  • speedlaw: came here to say that. The pneumatic computer was a great idea in japan and the japanese could pull it off...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber