Is the turbocharged 4 really the future?

D

Dubweiser

New member
So many manufacturers are switching to turbo 4's instead of I5, or V6. But is it really the future?

Don't get me wrong, I love I4 turbos, in a light compact car. But when you shove them in a large sedan or SUV, it's not such a nice fit.

IMO the big cars I've driven with turbo fours are much worse than the previous models with V6's. They're laggy, they don't sound and feel as refined, and most importantly don't get better fuel economy. Most importantly though, turbocharged engines for the masses is going to make reliability ratings plummet, and eventually owners will start putting mineral oil and FRAM filters at canadian tire in their turbo fours and end up with engine sludge issues. It's a sad fact, but there's soooooooo many garage that put standard recycled mineral oil in every single car without checking what is actually required.

IMO the average Joe doesn't maintain their car enough to be able to deal with strict oil change intervals and oil certifications.

I think NA is the way to go as a base engine for a mass produced car, but the manufacturers don't think so.

So what the right way to go, bigger NA or smaller turbo?
 
I hope not, i hate everything that compromise reliability. I hate turbos, and i also hate V engine ( 2 heads, take more space, harder to work on etc.).
 
Last edited:
jpf412 said:
Diesel is the future.
Click to expand...

si on aurait encore les atmo diesel injection indirecte d'avant je serait content, mais pas les diesel moderne. mon vieux land cruiser de 25 ans et 470 000km roulait encore comme un charme à part 2 glow plug qui marchait pas. l'ancien proprio avait juste fait des changement de filtre a fuel tout la vie du truck, rien sur le système d'injection. aujourd’hui c'est quasi impossible avec un diesel moderne de pas avoir aucun problème relier au injecteur/pompe/turbo en 25 ans et pratiquement 500 000km. je veux dire un turbo qui pisse pas l'huile comme une passoire après 500 000km et 25ans, plutôt rêver.
 
I have to agree 100% about the reliability issues we are about to face.

To say that they aren't as fun to drive as their na counterparts is generalizing a bit though.
 
red_teg96 said:
I have to agree 100% about the reliability issues we are about to face.

To say that they aren't as fun to drive as their na counterparts is generalizing a bit though.
Click to expand...

Nobody said they aren't fun, just said they were laggy, felt less refined, and didn't sound as nice. That has nothing to do with fun factor.
 
Dubweiser said:
Okay so is hybrid, hydrogen, electric, piss powered, water powered, solar powered, six stroke, five stroke engines are also the future.

But for the moment lets stay on topic my fellow ADD suffering friend.
Click to expand...

All you've listed is toothfairy shit. You want a reliable turbo 4-banger? Go diesel. You want a somewhat reliable and dumb-proof maintenance? Go gas N/A. You'll never get great reliability with a turbo'd gas engine.

22REpower said:
si on aurait encore les atmo diesel injection indirecte d'avant je serait content, mais pas les diesel moderne. mon vieux land cruiser de 25 ans et 470 000km roulait encore comme un charme à part 2 glow plug qui marchait pas. l'ancien proprio avait juste fait des changement de filtre a fuel tout la vie du truck, rien sur le système d'injection. aujourd’hui c'est quasi impossible avec un diesel moderne de pas avoir aucun problème relier au injecteur/pompe/turbo en 25 ans et pratiquement 500 000km. je veux dire un turbo qui pisse pas l'huile comme une passoire après 500 000km et 25ans, plutôt rêver.
Click to expand...

Bin ouais, quoi de mieux qu'un 4 cylindre de 65 hp. Le probleme c'est pas les systemes d'injection, c'est le diesel qui est trop sec. Pi 500 000km en 25 ans c'est pas assez pour un moteur diesel. En 25 ans tu devrais avoir passer le million de km. Si le vehicule est encore en un morceau. Pi y'as personne qui garde un char 25 ans comme DD.

Back on topic.

OP is a phaggot and N/A>turbo.
 
jpf412 said:
All you've listed is toothfairy shit. You want a reliable turbo 4-banger? Go diesel. You want a somewhat reliable and dumb-proof maintenance? Go gas N/A. You'll never get great reliability with a turbo'd gas engine.
Click to expand...

Turbocharged diesel 4's require just as much maintenance as turbocharged gasoline. If anything the only current mass produced diesel 4 on the NA market, VW's 2.0L TDI is more expensive to maintain than the gas 2.0T because it require a timing belt job every 100K, whereas the 2.0T and upcoming 1.8T have timing chains, which now use aluminium guides and should be good for the useable life of the motor.

You have to do +40 000KM to justify the added initial cost and maintenance on a TDI. And diesel won't be getting any cheaper than NA counterparts, they need beefed up internals to handle the high compression ratios. They will always cost more so it's not a viable alternative to gasoline for the average person who does 20K a year.
 
Isn't TDI like a $2000 option? Cheap initially if your ask me. Definitely hold their value too.

On topic, I think I4Ts are the past. Every Japanese sports car except the big guns had an I4T, and we're talking late 80s. It makes sense that you can have smaller displacement, throw a turbo on it and call it a day though. F-150 EcoBoost. Chevy Cruze. The list goes on. The turbos in these engines are tiny though.

My question is in modern engines, at which point is a turbo car less reliable? I know you're thinking I'm crazy, but hear me out. Take the average driver. A non-enthusiast. They're a good driver, maybe going 10km over the speed limit, never putting the right pedal all the way down. They go for regular maintenance. Why would their Cruze Eco be less reliable than a base Cruze? Sure, the turbo is one more thing to go wrong, but you can say the 4 cylinder is also less reliable than an 8, or a 6, because there's less cylinders to do the same job.


My mechanic has a Q5 with the 2.0 tfsi or whatever it's called. He says it goes pretty good. His wife wants more power now though so they're going to chip it and put an exhaust. However a little 2.0 in an suv is understandable that it'll be kind of slow.
In my opinion, everybody should just make diesels.
 
I always laugh when they say Turbo = fuel economy ... My fat bitch does 15L/100km on average with some mix style of driving ...

Yes Im far from stock, but even stock this thing was drinking like hell.

Those new 4cyl turbo that will replace some V6, that come with 220 to 300 hp in general will not be the future of gas saving ...at lease that's what I think. I don't know if I missed some new technology that could easily drop that consumption
 
HeadBanger said:
Isn't TDI like a $2000 option? Cheap initially if your ask me. Definitely hold their value too.

On topic, I think I4Ts are the past. Every Japanese sports car except the big guns had an I4T, and we're talking late 80s. It makes sense that you can have smaller displacement, throw a turbo on it and call it a day though. F-150 EcoBoost. Chevy Cruze. The list goes on. The turbos in these engines are tiny though.

My question is in modern engines, at which point is a turbo car less reliable? I know you're thinking I'm crazy, but hear me out. Take the average driver. A non-enthusiast. They're a good driver, maybe going 10km over the speed limit, never putting the right pedal all the way down. They go for regular maintenance. Why would their Cruze Eco be less reliable than a base Cruze? Sure, the turbo is one more thing to go wrong, but you can say the 4 cylinder is also less reliable than an 8, or a 6, because there's less cylinders to do the same job.


My mechanic has a Q5 with the 2.0 tfsi or whatever it's called. He says it goes pretty good. His wife wants more power now though so they're going to chip it and put an exhaust. However a little 2.0 in an suv is understandable that it'll be kind of slow.
In my opinion, everybody should just make diesels.
Click to expand...


A moins que je me trompe, les petits quattre cylindre turbo qui sortent ces temps ci ont besoin d un certain entretien adequat comme Dubweiser dit...Huile synth. a grade precis, quantité precise changé au bon kmtrage-duree...

Les gens en general se foutent de l entretien, rajoute une turbine pis youre asking for trouble, like people putting the wrong oil in it to save a few bucks.

Est ce que les moteurs turbo de ces temps ci vont faire un bout? Definitivement. Est ce que ca va causer des problemes? Oui, peu importe la gravite de la chose, on va s en rapeller comme on se rapelle de chaque «mode» technologique. Je pense que ca va faire comme toute les autres vagues, ils vont avoir des problemes x et vont switcher de technologie. Chaque solution apporte son lot de problemes. En environnement, en technologie, en santé. en tout.
 
le power on dirait quil faut toujours les cochonner pour que ca avance...

avec un 4 turbo ils peuvent avoir des ratings de fuel efficiency excellemt en conduite de grand mere.. mais si tu veux rouler normalement faut toujours cochonner pis la consommation augmente
------
Excuse all the typos.. Sent from mobile device.
 
Chose certaine, j aimerais rajouter que le jour ou je changerai mon vehicule actuel sera le jour ou je trouverai qque chose dans mon budget et qui m apportera une dose significative de changement. Tant qua changer pour une autre econobox (superieure soit elle) ca me donne quoi...?

Im waiting for something AWD, RWD and I6..
 
in city if you go easy on the turbo 4 cyl car you will do slightly better in fuel consumption compared to a NA v6 of similar power...highway is pretty much the same..

Mickrob said:
I always laugh when they say Turbo = fuel economy ... My fat bitch does 15L/100km on average with some mix style of driving ...

Yes Im far from stock, but even stock this thing was drinking like hell.

Those new 4cyl turbo that will replace some V6, that come with 220 to 300 hp in general will not be the future of gas saving ...at lease that's what I think. I don't know if I missed some new technology that could easily drop that consumption
Click to expand...
 
MrSpace said:
le power on dirait quil faut toujours les cochonner pour que ca avance...

avec un 4 turbo ils peuvent avoir des ratings de fuel efficiency excellemt en conduite de grand mere.. mais si tu veux rouler normalement faut toujours cochonner pis la consommation augmente
------
Excuse all the typos.. Sent from mobile device.
Click to expand...

Normal non? Si tu prends en consideration le type de technologie?

C est pas des setup turbo allemand de type porsche la....Petite cylindrée doit revolutioner pour propulser la turbine, si petite soit elle.
 
jpense que l'idée derrière tout ca est que le but est d'éventuellement forcer le consommateur a faire ses entretien dans le concessionaire ou il a acheté le véhicule.
 
They're making higher maintenance, unreliable engines so they can make more profit off dealer maintenance.
When something breaks, people today are more keen to simply change the whole car instead of throwing a g or 2 in repairs.

I'm all in for turbo'ed fours in compacts and twin turbo'ed sixes in larger vehicules, as long as theyre well engineered and give a good driving experience.
 
I think the reliability issue regarding turbo engines will be only for those people that don't know how to maintain a turbo car......so that's means 99% of car owners.
 
Turbo 4 banger is the future. I do 10l/100 with my chipped speed6, driving 110-120 on the highway and I floor it when entering the highway, and its a big 3700lbs sedan. Reliability issues with turbos are that many oem use turbo with oiled bushing (K0-XYZ) instead of bearings (garrets and the like). However, rebuilding a leaking turbo cost around 60-70$ in parts and can be done in an hour + the time to take it out and back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top