2 Liter Turbo 4's

Discussion in 'The Garage' started by DGS49, Mar 18, 2017.

  1. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,297
    Thanks Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +2,692
    The high-end automotive world has been largely overtaken by 2-Liter Turbo 4's (2LT4's). Everyone from GM to Mercedes, to Porsche, to Volvo, to VW, and on and on and on, has handed up their version of a 2LT4 as their "base engine of choice" in high-end cars, performance cars, sporty cars, and so on.

    But for generations, it has been "common knowledge" in the automotive industry that one of the keys to high quality and reliability is to minimize the number of moving parts, and particularly those that move at high speed and require constant lubrication. All of these 2LT4's have complex dual overhead cam arrangements, and turbocharger impellers and compressors turn at tens of thousands of revolutions per minute and require constant lubrication.

    Also, it has long been common knowledge that higher compression engines have a shorter service life (other than Diesels, of course, which are made for high compression), and turbocharging artificially increases compression dramatically when accelerating, thus placing all of the engine components under incredible stress.

    Recent advances have eliminated the delay in power delivery ("turbo lag") that used to be endemic with turbocharged engines, so that unless you are aware specifically that your are driving a car with a 2LT4, you would imagine that the car has a much larger displacement engine. In fact, there are few complaints from drivers of 3-series BMW's, Cadillac CTS', and even mid-sized SUV's (Porsche Macan!) that the cars are under-powered.

    In my extensive experience driving turbo's, the expected better fuel economy of the small displacement engine is often very elusive in practice, as the driver finds that s/he is "pushing" the small engine more than s/he would be a larger engine, just because the basic power is lacking. The EPA testing therefore often gives an over-optimistic estimate of real world fuel economy, because they "feather" the throttle in their tests. Ford, especially sees complaints from people driving their Escape small SUV with the turbo 4's, and getting 15mpg.

    Are these small engines going to hold up in the longer term? Is a 3.6L V6 a better choice than a 2LT4 for your Camaro, when the performance is virtually identical?

    Inquiring minds want to know.
     
  2. Iceweasel
    Offline

    Iceweasel Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    38,672
    Thanks Received:
    5,839
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +28,819
    I wouldn't overlook some kind of government regulation that makes them want to swing that way.
     

Share This Page