Are these motors unethical?
I'm completely serious.
Why do manufacturers shift to 4 - banger turbo's to replace mid - size 6's? Basically one reason: they APPEAR TO provide better fuel economy than a V6, with comparable performance. But is this even true?
Well, in lab testing such as that done by EPA (which is done on a dynamometer), the turbo's do better, because the throttle is used sparingly, but in real world driving, drivers "push" the turbo's more than they would a V6, which provides "effortless" power. So in actual fact, most turbo's get much worse fuel economy than their window stickers suggest, especially on the City cycle. Ford Escape turbo's typically get 16 mpg around town on high test gas - which is in Mustang GT territory. Indeed, virtually all turbo's "require" high test, which virtually eliminates the fuel economy advantage over the V6. (They will run on 89-octane, albeit with reduced performance).
So the shift to small turbo's is largely intended to deceive the EPA and the car - buying public about fuel economy. Measured in dollars per mile, I would argue that a 3 liter six is at least as economical as a turbo four.
And some manufacturers - most notably BMW and Mercedes, have dramatically changed their model naming protocols to deceive the public about what's under the hood. To wit, my 330 GT has a 2 - liter turbo while previous cars with that nomenclature had 3 liter in - line six's. The deception goes throughout their North American product line.
And what about the long - term ramifications? A turbocharged engine is subject to dramatically greater internal stresses and temperatures, requires much more aggressive internal lubrication, and has many more moving parts, some of which spin at head - dizzying rpm's. There is simply no way to rationally expect a turbo - four to LAST AS LONG AS a naturally - aspirated in-line six.
Please don't tell me about your old Saab that lasted 50 years. Those are low - pressure turbo's requiring high maintenance, most of which were crushed long before their engines gave it up.
As a general proposition, four cylinder turbo's are a scam, to be avoided whenever possible. They don't make them for your benefit, but to deceive you and the EPA with an inferior product.
I'm completely serious.
Why do manufacturers shift to 4 - banger turbo's to replace mid - size 6's? Basically one reason: they APPEAR TO provide better fuel economy than a V6, with comparable performance. But is this even true?
Well, in lab testing such as that done by EPA (which is done on a dynamometer), the turbo's do better, because the throttle is used sparingly, but in real world driving, drivers "push" the turbo's more than they would a V6, which provides "effortless" power. So in actual fact, most turbo's get much worse fuel economy than their window stickers suggest, especially on the City cycle. Ford Escape turbo's typically get 16 mpg around town on high test gas - which is in Mustang GT territory. Indeed, virtually all turbo's "require" high test, which virtually eliminates the fuel economy advantage over the V6. (They will run on 89-octane, albeit with reduced performance).
So the shift to small turbo's is largely intended to deceive the EPA and the car - buying public about fuel economy. Measured in dollars per mile, I would argue that a 3 liter six is at least as economical as a turbo four.
And some manufacturers - most notably BMW and Mercedes, have dramatically changed their model naming protocols to deceive the public about what's under the hood. To wit, my 330 GT has a 2 - liter turbo while previous cars with that nomenclature had 3 liter in - line six's. The deception goes throughout their North American product line.
And what about the long - term ramifications? A turbocharged engine is subject to dramatically greater internal stresses and temperatures, requires much more aggressive internal lubrication, and has many more moving parts, some of which spin at head - dizzying rpm's. There is simply no way to rationally expect a turbo - four to LAST AS LONG AS a naturally - aspirated in-line six.
Please don't tell me about your old Saab that lasted 50 years. Those are low - pressure turbo's requiring high maintenance, most of which were crushed long before their engines gave it up.
As a general proposition, four cylinder turbo's are a scam, to be avoided whenever possible. They don't make them for your benefit, but to deceive you and the EPA with an inferior product.
