Two liter turbo 4 ' s - Part 2

Discussion in 'The Garage' started by DGS49, Mar 21, 2018.

  1. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Thanks Received:
    1,238
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +4,792
    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.
     
  2. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    52,099
    Thanks Received:
    10,587
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    on a one way cul-de-sac
    Ratings:
    +17,255
    i've been driving turbos for years and never had a problem

    when i need it to go, it goes

    when i really need it to go, it really goes

    my current ride has 95k+ on it and i've never had to do anything to the power plant except change the oil

    agree to disagree on this one
     
  3. Cellblock2429
    Offline

    Cellblock2429 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2016
    Messages:
    10,879
    Thanks Received:
    1,662
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +9,945
    /----/ It's weight and size reduction to fit into the smaller cars. Thank the EPA and NHTSB
     
  4. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Thanks Received:
    1,238
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +4,792
    A v6 is smaller than an in-line 4.

    A couple of cars lasting 100k miles is nothing. A modern v6 is good for a quarter mil.
     

Share This Page