Turbo or Non-Turbo Engine

[Ponkan]

Not sure if may thread na ganito pero ano mas prefer nyo mga sir? sabi nga sa kasabihan no replacement for displacement totoo ba?

[niky]

Depends on the engine type, purpose and implementation.

And there are three solutions:

High displacement
High boost
High revs

Both turbocharging and high-revving are valid replacements for displacement. Of course, the best motors have lots of everything...

[ronw123w124]

I'd prefer a naturally aspirated bigger displacement engine any day to a small turbocharged engine.

[weisshorn]

Power to weight ratio i go for turbo charge engine.. easy maintenance i go the other way especially if the vehicle is to be use in remote areas away from spare parts availabilty.

[niky]

In far-out places, a bigger, lower-revving naturally aspirateed motor will require less maintenance due to the low stress of running. Typically.

But with electronic control and more precise fueling and machining now pushing even turbocharged motors to the 200-300,000 kilometer marks, the fuel savings from downsizing makes sense if you drive in places where you won't be in danger of missing your 5,000 - 10,000 kilometer service intervals.

[cta2]

additional question... which will consume more fuel if created equal... and same driving conditions... all Automatic... real world condition, no race track

Always wondered like between a V6 camry/accord VS legacy/forester/wrx (non-sti)

[leodawesome]

^ Does bigger displacement engines consume more gas during idle?

[niky]

It depends. Technically, a smaller, boosted or high-rpm motor should consume less gas at idle if they're designed right, but constraints in terms of engine durability, engine bay heat issues, accessories and etcetera can change things.

A big engine with cylinder deactivation can use almost as little gas as a smaller engine at idle (for example, the Camry V6), but there is still the extra rotating mass of the "dead" cylinders that needs to be pushed around even when they're turned off.

And while a downsized turbo engine should technically use as little gas at idle as a non-turbo engine of the same size, the extra heat generated by the turbo usually makes it more thirsty.

additional question... which will consume more fuel if created equal... and same driving conditions... all Automatic... real world condition, no race track

Always wondered like between a V6 camry/accord VS legacy/forester/wrx (non-sti)

"It's depends."

Truthfully, it depends. And most of it is down to the transmission/drivetrain (Subaru AWD has a lot of drag. CVT makes up for it, but not completely... Accord 6AT is fantastic and has low internal friction) and the specific engines.

Turbocharged engines will typically use as much gas as similarly powered naturally aspirated engines, but will produce more useful torque over a wider range of engine speeds... which means that they can be more flexible... that flexibility should result in better economy, but in the real world, results are mixed.

[cta2]

Thanks... I guess street cred and bragging rights will be the other deciding factors :-)... gasoline consumption is too trivial for these kind of cars...

Subaru FXT are tempting in the 2nd hand market... but the v6 camrys and accord in the 2nd hand are also tempting!... just my thoughts :-)

[Red Advent 04]

very useful idea either of the two are good..kung pang karera siguro pwede de turbo kung everyday necessity syempre non-turbo. dun tayo sa mas efficient at makaka tipid.

[vinj]

Depends on the use but with technological advances in overall engineering as Niky out it, the reliability of a small turbo engine today is much better and will be good for the lifespan of most regular car users. Mas masakit lang sa bulsa pag nasira versus a big old school n/a.

That's why I love the LC80. Big reliable old engine plus a turbo. Not as fast as a CRDi but dang torquey and reliable.

[basti08]

Non turbo I like big displacement because of the linear power delivery. Less maintenance. Less worries. But it still depends upon the whole package of the car. Case in point: Fiesta Ecoboost.

[babkalakal]

Just an observtion on the matter of choosing between turbo or non-turbo.

With gasoline engines there is still "that" choice (turbo, non-turbo) but with modern diesels be it large or small displacement a great majority are de facto turbo intercooled with a form of direct-injection.

I guess what I'm driving at (pardon the pun) with diesels there is a clear cut advantage with turbos but on gasoline engines as with what Niky notes real world results are mixed.

[RF02]

parang fiesta ecoboost 1.0 VS mazda 3 1.5

898k VS 948k

[Jun aka Pekto]

Having owned turbocharged and V6 cars in the past...... I'll go for a V6.

I'm very happy with my 9-year old 3.3L V6 Sonata. I'd replace it with another V6 Sonata. But, Hyundai decided to go with a 4-cylinder turbo. So, no new Sonata for me.

[playplugg]

For me po,

kung pure stop-and-go-traffic,

non-turbo, (gasoline)

kung highway driving/long distance travel,

turbo, high displacement engine

[[archie]]

Daily driven... Non turbo.

One less thing to worry about in the long run.

[radz15]

How bout sa diesel engine ano ba mas fuel efficient. Turbo (crosswind) or non - turbo (adventure) same condition.

Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[GTi]

The Crosswind is more efficient than the Adventure, but AFAIK that has to do with the direct injection fuel system and not the miniscule turbo which was supposed to improve emissions and make it Euro 2 compliant.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[Jun aka Pekto]

The weak spot for a turbocharged engine will either be the impeller or the joint where the turbo housing is connected to the engine block.

Even if technology has progressed, I'm still leery of those weak spots in a turbocharged engine, especially as the car gets older.