New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43
  1. Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    58
    #1
    Good day to all!
    i want to ask your knowledge regarding the advantages and disadvantages of naturally aspirated over turbocharged engines

    1. same engine displacement ( different power output )
    2. same power output ( different displacement)

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27,624
    #2
    which turbo engine specifically? mazda honda hyundai chevrolet?

  3. Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    58
    #3
    Quote Originally Posted by StockEngine View Post
    which turbo engine specifically? mazda honda hyundai chevrolet?
    subaru
    mazda

  4. Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,608
    #4
    Turbo - more power and torque

    More maintenance nga lang

  5. Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27,624
    #5
    Quote Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
    subaru
    mazda
    mazdas turbo engines produce more power but it does sacrifice fuel economy.

    their normally aspirated skyactiv 2.5 is good but when they used a turbo on it. fuel economy took a hit. this is their generation 1 turbo petrol 2.5 engine. Better wait for the second generation turbo petrols.

    mazda improved on their diesel turbo engines. i hope they replicate their success on their petrols.

  6. Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27,624
    #6

  7. Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    7,394
    #7
    Hmmm. Naturally aspirated vs Turbocharged

    As I posted earlier... For me depende yan sa use mo ng car. Kung majority ng trip mo is highway, then turbo all the way... Kung matraffic ka lang sa EDSA, you may want to consider a naturally aspirated engine.

    Using the 2019 Civic as an example.

    1.8 is (strangely) lighter

    Mas mataas nga HP and Torque nung 1.5 RS, but max output yun, never binaggit yung output nya at less than 2000RPM

    So, the 1.5L engine from standstill will need more gas para pagalawin yung sasakyan.

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27,624
    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ice15 View Post
    Hmmm. Naturally aspirated vs Turbocharged

    As I posted earlier... For me depende yan sa use mo ng car. Kung majority ng trip mo is highway, then turbo all the way... Kung matraffic ka lang sa EDSA, you may want to consider a naturally aspirated engine.

    Using the 2019 Civic as an example.

    1.8 is (strangely) lighter

    Mas mataas nga HP and Torque nung 1.5 RS, but max output yun, never binaggit yung output nya at less than 2000RPM

    So, the 1.5L engine from standstill will need more gas para pagalawin yung sasakyan.
    agree, sa metro manila itll be better having NA ICE... no boost necessary sa traffic lol

  9. Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    7,394
    #9
    ^palagi kong napapanood sa Q&A about cars...

    Q: kailangan ba i-idle ng 2-5mins yung turbo charged na engine bago patayin?

    A: kapag high rev driving at gumana yung turbo - yes, kapag city driving at low RPM lang, di na kailangan since di naman gumana yung turbo

  10. Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,320
    #10
    For me, NA is fine within City and if just cruising leisurely on the highway. The problem for NA (especially if smaller displacement) is when "fully loaded" or going uphill or both. =)

    And in those scenarios, I'd really want to have a turbo on hand to tap into to get the power out from the engine.

    If from my experience, you'd be fine with turbo'd engines within the city even if you are worried with consumption, as long as you try to avoid engaging the "boost" from the turbo, so keep those revs below 1800rpm. Hehe!

    But my experience with turbo'd engines is for diesel pickup or SUV only. Don't have any idea about turbo gas engines if it "applies" as well. Since good torque is available for those diesels at around 1500rpm, sometimes lower (with some Isuzu engines).

    I think with the 2.2 Ecoboost Mustang (or was it the Explorer) before, in City when not in boost, it was more fuel efficient that the 3.5L non Ecoboost version. But once the boost did kick in, you were actually better off with the non Ecoboost model. I can't remember exactly the article I read it from.

  11. Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    12,396
    #11
    Wanna turbo an NA? Here's what it takes...[emoji4]
    How To Turbo Your Miata! - YouTube

    Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

  12. Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,235
    #12
    Quote Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
    Good day to all!
    i want to ask your knowledge regarding the advantages and disadvantages of naturally aspirated over turbocharged engines

    1. same engine displacement ( different power output )
    2. same power output ( different displacement)
    Turbo petrols are still rather scarce in our market. What we have a lot of are turbo diesels. And in my experience with these, normally aspirated engines are pretty much always more fuel efficient than turbocharged engines, just because they are physically incapable of consuming more fuel with the absence of forced induction.

    Closest real life example I can quote is my former daily driver, a Toyota Revo 2.4 diesel 5MT and current daily driver, a Hyundai Santa Fe 2.2 CRDi 5AT.
    Revo: 7-8 city,12-14 highway
    Santa Fe: 5-6 city, also 12-14 highway
    Highway for me entails maintaining speeds mostly around 100-120km/h. Though the Revo screams its head off running 100 at 3200rpm and 120 at 3800rpm, while the Santa Fe does 100 at just 1900rpm and 120 at 2100rpm. I would've expected the Santa Fe to be significantly thriftier, but consumption ended up more or less the same when driving out of town.

    Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

  13. Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    45,927
    #13
    having boost is more fun

    hearing the turbo spool up, hit boost, rev to redline, shift, hear the sound of the blow off valve...

    puts a smile on your face

  14. Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,608
    #14
    I used to drive daily solely turbo gas vehicles. I have no issues driving them thru traffic every day.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    58
    #15
    salamat po sa inyong lahat,
    im learning new things here

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    salamat po sa inyong lahat,
    im learning new things here

  16. Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,608
    #16
    Quote Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
    salamat po sa inyong lahat,
    im learning new things here

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    salamat po sa inyong lahat,
    im learning new things here
    What turbo gas vehicle are you looking at? I would suggest Subaru vehicles.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,320
    #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Egan101 View Post
    What turbo gas vehicle are you looking at? I would suggest Subaru vehicles.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    With the new extended warranty of Subaru up to 5 years now, which is 2 years more than its Japanese counterparts here (and I think matches the 2 Koreans now - I'm not sure if Kia has the 5 year warranty here like Hyundai), it is definitely a good consideration if the owner is concerned about mechanical parts prematurely failing. =)

    Question though, I haven't personally owned/maintained Subaru's but previous readings (we're talking about 5 to 7 years ago) mentioned that the boxer engines tend to burn engine oil quicker than comparable engines? Is this true now with the current lineup?

    Should this be true, does it mean that even if we use Fully Synthetic, a top up should be in order every 5k kms or 6mos, even if you don't reach the mileage much? Thanks.

  18. Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,608
    #18
    Quote Originally Posted by 17Sphynx17 View Post
    With the new extended warranty of Subaru up to 5 years now, which is 2 years more than its Japanese counterparts here (and I think matches the 2 Koreans now - I'm not sure if Kia has the 5 year warranty here like Hyundai), it is definitely a good consideration if the owner is concerned about mechanical parts prematurely failing. =)

    Question though, I haven't personally owned/maintained Subaru's but previous readings (we're talking about 5 to 7 years ago) mentioned that the boxer engines tend to burn engine oil quicker than comparable engines? Is this true now with the current lineup?

    Should this be true, does it mean that even if we use Fully Synthetic, a top up should be in order every 5k kms or 6mos, even if you don't reach the mileage much? Thanks.
    The oil burning issue was with the older EJ25 engines (local WRX STi model and they are not covered by the 5-year warranty). There are no reported such issues with the newer FB16, FA20, and FA25 turbo engines.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,320
    #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Egan101 View Post
    The oil burning issue was with the older EJ25 engines (local WRX STi model and they are not covered by the 5-year warranty). There are no reported such issues with the newer FB16, FA20, and FA25 turbo engines.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thanks for that info.

  20. Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    58
    #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Egan101 View Post
    What turbo gas vehicle are you looking at? I would suggest Subaru vehicles.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    good day sir!
    i have a 2012 forester xs (pre cvt era)and a 2017 forester xt, i prefer the feel of naturally aspirated here in the city but i think parang bitin sa akin ying 2.0, NA, but when i drive the xt, parang too much power naman, parang may whiplash ako,
    parang iba din yung boxer engine sound ng NA ( which i like it more) compared to the XT
    im thinking kung sana lng may 2.5 NA na forester dito sa pilipinas

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Naturally aspirated vs Turbocharged