Think a turbo 4-cyl is the engine of the future? Maybe not.

[Jesda]

I wouldn't call Ecoboost "expertise." In fact, I'd call it embarrassing. 350 hp and torque out of a MODERN V6 with two turbos and 16mpg combined in the real world? That's TERRIBLE. TERRIBLE! If you stuck two turbos on a VQ37VHR or an LFX, you'd be looking at 400+ ft-lb and better than 16mpg with NO effort at all. Hell, out of the box the LFX is making within 20 hp and 20 ft-lb of the Ecoboost V6 at the wheels and it's NATURALLY ASPIRATED. And the VQ37, while being short on torque, embarasses the Ecoboost six where horsepower is concerned, putting the same numbers to the tires as the twin-turbo abomination.

Definitely, but I wouldn't blame turbocharging for the V6's lack of natural talent.

Turbocharging has few downsides, several advantages, especially in modern cars where cooling and durability are vastly improved. I say, turbo the heck out of everything or make it an option.

Heck, even Bentley has (and is again) turbocharging its already torquey V8s.

[AZhitman]

The new Cadillac ATS 2.0T has a 2-3mpg advantage over the 3.6L V6, but the V6 puts out an extra 45hp. In that case, I'd take the V6 (though a manual is currently exclusive to the turbo 4).

As would I - That was actually the car I had in mind as I was typing.

Ford seems to be overselling the advantages and it's fair to criticize them for it.

It very much is. In fact, they may have just lost a customer. Bex and I have been eyeballing the new Fusion since September, but the dismal real-world FE reporting is starting to make me reconsider giving up my 65-mpg rollerskate.

Turbo engines have an electric-like pulling quality that can't be duplicated by larger naturally aspirated engines.

Mmmmmmm...sorta. Drive a C5 / C6. Locomotive-status acceleration that doesn't let up until you've tripled freeway speed limits isn't reserved to FI cars.

If you like keeping a car "on boil" to make it do its thing, then the FI engine is for you. But I've driven several boosted cars that I absolutely could NOT live with every day, due to their inability to make power "down low" (the Juke comes to mind). I don't want to have to keep a car in the upper third of the tach to get any enjoyment out of it.

Personal preference, sure. But even the V6 in my Mom's '09 CTS is a well-engineered, fun engine - and it gets great mileage.

[Looneybomber]

Only they need to stop being dumbasses about it and design the ICE to run VERY efficiently at a single speed. My personal preference would be a small displacement, high boost, 4 cylinder running on Natural Gas. The infrastructure is already in place for NG, and it's an AWESOME fuel for high boost engines and would drastically reduce our demand for foreign oil for quite some time.

Let's take this one step further and use small high RPM turbine engines, something I've pondered on for years and Jaguar had on their concept CX-75 (I think they read my mind), but dropped. It's hard to make turbine efficient on a board RPM range, but easy to do in a very narrow RPM range. Small turbine with NO reciprocating weight, which an ICE can't ever escape having losses from reciprocating weight, and a small high speed generator means high power density.

The great thing about deisel trains is they have plenty of area for a huge engine that will run non-stop for years without issues. They can be as heavy as they want, but they have very lower power density. Cars can't get away with low power density. The great thing about turbine engines is they're smaller and lighter than ICE engines for equal power outputs. Less weight means more MPG.

[gwoods]

Turbo engines have an electric-like pulling quality that can't be duplicated by larger naturally aspirated engines.

Mmmmmmm...sorta. Drive a C5 / C6. Locomotive-status acceleration that doesn't let up until you've tripled freeway speed limits isn't reserved to FI cars. I've driven several boosted cars that I absolutely could NOT live with every day, due to their inability to make power "down low" (the Juke comes to mind). I don't want to have to keep a car in the upper third of the tach to get any enjoyment out of it.

With turbo/supercharged cars, the faster it goes the faster it goes. My Jag feels like it pulls harder above 70 mph then below. It is rated to make 424 lb of torque peaking at 2500 rpm, but then its also rated to make 470 hp and makes 448 at the rear wheels on a dyno. I have driven some NA performance cars and vs a forced induction car even if it accelerates quickly the pull is not the same.

[gwoods]

I would love to see a hydrogen powered car for the future. Honda has the Clarity that is a $600 a month lease only available in SOCAL. The Hydrogen powers a generator. The car is 'electric' brilliant. Fueling takes time and there is no hydrogen infrastructure. It takes electricity to make hydrogen so there is a green and $ cost in there.

[AZhitman]

With turbo/supercharged cars, the faster it goes the faster it goes.

That's one way of putting it.

I've owned several of both (n/a and f/i), and there's always a tradeoff.

Turbo lag or torque off the line... broad torque curve or peaky high-end power... it all comes down to preference.

Personally, I'm likely done with f/i cars - for several reasons. The older I get, the more I appreciate low-end grunt and a nice, broad powerband that's functional and predictable.

[float_6969]

Only they need to stop being dumbasses about it and design the ICE to run VERY efficiently at a single speed. My personal preference would be a small displacement, high boost, 4 cylinder running on Natural Gas. The infrastructure is already in place for NG, and it's an AWESOME fuel for high boost engines and would drastically reduce our demand for foreign oil for quite some time.

Let's take this one step further and use small high RPM turbine engines, something I've pondered on for years and Jaguar had on their concept CX-75 (I think they read my mind), but dropped. It's hard to make turbine efficient on a board RPM range, but easy to do in a very narrow RPM range. Small turbine with NO reciprocating weight, which an ICE can't ever escape having losses from reciprocating weight, and a small high speed generator means high power density.

The great thing about deisel trains is they have plenty of area for a huge engine that will run non-stop for years without issues. They can be as heavy as they want, but they have very lower power density. Cars can't get away with low power density. The great thing about turbine engines is they're smaller and lighter than ICE engines for equal power outputs. Less weight means more MPG.

I've considered, this, but turbine engines have a lot of drawbacks for use in vehicles. The first and foremost is the noise. Due to the speeds present in a turbine engine, high pitched sound is inevitable, and VERY hard to eliminate. Secondly is start-up emissions. Turbine engines are DIRTY when they first start. They need a lot of built up heat to work efficiently, and until they get to that operating temperature, they're not very clean burning. Third is the EGT's of turbine engines tend to be very high. This makes post exhaust emissions treatment very hard. Building catalytic converters that will tolerate those temperatures will drive the cost up even more. I could keep going, but you get the point. Unfortunately, the reciprocating engine is our most efficient and clean burning ICE that we have available right now.

[frapjap]

Personally, I'm likely done with f/i cars - for several reasons. The older I get, the more I appreciate low-end grunt and a nice, broad powerband that's functional and predictable.

This is exactly what I keep telling people when they give me grief about the T/A not being "as fast as they expected."
IMO, that car is more entertaining to drive in the low rpm's- which is what most street driving consists of- than any of my other cars because of the large amount of torque on tap so quicky. Even the mundane drives can be fun with just a little more throttle tip-in.

[Dattebayo]

Reading this thread makes me really miss my old VG powered S12.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Personally, I'm likely done with f/i cars - for several reasons. The older I get, the more I appreciate low-end grunt and a nice, broad powerband that's functional and predictable.

This is it. It's no more complicated than this. I want torque ALL THE TIME. Dependably. So I will stick with V8s until no one is making them anymore. I have never understood the appeal of peaky engines, or "on-off" boost powerbands. I don't see what's "fun" about not having power and torque on tap anytime, all the time. It's not an F1 car. It's a street car. I don't drive around with the tach topping out all the time like some sideways-flat-brimmed-hat-wearing Integra driver. I want drive places, and I want to have fun doing it. BOTH of these are facilitated by more torque, more of the time.

I don't see a problem with adding boost to already powerful engines to make them more insane (TT 4.2 in Audis, S/C V8s in superhot GMs). But boost is NOT a valid alternative to cylinder count and it is also NOT a fuel economy solution. Compare a GOOD NA V6 to a GOOD boosted four, and the six will do every single thing better (case in point: ATS). And on top of that it will do other things the four can't do AT ALL, like not sound terrible and feel smooth at idle and cruise RPM. This trend scales up with cylinder count. Sound improves. Refinement improves. Torque improves. Powerband improves. Sorry, someone tell me what the benefit of boost was supposed to be again? Oh, wait, now I remember: cost cutting for the manufacturer. Build one engine, offer it with and without turbos, claim you're improving fuel economy and saving weight. Save money and watch people praise you for it. I don't recall EVER being in the market for the cheapest-engineered car available. I'm looking for a GOOD CAR. I will take it with 8 cylinders.

[Jesda]

This is it. It's no more complicated than this. I want torque ALL THE TIME. Dependably. So I will stick with V8s until no one is making them anymore. I have never understood the appeal of peaky engines, or "on-off" boost powerbands. I don't see what's "fun" about not having power and torque on tap anytime, all the time. It's not an F1 car. It's a street car. I don't drive around with the tach topping out all the time like some sideways-flat-brimmed-hat-wearing Integra driver. I want drive places, and I want to have fun doing it. BOTH of these are facilitated by more torque, more of the time.

Modern turbos aren't really that peaky anymore. Even my crusty old Saab, after having the plumbing and electronics properly mended last week, has decent pickup from a roll (but still kind of dead from a stop) and only gets better as the revs climb. Since it's a pathetic three speed BW automatic the revs actually stay high enough at speed to keep it right in the pocket of boost so I don't usually have to wait for power when passing.


For a good modern example, take an MB like an E550 for a spin. They use a twin turbo configuration to make up the difference on the low end so it feels flat and fat across the rev range. A BMW 550i is another good example of a turbo V8 and the 328i is a good example of an even-mannered turbo 4. Modern transmissions with 6, 7, and 8 speeds also help to smooth things out and flatten the power band.


Thanks to more manufacturers investing time and money into turbocharging to reduce emissions (saves consumers on taxes in the EU) and lower displacement (again, EU taxes), it's not like it used to be. I'm still suspicious of Ford's seemingly exaggerated claims, but you should take the modern German examples for a spin.

[gwoods]

Jesda, I don't think MOD is talking about turbo V8's. His beef is with replacing a NA V8 which uses larger displacement to burn more gas and make torque, with a turbo V6 or inline 4 and saying its the same.

From 2010-2012 Jag made 1 motor the 5.0 V8 you could get it with/without a supercharger. The 2013 model year brought the death of the non supercharged 5.0 V8 and it was replaced with a Supercharged V6 that makes 340 hp vs the V8's 385 hp and 332lb of torque from 3500-5500 rpm vs the V8's 380lbs at 3500 rpm. There is now also a inline turbocharged 4 that makes 240 hp and 251lb of torque from 2000-4000 rpm.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Jesda, I don't think MOD is talking about turbo V8's. His beef is with replacing a NA V8 which uses larger displacement to burn more gas and make torque, with a turbo V6 or inline 4 and saying its the same.

Right. My beef corresponds with the thread title. I take issue with the pretense that turbos are sufficient REPLACEMENTS for cylinders. Two turbos on a four is NOT the same as a V6. A V6 with two turbos is NOT the same as a V8. It's not more efficient. It's not more powerful. It's not lighter or more compact. It's merely cheaper for automakers, and it feeds into the modern "appear to be trying to be green" marketing charade.

By all means, add turbos or blowers to already-outstanding V8s. But please don't try to sell me a Sonata or Fusion or Malibu with four cylinders and a turbo and claim you're doing me a favor. It's insulting.

[Jesda]

Right, but I also mentioned the 328i's turbo 4.

Take it for a spin and tell me what you think. It has a nice flat feel but opens up at the top like a DOHC 6. More cogs on a modern turbo means you have more room to play around and even things out. It's not like how it was back in the Bush Sr era when my Saab rolled off the assembly line.

[AZhitman]

This is correct, and Jesda has a valid point.

However, if it means giving up 2-3 mpg JUST to reduce plumbing, weight, and complexity, I'm in. Turbocharged cars, as a rule, have double the potential points of failure... Having built a few, I know my main frustration was packaging - and ensuring against leaks.

Granted, modern manufacturing and engineering is leagues more advanced than my garage fabrications, and new car F/I is packaged in truly unique ways - but all this adds to the expense when a tech has to delve deep into the bay to replace a wastegate actuator or oil feed line.

All other things being equal, I'll still take the V6 over the turbo 4, and the 8 over both.

As soon as I can figure out a way to boost the Insight, however, I'll be neck-deep in stupid again.

[AZhitman]

...328i's turbo 4.

These guys bagged on it pretty good. http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012120 ... /121209946

In the 328i, $51,000 gets you 27/31 mpg, but only 240 hp. Insufficient for a car of that size... and status.

A loaded-out AWD G37 sedan will run $9K less, and only gets 18/25 mpg, but you're playing with 328hp (and less weight).

[Jesda]

I'm going on 22 years now on my Mitsu turbo. Saab owners who got Garretts were usually ready for a replacement after 8-12 years, but that's all old tech. Modern turbos are much tougher and better at dissipating heat, so reliability isn't a major concern for people who buy cars configured by the factory.


Automobile Magazine described the 328i as having "minimal" lag. Others claim "no discernable" lag, with which I'd agree after driving a few on the test track. GM can pull 270hp+ out of an Ecotec turbo but it's peakier and requires some effort to wring out all the power and keep it in the pocket of boost. I think BMW found a pretty good compromise.

The base 328's 33mpg (highway) and 240hp is quite an upgrade over the old naturally aspirated base I-6 which was good for only 22-23mpg (highway) in the real world and offered a paltry 185hp. My E46 325i convertible was a slug, though an enjoyable one, and all it needed was an extra 50hp to overcome its weight which is what this turbo-4 now offers.

Now, the E46 330i with its larger NA I-6 produced 240hp and moved the sedans and coupes to 60mph in just over 6 seconds, but that's after guzzling a lot more fuel. The sound of that inline six, however, is unmistakably awesome and totally unique; to many drivers that's worth the loss of 10mpg.


I'm not too crazy about how Nissan's VQ sounds but I do like GM's HF 3.6 VVT, so if I have the HF 3.6 as an option with whatever I'm looking at (assuming it's not a 2005+ STS where the longitudinal Northstar V8 is also available), I pick the 3.6. Surprisingly, despite a major horsepower advantage, the G37 is only a half second quicker to 60 than the much less powerful 328. Maybe it's gearing. Maybe the 328 runs out of steam after 70mph compared to the G? Maybe the G is more fuel efficient at speeds over 70mph because maybe it cruises at lower rpms at high speeds? Who knows -- someone should do a professional comparison.


For my money though, I'd take a serious look at the 3.6L Cadillac ATS. The Infiniti G was my favorite a decade ago alongside the 3-series, but GM managed to pull a rabbit out of its bankrupt hat.


And BMW will always charge more because of the douche tax. :P



Again, MOD, I'd like you to find a 328 to take for a test drive and tell us what you think of it.

[AZhitman]

For my money though, I'd take a serious look at the 3.6L Cadillac ATS.

And BMW will always charge more because of the douche tax. :P

THIS and THIS.

Actually, I'd like them to build the ETS with a conventional drivetrain - I'd go in debt for that car.

[float_6969]

As Jesda has mentioned, it has to do with engineering more than anything. My Mazdaspeed Protege has negligible lag, pulls hard from a stop, plenty of power to pass, and gets decent mileage. I honestly think it acts like a small V6. And this is a 2003.5 model, and Mazda spent NO TIME on designing this turbo setup, and it's still very responsive.

[frapjap]

As Jesda has mentioned, it has to do with engineering more than anything. My Mazdaspeed Protege has negligible lag, pulls hard from a stop, plenty of power to pass, and gets decent mileage. I honestly think it acts like a small V6. And this is a 2003.5 model, and Mazda spent NO TIME on designing this turbo setup, and it's still very responsive.

Definitely see where you're coming from. I turbo'd my miata and while it isn't a stock system, it has (and the same remains true about when it was stock) enough low end grunt to get going, but once that tach passes 2800rpm, the car pulls like a freight train. Its no V8, but it doesn't disappoint.

Speaking of Mazdas and 4's behaving like V6's, Mazda had fantastic low displacement V6 engines (K-series) which had GOBS of torque and amazing redlines for the times.
MX-3 had a 1.8l V6 with a 7000rpm red line
MX-6 had a 2.5l V6 with 200hp.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Speaking of Mazdas and 4's behaving like V6's, Mazda had fantastic low displacement V6 engines (K-series) which had GOBS of torque and amazing redlines for the times.
MX-3 had a 1.8l V6 with a 7000rpm red line
MX-6 had a 2.5l V6 with 200hp.

I really miss that engine. I LOVE that philosophy. It's EXACTLY what I'm talking about: more cylinders AND less displacement in the same package. You get refinement AND economy. You have to do it right to keep your torque when you start getting as extreme as 1.8 liters in a V6, but Mazda demonstrated that it can be done.

There was also a Miller-cycle supercharged version of it. 2.3 liters. It was used in the Millenia S. That car AND that engine were brilliant.

Again, MOD, I'd like you to find a 328 to take for a test drive and tell us what you think of it.

I'd like to do that myself. I guess we'll have to see if I can weasel BMW of Idaho Falls into a test drive...

[gwoods]

wear a mask