Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Turbo sales to accelerate by 80%, could make up 40% of global offerings

It's an increasingly turbocharged world out there. At least according to Honeywell, one of the major automotive suppliers for turbochargers around the world. And it's easy to understand why – as fuel mileage requirements are increasing, engine sizes are decreasing. To continue offering the power levels to which modern automotive buyers have come to expect, forced induction offers a ready solution.

Just how many turbochargers are we talking? Last year, Honeywell claims that turbocharged passenger vehicles accounted for 25 percent of the global market, for a total of 20 million vehicles. By 2017, says the report, that number will swell to 36 million new vehicles, which would be about 40 percent of global sales.

In other words, it's time to get used to seeing those exhaust-driven snail-shaped spools under the hood of new cars.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/03/t...-of-global-of/

mmarshall

Turbos, in general, do significantly increase low-end torque over N/A versions, and, of course, give the driver the choice of acceleration/power or cruise/economy in the same engine. But, as I see it, they have several negative features as well. They almost always require expensive Turbo-Approved or synthetic oils (notwithstanding the fact that some N/A engines also do now). They usually (but not always) require premium gas, create a lot of heat underhood that requires not only better oils but more-extensive cooling systems as well, and can overboost and damage the engine if the wastegate malfunctions. In the past, they required special start-up and idle/shut-off techniques to keep the oil from coking after engine shut-down and zero oil-pressure, but that necessity has been lessened some on newer ones. Older ones also had significant turbo-lag from the time it took the compressor to spin-up to full-RPM and deliver boost, but, due to some engineering tricks, has been at least partly-eliminated on newer ones. Still, given the choice, I'm not sure that the turbo's positives, today, outnumber its negatives.

BoDarville

you're living in the past dude

mmarshall

No, I'm not. I explained the differences between past and present turbos. I'm just not (yet) convinced that even the newer ones are worth the potential negatives, though it's true that they are much-improved over previous ones.

And if I was living in the past, I sure as heck would not have bought a new GM product like I just did.

SteVTEC

The modern turbo direct injected engines don't necessarily need premium fuel, they can be tuned for whatever fuel is desired. The big negatives though are the added complexity, cost, added reliability concerns, and they still haven't figured out the whole direct injection sludge buildup issues on the intake tract. A buddy here at the office is having to get his IS250 engine rebuilt because of this, but fortunately Lexus is goodwilling it. All to save a few MPG, I'm not sure it's worth it either. Sure fuel consumption might come down to make some politicians happy, at least for EPA/CAFE stuff, but there are a whole ton of potential hidden costs later. Like upkeep, maintenance, turbo and/or wastegate rebuild or replacement, yanking heads to clean out all the sludge buildup.... Wondering if more companies will start to copy the 2GR-FSE approach with dual injection, once patents run out?

I own two turbocharged direct injected vehicles, one gas and one diesel, but am not sure I'd want to own either out of warranty.

spwolf

Audi is showing around their new 1,8T with technology similar to D4S these days, and Toyota will probably start putting D4S in more cars...

BoDarville

see, you old-timers are wise to routinely interject subjective terms such as this into your posts, so that you don't have to back up your biased personal opinions (against turbocharging) with facts

SteVTEC

Yes, I'm "biased against turbocharging". That's why I own two turbocharged vehicles.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

unintended side effect of incoming CAFE standards

Aron9000

As I see it, there is no replacement for displacement.

A family member was shopping for a midsized to large 4 door family sedan type of vehicle about a year ago. With her new job she was driving 40 miles straight, no traffic, all interstate one way on her commute, so fuel economy was important.

She drove a Prius and deemed it a significantly worse vehicle than her 2000 Toyota Avalon v6. It was slower, more cramped, felt cheaper, was a lot noiser, didn't ride as nice, and cost the same $25,000 her old Avalon cost 12 years ago.

She concluded that she didn't want to move backwards from driving a v6 for 25+ years to a 4 cylinder. The 4 cylinder Camry was 35mpg, the v6 30mpg, despite offering 90 more horsepower. So she spent the extra few grand and bought the rocketship V6 Camry(its a rocketship for a bland family car). I quite frankly don't blame her, IMO for all that power the slightly worse fuel economy is definitely worth it.



Anyways we looked at a Hyundia Sonota Turbo and a Kia Optima Turbo. They were very nice cars, but she hated the thrasyness of the 4 cylinder motors compared to the smooth as silk and silent v6. They both offered about the same horsepower, fuel economy and acceration. I told her just to buy the v6 car since she generally buys a new car every 8-10 years/200k miles. I told her that turbo nonsense is more complex, thus more very expensive crap to break down the road.

SteVTEC

^ Yup, good old fashioned natural aspiration so no turbocharger rebuild or replacement to worry about or wastegate replacement (my 335 already has a minor wastegate rattle). Good old fashioned port injection, so no high pressure fuel pump to worry about, and no need to worry about cleaning out all of the gunk and fouling in the heads that can be caused by straight direct injection which a lot of turbo cars are using. If you're looking at long-term ownership, you're always best off going with the most "old-fashioned", proven, and simple of a car as you can get.