Automotive

Should you avoid "turbo" engines?

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 16th, 2017 6:28 pm
Tags:
Jr. Member
Dec 7, 2009
139 posts
51 upvotes
burbs
We all better get used to 4 cyl. - turbo or not.

Honda is going to stop selling all V6's in the States shortly. Canada will likely be next.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 7, 2007
19158 posts
2743 upvotes
Poormond Hill
Pete_Coach wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 8:08 am
I find that hard to comprehend. Could you provide some explanations to your statement?
The 2018 Camry has a new base 2.5l 4 cylinder engine making 203hp. Comparing the competition base 1.5l/1.6l turbo fours from Chevy, Hyundai, and Ford, the Camry engine is more powerful, yet returning better fuel economy.
Image

Even when comparing the more powerful 2.0l turbo fours to the Camry's 3.5l V6, there is no advantage.
Image

2017 Ford Fusion is used because there is no figures available for the 2018 models.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 2, 2008
11343 posts
1376 upvotes
sandikosh wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 11:54 am
The 2018 Camry has a new base 2.5l 4 cylinder engine making 203hp. Comparing the competition base 1.5l/1.6l turbo fours from Chevy, Hyundai, and Ford, the Camry engine is more powerful, yet returning better fuel economy.
Image

Even when comparing the more powerful 2.0l turbo fours to the Camry's 3.5l V6, there is no advantage.
Image

2017 Ford Fusion is used because there is no figures available for the 2018 models.
at what rpm does it happen??? unless u redline the car daily every stoplight to stoplight, there is no advantage to NA camry............. normal city driving say at 2k rpm which car will feel faster?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 2, 2008
11343 posts
1376 upvotes
ManInTheBurbs wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 11:53 am
We all better get used to 4 cyl. - turbo or not.

Honda is going to stop selling all V6's in the States shortly. Canada will likely be next.
ridgeline and pilot and odyssey????

you forgot the most important honda of all times. The NSX.........
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
28447 posts
4414 upvotes
Ottawa
sandikosh wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 11:54 am
The 2018 Camry has a new base 2.5l 4 cylinder engine making 203hp. Comparing the competition base 1.5l/1.6l turbo fours from Chevy, Hyundai, and Ford, the Camry engine is more powerful, yet returning better fuel economy.


Even when comparing the more powerful 2.0l turbo fours to the Camry's 3.5l V6, there is no advantage.


2017 Ford Fusion is used because there is no figures available for the 2018 models.
I think karakoram's statement was "toyota's new NA engines= more powerful and better fuel economy compared to competition turbos"
Your example of a 2.4 l vs 1.5 L turbo is not the same engine size.
The Toyota 2.4L of 203 hp compares more closely to Hyundai or KIA 2.0 turbo which produce 245 hp (my 2011 Optima had 275hp).
Comparing a 3.5 L V6 is also not the same as a 2.0L turbo, it is 1.5 L more displacement and gets the same mileage but has less power.
And, I see no HP ratings for your examples.
Apples to apples....?
This has become a P'ing contest and I think the OP has enough information.
It's alright if you don't agree with me... I can't force you to be right. - Anonymous
Jr. Member
Dec 7, 2009
139 posts
51 upvotes
burbs
qaz393 wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 12:03 pm
ridgeline and pilot and odyssey????

you forgot the most important honda of all times. The NSX.........
Sorry, I should have said Accord only. It will have 1.5 turbo and 2.0 turbo. The 2.0T will have a 10 speed automatic trans.
Sr. Member
Dec 14, 2005
962 posts
142 upvotes
thatsnazzyiphoneguy wrote:
Aug 11th, 2017 12:33 am
IT seems alot of car manufacturers are pushing turbos. downsizing engines to less then 2.0L and adding turbos to compensate for these underpowered 1.8L engines that supposely give u great mileage, but lack power, hence the turbo option.

Ive always been told, turbos in general, are an EXPENSIVE repair if they ever break.

For that reason alone, should they be avoided?

One of my vehicles im considering getting is the honda CRV but it only comes equiped with a 1.9L V4 TURBO.
Drove my VW 1.8T for 13 + years, never had a problem. They're quite reliable these days.
Sr. Member
Jan 27, 2015
921 posts
351 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
Pete_Coach wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 12:25 pm
I think karakoram's statement was "toyota's new NA engines= more powerful and better fuel economy compared to competition turbos"
Your example of a 2.4 l vs 1.5 L turbo is not the same engine size.
The Toyota 2.4L of 203 hp compares more closely to Hyundai or KIA 2.0 turbo which produce 245 hp (my 2011 Optima had 275hp).
Comparing a 3.5 L V6 is also not the same as a 2.0L turbo, it is 1.5 L more displacement and gets the same mileage but has less power.
And, I see no HP ratings for your examples.
Apples to apples....?
This has become a P'ing contest and I think the OP has enough information.
I'm just trying to understand your logic here: how do you figure that the base Camry engine (2.4 litre) is comparable to the 2.0 Turbo from the Sonata/Optima?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 27, 2006
16394 posts
1099 upvotes
Woodbridge
I remember skipping on the RDX when it first came out because it was Honda's first turbo. I loved it especially the SH-AWD

Fast forward to today with majority of vehicles being equipped I didn't think twice when I bought MY17 Civic Sport Touring hatchback.
"I'll put up color bars before I'll put you in front of our cameras."

- MacKenzie
THE NEWSROOM (HBO)
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 27, 2004
36810 posts
2605 upvotes
Toronto
Pete_Coach wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 12:25 pm
I think karakoram's statement was "toyota's new NA engines= more powerful and better fuel economy compared to competition turbos"
Your example of a 2.4 l vs 1.5 L turbo is not the same engine size.
The Toyota 2.4L of 203 hp compares more closely to Hyundai or KIA 2.0 turbo which produce 245 hp (my 2011 Optima had 275hp).
Comparing a 3.5 L V6 is also not the same as a 2.0L turbo, it is 1.5 L more displacement and gets the same mileage but has less power.
And, I see no HP ratings for your examples.
Apples to apples....?
This has become a P'ing contest and I think the OP has enough information.
Oh really? I thought the turbo was meant to replace displacement.

Example... Instead of a 3.0 I6, there is an attempt from an automaker to make a 2.0L Turbo with the same power, but better economy.
Under this thnking... I thought these tiny 1.5L Turbo's were more comparable to the bigger 4 cylinders.
I remember for a while car companies were making big 4 cylinders close to 3 litres.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2011
16376 posts
4993 upvotes
Ottawa
It's all smoke and mirrors.
My vehicle has a 3.5L twin turbo and there's nothing efficient about in terms of fuel economy.
I would much rather have a v8, as the numbers are very similar in terms of power and gas mileage.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
28447 posts
4414 upvotes
Ottawa
FinancialFreedom wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 5:08 pm
I'm just trying to understand your logic here: how do you figure that the base Camry engine (2.4 litre) is comparable to the 2.0 Turbo from the Sonata/Optima?
The statement was "toyota's new NA engines= more powerful and better fuel economy compared to competition turbos"
No logic required. If you are going to compare, do it apples to apples.
It's alright if you don't agree with me... I can't force you to be right. - Anonymous
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
28447 posts
4414 upvotes
Ottawa
UrbanPoet wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 5:21 pm
Oh really? I thought the turbo was meant to replace displacement.

Example... Instead of a 3.0 I6, there is an attempt from an automaker to make a 2.0L Turbo with the same power, but better economy.
Under this thnking... I thought these tiny 1.5L Turbo's were more comparable to the bigger 4 cylinders.
I remember for a while car companies were making big 4 cylinders close to 3 litres.
Did you think that now? Good for you but, there are many reasons to go to a smaller engine. Weight, performance, economy, design and probably more.
Waaaay off track, sorry OP. Time to stop.
It's alright if you don't agree with me... I can't force you to be right. - Anonymous
Sr. Member
Dec 16, 2014
792 posts
405 upvotes
Easter Island
Pete_Coach wrote:
Aug 12th, 2017 5:37 pm
The statement was "toyota's new NA engines= more powerful and better fuel economy compared to competition turbos"
No logic required. If you are going to compare, do it apples to apples.
my statement was 100% true, now you're beating around the bush. toyota just b!tchslapped all of the pathetic turbos which suffer from miserable fuel economy.
i'll still give credit to hyundai's 1.6L turbo and honda's 1.5L turbo, they're decent

Top