New vehicles - Turbo :(

Blame emissions laws, we not gonna go back to naturally aspirated, heck, even turbos are at risk since everything will be electrified.

Most people like the fuel economy with the turbo. But definitely not fun to repair or replace. Some places need to replace the entire unit which can be 2 to 3k a piece.

If they produce a sports car EV. All the sports cars will be finished.

You can still pick up a NA V8 from Lexus side

Won’t have to worry about this come 2035.

bomber17 wrote: ↑ Blame emissions laws, we not gonna go back to naturally aspirated, heck, even turbos are at risk since everything will be electrified.

Not emissions (at least directly), but fuel economy. Probably CAFE since it's U.S. influence.

Fuel economy savings are very minimal or not at all. For example, 2022 Lexus rx350 bs 2023 version. Former uses reg gas vs premium gas for latter.

I'd pay more for a car that did not have a turbo.

Why is that a bad thing in your opinion? When driving normally it can make the car more fuel efficient. But if you need the power to pass somebody its there if needed.
Majority of manufactures have turbos in a lot of their cars, this is nothing new and they are pretty reliable if you do the proper maintenance. Changing your oil on-time and using the proper oil is very important but this is something that should be done regardless if the car is turbo or not.

Also there are cars out there which are turbo charged and still use regular fuel (not premium) so thats a bonus.

doomhammer wrote: ↑ I'm noticing a trend among new Toyotas and perhaps other manufacturers as well -- putting in a Turbo engine for a family sedan like the new Accord .. Tundra? .. Sequoia etc. Am not happy about this. They should keep the turbos for racing and fine tuning for niche segments only while keeping the family car segment as naturally aspirated. Am really not happy about this general direction with Toyota and Honda.

Thoughts?

bomber17 wrote: ↑ Blame emissions laws, we not gonna go back to naturally aspirated, heck, even turbos are at risk since everything will be electrified.

No, blame consumers. They want lots of torque and power, but low gas usage. They also want giant, heavy SUV. You could get 40+mpg in a 90's Civic with 100hp, but nobody would buy that these days. Instead we have soccer moms driving 400hp SUVs. Most consumers also don't keep a car long enough to worry about post warranty costs.

doomhammer wrote: ↑ I'm noticing a trend among new Toyotas and perhaps other manufacturers as well -- putting in a Turbo engine for a family sedan like the new Accord .. Tundra? .. Sequoia etc. Am not happy about this. They should keep the turbos for racing and fine tuning for niche segments only while keeping the family car segment as naturally aspirated. Am really not happy about this general direction with Toyota and Honda.

Thoughts?

First time you bought a car since 2010? This isn't a new trend.

engineered wrote: ↑ First time you bought a car since 2010? This isn't a new trend.

Better grab a 2022 Highlander V6 while they last. Its a dying breed. Nice power feels. Its just different n/a.

And tell me the address.
🥷

Turbo trend even spread to light trucks, e.g. Ford F-150 with EcoBoost since 2015.

One potential trouble spot for turbos, at least larger turbo diesels, is shut off when hot. Need to idle until the turbo cools down. Pyrometers in medium truck TDs (e.g., Cummins, Caterpillar) usedd in Class A RVs for this purpose.

thriftshopper wrote: ↑ Turbo trend even spread to light trucks, e.g. Ford F-150 with EcoBoost since 2015.

And very well received. This article from 2017 indicates an expected 65% of F-150s would be sold in 2018 with a turbo (at the time there were four engines - a NA V6, 2.7t, 3.5t, and 5.0v8) https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/ ... 50-lineup/

thriftshopper wrote: ↑ One potential trouble spot for turbos, at least larger turbo diesels, is shut off when hot. Need to idle until the turbo cools down. Pyrometers in medium truck TDs (e.g., Cummins, Caterpillar) usedd in Class A RVs for this purpose.

I remember when Ford brought out the their 3.5L T, it was claimed that convection would cool the turbo if shut off hot; the engine has been around 7 years now and although the engines aren't trouble-free, it doesn't seem that the turbos themselves are problematic.

RubberCheese wrote: ↑ I remember when Ford brought out the their 3.5L T, it was claimed that convection would cool the turbo if shut off hot; the engine has been around 7 years now and although the engines aren't trouble-free, it doesn't seem that the turbos themselves are problematic.

I think part of the problem is the turbo spinning at high speed on engine shutdown (evidently takes some time spin down) with the turbo getting no lubrication. One implementation to fix this is something to provide lubrication after engine shutdown. I've never owned (other than a 5 month lease on a TD) a turbo so don't have any experience.

Former Accord turbo owner here. When I bought it I had long commutes, but it was the best decision of my life to return it to the dealer. My mechanic friends didn't recommend to keep it for too long, and the indie mechanic also said they weren't too good. Im happy I got rid of mine as the dillution issues are pretty rampant on this model. Beautiful car outside and inside. I wish they had the 2.4L NA.


With my WFH and short commute to the bus stop in these cold weathers, it wouldve destroyed the car if I still had it. If I'm living in the cold, Im doing whatever I can do avoid Turbos.

Buy a mid 2000s Camry with a 2GRFE.

dm1111 wrote: ↑ I'd pay more for a car that did not have a turbo.

Same. Not a fan of how turbo engine power curve vs. NA and also the shitty exhaust sounds LOL

cannot disable turbo?

EP32k2 wrote: ↑ Same. Not a fan of how turbo engine power curve vs. NA and also the shitty exhaust sounds LOL

You don't like instant power?