There's a new boss in Motor City, and it ain't Mr. Cubic Inches. Carmaker doing business stateside are increasingly adopting third (or is it fourth?) generation turbochargers to create smaller, more efficient gasoline engines– and satisfy new, stricter federal fuel economy regs. For example, VW's new TSI mill combines excellent fuel economy with good performance and so-so driveability. The Passat 1.4-liter TSI cranks out 122hp; enough to propel Wolfsburg's warrior from zero to 60mph in 10.4 sec. This while achieving 36 mpg (European model, U.S. gallons, EU testing cycle). Suppliers are scurrying to build blowers. BorgWarner's constructing new turbo-making facilities in Mexico and Thailand; and expanding facilities in Hungary and Poland. Their goal: increase its passenger car turbocharger manufacturing capacity by more than three million units. Rival Continental is set to open a new turbocharger factory in 2011, making 100k spinners a year. Is whistling the new burble?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
This is great news for people interesting in tuning (specifically chip tuning). Whereas it often takes thousands of dollars to eke out another 10% or 20% power out of a normally aspirated engine, a turbo engine–especially with conservative factory boost–will usually see 20%+ with just a few hundred dollars and simple installation.
Bad news is that there are apparently a whole lot of people out there who won’t buy anything that doesn’t take 87 octane, which means there might be some problems there (also, expensive synthetic oil is usually preferred for turbo engines).
Having owned a 2003 Saab 9-3, I have no problem owning a blown 4 cyl. That was the best thing about the car.
You can’t accuse them of going with untested technology…
‘Saab is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its first turbocharged car with the introduction of the limited-edition Turbo X…’.
30 years!
Believe it or not, Ripley, but General Motors actually introduced the world’s first turbocharged mass-production automobile in the autumn of 1961, the 1962 Oldsmobile Cutlass Jetfire, with all-aluminum V8 (dry iron cylinder liners), and fluid-injected (an alcohol mix available at “every Oldsmobile dealer” and there was a special on-demand tank under the hood).
Out of 3.5 litres (215 cubic inches) displacement, the turbocharged engine produced 215 horsepower and 300 pound feet of torque, vs the standard F-85 215-V8 which knocked out 155 horsepower and 210 pound feet of torque. There was also a middling high-performance high compression four barrel dual exhaust Cutlass V8 (no turbocharger) with 185 horsepower and 230 pound feet of torque. All of the 215-V8 engines were carbureted, never were fuel injected. These engine was built through 1963. The non-turbo V8 (with Buick heads – very little difference between the Buick and Oldsmobile alloy 215’s) became the Rover V8 which was built in the UK from 1967 through some time in the 1990’s (?)
This was before the day of knock sensors, electronic fuel injection, and intercoolers. This was when GM was actually at the top of their game. The Chevrolet Corvair could be had with a turbocharged flat six starting in 1965 (180 horsepower out of 164 cubic inches), predating the Porsche 911 Carrera Turbo by something like a decade and a half.
Yep, I’d buy a 1.5 litre turbo car instead of a 2.5 litre non-turbo car as long as the manufacturer were Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Hyundai or possibly Nissan, Mitsubishi or Suzuki.
“VW’s new TSI mill combines excellent fuel economy with good performance and so-so driveability. The Passat 1.4-liter TSI cranks out 122hp; enough to propel Wolfsburg’s warrior from zero to 60mph in 10.4 sec.”
I couldn’t help noticing – that’s about as quick as a Prius.
Back to the future time indeed. This also happened in the 1980s as CAFE ratcheted up. Chrysler, for example, had turbos in a huge fraction of it’s car production. Saab, Volvo and Mitsubishi also went for a lot of turbos then. GM and Ford skipped the party last time, but on this round Ford at least has already said it is going for turbochargers big time with the upcoming Eco-boost line of direct injected engines.
Smaller, direct injected engines with turbochargers along with advanced transmissions are going to become commonplace.
menno:
The Corvair could also be had with a turbcharger in 1962. 150 horsepower from 145 cubic inches.
agree with ash78
I have an ’04 Passat Turbo. Great engine. Average 28 MPG but if you adjust for “Premium” gas and Synthetic oil, that would translate to 23-24 MPG. That’s V6 territory for many cars and you don’t have to deal with nuances of a turbo. (i.e. lag, poor engine brake, etc).
That said, the VW appears to make it up on better driving dynamics (chassis, suspension, steering, stick shift) though. Depends on each person’s preferences I suppose.
@jthorner
I do not believe Ford and GM missed the last turbo round…however, they marketed their’s on performance basis.
Mustang SVO, Thunderbird Turbo-Coupe, and Merkur XR4Ti. And, while not in the US market, Ford has been turbocharging motors for quite some time Down Under.
Regal T-Type, GN, GNX, and Turbo Trans-Am.
I would have liked to have seen the Ford engine in a Tempo or even a Taurus…I think that could have made those vehicles much better.
I owned a 2003 SRT-4 that had a turbocharged engine. That car was a blast to drive, and I loved the car. However, I could only go about 200 miles on 10 gallons of gas, so I only got about 20 mpg on premium gas (80% highway miles). And you had to use synthetic oil in the car as well. If you used regular or mid-grade gas the car would knock and performance would suffer.
I now own a 2006 GTO with a 6 speed transmission and achieve similiar mileage on regular gas. GM recommends premium, yet it is not required like the Dodge did, nor does the engine knock on regular unleaded.
All we need is Mitsubishi bringing back the Starion and we are officially back in the 1980s.
Sweet!
Doesn’t turbocharging also open the door to more widespread acceptance of E85? It seems to me that with a variable-boost capabiltity using the already-existing fuel sensors to crank boost when running E85, there might actually be a valid reason to use the stuff. Especially if some of the reported advances in ethanol production (cellulosic, for example) actually come to fruition in the next few years.
I know it’s fashionable to bash ethanol these days (certainly corn-based ethanol), but I remember the hue and cry back in the early seventies when lead-free gas was going to ruin driving. That didn’t work out all that badly. In time even the Europeans saw the wisdom of mandating unleaded and catalytic converters.
I would love nothing more than to see much of those $1.5B stay here in the States. With a domestic market developing at about the same time that large-scale, low-cost production ramps up, the future might not be so bleak after all.
Can we please file this one in the ‘duh’ department? Of course turbocharging and/or supercharging is the way forward. There’s really no reason not to be reaping the benefits of this technology these days.
What am I missing here? Forced induction pushes more air into the engine. A certain A/F ratio needs to be maintained, so more fuel must also be used. How is that going significantly increase MPG numbers? The two turbocharged cars I’ve owned both got fairly poor gas mileage (which wasn’t helped much by my lead foot).
Turbochargers don’t guarantee excellent fuel economy, you can’t have your performance cake and eat it too in all cases.
I owned a Grand National for 10 years and it averaged 12-14mpg per tank overall. It only returned high numbers on the open road with the cruise set. Any stop and go, elevation changes or if dipping into the boost and it guzzled fuel like a dog at a water bowl.
I now own an LS2 GTO six-speed and it returns 17-19mpg per tank overall from it’s large 6.0L V8. I also get instantaneous throttle response and torque without waiting for a turbo to spool.
Turbos aren’t magically going to change the fuel consumption of large or performance oriented vehicles. Even cars like the STi, EVO and G35 with their small, high hp engines return dismal economy numbers. My sister averages 16mpg in her new G35 sedan for instance.
The fact remains that if you want great fuel economy you need to be looking at small cars. If you want performance you can expect to pay for some of it at the pump.
The primary advantage of turbocharging is that a physically smaller, lighter engine can replace a larger one. To take full advantage of this, the vehicle in which it is installed needs to be downsized accordingly.
Another advantage is lower frictional losses. When cruising, less fuel is required to overcome the friction of, say, two or four extra pistons and their related mechanical compatriots.
We’re really talking about incremental gains in efficiency. It’s not a magic bullet.
WHY has it taken this long for auto manufacturers to come to this conclusion? Wait, I know the answer to that – It goes back to the rednecks in school that swore that there was “no replacement for displacement.”
Of course, for those of us who don’t mind an I4 subcompact, it’s a different story. I’d kill for a turbo setup on my xA – the efficiency of an I4 when I’m cruising, and the acceleration of a V6 when I want it.
Of course, throwing a turbo on a small engine is nothing new, it’s just something saved for other countries.
ash78 – you’re right that there’s plenty of power to be had from a turbo engine
but look at large displacement engines – you sneeze at them and you make even greater power.
GM’s LS1, for Example (Camaro, new GTO, C5 Corvette) can make 500 hp to the wheels with about $3000 worth of bolt on parts (cams, exhaust, head work, intake, headers) – and there’s no waiting for a tool to spool up or off-boost throttle response.
AND – when you start juicing those turbos up, you begin to lose gas mileage (trust, I’ve owned a Celica turbo, an RX-7 turbo, a turbo RX-8, an Eclipse GSX turbo, a 944 turbo, and an A4 1.8T – I know my turbo tuning).
ain’t no replacement for displacement
Turbos aren’t magically going to change the fuel consumption of large or performance oriented vehicles. Even cars like the STi, EVO and G35 with their small, high hp engines return dismal economy numbers. My sister averages 16mpg in her new G35 sedan for instance.
But the G35 isn’t turbocharged. It has a 3.5L V-6. Unless there’s another G35 that I’ve forgotten. Which wouldn’t surprise me.
Ummm… tuners rejoice… your engines are underway…
Downpipe, chip reflash, low restriction intake or CAI, boost controller, after cat exhaust… easy 20-50 HP gains. Fuel economy be damned. Want more power… put a bigger turbo. The difficult part will be the direct injection technology…
@TriShield:
I now own an LS2 GTO six-speed and it returns 17-19mpg per tank overall from it’s large 6.0L V8. I also get instantaneous throttle response and torque without waiting for a turbo to spool.
Turbos aren’t magically going to change the fuel consumption of large or performance oriented vehicles. Even cars like the STi, EVO and G35 with their small, high hp engines return dismal economy numbers. My sister averages 16mpg in her new G35 sedan for instance.
That’s why I was wondering what I was missing. I had an 02 WRX and I only got about 1 mpg better than I’m getting in my 05 GTO now. Granted, 14 lbs of boost coupled to an AWD system in a WRX is an extreme example, but I still can’t see turbos as being a magic answer. It seems like cars need to get smaller, lighter and less powerful.
I think the turbos= fuel economy argument is a ruse
ljw- your thoughts are correct. The turbo 4s of the 80s didn’t get any better fuel economy than the NA V6s.
The turbo 4 push might be more about safety ratings than efficiency. A turbo 4 is smaller than a DOHC V6, it makes it easier to design the crumple zones.
KixStart:
I couldn’t help noticing – that’s about as quick as a Prius.
With more than twice the room.
Passat is not twice as large as Prius. It’s a lot bigger outside and only little bit bigger inside, but not by much.
At highway speeds when using cruise control with higher longer gears turbocharged engine basically stays off boost and with smaller displacement and direct injection you can acheive great mpg numbers. You basically only need boost for overtaking maneuvers or uphill climbs.
Evo, WRX etc. are flat-out performance oriented vehicles that have completely different gearing, boost levels, air/fuel ratio, turbocharger desing, engine mapping etc. when compared to ordinary lower pressure turbocharged family car engines – for example the types that VAG makes.
I wouldn’t mind seeing more turbo cars hit the market. More for us boy racers to play with!
My friend’s 1.8t GTI got the same gas mileage and made the same power as the 2.4L car I was driving at the time.
However, it seems to come down to how much effort the manufacturer is willing to put into tuning their motors to produce efficient power, with good gas mileage. A lot of turbo cars aren’t much more efficient than a big-bore equivalent (ie. TSX 2.4L vs VW AG 2.0FSI, BMW twin turbo vs Nissan/Infiniti VQ), although they do produce more torque.