Consumer Reports Trashes small displacement turbos

[mitdr774]

How is a timing belt ananual thing? Its mileage based, not every year.

 

[$ub$onic]

I said some. Some people don't, I do.

I reread it. I read it wrong first I retract my statement ,

 

[RichieRocket]

Your turbo paid for itself the second you bought it. You won't be doing annual timing belt changes. There are some that don't trust a chain over 100k... However, every car maker has claimed to have a 100k TB, then changed the interval after valves get bent. Barring an oiling issue with your timing chain, it should be there indefinitely without change.

CR has become a plug-o-la machine. Whoever pays them gets a spun and slanted view. The have also focused on the rube demographic. Those people that beat their tools and have no ideal of the maintenance.

As far as small engines with turbos, nonsense. Blanket generalizations are proof CR focuses on the rubes. The OP's VW 1.8 vs 2.5 is great and true. Most of this involves how well the engine was engineered. There are many small forced induction engines out performing the larger option. The only case is cost to own. What if the turbo fails? However, are there hidden costs in larger NA. Commonly, transmission issues.

See, you just can't generalize unless you are gearing to a segment that is potentially ignorant and do not want such details.

GeneralZod, excellent point on the timing belt/chain. So for anyone who keeps the car for more than 5-7 years, you do save the ~$350 for the timing belt replace. I've done timing belts myself on my '89 Probe GT and '98 Civic, those were 5 hour knuckle busters...

I'm not going to say I'm for or against CR, I have used my friends online account for reviews on stuff like cameras, appliances and most recently snow tires. I was frustrated by one of the comments posted after the CR article, "turbo engines use a lot of fuel when on the boost"...that's BS! For the same conditions, 70hp from the 1.4T will use less fuel than 70hp from the 1.8NA. It's all about the BSFC!

According to them, the one car they show where the turbo does work is the Dart, the 1.4T is faster and better economy that the 2.0L. The Dodge 1.4T is rated much higher hp stock, I'm assuming it requires premium fuel.
So if Chevy had uprated the stock 1.4T, it should show the same advantages. But as we've discussed before, maybe Chevy did not want to require super fuel on an 'economy' car. Also, maybe insurance rates would increase with bumped up performance? Don't know for sure...

Since most cars sold in the USA are automatics, the car companies really need to program the transmissions to not downshift, but use the low-end torque.CR said the cruze 1.4T downshifted a lot to keep up with traffic. Maybe the driver did not properly anticipate the 1/2 second lag and they pushed the gas pedal too far for the desired power/acceleration.

 

[ungawd]

I've got the 1.4t with an automatic. The EPA fuel economy estimates on my sticker are as follows. 27 city, expected range for most drivers 22-32. 37 highway, expected range for most drivers 30-44. The combined fuel economy estimate is 31. What I have been averaging is a hair north of 36mpg throughout this cold winter. Overall it's been about 75% highway and 25% what I call town & country. I do my fair share of spirited driving and I waste no time when passing because the Buckeyes around here have a tendency to floor it when you try to pass them. When summer fuel and weather arrives I expect no less than 40mpg combined. I don't think that's unrealistic at all as I got that in September.

 

[GeneralZod]

How is a timing belt ananual thing? Its mileage based, not every year.

That is what I thought at one time too. However, most TB should be replaced @5 years of service. Some claim 6 years, this if you are under the change interval. Mine was many miles under and the time was up. The materials on the TBs do oxidize. The mechanic who I trust said they start delaminating. As was mine, not bad, but enough to make a person think.

Also, these cars are commuter cars. If I own mine 7 years, I would be at 2 or 3 TBs. also, the price of 400 is on the good side. I have done two, and had no problem paying a specialized mechanic 550. Everyone else wanted 1400. This is VW, so special tools are required. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same for GM too.

So I think the 1.4 makes the money back in the back end. Plus, performance and potentially better mpg driven correctly just make too many pros. There are many things I like about the 1.8, but the 1.4 is in a different class. So much so all the car rags love it, and that says volumes.

 

[$ub$onic]

I have always went off milage I have never Hurd about this year stuff

 

[GeneralZod]

Richie, in some cases downshifting saves fuel.

You are correct about GM not using 91 in the sonic. It wouldn't make sense.

 

[GeneralZod]

I have always went off milage I have never Hurd about this year stuff

Just by knowing how much you drive it would never be an issue for you. If you think of it this way it will make sense. Look at accessory belts. They dry rot, so do TB. Who cares if a serpentine or alt belt rots. A TB is another story. Most manuals won't go over any time interval. Now, belt manufactures will. Most VW have 6 years max. Mine was 6 years and it might have gone another year or two problem free. Who would be willing to make that gamble at 4k dollars of head work.

It is also why most TBs require regular inspection. Cracks, lamination issues, and heavy oxidation require a change regardless of miles. Car makers have been trying to have 100k or over belts for years. Enough belts blow apart that it is changed. VW had a major cluster f, so bad the manuals conflicted from car to car and the service side. Them you will have the TB that has 240k miles. Those are always highway cars too btw. Regular use seems to be the key.

Another point, factory oils, belts, and tires have become garbage in the last ten years. Look at stock clutches.

 

[$ub$onic]

Got it, I guess I've never not drove 20-30k a year so I have never thought about it. I can see a grandpa car that does 5k a year needing changed in a annual sense

 

[RichieRocket]

Richie, in some cases downshifting saves fuel.

You are correct about GM not using 91 in the sonic. It wouldn't make sense.

Agree, there comes a point where you need to downshift, but most of the time, for a desired amount of power, to be in the taller gear at lower rpm, rather than revving higher. I tried to get the BSFC chart for our 1.4T but failed to find anything, couldn't even find one for any small displacement turbo gas engine. But in general terms, the minimum specific fuel consumption is at roughly 1/3 redline and 2/3-3/4 load. That's where the efficiency island is...

 

[GeneralZod]

Agree, there comes a point where you need to downshift, but most of the time, for a desired amount of power, to be in the taller gear at lower rpm, rather than revving higher. I tried to get the BSFC chart for our 1.4T but failed to find anything, couldn't even find one for any small displacement turbo gas engine. But in general terms, the minimum specific fuel consumption is at roughly 1/3 redline and 2/3-3/4 load. That's where the efficiency island is...

Maybe check euro spec engines. However, their gasoline quality is different. They have awesome diesel. Most cracked by the US. Go figure, that supply and demand thing is a mother.