Turbo vs Naturally Aspirated Engine Debate

[AxelRipper]

Also figure I might shed some light on some other bits in this thread, namely the DI part. The 1.4t Family 0 engine doesn't have DI because, well, no Family 0 Ecotecs have DI. Same reason the 1.8 (Family 1) doesn't have it. This engine isn't "new," its been in Europe for quite some time: GM Family 0 engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's replacement was just officially announced (GM announces new global small engine family ) and it will be aluminum block, with DI (pretty sure all production engines will be DI by 2015, but don't quote me, I just engineer them, not their production schedule).

And I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons that people have complained about the reliability of turbos is because they have modified them. I can vouch for the fact that these engines are all designed to work together in the best way possible, trying to balance power, efficiency, and reliability. When you start tuning, chances are you'll skew this curve. Yes, you can make more power, but chances are you're going to loose some reliability (and eventually someone who does this will complain on a forum about the engine/car/company is a pile of garbage).

Anyway, I'm off my soapbox now. Enjoy your day!

 

[wickedsonic]

Cons against Turbo:
Lower fuel mileage (mpg).Turbo Lag while accelerating. No Low End Grunt entering Freeway. Annoying.
More moving parts = more things to break and expensive to maintain.Turbochargers can be damaged by dirty or ineffective oiling systems. Manufacturers recommend more frequent oil changes for turbocharged engines.
May burn oil.
Price.

All the things listed in red are completely wrong.

Because the Sonic has a smaller turbo on it it actually gets up and goes right away. It doesnt need to spool for a couple of seconds, hence the torque number 0f 148 hitting at around 1800rpm.

Turbo cars these days actually get great gas mileage. Better than N/A. I dont know where you get your info from

Price? The turbo option for this car is only $700 more. Thats it.

Cost more to repair? Warrantys are there for a reason and means you wont have to pay for a thing. Also, turbos dont break down as fast as your thinking. Friends of mine have turbo cars that have over 150,000 miles on them apiece.

As far as burning oil... N/A cars burn oil too.

So my question to you, why not? Why do you have your head up your ass when it comes to turbos? Do you just want to hate on them?

BTW, thanks for speaking plain English. Much easier to read.

amen. Low displacement turbo is where the world is going for fuel economy. I work in the industry and saab has been doing this for years and ford/chevy are doing it too. Low displacement = better gas mileage when not on it and normal power when you are on it. Same reason ford has a v6 f150 turbo that gets better mileage, and the same power when on it. Its like nitrous. If i want 75 more hp i put on nitro and never lose the fuel economy when not playing around since its not even active. when your not on it the smaller the better. Same reason the 1.3 aspire/geo/festiva/swift all got 40+ mpgs in the early 90's with half the modern day tech

 

[AndrewGS]

Just to throw another log onto the fire, the Turbo uses a maintenance-free timing chain while the 1.8L uses a timing belt that will have to be replaced. That alone makes up the $700 additional cost. The better MPG is just gravy!

 

[Sonny@bnr]

I thought almost everything was chain now I guess not

 

[keto06]

1.8L DOHC I-4 1.4L turbocharged DOHC I-4
Displacement (cu. in. / cc): 110 / 1796 83.2 / 1364
Bore and stroke (in. / mm): 3.17 x 3.47 / 80.5 x 88.2 2.85 x 3.25 / 72.5 x 82.6

This right here I think tells the story. The 1.4L was made with a TINY bore and a longer stroke in order to maximize torque throughout the powerband. Chevy also used a TINY turbo to do the same thing. As a result, this car not only doesnt make any top end power, but basically CANT without throwing on a big turbo and ruining the daily driver aspect.

Now look at the 1.8. Almost the same dimentions as the 1.8L GSR motor found in 90s Integras. Gives a MUCH better rod/stroke ratio and when combined with CVVT allows for revving throughout the entire band. I have no doubt that with bolt ons and a 91/93 octane tune, the 1.8L will be able to make power FAR into the RPM range. Now the lack of turbo means its never going to make much torque, but still....

As nice as it may be to have a car that makes full boost @2k, Id GLADLY trade it IN A SECOND for a 14b type turbo thats got a LITTLE more lag but gives me a bigger powerband.

My .02