How do you like your turbo car?

[Andrew1972]

My wife's previous 2005 Legacy GT wagon with manual absolute hoot. Civilized WRX for grownups in a family wagon. Power was a wallup. No issues with turbo but rubber oil and breather lines feel apart related to turbo at 235k.

Our current 2018 Tiguan has ton of low end power at little RPM so enjoy the turbo that way.

 

[dlundblad]

My wife loves hers. We have no plans on getting rid of it.

 

[Trav]

Over the years I have had many forced induction cars, some turbo other supercharged and a couple of twin charged (very difficult to tune), some were really nice drivers other were a terror.
A turbo wakes up any diesel, the difference in a normally aspirated diesel and a turbo diesel of the same size is amazing.

 

[bachman]

I sold Turbo diesels for Ford in the 1997 -1999 years, BIG following and strong fan club. Strong, smooth and great economy.
Didn't have experience with turbos otherwise until driving my dads '99 Bug. Same nice thrust of power. Felt effortless and undramatic.

My first was a 2008 Mazda CX-7 that my wife and I really enjoyed, the smaller motor and a turbo. However, living with one I soon realized what turbo lag was and think the CX-7 might have been a bigger offender than other vehicles. Times I'd like to nail it to get going when cross traffic was inbound, I quickly learned turbo lag = exposure time with velocity closing in. I had to change my habits a bit just so I didn't die too soon.
With our current CX-9 and the VW Golf SW, I don't think of either as the same cautionary tale. I'll guess they are both within today's margins of tech and performance and it sure doesn't hurt they both deliver very good power and torque feeling like a fast lift-off. Even at 170 hp , the VW moves with urgency and feels light.

I've heard of / read of letting the turbo engine cool down after driving but I'm not sure I've found that noted in any owner's manual on the three cars we have/had as turbo's .
I honestly don't know;
- Is that still a thing or was it more to older versions ?
- Was it for safer motor operation and longevity or for cooling things down so you don't burn down your garage ?

 

[MCompact]

I've owned five turbo cars, including the two that are currently in my garage, and I have absolutely no complaints. I particularly like the N55 motor in the 2 Series- it averages 26-28 mpg yet can run the quarter in under 13 seconds.

 

[brages]

Originally Posted by Olas
contemporary turbo cas use small turbos and clever wastegate control to hit full boost at 1800rpm and they fall off a cliff after 5500rpm. the idea is to give a very broad plateau of torque with lots of area under curve.

some of us have grown up with high revving NA engines whose power increases with RPM, which makes the current generation of turbo cars feel very dull and very artificial to drive. If I wanted loads of boost and loads of power at 2k rpms I'd buy a diesel, I like a curve to climb with RPM for driving enjoyment, a very broad and flat curve just feels boring to drive.


I feel the same way... here is the torque curve for my turbo car (2006 Volvo S40):

Lots of torque coming on very early, but not all that fun to drive IMO.

I like driving a manual transmission... I like the directness of it. My turbo engine with its small but perceptible lag gives a less direct feel... Response from a N/A engine is instant, not time dependent.

 

[walterjay]

I love mine and all trouble free. Ford Ecoboost and Hyundai 1.6 Turbo.

 

[Overfill]

I like my 2.0L ecoboost. I'm expecting to have to mess with the wastegate arm*--maybe adding a shim or adjusting the arm.
I'll say that I don't feel it's a better car than my old 2GR-FE (V6 Rav4), and the performance of it isn't really that much better (87 octane), In fact, I'd say it is more complex than the 2GR-FE.
It's not a bad car, but if they were equally old, I'd pick the Rav again.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t-Fik8-bUQ&t=231s

 

[LoneRanger]

Two turbos vehicles, see sig. No complaints. Too early to speak to durability but driveability wise the truck is very responsive and torquey, feels like a performance vehicle. The GMC feels more like an economy tune but it performs satisfactorily for my wife's driving style. If one is so inclined, the F150 will dispatch many other vehicles in the stop light derby. On 87 regular.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted by va2001ss
Originally Posted by ls1mike
Originally Posted by Malo83
17 Buick Regal GS 2.0T car runs great, drive it like all my other cars, nothing special,

Have the same 2.0T LTG in our 20-15 Malibu. Just over 65,000 miles. Has been rock solid.
We drive it like all the other cars. No issues. Does pretty good moving the Malibu.


2018 2.0T LTG, no issues either. Enjoy it with the 9 speed, nice all around experience.


I am interested in trying out the 9 speed, ours it is the 6T70E, works just find but I would like to see the difference.
I really think the LTG is a good little engine that probably get overlooked.

I have had a ton of Mid 80's to early 90's 2.2/2/5 Mopar turbo cars. They were always a lot of fun.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

No complaints other than having to live with the potential for higher ownership costs due to the additional heat and plumbing/components. As others have mentioned the flat torque curve from 1500-5000 rpms is a big positive with regards to forced induction.

 

[Rand]

I had a 2017 cherokee with the 3.2 pentastar, I now have a 2019 cherokee with the 2.0T

The 2.0T is much better... but of course I dont have 10 years on it for reliability etc.

 

[supton]

Why is a flat torque curve "not fun to drive"? I have to ask, as I've never had a performance car, as you might guess. The only "nice" vehicle I had was a turbo diesel, with a flat curve; I liked being able to just roll on the throttle and not having to grab gears to wind it out. Less shifting.

Then again, when I had it tuned, it woke right up. But I'm guessing it had an inverse torque curve to what ya'll are interested in, huge peak at 2k and falling off after that.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by supton
Why is a flat torque curve "not fun to drive"? .


I think power to weight is a big factor in "fun to drive" . There are plenty of engines that provide a "Less than ideal" declining torque curve, but because they are so powerful in the vehicle, they are a blast.

Turbo's with a sudden rush of power can be amazingly fun.

 

[Cdn17Sport6MT]

There is no way my next (decent) vehicle will be normally-aspirated. I need the "entertainment factor" that most turbo's afford the car. I don't believe the added complexity really makes long-term ownership problematic.

 

[Cdn17Sport6MT]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by Olas
contemporary turbo cas use small turbos and clever wastegate control to hit full boost at 1800rpm and they fall off a cliff after 5500rpm. the idea is to give a very broad plateau of torque with lots of area under curve.

some of us have grown up with high revving NA engines whose power increases with RPM, which makes the current generation of turbo cars feel very dull and very artificial to drive. If I wanted loads of boost and loads of power at 2k rpms I'd buy a diesel, I like a curve to climb with RPM for driving enjoyment, a very broad and flat curve just feels boring to drive.


A friend of mine has a wrx sti. My cx5 will beat it 5-60, because it's so laggy, but it has insane pickup for only 310hp vehicle of its weight after 3500rpm or so, and driving both, it feels so much faster 5-60. 1/4mile, it's a dead ringer for his ex gfs v6 2018 mustang. I've flogged both cars. The Sti felt way faster.

Area under the curve is where it's at for actual performance. Peaky power is super fun though and preferable for feel goods.

This is why the s2k was such a fun! car. I loved those, but they were twitchy. Not bipolar like a viper or older P car without all the electronic wizardry, but still had some twitch. I personally like my cars super predictable, because I legit do not have the skill level to get all one can get out of the twitchy ones.

My .02


The WRX and the WRX STi have a twitchy throttle/engine torque action in stock form. I am told they benefit from a tune (particularly Cobb?) to "linearize" their behaviour a bit... make 'em more drivable.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by Cdn17Sport6MT
There is no way my next (decent) vehicle will be normally-aspirated. I need the "entertainment factor" that most turbo's afford the car. I don't believe the added complexity really makes long-term ownership problematic.

I think about it, time to time, would be nice to have again, but I did have the turbo fail on me, and I was glad that it didn't take out my motor, as sometimes they can. I think that was around the 7 year mark when it let loose. Luckily there was VW mechanic nearby and I didn't have to tow out of state to get it worked on.

On the flip side, I put in a bigger turbo and chipped it, and boy was it a hoot afterwards.

 

[SevenBizzos]

Love it. It certainly saves me frustration while driving.

 

[skyactiv]

Both cars in my signature are GDI turbos. I like my wife's engine better. The 2 stage intake on her car makes the engine feel much better to drive.

 

[BeerCan]

Most of my cars are turbo and I have no problem with them. However my favorite cars to drive are my 2 NA Porsche.