Opinions: These small displacement turbos

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: CT8
[/quote]The Chevrolet Corvair offered a turbo on their air cooled engine.


The Corvair could easily have been a world class car, the fact they tried to do it in so many variants led them astray from the plot.

I would love to own a 65 and up style Corsa with a 180 HP turbo and stick but there are so very few around cancer free.

 

[MCompact]

I loved the 2.3 turbo in my MS3. It ran the quarter in 14 seconds flat. Just an average time these days, but fairly quick in 2007. I really wouldn't consider the 3.0 liter N55 in my 2er to be a small displacement motor, but the performance is very impressive; I love a good V8, but when you can tap into 330 lb ft of twist from 1300-4500 rpm it makes for an entertaining drive.

 

[ls1mike]

Our Malibu has the 2.0 LTG Turbo (Cadillac ATS, CTS, Camaro and Regal GS use it as well)
It is a good little engine, totally different than all my Mopar turbos from the 80's

We like it is decent on the MPGs and is a pretty smooth engine.

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted By: racin4ds
The US is finally catching up!! Small displacement turbocharged engines have been mainstream in almost every country for decades EXCEPT the US!!



There are two types of countries in the world.

Those that use the metric system, and those that have put a man on the moon.


Having said that, I love the NA 3.3L V6 Lambda in my SF. I bought that over the available Sports due to the lack of a turbo...

 

[circuitsmith]

Originally Posted By: Brigadier
I love the NA 3.3L V6 Lambda in my SF. I bought that over the available Sports due to the lack of a turbo...


Same with the NA 2.0L in my Tucson.
Sure it's a little slower than the 1.6T, but I'm not in a big hurry at this stage of my life.
I mainly avoided the dual clutch trans, which accounts for ~95% of the complaints on carcomplaints.com.

 

[jeepman3071]

I'm very impressed with the 1.8T in a friend's 2015 Jetta. It has great torque, and routinely returns 37 mpg highway at 80 mph going back and forth to NY. Time will tell how it holds up, but so far it seems great.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Brigadier

There are two types of countries in the world.

Those that use the metric system, and those that have put a man on the moon.


I usually see it phrased as, there are 11 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Speaking of metric vs moon, I mentioned this joke to a German coworker, and he then questioned me about the Mars probe that crashed due to a units conversion problem. Had to admit it was a tie.

 

[DGXR]

Small turbo engines definitely are here for the long-term. But the choice of engine should depend on the majority of it's usage. You can wring out a small engine once in a while and it will (should) last a long time. But if you're going to push it hard on a regular basis, a bigger engine would be a better choice. Yes I am making a generality... some small engines will laugh off years of abuse, with a smile. And they are getting better every year.

I just don't like the complexity of the new high strung fuel-efficient turbo motors. A large engine driven gently can get surprising fuel economy -- they can produce lots of torque at low throttle settings.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Though my GLC with its 3.0L may be considered a "big block" by today's standards of uber small engines, I have to say it is one of the most fun cars I have driven in the past several years. Twin turbo FTW!


I can remember being amazed what this “little” engine could do boosted>>>>

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Speak2Mountain
The Future or a
Temporary Bridge to the Future


Temporary Bridge to the Future certainly but a much better option than a big V8, personally I love a nice turbo 4 banger or high tech, multi valve DOHC injected straight 6 turbo or not.


Nah, give me a normally aspirated big bore V-8...I don't care for these tiny, high RPM blender motors...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: DGXR
Small turbo engines definitely are here for the long-term. But the choice of engine should depend on the majority of it's usage. You can wring out a small engine once in a while and it will (should) last a long time. But if you're going to push it hard on a regular basis, a bigger engine would be a better choice. Yes I am making a generality... some small engines will laugh off years of abuse, with a smile. And they are getting better every year.

I just don't like the complexity of the new high strung fuel-efficient turbo motors. A large engine driven gently can get surprising fuel economy -- they can produce lots of torque at low throttle settings.


Which is exactly why I prefer large displacement V-8s (like the LS1) over these high strung turbos...

 

[HemiHawk]

Originally Posted By: DGXR
Small turbo engines definitely are here for the long-term. But the choice of engine should depend on the majority of it's usage. You can wring out a small engine once in a while and it will (should) last a long time. But if you're going to push it hard on a regular basis, a bigger engine would be a better choice. Yes I am making a generality... some small engines will laugh off years of abuse, with a smile. And they are getting better every year.

I just don't like the complexity of the new high strung fuel-efficient turbo motors. A large engine driven gently can get surprising fuel economy -- they can produce lots of torque at low throttle settings.


My 08 Mustang returned what I would call terrific fuel economy on the highway. 27-29mpg with 3.73 gears and only a 5 speed. and that was the older 4.6 3 valve motor. I've read of people getting well over 30mpg highway with the new 5.0.

For practicality reasons we now have a car more relatable to this discussion, a VW GTI. It returns about the same 27-29mpg... commuting. All highway trips have averaged hand calculated 34-37mpg depending how I drive it. I don't mind the motor at all other than its a bit dull. My Civic Si with 8200rpm redline was a much more fun engine. Of course it was down 130 pounds of torque over the turbo motor.

Out of the two I prefer the Mustangs V8, but I'm far from displeased with the 2.0 Turbo.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Brigadier
There are two types of countries in the world.

Those that use the metric system, and those that have put a man on the moon.
FYI, there was plenty of metric system use in moon missions, for example the Apollo Guidance Computer was programmed using metric units.
https://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: FordBroncoVWJeta
My VW Jetta with the 1.4T makes more horsepower than a 70s Mustang with a 302W. "There's no replacement for displacement" is over.

The 2.3T Mustang in the 80's was faster than the 5.0 and had to be detuned.


I don't think so. I had an '88 LX 5.0 and I raced several of the 2.3 turbos and I never lost to one...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: HemiHawk

My 08 Mustang returned what I would call terrific fuel economy on the highway. 27-29mpg with 3.73 gears and only a 5 speed. and that was the older 4.6 3 valve motor. I've read of people getting well over 30mpg highway with the new 5.0.



The last 3 generations of Corvettes have been able to achieve 30+ MPG on the highway, and they all had bigger than 5 liter motors...

 

[HemiHawk]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk

My 08 Mustang returned what I would call terrific fuel economy on the highway. 27-29mpg with 3.73 gears and only a 5 speed. and that was the older 4.6 3 valve motor. I've read of people getting well over 30mpg highway with the new 5.0.



The last 3 generations of Corvettes have been able to achieve 30+ MPG on the highway, and they all had bigger than 5 liter motors...


Thats true too! Lightweight, aerodynamic, and really tall 6th gear helped them a ton. One of my friends had a 98 Camaro SS with LS1 that regularly returned over 30mpg highway. I think his also had that skip-shift thing that went 1st-4th gear. He might have disabled it.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk

My 08 Mustang returned what I would call terrific fuel economy on the highway. 27-29mpg with 3.73 gears and only a 5 speed. and that was the older 4.6 3 valve motor. I've read of people getting well over 30mpg highway with the new 5.0.



The last 3 generations of Corvettes have been able to achieve 30+ MPG on the highway, and they all had bigger than 5 liter motors...


Thats true too! Lightweight, aerodynamic, and really tall 6th gear helped them a ton. One of my friends had a 98 Camaro SS with LS1 that regularly returned over 30mpg highway. I think his also had that skip-shift thing that went 1st-4th gear. He might have disabled it.


That stupid skip shift will be the first thing to go on my Vette, if it hasn't already been disabled...

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: supton
I usually see it phrased as, there are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
FIFY...

Back to Binary 101 for you....

 

[PimTac]

Buy the vehicle that meets your needs. It’s as simple as that. Keep in mind that fuel economy savings is real money. I would rather have the money in my wallet rather than give it to the oil companies.

 

[Malo83]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Our Malibu has the 2.0 LTG Turbo (Cadillac ATS, CTS, Camaro and Regal GS use it as well)
It is a good little engine, totally different than all my Mopar turbos from the 80's

We like it is decent on the MPGs and is a pretty smooth engine.

Really like the 2.0 in my 17 Regal GS, decent gas mileage and she runs great, no turbo lag and as stated smooth

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ltg/