It seems as though the greater industry trend of building smaller, turbocharged engines may not have been such a good thing after all, if a Reuters report is to be believed. Real-world emissions testing, brought on as a result of the Volkswagen diesel emissions cheating scandal, is forcing carmakers to return to larger engines, as these tests expose the downsides of the downsized mills.
Among companies already planning to ditch their smallest engines – both petrol and diesel – over the next three years are Renault, General Motors and VW, said industry sources, with other manufacturers expected to follow suit. The move will wreak havoc on development budgets already pushed to the limit due to a rush in building hybrids and electric vehicles.
“The techniques we’ve used to reduce engine capacities will no longer allow us to meet emissions standards,” said Renault-Nissan Alliance powertrain head Alain Raposo. “We’re reaching the limits of downsizing.”
Tiny engines, turbocharged to make up for lost power, have been able to slip through official lab testing done on rollers at unrealistic temperatures and speeds. The report claims that carmakers, regulators and environment advocates have all known that the mills spew way more carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in the real world, but there hasn’t been anything done to redress it.
Starting from 2017, however, new models will be required to undergo realistic on-the-road testing for NOx emissions, with compliance being mandatory for all cars come 2019. A new global test standard will see fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions follow suit two years later.
Independent testing conducted in the wake of the VW “dieselgate” expose the downside of small engines, which, at higher loads than current lab tests, far exceed legal emissions levels. Turbodiesels create up to 15 times more NOx emissions than the legal limit due to heat from the turbochargers, while their petrol equivalents are less fuel efficient and produce fine particles and carbon monoxide.
Sources say that while carmakers have been mum about the scale of the problem or how they plan to solve it, they are already making a bid for larger engines. For example, GM will ditch its 1.2 litre diesel when it moves to a new engine architecture in 2019, with the smallest engine becoming 25% to 30% larger. VW is also replacing its 1.4 litre three-pot oil-burner with a 1.6 litre four-pot destined for cars like the Polo.
Meanwhile, Renault is making its 1.6 litre R9M diesel – which replaced the 1.9 litre mill in 2011 – 10% larger. Its 0.9 litre H4Bt petrol engine, on the other hand, injects excess fuel to prevent overheating in real-world conditions, causing a high level of unburnt hydrocarbons, fine particles and carbon monoxide emissions. Sources say that cleaning these up with exhaust technology is too expensive, so its successor will be larger and develop more torque at the lower rev ranges to stay cool.
That’s not all. Fiat, Renault and Opel have the worst real-world NOx emissions among Euro 6 diesels, according to test data from several countries – and now “face the biggest burden” of expenditure to become compliant, warned brokerage firm Evercore ISI last month.
Mercedes-Benz head of research and development Thomas Weber said that the result was inevitable. “It becomes apparent that a small engine is not an advantage,” he told the news agency. “That’s why we didn’t jump on the three-cylinder engine trend.”
These tests could mark an end to diesel engines smaller than 1.5 litres and petrol mills below 1.2, said analysts. As such, meeting carbon dioxide emissions goals become much tougher, so hybrid and electric vehicles can’t come soon enough. Stung by the scandal, VW has set ambitious targets to sell two to three million EVs a year by 2025, about a quarter of its current production.
“You can’t downsize beyond a certain point, so the focus is shifting to a combination of solutions,” said Frost & Sullivan analyst Sudeep Kaippalli, who predicted an increase in the number of hybrids. In future, he said, “downsizing will mean you take a smaller engine and add an electric motor to it.”
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
Civic 1.5 TC makan minyak :((
Those call Honda to ditch their 2.4 iVTEC is stupid
Proton no need to be affected. They are just a rebadger. Rebadge only.
P1 will have TGDi engine
Whole world is also moving towards hybrid and plug in hybrid. Our Proton is still stuck in normal engine.
Last time stuck in carburator for so long. They took so long to go into injection. All Malas and tidur in the factory. No research.
OMG you must be malas and tidur not to see RnD units of exora hybrid and Iriz EV
Honda CR-V 1.5 Turbo, anyone?
Prefer 1.5T HR-V
but RV still up..
makan minyak?? its fc is even better than my previous Vios! Get your facts right toyota salesman… oh ya pity your Altis, maybe having stock clearance now… FYI, RON97 @ RM83 goes up to 670km and u say makan minyak? You should get a motorcycle.
There’s no replacement for displacement.
COmplately agree. Although I’m not from an engineering background, it’s common sense that if the engine is of a reasonable size, this would mean less effort is needed and hence fuel savings. The race to the bottom was due to the EU”s way of calculating emissions which hitting the numbers at test (which as we can see from what vw did, is easy to game)
Now that modern engines have all types of fuel savings tricks, having a slightly bigger engine just makes sense tbh. Adding to the fact that small engines with such high power mean the engines are running more under a lot more stress all the time. The warranty claims from failed engines show this to be the case.
These are one of the main reasons why the Japanese largely stayed with Boring NA’s but these engines ran way longer and more reliably.
Also, there is a huge difference between a 2.4-2.5 pumping around 180hp and a blown 1.5-2.0 doing the same number. In the real world..once the road opens up, the bigger motor wins while saving fuel as well. The extra few feet u get in pick up is all you get from a force fed motor.
Turbo has its applications but direct injected NA engines are just as good, if not better for normal everyday cars. Try a 2.5 Skyactiv and you will forget what a turbo meant. #fact
Not exactly. A turbocharged small engine is nice too, and my fuel consumption isn’t too bad (1.4 TSI with ACT, 140 hp (first MJ Golf 7)). It’s mostly terrible when driving really fast, but that is mainly a concern for Germans. When I drive around 120-130 the FC is not too bad, maybe around 6 liter / 100 km. At higher speeds though… good lord. That’s where the NA ones shine.
Engines shouldn’t be too small, but a reasonably sized engine that has a mild turbo for a bit of added oomph…
VW is upsizing again, but it’s just from 1.4 to 1.5, and they are doing things like water cooling so that it isn’t necessary to inject more fuel to cool down the engine.
whatever! NA rules!!! i want a 8.0L 20krpm road car!!!!
I think it should be a combination of the optimum engine size and the turbocharge pressure. Like the article suggest, there must be some limit on how small a turbocharge engine could go to make it efficient. I am a fan of non turbocharge engine, but that is for reliability.
If it is for power, engine can only go at certain size to be efficient. Bigger engine is not always good too when we think about power to weight ratio and also maintenance perspective. Well, turbo engine is not the best in terms of reliability, could be worst compared to big NA engine.
Suddently I am more interested at Skyactive after reading the article :)
But I was told by paultan comment section that Turbo and diesels was the way to go, what happened to “All hail insta torque, cheap road tax and to hell with NOx emission”. Small Turbocharge engine may work as a range extender where they can run more linearly rather than the stop-start nature of what cars are doing now.
I am more concerned with reliability of these small turbocharged engine. Peer into the new Civic’s engine and you’ll be greeted with a maze of pipes an unfathomable wires for the turbocharger. So what happens when the warrenty ends on these cars, I doubt it’ll exhibit the same level of reliability as a larger, dumber NA of the same age.
AVH. In M’sia, we call it Lalang Ikut Angin Tiup. In English, its called Bending with the wind.
Follow with the flow lah
How many of us believed that the story ends here?
Look and think outside the box. Downsizing was the trend for a reason. Now though, with many manufacturers having access to more modern gearbox (6MT, 8AT, CVT), even big capacity engines need not to work hard to deliver. Engine speed maintained at peak torque @ low rpm. Example Nissan sylphy 2.0 and jaguar 3.0 v6 twin turbo diesel – 100kph at 1,400rpm.
When Toyota says they prefer NA engine, paultan comment section licks turbo ass and blame Toyota lousy. Downsizing engine lolol.
Well positive outcome of this news, F1 back to V12 engines!
Eh, Toyota got turbo engine, lor. Those auris and upcoming CHR use 1.2l turbo. Dun let me start with older ones
Meanwhile our Proton and Perodua???? Oh waii..
Straight six NA is the way to go!!!
Longer crankshaft gives better torque compare to v6. Better driveability, better traction, better FC. The reason why BMW never had a v6.
Legends return?
Focus on electric vehicles. No worries.
Good news for the Malaysian government. Now their cc-based road tax is justified. The new Honda Civic, together with the Peugeot 408 have been bringing nightmares. How can it be that the cheapest version has the biggest engine and therefore the highest tax? Now they have an excuse for that.
In Paul Tan’s article, commentator by the name of malaysian driver explains it well. It convinced me NA is better
http://paultan.org/2016/10/13/2017-honda-cr-v-unveiled-new-190-hp-1-5l-turbo-engine-premium-interior-even-more-practical/
I’ve read what Malaysian Driver said, about car manufacturers wanting to sell more cars under the previous emission standards.
Which got me thinking: If they changed the emission standards again, they can sell more cars of a different type! So, the car manufacturers and the people who set the emission standards are in cahoots. One side changes the goal post every few years, with the other side having full knowledge of this beforehand, while the spectators (car buyers) spend their hard-earned money buying the tickets (the cars) to watch the show! It’s a non-stop merry-go-round.
If carbon dioxide & NOx is your concern, stop all petrol & diesel production & go the way of EV la. As long as we use fossil fuels, there will be emissions issue.
Human will always have a tendency to cheat & they even will try to get away with murder if given the chance.
Figures are there for a purpose & there is no GUARANTEE that it is the BEST results/figures as it can/will be manipulated to benefits someone/party.
Meanwhile Proton in its way to 1.3 litre and 1.5 litre GDI and TGDI engines.
http://paultan.org/2016/01/29/proton-new-gdi-and-tgdi-engines-detailed/
Dont u read the article…”These tests could mark an end to diesel engines smaller than 1.5 litres and petrol mills below 1.2, said analysts”
Thats why another prime example of my conclusion that bashers dun read and understand b4 start bashing.
Oh no…Proton has already started development of its 1 litre 3 cylinder engine. wat to do? or maybe they haven’t started…?
for small car no problem. Do you expect A-segment car use 2.4L engine?
Actually an A-segment-sized 2 door hatchback with a 2.4 liter turbocharged engine will be quite nice. And wild.
Mazda skyactiv ok je
Ha ha, just the other day I was posting in the CRV page questioning the validity of this “downsizing frenzy” that had sweep almost the entire globe automotive industry, and as expected, these “downsizing believer” came and bash me, now who’s padan muka? This news is indeed a big slap on their face! And I am indeed so happy, wohoho !
To summed up, my arguments are very simple:
1) This downsizing trend has nothing gotta do with environmental concern or saving fuel, it is just a means to sell more cars under the current tax structure which penalise big displacement engine.
2) This downsizing trend was originally started by VW, and let me explain how this domino effect started: In the late 90’s and early 2000’s, China implemented a tax structure which is extremely unfavourable towards big displacement NA engines. Hence, VW started this “downsizing trend” to sneak pass this regulation in the form of TSI engines. VW turbocharging strategy is so successful, sealing VW as the champion seller in China, and cemented the China market as VW biggest cash cow outside Europe, a position it holds on till this day.
3) This “downsized turbocharging” trend soon caught the attention of the European legislator. Coupled with VW’s extremely effective PR campaign, and green activist’s conveniently piggybacking on VW’s downsizing agenda, they successfully brainwash the mass public and the European legislators that downsizing is the future and it saves polar bear. By truth, this is far from the reality, because downsizing turbocharged engines are not more efficient, actually, they burn more fuel in certain circumstances and it pollutes the environment even more (as mentioned in this article). Why people were made believe of such crap that turbocharging engines save more fuel and pollute less is because THESE TURBOCHARGING ENGINES ARE TESTED IN A LAB AND ENCLOSED ENVIRONMENT. Those unrealistically fuel consumption figure claimed by these car manufacturers are actually constantly done in replicating highway cruising speed, in which the turbo is just at the threshold of spooling and the intercooler is at its peak efficiency. In real life, there’s no hell of the way you can obtain that figure (at least most of the time living in traffic condition in KL) .
4) Downsized turbocharged mill is not frugal as it seem to be, you can only achieve the advertised fuel consumption on high way cruising. In city drive and mix applications, downsized turbo actually fare much worst than a considerable larger displacement NA engine with similar output. This is because downsized turbocharged vehicles are actually UNDERPOWERED VEHICLE BY DEFAULT before the turbo started to spool. And by fitting a low inertia turbo, you’ll be spooling your turbo very early in the rev range to overcome the power deficit getting off the line, and by spooling the turbo very early (ie: by 1,500rpm), you’ll be needing the boost 90% of the time, hence you’ll end up burning more fuel than an NA counterpart.
5) During the old days, turbochargers comes in the form of “performance enhancer”, not A MUST IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES like what we see in these “downsized turbocharging” cars of toda. That’s why old school Subaru, Evos, or even Audi quattro (in the 80’s) has turbo threshold spooling at the RPM range of 3500- 4000 RPM, in normal circumstances, their normal aspirated power in the form of 2.0 to 2.5 litre is sufficient to move the car, even without the turbo spooling. The turbo is only needed when you want to go “fast and furious” above 4000 RPM; unlike these downsized turbocharged cars of today, which will inevitably spooling their turbo 90% of the time because they need to rely on that turbo to overcome the initial momentum deficit of the underpowered displacement in all these downsized turbocharged cars. Hence, you’ll be burning more fuel compared to a larger engined counterpart in NA form. As they are by default, an underpowered car owing to their very small engine displacement.
5) In a typical KL traffic condition, with lots of start stop traffic, you’ll be spooling your turbo 90% of the time to overcome the initial momentum deficit of the underpowered displacement in all these downsized turbocharged cars. Hence, you’ll be burning more fuel compared to a larger engined counterpart in NA form. Take Ford Focus 1.5 Turbo vs Mazda 3 2.5 NA for example, in real world driving condition, the Mazda will trump the Ford in fuel consumption figure, although it has a bigger displacement. This is because Mazda in its 2.5 NA form is sufficient to haul the car in low rev range but the Focus will be spooling its turbo very early to overcome the underpower deficit of its 1.5 displacement. See the logic behind?
6) One of the factor why all these downsizing turbocharged cars fare even more badly in Malaysia’s traffic jam condition (in terms of fuel consumption) is because of the very low efficiency of the intercooler.In a traffic jam, by moving constantly at a speed of 10-30km/h, you’ll not be generating enough headwind to feed the intercooler. Coupled with the extreme hot weather with an air temperature exceeding 35 degree Celsius, the air feed into the intake manifold is still extremely hot. All these direct injected turbocharged engines nowadays have very sensitive and demanding parameters for the ECU to work at its optimum level to ensure its longevity. Hence, in order to cool down the dense air entering the combustion chamber via the intake manifold (caused by the intercooler not being able to work properly because of lack of headwind), the ECU will resort to spraying MORE FUEL to cool down the intake air, hence burning more fuel compared to a NA car in a traffic jam. This is one of the fact that SA and all these car makers will never tell you.
7) If you are still not convince, pls go take some NA vs their downsized counterpart, in the same segment and similar engine output and put the same driver behind the wheel travelling the same mix city drive and highway cruising. You’ll be surprise the larger NA motor trump the downsized turbo in every way, except constant speed highway cruising (add up city drive + traffic jam, the NA still averagely return better consumption figure) Same result goes to Fiesta 1.0 / Vento 1.2 Tsi VS Mazda 2 / City, or Passat vs Teena or Sylphy VS Focus/ Jetta.
8) With all that being said, there are still some good for downsizing, namely the addictive low end torque and highway cruising efficiency. Apart from that, there’s no advantage downsized turbocharged mill could claim over bigger NA counterpart with larger displacement but similar output.
9) All these downsizing trend is like the emperor’s new cloth, there are many real world evidence that suggests it’s a lie but many people just want to be politically correct and doesn’t want to be labelled as polar bear killer, hence, everybody just hop on to the bandwagon of this “downsizing religion” without questioning the validity and truth behind this seemingly moral high ground claimed by many marque to give you more power and save more fuel for the environment. Which in true, not the case at all.
10) All these downsizing religion is not for the environment or the polar bear, it’s just a fake moral high ground these car makers claimed to be as being environmental conscious to justify their “turbocharging for the sake of turbocharging to get under the tax scheme” trend. The truth is they just want to sell more cars under the current tax structure, behind the guise of having a good and “green” corporate image. That’s all.
I am so glad such madness has finally see the light of its end and somebody finally is bold enough to bust its bubble. Brovo!
Thank you. Brilliant explanation again. I have given your post to so many people. I myself use a 2.0 and it uses less fuel than a 1.5 turbo civic.
Being said all that,just cant compare a lowest cc turbo mill with highest cc NA. The FC is roughly at par if the different is around 500cc,meaning 1.5 turbo vs 2.0 NA or 1.0turbo vs 1.5 NA or 2.0turbo vs 2.5NA. Also the type of turbo also affect the FC as twin turbo or twin scroll turbo can improve FC at lower car speed. The lower cc of the turbo engine,the higher the chance of getting higher FC despite same output. So the ideal balance between FC and power is at the range of 1.4 to 1.6 turbo.
And not to hard accelerate from still with turbo engine if you concern about FC and pollution.
Lol yea saw your comment the other day and now this.
Jangan tipu lah driver. Ford’s tiny 1.0-litre EcoBoost engine won International Engine of the Year Awards, 5TIMES !!!
Obviously you never drive turbo car before. In jam-packed city driving, you dun need to spool / kick in the turbo. The torque below the turbo RPM start is enough to get the car moving. In highway driving, usually yes. But the speed is already reaches the optimum fuel consumption at 90km/h or 100km/h. Problem?
Quite an observation and I can agree for the most part. I personally went for the FI option over NA for the extra kick rather than fuel consumption. Green-ness and fuel consumption has never been a consideration at all, but that’s just me and not everyone’s the same I’m sure. However, IF I were looking purely at fuel efficiency I would’ve looked at weight over and above anything else. Most modern fuel-optimised engines are within a marginal % of efficiency (claimed) anyway but the weight of the vehicle will kill the efficiency. That’s why I’ve always liked small hot hatches, lightweight + an FI engine, that’s the joy. Now where’s that 2.5l CX-5 guy from before?
This is great news. Means F1 will see the return of V8 engines.
Make it V12 then talk. Nuff said..
Another way for government to squeeze money from the rakyat and increase car price sky high.. because no smaller engine cause all they know is to tax tax tax the rakyat.. oh waii..
A n B segment car will still use small engine like always. dont expect Axia use 2.0L engine. The problem is big car use small engine eg C, D, SUV, MPV..
This european study mesti semua angkara NajibBNGov, kan… kan… kan?
The way to the future is a turbocharged engine coupled with an electric motor to handle start stop traffic. Or, be like Mazda, maximised what we can get from a normal NA engine.
Mazda’s Skyactiv is indeed an impressive feat of engineering. It can combine miller combustion cycle and oto combustion cycle in one engine, giving you the best of both worlds, and it’s truly frugal compared to those claimed by downsizing turbocharged engines (any Skyactiv owner wanna concur my statement?). In fact, it’s so impressive that Toyota is willing to trade its priced fuel cell technology just to know how the boys in Hiroshima have done it, just that it’s not “glamour” as its downsizing competitors because it doesn’t have a turbo.
I believe these downsizing, hybrid are just interim. Full electric is the way to go after all fossil fuel has dried up, but it will be a long time before it happens.
Disclaimer: I don’t drive a Mazda, and I’m not a Mazda SA. Happy motoring.
First of all, thanks for your very informative and interesting posts on this issue. I drive a Mazda 3 Skyactiv and use BHP RON 97. My daily trips to and from work (16 km total) are usually done at a mind-numbing average speed of about 20 km/h (I live and work in Georgetown, Penang). My car’s computer usually shows an average fuel consumption of 8.8 l/100 km. If I drive along a slightly less congested road like the Lim Chong Eu Expressway to go shopping on weekends, the average fuel consumption goes down to about 8.6 l/100 km, which is not really that impressive. However, if I drive along the NSE to Taiping for instance, within the speed limit mostly, the AFC goes down to the low 7’s l/100 km, which is impressive. My point is, if you are stuck in traffic most of the time and use a high cc car with the aircond on, you ain’t gonna save much fuel, whatever technology your car is using. I love the power of the Mazda 2.0 NA engine by the way.
Toyota has proven down to earth in maintaining their hybrid strategy as the primary blueprint than turbo Diesel and small turbo engine.
Toyota got everything.
NA, Hybrid, turbo petrol and turbo diesel
Downsize turbo there are the 1.2 turbo engine in the Auris and the 2.0 turbo engine for the Lexus.
Turbo diesel is famous on the Hilux, new range of turbo engines just launched in the new Hilux.
Mazda, I think is the only manufacturer that refuses to engine downsizing and force induction.
Turns out they’re right all this time… Everybody is going back to higher displacement engine… Skyactiv tech research paid off well…
:D
Mazda must be laughing now
so because they are switching to real world emission tests, then only carmakers are pulling off from downsizing engines?That means this whole time they know the test results in a controlled environment differs from real world test results by a lot?
yes they do know. car marker are always like that, they’re with profit making intention anyway. dont u read the article? it’s clearly written
The turbo engine drives much better. Torque comes early.Uphill no need to rev the nuts out of the NA engine to get power. Especially CVT gearbox which works best in lower rpm, you push it hard, the CVT give you whining sound. Bigger cc engine always use more fuel to idle in traffic jam unless you have start-stop engine or cylinder deactivation. 2.4L roadtax for Accord is RM736 a year. 1.5L Civic is only RM90. In the 6th year of ownership, from roadtax alone you saved RM 3696 which is more than enough to replace the turbo from half cut. Haven’t count the engine oil yet . 2.4L requires 4.2L of engine oil, so the common 4L bottle is not enough. So you are forced to buy the 5L bottle or 4L+1L .
Conclusion is, the fuel consumption part depends on the human behind the wheel who controls the accelerator pedal. The turbo torque surge is addictive, the power is there. All you need to do is to control the right foot to save fuel.
Funny when u say how turbo power is there but asked prople to control the right foot to save fuel. Yes, downsized turbo gives you low ened torque and its addictive, you can overtake with ease and climb hill faster (notice I am not denying all the benifits of the turbo you said).
But tell me, by setting the threshold of that low inertia turbo spooling at cicra 1400-1600 RPM, how the hell, in real world driving condition, you are able to rev below that threshold and keep the turbo in negative boost in order to keep the fuel consumption low? You will be spooling up that turbo ALMOST IMMEDIATELY when you step on the throttle, hence you will be relying on that turbo almost all the time, and once that turbo started spooling, you can throw low fuel consumption out of the window.
Ok, I assumed you have a super sensitive leg and a superhuman discipline to regulate your right foot of NOT TO STEP BEYOND THE 1450RPM THRESHOLD driving yout Civic all the time. By doing that, your Civic is only running on its 1.5 underpower natural aspirated form (without the turbo kicks in), and you will be moving like a grandmother because you are so unserpowered, you can’t even overtake an Axia! That alone defeats the purpose of buying a downsized turbo car, in which you are aftering the low end, addictive torque like you’ve said. Gentle throttle = fuel saving only applies on NA engines. In downsized turbocharged engines, you are basically screw from the very beginning (unless you’re driving on highway 24/7), or, never rev it pass the 1450RPM mark and move like an underpowered grandmother’s car. For downsized turbocharged cars, is only a matter of burning more fuel, or, burning even more ridiculous fuel compared to NA, especially in heavy traffic. There is no way you can beat a very well engineered, mordern NA engines such as the Skyactiv, no matter how light footed you are driving a downsized turbo car.
You mentioned all about that lower volume engine oil saving and road tax saving could save you thousands, yes, I don’t deny the fact is true. But turbocharged is a system, it doesn’t only comes with that tiny turbo, it also consists of other pippings and intercooler as well, that alone also negates the cost factor which you so vehemently put up in your argument. And if you opt for half-cut to replace your turbo when its time is up, you basically don’t deserve to own a turbo car as you are maintaining it on a poor’s man budget, hence denying your car the tip-top form it deserve, which is even more crucial to ensure a turbo car to be problem free as it’s far more sensitive to temparature, lubrication and engine knocking compare to NA engines. And I haven’t come to the point that by putting so much presure on that tiny downsized engine on a long term basis, your overhaul window will come much much earlier compared to an NA engine, and pls add that cost as well.
Turbo are not alternator or drive shaft, a half cut unit doesn’t do you justice as it is constantly spinning at 200,000 rpm and well worn even before coming to your hands, its life span is also very questionable, no matter how well you refurbished it.
Turbo used to be a performance enhancer and it was fitted mainly to performance vehicle. Pls take note it”s a performance enhancer, not a essential item, as most turbo cars at that time can sufficiency drive themsleves with edequate NA power, without needing the turbo to kicks in so early. In the downsized turbocharged form, it’s now lowered down to mainstream bread and butter car, all for the sake of all these frabicated, pseduo environmentalist doctrine and a distorted legislation to justify the legislator fake moral high ground to appeal to voters.
Don’t get me wrong, I myself drive a downsized turbo charged car, but I am cool with my higher fuel bill and higher long term maintenance compared to an NA counterpart. What gets onto my nerve is seeing how these carmakers lie to their nose by telling you you’ll get more power and burn less fuel, that alone, is going against the physics law of thermodynamics. You want more power, you burn more fuel, no two ways about it.
#Food for thought. Cheers and happy motoring
my one liner would be: if you opt for FI performance, expect to compromise on fuel economy. if you try to balance between the two, it defeats the purpose..where’s the joy in that?
Japanese giants like toyota honda nissan etc which seemed reluctant and late to join turbo party now look wiser than their European n American counterparts.. especially toyota who initialized the hybrid rather than following then turbo wave..
Toyota got 1.2l turbo too
Size does matter after all:)
Regenerative Turbocharger is the way to go. it makes Green Peace guy happy cause there’s a word ‘regenerative’ and petrol head will ok with it because ‘turbocharger’,sounds cool too…
I can’t be the only one thinking it isn’t all that bad.. downsizing to a limit I agree, but relatively smaller engines with a turbo is quite the recipe:
1. I pay less road tax. Real world example..a 1.6T pushing 197HP + 290Nm across the rev range for RM90 a year vs. a 2.5l SkyActiv pushing 185HP + 251Nm with some revving paying RM880 a year. The road tax difference alone makes up for quite a bit of fuel money. 2. Smaller FI engines don’t fuel if you don’t drive like a mad man. It’s not gonna win “real world” fuel economy awards but it ain’t that bad. 3. I personally like the immediate max torque across the rev range rather than having to rev up everytime…also, although not a daily issue for most but NA suffers from altitude sickness…
Malaysia is really special. We have folks buying 100K++ cars writing wall of texts to debate fuel consumption, talking about resale value or road tax cost over few years.
Hello… the interest cost for your 100k loan already 5 figures. So why bother debating few K savings in fuel or road tax over few years when 100k cars seem like peanut to you.
What’s all the fuss with downsized turbo engines? Remember the infamous Mira Turbo and Nissan March Super Turbo running super small (sub 1000cc) engines back in 80s? There’s nothing new about downsized turbo engines as it has been around for many years already and the Japs were the first to mass produce these sort of engines, maybe except for Honda. Its only recently that the European counterpart started to utilize downsized turbo engines, not the Japs. Plus, emission regulations were not “so strict” until recent years where some companies found ways to trick the system using “cheat” devices. Fuel saving is proven with “newer” downsized turbo engines especially utilizing the lean burn technology and other new fancy tech.
Regardless NA or turbo, if you have a 2L engine that pushes 200hp, it will consume more or less about the same fuel when you drive it like a maniac. Don’t compare 1.6L 200hp Turbo with 2L 150hp NA, its not fair. But as with most turbo engines, dont have to worry about engine internals as most of them run on strengthened (semi/forged) internals (pistons/rods/etc) to sustain the abuse. Yes, turbo engines require higher maintenance but newer engines have been designed such that it doesnt necessarily cost more than an NA when it comes to maintenance. At the end of the day, it purely depends how the car is being driven. Ive seen some owners daily redlining their NA cars ended up having shitload of problems, while some turbo owners having no issues whatsoever.
Just my 2 cents