What’s with the obsession over size? While the fixation is kind of inescapable, especially so when dealing with parts of the human anatomy, to have that mindset applied seemingly to just about everything else, car engines included, sort of boggles the mind.
In this case, it’s about disparaging a car simply because of its engine displacement, or for the lack of it. The long-running subject cropped up again following a couple of new car debuts locally, specifically the Nissan Almera Turbo and the 10th-gen Honda Accord 1.5 TC/TC-P.
There have been enough comments questioning the size of the engines on these two cars, specifically a 1.0 litre turbocharged three-pot and a 1.5 litre VTEC turbo, in relation to their asking price.
These have ranged from “too expensive for 1.0/1.5” and “RM90k but smaller engine than Saga ah” to “200k for 1.5cc car?” and the usual “can move ah?” First of all, be proper about it, it’s 1.0L/1.5L or 1,000 cc/1,500 cc, not 1.0 cc/1.5 cc.
Anyway, making a summary judgement based on an engine’s displacement in relation to the car’s asking price shouldn’t be a starter, really. The days of cubic centimetres being the yardstick as to how a car is judged – and performs – is all but over, because the world is a different place than it once was.
Just as cars are inevitably going to become more expensive, so too will their engines get smaller. Motorheads can lament the passing of big naturally-aspirated V12 mills, and we’ll all share a moment of silence there, but to view scaling down from a 2.0 litre unit to a 1.5 or 1.4 litre one as sacrilege and a downgrade without looking at other parameters deserves a cuss or three.
The thing is, you’re really not losing out in terms of output, despite the scaling down in displacement, because turbocharging (go read up about the tech) makes up for the loss in cubic centimetres, and there’s no shortchange in output or efficiency. If anything, there’s usually an improvement.
Consider the Accord’s 1.5 litre VTEC Turbo unit, which develops 201 PS (or 198 hp) and 260 Nm. That’s more than the 174 hp and 225 Nm available from the K24W4 2.4 litre Earth Dreams Technology twin-cam i-VTEC unit on the previous ninth-gen Accord. And let’s not start with the 153 hp and 190 Nm 2.0 litre SOHC i-VTEC engine, shall we? In this case, the numbers make short shrift of the “bigger displacement has more” line of thought.
Having sampled the new Accord, my take on it is there’s more than enough power. No, it’s not a barnstormer, but as an executive sedan, it doesn’t have to be. Neither does the Almera, which Hafriz has said has enough torque to not make it feel underpowered, putting the idea that a 1.0 litre turbocharged three-pot can’t perform as well as a NA 1.5 (or 1.6) litre away for good.
My colleague Danny once said that it would be foolish to equate headline figures with real-world drivability, because they do not always go hand-in-hand. I’d add engine size to that equation, because as it stands, there really is a replacement for displacement.
You certainly won’t find me complaining about the similar-veined L15 turbo mill on my CR-V Turbo. Not only does it move the car infinitely better across the entire speed range compared to the NA 2.0 litre (the R20A) on a third-gen we lived with for seven years, it’s also far more fuel efficient. And, the road tax is cheaper.
Curiously enough, you don’t hear that many comments about the CR-V being underpowered as there are about the Accord, and they’re about the same weight. Also, while there is the case of not enough, there’s also too much, because you don’t exactly hear anyone clamouring for a 2.5 litre unit (“road tax mahal, bro”).
Seemingly, 2.0 litres seems to be the Goldilocks choice, replete with turbocharging of course. There is less issue about that particular displacement when it comes to premium brands, where you find most playing in that category running 2.0 litre turbos.
Even that particular landscape has changed, sometimes dramatically. Up to five years ago, it would have been far fetched to imagine something like a BMW 7 Series being equipped with a 2.0 litre mill (for example, on the pre-LCI G12 740Le), but there you go.
The point is this, downsizing isn’t just simply a trend anymore, it’s the way things are shaped in general now. It’s a necessity based on efficiency, emissions and helping to conserve that depleting resource known as fossil fuel, this despite there being enough to get us well into the age of electrification. Yet, smaller isn’t necessarily lesser.
It really is about time we move on from looking at engine size alone as a measure of what a car is or should be. Look at output figures, do some research, heck, get behind the wheel to determine if there’s enough pep before simply dismissing it based on its engine size. Sure, argue on whether a car represents value based on its price and kit, there’s no contention with that, but don’t bring the engine displacement into it.
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
Agreed with the statements. Those who has experience turbocharging technology will know displacement of engines are quite negligible. We have Renault Megane RS with 1.8 turbocharged to almost 300hp. And of course the most obvious is the F1 engine car with only displacement of 1600cc is turbocharged to around 1000hp!
The issue now is puny engine puny turbo and puny torque, big turbo lag. Cant compare with conti small engine but big torque ya, where theres also the turbo lag issue, and ev is fitted in the conti turbo to cater for lag.
This must be a paid article sponsored by nissan
Turbobandwagon..Obviously you have not experience the latest turbocharged engine. I am not against the big engine as i myself is driving old 2008 Mazda CX-9, go figure it out yourself how big is my engine car but my other car is the F55 Mini Cooper 1.5 turbo with 3 cylinders, and tell you no turbo lag is observed despite smaller engine and smaller turbo (unless you set it up at economy). Put it at Sport, even my CX-9 is struggling to beat my Mini Cooper.
Beg to differ, Been thru kompressor to cgi, the lag is still there except at e350e.
Maybe its merc setup but o well i got suckered into the brand
That Satria Neo NA still smoked Mini anytime,
u are comparing a elephant with horse.
do u see the weight??
From youtube review, P2 Rocky turbo superbb!
Turbo explode dah ganti ke belum?
The only thing explode is your NNN. There have been no instance of turbo explode from people who know how to use and maintain their cars.
Exactly. Is why Honda can tweak 1.5T for Civic, CRV and even Accord. That is just the same or even better than U get 2.5NA engine.
10 years ago Honda fanbois screaming VTEC rulezz!!
Honda claimed never need turbo. VTEC is powerful already.
well, there’s old saying ‘no replacement for displacement’ ;-)
joke apart, agree with you. Plus car performance should be measured by power/weight where the power numbers come from hp/ps not blindly from cubic centimeters alone. engine downsizing is everywhere (except maybe, mazda)
no one komplen 1.0T roadtax rm20 aje, im okay.
The problem with turbo charge engine is the promised fuel efficiency is not actually that great in real driving. A Mazda 3 2L Skyactiv is as efficient as a Civic 1.5T or a Jetta 1.4TSI, but there are a lot of complexity and maintenance to take care in a force induction engine particularly in heat management.
There is a reason why Mazda and Toyota stay true to its efficient Naturally Aspirated engine for the mass models while turbo for their heavier vehicles due to torque.
The Turbo hype is just a trend, NA engine still delivers well but consumer just like turbo because it is “cool” with its “kick at the back” sensation..
You really forgot about hybrid turbo diesel in Audi and Porsche in Le Mans vs Toyota. Look at current Merc C200 and A200 engine with 1.5 turbo. No issue with overheating.
Oso no issues, Civic engine with 1.5 turbo. For 90k, better buy 2018 Civic TCP then almera
Sorry Civic Turbo or other 1.5 I-VTEC Turbo Engines usually got oil dilution issues. Better buy Almera 1.0 Turbo, then you don’t have to go SC many time unlike honda
Oil dilution issues only in cold countries and it can be fix by software update.
In hot countries such as Malaysia, owner don’t face such issues.
We are all driving on the road and city jam condition.. no one drives 24 hours at full speed like Le Mans everyday..
Are we forgetting VW Audi diesel scandal? And why Audi pulled out from Le Mans? The diesel scandal that cost them a lot?
Clean diesel is also an overpromised.. you dont see diesel cars are used in Japan in a massive way.. European now had learned their lesson hard and switching to hybrids and EVs
Europeans are NOT switching to hybrids and EVs. That’s a myth.
That’s why Nissan have to fire 15% of their workforce, although they are on the few companies offering a EV (Leaf) for many years already.
I am driving my 2.0tsi and the fuel consumption is not so far from my father’s Altis 2.0 but yet it deliver nearly 3.0L NA power. Yes it is true the promised figure is not reflected in real world usage. However downsizing is always mean of giving more power with less fuel consumption. A Civic 1.5T is giving the power of 2.5NA but fuel consumption is on par with 1.8NA while the road tax is only RM 90 for 1.5L. If one expect the fuel consumption of 1.5T is similar to 1.5NA or smaller displacement it will require assistant from battery which is in hybrid mode.
Civic 1.5TC produce 173PS while Toyota new Dynamic Force 2.0 NA produce 169PS .. horsepower is very on par, so Civic 1.5TC is to match 2.0NA, and fuel efficiency is very close.
Toyota DF engine achieve very high thermal efficiency, on par with Mazda. They rather perfecting the NA technology than putting maintenance burden on drivers, and they know “turbo for fuel efficiency” is just a fairy tale
“There is a reason why Mazda and Toyota stay true to its efficient Naturally Aspirated engine”
That’s not true: “The end of Toyota’s V8 engine. New twin turbo V6 coming”.
I said “There is a reason why Mazda and Toyota stay true to its efficient Naturally Aspirated engine for the mass models”, not like VW or european manufacturer turbo charge all their line ups. Toyota only turbo charge their cars for niche and high-end market .. You cherry pick my words.. bad bad
Basically almost all European cars are turbocharged. In most countries in the world the tax measurement is based on displacement and also NA hardly give good FC for displacement less than 2500cc. To avoid the tax and emissions regulation car makers go for turbocharged. In Europe some car makers apply turbo and battery like Volvo T8 hybrid, VW hybrid etc. NA is hard to survive in European countries
Toyota selling in europe CHR wt 1.2 liter turbo la guys…what only NA
yea, tell that to our JPJ with their outdated Roadtax structure, that was used to protect Proton & Perodua.
What do you mean, are you saying our roadtax structure is protecting Honda & Nissan because their new owners pay lesser than for Proton & Perodua? I thought JPJ roadtax were supposed to protect our national cars?
So we were mistaken all these while! Protectionism was removed some time ago and our national cars are now playing level field with other non-national car brands. We have seen the light!
The days of cubic centimetres being the yardstick as to how a car is judged – and performs – is all but over, because the world is a different place than it once was.
But JPJ is still calculating road tax based on centimetre cube so how to change people mind then.
This post is necessary.
There is no replacement for displacement
1.0cc is indeed is bit on the small side for a car engine
Ya, many Malaysians do not know the difference between 1.0 cc and 1.0L.
I believe the same counter argument can be used against your position. The point about power output/torque is one dimensional. You need to take into consideration long term reliability of the engine. Most people take 7 year loans and don’t want engine problems after 4-5y. That is the biggest reason people stay away from Turbos, not because of small displacement. The question is, why should one opt for a Turbo when a reliable NA is available at the same price point. The difference in road tax is equivalent to 2-3 full tanks, not really something that sets it apart
Hye mate, i own a twincharged 1.4 litre car. It has both a turbo and a supercharger. It has enough power to match a 2.2 NA engine. The engine is now 6 years old. Hence, your claim of engine problems after 4 -5 years is baseless. If you’ve driven a turbo car, there is no turning back. NA engines will NEVER come close to a turbo, NEVER. Turbo cars is just like weed, once you drive one, you’ll be a in a different level.
So what? Do u floor the paddle every single drive for your turbo? Come on, Malaysia traffic everywhere, don’t shiok sendiri
Yeah we should all base reliability claims on one car, your effin car, muppet
Are you speaking from experience or are you making statements based on hearing what your friend’s friend’s friend said? Just like the fact that the world has inevitably changed with forced induced smaller displacement car, turbo engine reliability has also changed for the better. Go experience it before making sweeping statements like “turbo engines not as reliable as NA engines”. I have 3 turbo engine cars. One is 2012, one is 2013 and one is 2015. None of them have given me any issues in terms of turbo reliability. And the oldest one (2011) is a performance car which I track in SIC often (Megane RS). It has had a very hard life and never once have the turbo given me any issues. These are facts – which is the one thing missing in your sweeping statement above!
Well, it’s still a personal choice.
This thinking was born during Preve turbo era when many derided it could match the 2.0L NA performance of other C-segments and this continues to pervade until today. If they thought 1.6T isn’t enough to pull a C-segementer car, they have less faith in a similar engine pulling a D-segment Accord. No point reasoning with them. Paper specs performance cannot convince them and yet they could somehow trust FC ratings on paper. Lol!
1.5 enjin edi gud enuff for 3-series & c class, np.
I can accept 1.0L as they are lighter and good for environment as well as fuel consumption especially during idling. But the warranty coverage must be extensive.
I can accept 1.0L turbo too but what disappoints me is the vibration they produce during idling. Anybody who is sceptical should test drive the Ford Fiesta 1.0, Peugeot 208 1.2L or maybe the new Nissan Almera 1.0L. It’s a fact that 3-cylinder engines produce more vibration vs. 4-cylinder engines during idling
I don’t think the problem is people complaining about the small displacement, rather about the reliability. If i’m not mistaken the first batch Civic 1.5 turbos has a lot of problems and I’ve personally seen a new Civic being towed before. If I was interested in the new Almera, I would adopt the wait-and-see stance before going any further. Afterall Japanese brands (Nissan/Honda/Toyota) has been on a downward spiral in terms of reliability and quality.
People should move on beyond local vs nonlocal brand too. Because local cars have improved so much that they surpass their counterparts in many ways. But many choose to stay ignorance, and chants ‘local cars no quality’ when they actually have never been on one, not even to test drive.
Ask any mechanic, they will tell you NA engine is much better than Turbo. Maintenance is also like 10X cheaper.
All those buying Turbo engines don’t know now because all their cars under 5 year warranty.
Wait until your warranty finishes and your turbo rosak. CRV 1.5 turbo rosak or Civic 1.5 Turbo rosak, the bill will be nothing less than RM10k to RM20k
Don’t play play with Turbo. It is actually for rich people. It started off with the Porsche 911 Turbo but now slowly tricked down to mainstream cars.
But buyer beware. Now your car under warranty. You really don’t know the real cost.
A horse drawn carriage is more reliable and will never suffr mechanical breakdowns. Go get a horse then.
Ya latok. Normally most Malaysian do not care about the quality of engine oil. I’ve seen Alphard owner used mineral oil instead of fully synthetic, just because mineral oil is cheaper. Ok, thats not a good example since Alphard is not a turbo vehicle, but it still a good example, showing that Malaysian only think abt cost.
For turbocharged/supercharged engine, the most important thing is service; must be on time and must follow the manufacturer’s spec. I still own a supercharged 1.8 engine car since i bought in 2004. The manufacture recommend Mobil1 0W40 EO, and until today, I still use the same EO type/model. No issue at all.
Dude – a turbo won’t simply breakdown like that? Have you driven a turbo car? Do you know how it feels? It just blows away all those NA cars. Turbo failure is very rare these days. On remppad cars ( An that too, only very rare occasions) it might happen. Modern turbos are reliable. It generates the boost to give you that kick which all of us like.
Second hand value. 5 years from today, the second hand value of Vios/City is far higher to Almera Turbo. Or same with Camry to Accord Turbo. No need to imagine or believe me, just google second hand prices of current gen Civic/CRV NA vs. Civic/CRV Turbo asking prices. Buying a turbo is throwing your money down the drain
Been using 14 year old turbo car, no issue till now, turbo still ok..just service regularly using proper engine oil and dont gatal tangan modify mcm2 la.
Only lazy mechanic dont like turbo car because a more complex than NA car..so more troublesome for them..they want easy job only then sambung minum kopi sembang2.
You are here to mislead the public. Modern turbocharged engine is considered maintenance free. In fact what do you need to service for the turbine kits? There is no schedule services for turbine component despite the car over 200k km. In some cases there maybe turbo hose need to replace but the cost is couples of hundreds, not thousand definitely. If you said things with turbo engine rosak then what are the component easily rosak? You didn’t elaborate by simply bluff. I am in automotive industry for many years and my knowledge is better than many so call pro technician workshops.
true n not true on some points.. it depends on our driving style.. But many malaysians expect veyron acceleration on axia maintenance cost mostly. Put in extremely low quality oil on turbo engines etc. Then neglects periodic maintenance then blame those manufacturers for producing crappy cars. But cars quality do downgrade currently esp Hondas.
Masalahnya bosku enjin bising kuat teriak. Kawan yg beli crv 1.5tcp dan beli accord pun ckp benda yg sama. Beli mahal2 dgr enjin teriak2 hahah
Well said. Hope more and more people will understand and support the move.
what’s with the unnecessary mentioning of human anatomy in automotive news.
Malaysian typical mindset is uber conservative. Too many examples of this, and not just in automotive.
In marketing jargon, Malaysian are mostly Followers. They only willing to adopt something new once it has been time and tested, in product life cycle phase of Maturity.
Many of these Followers ridicule the Leaders who adopt new things at the life cycle phase of Introduction, labelling the Leaders as guinea pigs / lab rats. Little do they know that these Leaders have already done their due diligence by researching, reading multiple reviews & finally doing cost-benefit analysis before deciding to proceed or not. In short, an educated judgement.
As above. These downsizing trend is no longer environmental friendly, said Volkswagen. Just do what Mazda (SkyActiv-X) and Toyota (Dynamic Force) engine does, kept the original displacement (2000cc / 2500cc) and increase the efficiency of the engine. This will help with climate change, not by adding more turbos on a tiny little engine. Also, these 1.0L and 1.5L engines are WAYYY too stressed, and long term reliability are not guaranteed… Look at the Civic 1.5T, endless problem with engine. It is capable, of course, but in the long run, engine with 2.0L and above is more smooth, more reliable and not as rattly-sounding. For me, the great balance is a 2000 cc with single or twin turbos like in the Infiniti Q50 and Toyota Harrier. A healthy 245+ horsepower for extra oomph and a reasonable sized engine for longevity
Your statement is dilemma. 2000cc with 245hp is healthy but 1000cc comes with 100hp is unhealthy. If giving the 1000cc x2 will be 2000cc and the horsepower will become 200hp and in this case it is healthy. Remember this Almera is costing less than RM 100k and designed for fuel saving. The Q50 or Harrier are more than double of this Almera and their purpose comes with turbo isn’t fuel saving. People who afford 200k car surely afford to pay the extra fuel price. All car manufacturers have done a test at least 250k km by taking few cars and in all weathers.
Haven’t you seen a 30 years old truck with turbine moving around. And most of the time the trucks are overloaded. Even the Volvo passenger cars aged 20 years are still running around. So longevity isn’t issue with modern turbocharged car.
“Just do what Mazda (SkyActiv-X) and Toyota (Dynamic Force) engine does”
Toyota axed it’s V8 and came out with a new V6 twin turbo.
I believe you do not own a turbo car. Modern turbocharged vehicle is basically maintenance free. You said turbo will comes with problem after 4 or 5 years, pls elaborate what problem is that. Don’t just mention got problem but don’t know what problem it is. Mind you all trucks, vessels and aircrafts are all comes with TURBINE. Especially aircraft where engine is working at high stress level all times compare to passenger cars. For trucks there are many 30 years old trucks still moving around.
Yes there are potential problem such as radiator pump spoilt, thermostat unit problem and turbo hose leaking. But this rarely happen in factory setup and design to last beyond 250k km.
If you said there are many big problem of turbo then pls enlighten people like me who drove a turbocharged car daily.
Less revenue for jay pea jay could only collects roadtax similar to kancil viva
Compulsory car servicing every 5k or within 3 months interval will minimize powertrain reliability issues.
maybe to some that questioning those, engine displacement represents wealth in malaysia because of the tax structure. even if the small turbo charged car is sensible enough power and fuel consumption wise but engine “cc” same as perodua grab then the feeling is always a little different.
I am not against turbo-charged engine, but I am against the vibration in the 3 cylinder, turbo-charged engine, during idle. Fix that, please.
Nice article Anthony. To elaborate further on your perspective:
1) A turbocharged engine of the same displacement will always produce a lot more torque than it’s naturally aspirated sibling.
2) A factory/professionally engineered turbocharger will always work better than an enthusiast kit.
3) It’s always cheaper to buy a turbocharged vehicle than to turbocharge the same vehicle.
However here’s some counter. Please do understand, this is a car enthusiast website, as an enthusiast, it’s all about potential, possibilities, imagination or fantasy if you want to call it that.
1) Paying for a Maxed out engine is pointless for someone whom has the desire to push the engine to it’s limits.
2) As a hobbyist, it’s the journey, the discovery, the failure and the success of properly tuning our own engine that matters most.
Unless it is dual injections turbo or port injection turbo, otherwise I rather go for bigger displacement 2.0 NA
No problems for small engines as long I pay cheap road tax and it’s reliable during my ownership.
Not that Malaysians cars have large engines in the first place anyway. 1.5L to 2.0L engines in most cars in Malaysia hardly justifies the complaining of small engines. Even in AU, the demise of engines over 3.0L (long live the V8!!) is inevitable due to consumers embracing new technology which gifts us lower emitting, highly efficient engines.
Smaller engines = lighter mass, more space for better protection systems, better fuel consumption and generally less moving parts. Will they be reliable? For sure. No manufacturer releases an engine into the wild without millions of miles and man hour testing.
People who claim to feel vibrations in a 3cyl engine are just full of BS. 3 cyl engines pistons at 120 degrees from top dead centre largely cancels out any vibrations. Take a test drive of the new ford or mini engines, you’d not know that it was a 3 cyl engine. You know what other car uses a 3 cyl engine? The BMW i8.
Then why did Mercedes do away with their 1.5 litre engine for the C200, and put back a 2 litre mill? Also, BMW did away with their 2 litre engine for the 7 series, and replaced it with a 3 litre motor.
Test Driven the 1.5T c200. Yes thank god its gone now. Such short stint at the showroom
Because the 1.5l is sourced from Renault.
Small forced induction engine can produce matching output figure compared to slightly bigger NA engine so they should work well but provide different feel.Nowadays not much driber go after feel.
However in term of fc, most of the time they are similar or worst than their bigger NA competitor. No doubt there are some which returns good fc but such encounter is very rare.
What we must understand is that turbocharging is not the way forward in term of emmission. If the whole world tighten their emmission regulation, turbocharging will be dead.
Then, there is the higher maintenance compared to NA and more complex design which contribute to higher cost which will be transferred to customer.
In term of mass market for developing nation such as Malaysia, it will be hard to introduce and sell in profitable numbers to make it worth while.
However, In the end it will be come like when cars are started to be laden with basic electronic such as ECU, people worry it will broke and cost a bomb to fix. Then it becomes the norm plus more and more electronics functions. Turbocharging will become the norm until we tighten our emmission regulation.
Much more worrying is that the future is electric but we do not see main player pushing for electric in a serious manner. Tesla just comes out of nowhere and gave the world an actual working and usable electric vehicle.Why other player still slow to response?
Do you know if too fast introduce electrical cars in Msia is killing a lot of jobs. All petrol stations closed, workshops closed, many spare part shops closed, many OEM parts suppliers bye bye.
Electrical car structure is very simple and parts being used is probably 1/10 compare to conventional internal combustion vehicle. There is no service schedule below 100k km because no lubricant being used, no spark plug, even the brake pad can last more than 200k km for a set. Most of the time when decelerate the dynamo unit will attached to slow the the vehicle meanwhile charging the battery. Very little changes we need to press brake like how we drive for gasoline powered car, so the brake pad lifespan is freaking long. The structure of the electronic car is really simple and very easy to maintain (or maintenance free basically). I have a friend who driving a recond Tesla in Msia for nearly 150k km, what maintenance he done is only change of wipers and tyres.
The infra to suit the electrical car is VERY SIMPLE. As long as the place the light pole can reach it means the charging station can be built. The size is as small as a “ticket machine”.
The late introduction never means of lack of infra but I would rather say not yet ready. We still heavily rely on petrol and there are more than millions of people involving in car related industry. The rice bowl of these people is matter.
EV is future and we need to move on gradually, not rapidly. Malaysia government still heavily rely on petroleum taxes and many people are still working in internal combustion engine related industries (workshop, spare part etc). It need time for government not overly rely on petroleum taxes and people learn new skills or able to look out for other opportunities.
Why the writer so frus ah? Don’t take it too personally bro. To each their own.
Turbo it is.
NA 4 Cyclinder engines are still the best in the run, leave the turbos to those want high end performance cars
Wow….so many people complain about engine size and reliability but at the same time purposely extend oil change interval and skimming on quality EO.
3 cylinder not smooth? Really? Have you sat or driven one before? Even with all the hate 318i is getting, I still find it smooth to drive.
If you all want to complain, then the only complaint smaller capacity have is the potential, for tuning etc.
Other than that, what is wrong with TC small capacity??
Agreed. I owned F55 Mini Cooper 1.5T (i believe same engine as yours) and it is a bloody smooth engine with good FC (i rarely set it up at sport mode)
turbo charge only for racing not for daily drive.
More than 50% of car in Europe is with turbocharged, mean 50% of European using their car to race daily?
A turbocharged petrol engine initially designed for racing and performance vehicles, which doesn’t need to last for 10yr and will most probably low on mileage, that is for a large displacement engine low kerb weight vehicle. However, even with the reinforcement done, a small displacement turbo engine parts will always be put under higher stress constantly, resulting in greater chance of engine failure in the same runtime as compare to N/A engine. With the ahbeng style of driving here, gasket failure, cracked manifold, turbo leaf chipped are among the few common failures after a couple of years if you can spot the sign and get it warranty. If you want a turbocharged low displacement pure internal combustion car that’s economical and reliable, get a diesel where we’re lacking off here, a diesel engine is designed to work in high stress environment and last for few hundred thousand km, with the unmatched low speed pulling power and efficiency, its the ideal turbocharged engine to be use for everyday commute. Either way, the proper maintenance and a responsible SC is the key to longer lasting turbocharged engine.
Totally agree..
The road tax of 1.5L vs 1.0L difference is just about 70 ringgit per year. And the fuel efficiency is not that much different because it depends on your right foot. So we dont save a huge amount of money on that.
In return, the cost of maintaining a turbo-charge car is more in general compared to a normal Natural Aspirated car..
The only reason why ppl like turbo-charge car is the sensation of pickup.. While Road tax and Fuel saving is almost negligible in B-segment category.
There are many still having old fashion thought of smaller cc linked with smaller output. The fact is more and more car makers are moving toward downsizing due to high emission restriction over the years. To strengthen then small cc car makers apply turbine to boost the output from small unit.
Those who said this will stress out the engine and shorten the lifespan of it isn’t really true. Car manufacturer always design a car to last 250k – 400k km in all weathers situation. Yes natural aspirated engine can last even longer perhaps but how many people in real life would able to drive 1 vehicle beyond 250k km, not even mentioning 400k km.
To reduce the turbo lag Japanese car maker always use CVT which give better feeling and more linear drive.
In the past there was limited knowledge on how to reduce turbo lag with limited 5 speed ration gearbox or 4 speed auto.
Today, by doing twin turbo (one small to boost lower end, one big to boost high end) and sophisticated gearboxes (8-10 speed AT and DCT) – turbo lag is not so much a very big issue
1.0 turbo from the almera with only 100hp and 152Nm of torque is not enough. A 1.2 VW TSI and city 1.0 turbo can deliver more horses than Almera and that’s not a good reason why Nissan can produce equivalent power since it’s a newer engine.
You still don’t understand the meaning of Nissan apply turbo in Almera, this turbo engine is mainly means for “fuel saving” rather than racing. The 153nm torque is definitely not underpowered. People never complain the current Honda City 1.5L NA is underpowered where it has 145nm. If turbo applied the torque is more relevant than solely look at horsepower.
If you are keen to go for more power than just go for remap, easily can get 20% more power but fuel consumption will be higher. Engine longevity is depend on how we drive, even if it were NA engine if we didn’t maintain well it can be spoilt earlier than turbocharged engine.
This argument is totally flawed. Of course low cc affected fuel consumption. And i would say this make it even worse.
Of course people would point out the turbo. But thats the very reason this is a bad thing
U see with a turbo on, u will only use the power when u need it. But when u dont, the car is carried by a small engine. Not matter how efficient it is, the big body married to a small engine will result very bad consumption
Mosf of the time u will not need the turbo or the turbo is not working for you. Imagine the weight the small engine need to carry
If you are better than hundreds of engineers from Nissan you should go replace them. The weight of 1100kg isn’t that crazy heavy and the torque comes at 2400rpm which is not consider very high. The reason of setting the turbine working at this rpm level surely has it own meaning.
i think Malaysia is only nation in the world, that 99% of the population always mistaken Litre for CC…
always hear “i drive 1.8cc car..”
“i want to sell my 2cc car .. ”
“my wira is 1.3cc .. ”
“my myvi is 1.5cc .. ”
“bmw saya 2.8cc ..”
1.0cc, I would want to see an engine of this size.
1,000cc engine may sound better.
If it is all about numbers, then it is pretty straight up. However, I wonder if you can prove that a Turbocharged 1.0L will be as reliable as NA 1.5L. You can argue as that as technology progress, the reliability will improve but cars are not exactly that affordable in Malaysia thus which lead to concerns to future car buyers.
There is one point Uncle Lim is missing. Is it fun to drive? Probably not. So why buy the car? Because you got no budget to buy anything better. So that’s it. Case closed. Sekian, Terima Kasih.
Just buy the car that you like. The one that makes you happy and giving you pleasure. I have owned 1.6 Pug 3008, 1.8 W204 and 1.4 Tiguan. All turbo, no turbo issue except some turbo lags. Minimal lag for Tiguan though. Sold Pug, bought 2nd hand ct200h hybrid because too many non turbo problem for Pug. Pug 3008 is comfortable to drive but after sales is another story. For ct200h, no-issue except boring loud CVT. Lexus service is superb. Sold ct200h and bought Polo 1.6 mpi NA.
What I’m trying to say is that just buy the car that makes you happy when you drive. It’s the pleasure and joy while driving that matters most. Some reliability or bad service issue will always there. If it is very bad, run away from that brand. I still driving my W204 and Tiguan with joy. My Polo is fun to drive for short distance or in area with narrow parking space.
If comfort and driving pleasure is not your priority or have small budget and prefer simple life with no fuss, buy MyVi. Good resale value too. It all depends on what kind of preference in life that you want.
reduce by using turbo should reduce the price of car instead increase the price.
how much the turbo set cost ?
when engine small. you should sell lower price. that is. that is why road reduce.
Based on most comments, msian are still stuck in dino era….its like those Harley’s fanboy still against new tech on their bikes…go up ppl & move wt the world
Consider the Accord’s 1.5 litre VTEC Turbo unit, which develops 201 PS (or 198 hp) and 260 Nm. That’s more than the 174 hp and 225 Nm available from the K24W4 2.4 litre Earth Dreams
Enough said…pls read the above
I’ve drove lots of turbocharged cars but I can tell no matter how this turbo technology evolved, it just can beat the smoothness and lenient power delivery of the NA engines.
Different requirements and preferences from different communities of car lovers somehow reflect in their opinions and comments regarding NA, TC, National Car, Japanese Car, Continental cars & etc.
Another words to say, we all have different priorities in choosing our love cars.
Nevertheless, “information war” is part of the marketing strategies for many many businesses amidst the current everything-online era.
There even a statement says that
“if you are not online you’re out of business”.
I think quite true.
Still to pricey. Not only for Nissan but all cars including Perodua. Our money depreciation. Was expecting 1.0 to be much cheaper. Same goes with new Alza more technology more money. Sad to see we still need to pay so much for transportation. And yet we wanna remove old cars from the roads. Public transportation is no where to be in place.
well that to jpj for still charging roadtax based on cc