Why don't more cars have turbos?

[ShawnD1]

This new Chevy Cruz has incredibly good torque at very low rpm and it still gets great gas mileage while using regular gasline and it's the same price as other cars of this size. What's the deal here? If such technology is possible, then why doesn't every car have this? Is there something inherently bad about having a turbo? I've heard turbos are less reliable but a few google hits and wikipedia basically say this relates to oil circulation issues after turning the car off which is something that could easily be controlled by computers in a modern car. Shut the car off, computer keeps the oil pumping for an extra few minutes, then turn off.

thoughts?

 

[RU482]

Big oil would never let that happen

 

[TheHashmaster]

turbochargers require better engine internals which in turn will increase the price of the car, not a lot of companies are willing to shell out for the extra price in fear that maybe ppl dont care about speed, also, companies are creating cars for specific spending limits ppl have in mind, not a lot of ppl car about speed and just want a new car that will get them from A to B

in the end its all down to marketing

 

[SSSnail]

Cost.

 

[ShawnD1]

turbochargers require better engine internals which in turn will increase the price of the car, not a lot of companies are willing to shell out for the extra price in fear that maybe ppl dont care about speed, also, companies are creating cars for specific spending limits ppl have in mind, not a lot of ppl car about speed and just want a new car that will get them from A to B

in the end its all down to marketing

But is it more expensive to build than a car with equal power? Example, base model Cruz uses a 1.8L engine and puts out something like 140HP. The turbo model is 1.5L, puts out the same ~140HP, but the torque is higher. Overall it's mostly the same parts isn't it?

But forget the higher peak torque. Say you just wanted the same exact performance, same max torque, same max power. Would a 1.5L turbo cost more to build than a 2L non-turbo?

 

[SSSnail]

ShawnD1, do you know how many components that would be the make up of a turbo system?

 

[jlee]

This new Chevy Cruz has incredibly good torque at very low rpm and it still gets great gas mileage while using regular gasline and it's the same price as other cars of this size. What's the deal here? If such technology is possible, then why doesn't every car have this? Is there something inherently bad about having a turbo? I've heard turbos are less reliable but a few google hits and wikipedia basically say this relates to oil circulation issues after turning the car off which is something that could easily be controlled by computers in a modern car. has been solved for over 20 years by routing coolant through the turbocharger. Shut the car off, computer keeps the oil pumping for an extra few minutes, then turn off.

thoughts?

But is it more expensive to build than a car with equal power? Example, base model Cruz uses a 1.8L engine and puts out something like 140HP. The turbo model is 1.5L, puts out the same ~140HP, but the torque is higher. Overall it's mostly the same parts isn't it?

But forget the higher peak torque. Say you just wanted the same exact performance, same max torque, same max power. Would a 1.5L turbo cost more to build than a 2L non-turbo?

No, it's not. Ever price a turbocharger? Intercooler?

 

[TheHashmaster]

But is it more expensive to build than a car with equal power? Example, base model Cruz uses a 1.8L engine and puts out something like 140HP. The turbo model is 1.5L, puts out the same ~140HP, but the torque is higher. Overall it's mostly the same parts isn't it?

But forget the higher peak torque. Say you just wanted the same exact performance, same max torque, same max power. Would a 1.5L turbo cost more to build than a 2L non-turbo?

definitely not the same parts, i'd say there are only 15-30% compatible parts and thats being generous, between the two motors, turbo cars require forged internals and a new exhaust manifold, piping, ecu, intercooler.....etc.

in the end the 1.5L is an entirely diff motor that was engineered differently, the 1.5L will cost way more than the 1.8L b/c it requires more engineering, better and more parts

also in case or the 1.5L vs 2L, the 1.5 would cost more to build. say we completely took out the facts that it costs money to engineer these two engines. the cost difference in the parts alone would make the 1.5L more expensive, and then the amount of engineering it would take to make the turbo motor is more than the 2L, so in the end the turbo car will almost always cost more than a N/a one

 

[exdeath]

No, it's not. Ever price a turbocharger? Intercooler?

A real dual oil/water cooled ball bearing turbo even, not a shitty $200 Ebay turbo.

 

[jlee]

A real dual oil/water cooled ball bearing turbo even, not a shitty $200 Ebay turbo.

Ah yes, that too.

 

[punjabiplaya]

parts, cost, complexity, reliability (sort of), cooling, etc...

 

[thedarkwolf]

fear. People are still afraid of them. A lot of the older pre mid 80s didn't use water cooling and they would cook the oil in the turbos after the engine was turned off. Water cooled turbos hold up pretty well.


Doesn't require forged internals but they are nice. My old ass 89 dodge caravan turbo engine is pretty much the same as the none turbo version. Only internal differences are stronger rods, better exhaust valves, and stiffer valve springs. It has forged pistons NOW but that is because I put them in there when I rebuilt it.

 

[ShawnD1]

A real dual oil/water cooled ball bearing turbo even, not a shitty $200 Ebay turbo.

I assumed they didn't cost very much since lots of cars in the 70s and 80s had turbochargers.


ok so the real question is why does the Chevy Cruz have a turbo if they could get the exact same performance just by using a slightly bigger engine which would still cost less?

 

[TheHashmaster]

ok so the real question is why does the Chevy Cruz have a turbo if they could get the exact same performance just by using a slightly bigger engine which would still cost less?

maybe the target group for this car wanted a faster car with more efficiency

 

[exdeath]

Just remember the average 99% of people drive around with 12 lbs of air in their tires and bring their cars in for oil changes only when the light comes on...

 

[IcePickFreak]

It's little known that Ford offered a turbo 6cyl in the SN-95 body Mustangs, and it didn't cost much at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZXUBZdMdRM

:awe:

 

[punjabiplaya]

Just remember the average 99% of people drive around with 12 lbs of air in their tires and bring their cars in for oil changes only when the light comes on...

guy was telling me how his friend's wife took her AMG merc (i don't remember which one) in b/c it wouldn't start. Turns out it was like 35,000 miles and she had never changed the oil and ignored the oil warning light. engine was totally fucked.

 

[Arkaign]

I assumed they didn't cost very much since lots of cars in the 70s and 80s had turbochargers.


ok so the real question is why does the Chevy Cruz have a turbo if they could get the exact same performance just by using a slightly bigger engine which would still cost less?

That's kind of a mystery really. Both the turbo and non-turbo Cruzes have remarkably similar performance and fuel economy, imho the option is superfluous. The turbo engine only has 18 more torque, with virtually zero hp difference, and both provide fairly average to poor acceleration. What would have really made a difference would have been offering a 1.8L turbo engine instead of a 1.4L.

They do get good fuel economy though, and seem to be a pretty significant improvement over the Cobalt and Cadavalier for that GM segment.

 

[RockinZ28]

I wish they were cheap to do it properly. Sadly I think it would end up costing more than either of my cars are worth to add one with all the necessary supporting parts.

 

[exdeath]

It's little known that Ford offered a turbo 6cyl in the SN-95 body Mustangs, and it didn't cost much at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZXUBZdMdRM

:awe:

It's too bad the .01 psi boost he'll see will be offset by the 10 degs timing pulled from high IATs. :awe:

And then the .01 psi boost at idle turning into an extra inch of vacuum when the engine speeds up and the "blower" doesn't :awe:

 

[Bignate603]

That's kind of a mystery really. Both the turbo and non-turbo Cruzes have remarkably similar performance and fuel economy, imho the option is superfluous. The turbo engine only has 18 more torque, with virtually zero hp difference, and both provide fairly average to poor acceleration. What would have really made a difference would have been offering a 1.8L turbo engine instead of a 1.4L.

They do get good fuel economy though, and seem to be a pretty significant improvement over the Cobalt and Cadavalier for that GM segment.

While the max torque and horsepower numbers are not that different between the two engines the actual difference in how powerful the engine feels can be quite different. With turbocharged engines they can design it so that the torque curve rises to its maximum very quickly and stays there for the majority of the RPM range. While this won't affect the maximum horsepower or torque numbers it does make the car feel more powerful.

 

[Scouzer]

guy was telling me how his friend's wife took her AMG merc (i don't remember which one) in b/c it wouldn't start. Turns out it was like 35,000 miles and she had never changed the oil and ignored the oil warning light. engine was totally fucked.

I know a girl who's wrecked 2 cars from not changing the oil (she's 22) and another who's wrecked one from oil starvation. it's pretty common.

 

[Elfear]

It's little known that Ford offered a turbo 6cyl in the SN-95 body Mustangs, and it didn't cost much at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZXUBZdMdRM

:awe:

Lol. My buddy and I had the same idea back in high school when we street raced a lot. We knew a leaf blower wouldn't have the pressure necessary to actually make much boost but the looks on other racers' faces when you pulled up to a stoplight, reached out through the window to pull-start your leaf blower, and then started revving at them would be priceless.

 

[jlee]

While the max torque and horsepower numbers are not that different between the two engines the actual difference in how powerful the engine feels can be quite different. With turbocharged engines they can design it so that the torque curve rises to its maximum very quickly and stays there for the majority of the RPM range. While this won't affect the maximum horsepower or torque numbers it does make the car feel more powerful.

Bingo.

The Ecotec 1.4L turbo delivers 138 horsepower (103 kW) and 148 lb.-ft. of torque (200 Nm) between 1,850 rpm and 4,900 rpm. The wide rpm range for the maximum torque – a specific trait of turbocharged engines – helps the engine deliver a better driving experience and performance.

Standard on Cruze LS models is the Ecotec 1.8L four-cylinder, which features a variable intake manifold for optimal performance across the rpm range. It is rated at 136 horsepower (103 kW) and 123 lb.-ft. of torque (168 Nm) at 3,800 rpm.

 

[Bignate603]

Max torque over a 3,000 RPM range is quite impressive.