The 1.5L turbo in my wife's Civic is a nice little motor and it's a good match for the CVT. Power application from a stop is nice and smooth and it ramps up quickly if you ask it to. The car certainly isn't slow by any means.
Yup. To get the gas mileage you have to reserve the turbo for on-ramps only, and don’t attempt passing.I feel we are getting past the "sweet spot" of downsizing and turbocharging for economy gains I rented a Trax a couple of weeks ago with this engine and it was, as expected, an inadequate producer. I'd be more OK with it if it returned excellent MPGs, but it did not. The thing is, when you have to get the turbo spooled up constantly on these little turds just to get moving it negates the economy gains of going with such a small displacement.
Unfortunately, Buick and Oldsmobile and Pontiac all got rounded up into one basket and after losing their own individual identity and distinction were all melted together with the others and quality went 86.^ hard pass for me. I would think American cars, especially something like a Buick would stick to what they are good at... This seems like an attempt at a Kia / BMW mix.
Are we going to see a future car engine displacement at 1L?
Family member had a ~2015 Prius-C (The compact hatchback) it was a n/a 0.9L 4 cylinder.
Maybe not directly caused by it's small displacement, but that engine wasn't very good. Turbo was probably pretty busy and had some issues, and it couldn't keep the coolant in the right places, and also the wet oil pump belt shredded and clogged the oil pump. Ford only recalled them for the oil pump belt.
Depends on drive cycle. The turbo can do better at steady state, but in stop and go the NA will do better. Less power under the curve. I can get great mpg in my Ecoboost if I keep RPM below 2500.Ex: Two previously owned Ford Fusions - 2.5 NA with average MPG in the low 30’s and 1.5T with average MPG in the high 20’s.
Basically owned two of the exact same vehicle body wise however the one with the smaller turbo engine did significantly worse in real world MPG.
Turbo isn't spooling at 80 mph unless you're towing.So in N. America where the going speed on an interstate is 80, a small engine no longer makes sense.
Very hard: weight.Unfortunately, Buick and Oldsmobile and Pontiac all got rounded up into one basket and after losing their own individual identity and distinction were all melted together with the others and quality went 86.
We made big mpg before from the Geo Metro, Yugo, VW Rabbit, Honda CRX HF and Nissan Sentra so I dont understand how hard it would be to get back here again.
With my example it didn’t matter if it was steady state or not. The NA did much better than the Ecoboost. Cannot speak to all versions though just the two vehicles I drove.Depends on drive cycle. The turbo can do better at steady state, but in stop and go the NA will do better. Less power under the curve. I can get great mpg in my Ecoboost if I keep RPM below 2500.
Feel free to correct here:
I know that tiny engine like this probably aren't going to last as long, but given the smaller size isn't it going to make it much easier to DIY replace the engine?
It is all about infrastructure, driving culture, needs, size of the country etc.If you push a smaller engine harder it burns more gasoline at the same power output of a larger engine.
Their is a trade off. I can do a smaller engine with a turbo, giving the operator the extra power when they need it (like passing) and benefit. But if I am pushing high boost on a regular basis, its not worth it.
So in N. America where the going speed on an interstate is 80, a small engine no longer makes sense.
In a Euro City driving only or in the developing world where the roads are not fit for anything more than 40mph, then its a different set of needs and a small engine might be cheaper to run and cheaper up front to make.
Next time you go to Europe take a cab, some small car and ask how many kms they have on vehicle.Feel free to correct here:
I know that tiny engine like this probably aren't going to last as long, but given the smaller size isn't it going to make it much easier to DIY replace the engine?
All "working" diesel engines with turbos, are using them nearly all the time, and are making power efficiently, so there are no big non-turbo diesels left, as they are too inefficient.If you push a smaller engine harder it burns more gasoline at the same power output of a larger engine.
Their is a trade off. I can do a smaller engine with a turbo, giving the operator the extra power when they need it (like passing) and benefit. But if I am pushing high boost on a regular basis, its not worth it.
So in N. America where the going speed on an interstate is 80, a small engine no longer makes sense.
In a Euro City driving only or in the developing world where the roads are not fit for anything more than 40mph, then its a different set of needs and a small engine might be cheaper to run and cheaper up front to make.
Good observation.All "working" diesel engines with turbos, are using them nearly all the time, and are making power efficiently, so there are no big non-turbo diesels left, as they are too inefficient.
In theory, these small gas DI turbo engines should work the same , but are not so good in reality for some reason? Maybe they are made to game the EPA mileage test, but fail in real life with not so great 87 octane, so they want to ping, and then have to run super rich not to blow up?
I do find it interesting that the "big" 2.5 NA(all with AWD) in the Subaru family matches or beats these GM fwd SUV's in mileage, if not at the drag strip.