Opinions on Tiny Turbo Charged Engines?

Echoing others, I see nothing wrong with small displacement turbo engines. We've seen plenty of examples where folks and manufactures were just throwing turbos on poorly developed/tuned engines and blowing them up so long as the engine was developed from the ground up with the intent of forced induction. We've come across the point in technology where automatics are better than manuals for performance and fuel economy so it shouldn't be a surprise that turbo'd engines are developing as well.

Some older turbo'd cars may not have fail safes that N/A engines may not experience; ie: mashing the pedal when the engine is cold or mashing the throttle at low RPMs/high loads. I just play it safe and assume all turbo engines are less tolerant of stupidity.
 
Last edited:
I was always intrigued by VWs 1.4 but now that I own I'll admit I've become a fan boy. Peppy to drive if you want it to be and just stupid mpg, I get around 41 overall and just logged 45 on a trip.

It's been around quite a while and has a good track record, I'd be cautious of anything new tiny turbos can be done well or very poorly.
Oh another VW fanboy,,,, geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
 
I’m comfortable with turbocharged small displacement engine reliability however the gas mileage ratings aren’t realistic. The 1.5T in my current Fusion averages in the high 20’s while the 2.5 NA in my previous averaged in the low 30’s. So in an effort to save fuel we’re actually using more.
I tend to agree. I think the tiny turbo can be fuel efficient if the displacement is sufficient to propel the vehicle at the desired speed without dipping into the boost. A 2.0 turbo on a sedan driven at 70 on the highway where no boost is likely needed will probably be very fuel efficient and still offer some pep when you step on it.

My MIL recently let us use her Tucson Blue hybrid for a 2500 mile road trip because it was a hybrid and would save us $$ on fuel costs. Well, it was only fuel efficient if you were driving around town or below 60 or 65 on the highway. At those speeds it was able to alternate into hybrid mode and was likely not using any boost (no boost gauge to confirm this). Take it up to a cruising speed of 78 or 79mph where we usually cruised and mileage dropped to around 24mpg because the little 1.6 was probably on boost the entire time to hold those speeds. It was nice of her to let us use her car and keep the miles down on ours, but the wife's Avalon with its large trunk would have offered similar room and averages about 34 to 35mpg at those same highway speeds. We should have taken her Avalon if fuel savings were the priority.
 
In general, i do not prefer a small boosted engine over a larger N/A engine or a larger but lower boost turbo. The Honda Accord for example, in Gen 9 has 2.4 liter N/A as well as some smaller boosted models near the end. We owned the earlier non turbo model for 70k miles. It was bullet proof, no worrying about letting the turbo cool off or if any boost leaks might be there. It had good torque, not as good as a turbo but good enough, and it returned great MPG at high speed highway travel. Small boosted engines would have returned less MPG at the real world speeds we see on our 80 mph limited freeway stretches. The turbo is also disadvantageous for short trip stop and go errand running type stuff, mostly in hot weather. Small turbo mills are great for cold weather, faster warm ups, getting great power for sporty applications. If your just leasing it or not keeping it forever, go ahead and enjoy the turbo. If your planning on getting 10+ years out of it the non turbo choice (if you have the choice) is probably going to be the better ownership experience.
 
I had an 80 Pontiac Trans Am Indy 500 pace car. It had a 4.9 Turbo charged motor. I was not impressed at all. I know the newer cars are improved but I like the bigger cubic inch non-turbos better. I would buy a reliable mass produced brand that has a good track record. Otherwise hard pass.
Yeah, a carbureted turbo V-8 301ci design from 42 years ago that developed 210hp probably isnt a good frame of reference to evaluate current technologies.
 
In general, i do not prefer a small boosted engine over a larger N/A engine or a larger but lower boost turbo. The Honda Accord for example, in Gen 9 has 2.4 liter N/A as well as some smaller boosted models near the end. We owned the earlier non turbo model for 70k miles. It was bullet proof, no worrying about letting the turbo cool off or if any boost leaks might be there. It had good torque, not as good as a turbo but good enough, and it returned great MPG at high speed highway travel. Small boosted engines would have returned less MPG at the real world speeds we see on our 80 mph limited freeway stretches. The turbo is also disadvantageous for short trip stop and go errand running type stuff, mostly in hot weather. Small turbo mills are great for cold weather, faster warm ups, getting great power for sporty applications. If your just leasing it or not keeping it forever, go ahead and enjoy the turbo. If your planning on getting 10+ years out of it the non turbo choice (if you have the choice) is probably going to be the better ownership experience.

Speaking from a Honda owner perspective, this makes sense to me. I own 2 2.4 NA/DI Hondas that make frequent trips to/from the Midwest to Colorado on I80, where 80 mph cruise speeds and high winds are the norm. My 2.4s seem just fine with this regimen, but what of a high-profile, weighty CRV, with a 1.5 TGDI engine doing the same for hours on end? It would be on-boost forever with potential fuel economy and durability consequences.

And there’s been considerable discussion here about things being fine with well-engineered TGDI engines. But Honda’s 1.5 is regularly panned for fuel dilution, Ford’s 1.5 for fuel economy, refinement and noise, and the list goes on. Granted, TGDIs 2 liters or above seem fine, but a 1.5? Not convinced.
 
Speaking from a Honda owner perspective, this makes sense to me. I own 2 2.4 NA/DI Hondas that make frequent trips to/from the Midwest to Colorado on I80, where 80 mph cruise speeds and high winds are the norm. My 2.4s seem just fine with this regimen, but what of a high-profile, weighty CRV, with a 1.5 TGDI engine doing the same for hours on end? It would be on-boost forever with potential fuel economy and durability consequences.

And there’s been considerable discussion here about things being fine with well-engineered TGDI engines. But Honda’s 1.5 is regularly panned for fuel dilution, Ford’s 1.5 for fuel economy, refinement and noise, and the list goes on. Granted, TGDIs 2 liters or above seem fine, but a 1.5? Not convinced.
A lot of that isn't really panning out. I mentioned this in my post above.

We have driven for many hours in the 1.5 over mountain passes, economy excellent.
Fuel dilution is just not a problem for us.
 
I been driving turbo cars for the last 20 years. From 1.4T, 1.6T, 1.8T, and 2.0T 4 cylinders. I never had a problem with power. I test drove the Bronco Sport with the 1.5T 3 cylinder and it was terrible. I cancelled my order because of the engine. What a unrefined and poor mpg pile.

On paper, the new Nissan 1.5T 3 cylinder is quite impressive with 201hp and 225 ft/lb and it gets 32mpg combined in the Rogue.
 
Speaking from a Honda owner perspective, this makes sense to me. I own 2 2.4 NA/DI Hondas that make frequent trips to/from the Midwest to Colorado on I80, where 80 mph cruise speeds and high winds are the norm. My 2.4s seem just fine with this regimen, but what of a high-profile, weighty CRV, with a 1.5 TGDI engine doing the same for hours on end? It would be on-boost forever with potential fuel economy and durability consequences.

It will drive normally. All things same, 80mph on a boosted engine with a factory snail would mean you're probably seeing less vacuum, making it easier and quicker to hit boost to kill your gas mileage. On both my previous turbo'd cars, vacuum at 80mph was usually around -4 to -8psi, vs the normal -12psi at 70mph. Combine that with higher RPMs at 80mph and increased wind drag, your gas mileage will drop drastically. Solution: drive smoother and slower. Ease up an inch or two on the gas pedal to stay out of boost or minimize it. The focus averaged 3mpg difference with 70 vs 75 and nearly 6mpg difference between 70mph and 80mph.
 
A lot of that isn't really panning out. I mentioned this in my post above.

We have driven for many hours in the 1.5 over mountain passes, economy excellent.
Fuel dilution is just not a problem for us.


Okay, but if 91 octane is what it needs to avoid fuel dilution the price premium (c.20% in my neighborhood) over 87 octane surely offsets whatever economy benefits it may have over a larger, NA engine.
 
It seems many manufacturers are doing it: moving to tiny engines with turbo chargers.
I was perusing JEEP and see that their Renegade only comes with a 1.3L turbo engine now.
It requires premium fuel, somewhat negating the 3 mpg better efficiency vs. the previous
2.4L engine.
I am mostly concerned about DIY maintenance and long term reliability (of any brand).
200K possible? Please share your thoughts (opinions and facts). Thank you!

Your example seems a bit extreme to me. Going down from 2.4 to 1.3 l isn't the norm.
Other manufacturers went from 1.6 to 1.0, 1.2 or 1.5 turbos, from 2.0 to 1.4 or 1.5 turbo,
from NA 2.3 R5 and 2.4 V6 to 1.8 or 2.0 R4 turbos or from 2.5 - 2.8 NA V6 to 2.0 turbos.
Honestly a current Mini Cooper with its 1.5 3-cylinder turbo feels much better compared
to my previous-model 1.6 naturally-aspirated four which has just little more than half the
torque even given the taller gearing.
I'm not saying forced induction is superior to displacement, but turbo is often better than
a flabby low-displacement NA engine.


The transmission doesn’t know if it’s a turbo four or large V6.

Actually it does know if the turbo engine is more torquey which turbo engines are in a
majority of cases. Torque is what strains transmissions, dual-mass flywheels and clutches
(as well as bad driving habits). That's why turbos commonly use heavier transmissions
and bigger diameter clutches.


The turbo is the question and I’ve heard 100,000 miles on a turbo is not uncommon.
I suppose some mechanics can comment on certain models.

I'd even say 200,000 miles on a turbo isn't uncommon. ;)


I find the Italian built Jeepster a bit intriguing, but then I find the unthrottled Multi-air
valvetrain over-engineered, over stressed and susceptible to an early demise. To say it
another way, I am scared of this busy technology on an engine.
I have not looked at it's reliability.

Multi-Air is around since 2009 according to the C&D article you linked and contrary
to some rumor it proved fairly reliable. 🙃
.
 
It still takes the same number of BTUs to accelerate a given mass (read under boost pressure) but once you get to cruising speed the boost drops to vacuum and you're sustained off the smaller CI motor. You can have either eco or boost at a given time.
 
My MIL recently let us use her Tucson Blue hybrid for a 2500 mile road trip because it was a hybrid and would save us $$ on fuel costs. Well, it was only fuel efficient if you were driving around town or below 60 or 65 on the highway. At those speeds it was able to alternate into hybrid mode and was likely not using any boost (no boost gauge to confirm this). Take it up to a cruising speed of 78 or 79mph where we usually cruised and mileage dropped to around 24mpg because the little 1.6 was probably on boost the entire time to hold those speeds.
Our Sienna Hybrid does the same thing even with an NA engine. It drops from mid-30’s average mpg down to 30mpg at best on long trips.
 
Turbochargers generate an obscene amount of heat under the hood. I would be wary of one if I were intending to keep it for the long haul, 10-15+ years. They're more complex which doesn't necessarily mean less reliable, but I'd be wary of rubber parts, seals, etc wearing with age.
Do you feel the same about a car that uses a 4 or 6cyl and also uses a V8 in upper trim?
 
Diesel OTR trucks have been using them for decades without issue. As long as the bottom end is built for the torque, it should last as long as any other NA engine. How many cars do you really see dead on the road because the turbo blew up the engine?
 
Back
Top