Opinions on Tiny Turbo Charged Engines?

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.
Higher octane fuel can’t fix fuel dilution…That is a direct injection thing not a pre ignition problem at all.
 
Small engine turbos have been doing well for 4 decades. I had a 1980s Dodge Colt 1.6 liter turbo. Ran great for 120,000 miles until a lady in a Lincoln Town car ran a stop sigh and killed it.
 
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.
Not to mention advancements in metulurgy and turbo design. Turbo engines typically have more robust engine internals and many turbos are liquid cooled, add that to better oils, turbos today are light years ahead of what was available 15,20 or 40 years ago. Like any mass produced part you will have failures, but any mechanical part can fail.
 
Diesel OTR trucks have been using them for decades without issue.

Just like construction equipment, tanks, ocean ships, diesel-electric and diesel-hydraulic
locomotives.


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?

Good pont and very true. I'd go that far that i would be stupid to not use stronger internals.
Nevertheless some forum talk seems to ignore this important point.
.
 
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.
We however dropped from an average of around 38mpg between 60 and 65mph down to about 24mpg @ 78 or 79mph, a 14mpg hit, which is significantly greater than going from mid 30's to 30mpg. This average taken while going through dead flat areas of Georgia. It may have been even worse when back in the Northeast. I really didn't care too much about the mpg either way while on a family trip, I just found it to be a interesting observation. I will admit the car had great pep compared to my DD Accord with the n/a 2.4 though.
 
miss-read it entirely? "...smaller turbo..." meant to me 1 that WAS smaller, spun up faster &was more efficient. Not overly large for motor.. Buddy has additional problem of too tight Tq converter so the big guy comes on doubly late.
nother miss read - tiny motor, tiny turbo, huge vehicle... (this can be an issue as pollution controls grow - reason for us seeing smaller motors). We need to match components (weight, displacement, turbo size) as the population wants trucks (industry too as they make more $ on them than sedans)
 
In the case of my Mazdaspeed 3 it never had an issue with fuel dilution- street, track, 5k OCI, 7.5k OCI, tuned or not.
 
Different strokes. Ain't no replacement for N/A displacement. Not interested in the complexity and heat of a turbo. It's, already, hot down here.
 
Different strokes. Ain't no replacement for N/A displacement. Not interested in the complexity and heat of a turbo. It's, already, hot down here.
This is an old cliché and very inaccurate. I realize you don't have mountains to speak of in Texas-but there are guys running Eco-boost motors all over the Rockies (8,000 foot passes) here in Utah....in the summertime...in 90plus degree heat. So-yea there is a replacement. You can look up horsepower and torque numbers with google if you don't see my point.
 
Knock? Richer mixture? Exactly how is that remotely connected to fuel dilution?

 
Good paper, but no mention or measurement of increased fuel in the crankcase oil.
 
Back
Top