[Dr.Naren]

Originally Posted by ryshah1991

Turbos are a way to the future, that's correct. But why decrease the cubic capacity of the engine? The smaller block will be under much more stress compared to the bigger one.

This will decrease the life of the block and will limit, modification capabilities of that engine. History has it that bigger blocks will more cubic capacities are way under-stressed in stock conditions and have a better longevity and guarantee a base for performance mods. the examples are the massive V8 blocks of 60s eras in US, or more locally the engines of the Contessa or the Maruti Zen/Esteem or Baleno.

Turbo charging small capacity engines is nothing but stressing it to extract power. It is done for fuel efficiency and taxation benefits. 1 litre turbo charged petrol engine would have good claimed mileage, but when you do good speeds it gets reduced drastically like Ford Ecoboost.

[$t@llion kh@n]

Another reason is Emission Norms (specially in EU and US).
Turbo Charging also ensures lower emissions as compared to NA engines.
That is the reason we see Ferrari, Porsche and Mercedes AMG and all switching over to turbo or bi turbo version of smaller capacity engines.

I think in India Turbocharged Petrol tech will only grow when gradually aam junta realizes its benefits. But it will take its time.

[ryshah1991]

Originally Posted by $t@llion kh@n

Another reason is Emission Norms (specially in EU and US).
Turbo Charging also ensures lower emissions as compared to NA engines.
That is the reason we see Ferrari, Porsche and Mercedes AMG and all switching over to turbo or bi turbo version of smaller capacity engines.

I think in India Turbocharged Petrol tech will only grow when gradually aam junta realizes its benefits. But it will take its time.

Yeah it will lower emissions, but if at higher speeds its gonna guzzle fuel then ot wont make much difference. And again, these engines wont last much. I have a 1994 zen with a odo reading of 1.6 lakh kilometres and the engine hasnt even broken a sweat. You cannot do that with these minuscule turbo motors.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by ryshah1991

Yeah it will lower emissions, but if at higher speeds its gonna guzzle fuel then ot wont make much difference. And again, these engines wont last much. I have a 1994 zen with a odo reading of 1.6 lakh kilometres and the engine hasnt even broken a sweat. You cannot do that with these minuscule turbo motors.

I too own an old car, a WagonR which reads 1.5lakh kms; she has been thrashed all her life, taken me to hell and back and all she ever asks for is a timely oil change That said, these small displacement turbo-petrols are relatively new and the boosterjet might just be the first Japanese implementation of them that we will see in India.

I understand that they must perform at higher stress levels in order to keep up with older bigger normally aspirated siblings but don't you think technology may have progressed far enough to make a Japanese version of a small turbo petrol, reliable enough to do the regular lakhs of kilometers under harsh Indian road and climate conditions? I mean we're talking stronger components, reduced frictional stress, efficient cooling techniques and everything else that comes with 20 years of progress.

I see a lot of arm-chair critics dismissing the motor saying it cannot last as long just based on basic theoretical understanding. I'm sorry, but have any of you owned and driven a small displacement turbo petrol, never even mind the one we are talking about here in particular, for that long to make such claims? Don't think so. As far as I know, even the american and german units seem to be doing fine 1 liter ecoboost in the ecosport and 1.2 tsi in the polo, have not been the subject of any complaints in terms of life or longevity so let us just wait and see how things fare before being so quick pass off judgement. I am no fan of the whole change, I for one prefer my engines to be naturally aspirated and have enough grunt to inspire confidence without the need for forced induction which saps away from the ever so decreasing connect that one gets to experience in cars these days. I also understand the plight of those who miss uncomplicated engineering of the 90s where things were not so hard to diagnose or to set right. This though, is simply baseless statements that have no foundation in truth whatsoever and I feel we ought to stop pretending like we know how things will fare after a lakh or so kilometers and go about gathering our info and knowledge the right way.

No offense meant to anyone
Cheers!

[SchumiFan]

We had F1 teams changing engines every session in the past but now with the 1.6 Turbos, they do the whole season (20+ races) with 4 engines (talking of Mercedes/Ferrari not Honda obviously ). Not saying they are all of the same kind, but you do get the idea of the longevity.

If the technology is a failed one, then why do we see more manufacturers going towards it worldwide?

Let's wait for a problem to arise before analysing it. Please.

[RSR]

I cannot understand all the needless doubts being cast upon smaller capacity forced induction petrol motors!

Let's look for a parallel here.

The Fiat Palio actually had a (relatively) "large" 1910cc naturally aspirated, indirect injection diesel engine that churned out 63 PS & 120 Nm.

Later, this engine was discarded and replaced by a (relatively) "puny" 1248cc turbocharged & intercooled, common-rail direct injection diesel engine (i.e. the now ubiquitous Multijet) which churns out 75 PS & 190 Nm (it was actually ~ 170 Nm in the Palio Stile). The same engine can also churn out 90 PS & 200 Nm with a VGT.

Any initial concerns about the small capacity forced induction diesel motor's reliability & longevity were simply blown away by the manner in which the "little", supposedly "downsized" Multijet performed and continues to perform in a wide variety of cars. We've had cases where people have covered lakhs of kilometres with this engine on the forum with just the routine oil & filter changes. The Palio's older large capacity naturally aspirated diesel motor has been relegated to a distant memory. Hardly anyone remembers it now, and almost no one misses it!

If a small capacity, forced induction 1.25 litre diesel motor can better a large capacity, naturally aspirated 1.9 litre diesel in all almost all aspects, then why can't a forced induction 1.0 litre petrol motor successfully replace a 1.2 litre naturally aspirated one???

Concerns over the longevity & long term reliability of small capacity forced induction petrol motors are grossly misplaced, in my humble opinion. The Fiat Palio diesel example is enough proof of this!

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by SchumiFan

We had F1 teams changing engines every session in the past but now with the 1.6 Turbos, they do the whole season (20+ races) with 4 engines (talking of Mercedes/Ferrari not Honda obviously ). Not saying they are all of the same kind, but you do get the idea of the longevity.

If the technology is a failed one, then why do we see more manufacturers going towards it worldwide?

Let's wait for a problem to arise before analysing it. Please.

Not everyone is going the Turbo way. Mazda as an example is working on improving the efficiency tirelessly. The 2.5 litre SkyActiv petrol engine in my car develops 185+ bhp, 250 nm of torque and is officially rated at 16.5 kmpl. The engine features direct injection and world's highest compression ratio for a petrol engine but no turbocharging.

[ryshah1991]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

I too own an old car, a WagonR which reads 1.5lakh kms; she has been thrashed all her life, taken me to hell and back and all she ever asks for is a timely oil change That said, these small displacement turbo-petrols are relatively new and the boosterjet might just be the first Japanese implementation of them that we will see in India.

I understand that they must perform at higher stress levels in order to keep up with older bigger normally aspirated siblings but don't you think technology may have progressed far enough to make a Japanese version of a small turbo petrol, reliable enough to do the regular lakhs of kilometers under harsh Indian road and climate conditions? I mean we're talking stronger components, reduced frictional stress, efficient cooling techniques and everything else that comes with 20 years of progress.

I see a lot of arm-chair critics dismissing the motor saying it cannot last as long just based on basic theoretical understanding. I'm sorry, but have any of you owned and driven a small displacement turbo petrol, never even mind the one we are talking about here in particular, for that long to make such claims? Don't think so. As far as I know, even the american and german units seem to be doing fine 1 liter ecoboost in the ecosport and 1.2 tsi in the polo, have not been the subject of any complaints in terms of life or longevity so let us just wait and see how things fare before being so quick pass off judgement. I am no fan of the whole change, I for one prefer my engines to be naturally aspirated and have enough grunt to inspire confidence without the need for forced induction which saps away from the ever so decreasing connect that one gets to experience in cars these days. I also understand the plight of those who miss uncomplicated engineering of the 90s where things were not so hard to diagnose or to set right. This though, is simply baseless statements that have no foundation in truth whatsoever and I feel we ought to stop pretending like we know how things will fare after a lakh or so kilometers and go about gathering our info and knowledge the right way.

No offense meant to anyone
Cheers!

I am nit basing my statements on some half baked truths, just the facts that we know right now. Yes the small turbo motors may be better than expectations. But i have hands on seen the effects of turboing a car and it has not been good.
We all have our point of views guys.

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by ryshah1991

I am nit basing my statements on some half baked truths, just the facts that we know right now. Yes the small turbo motors may be better than expectations. But i have hands on seen the effects of turboing a car and it has not been good.
We all have our point of views guys.

Please do elaborate then! You do realize that I am not talking about turboing a car with a small motor along with some tuners who may or may not have the expertise to have done the job. I am talking about small displacement turbocharged engines made the way they are straight from the factory. As far as I know currently that is only the 1.0 ecoboost and 1.2 tsi or 1.4 tsi in the Jetta. Have you had enough experience with any of these engines? If not I have no reason not to accuse you of basing your statements on half baked truths mate, because as you can see, witnessing a turbo job gone wrong is not entirely the same thing

[Aroy]

There is nothing in their design that indicates lower life time for turbo boosted engines. They are designed for the turbo, unlike add on turbo these engines have enough structural strength to function flawlessly with turbo boost.

There are some who think that these engines are not over designed enough to sustain performance tuning. My take is, why should the manufacturer spend extra effort and money in making their engines stronger for that less than 1% users who want extra performance. Instead they are shaving off the costs at every stage to make their products cheaper.

If you think about it, outside the "Taxi" segment (which include staff cars and people movers) how many petrol cars cross 1,50,000 km in their lifetime? In my friend circle 90% cars cover less than 10K km/year.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Not everyone is going the Turbo way. Mazda as an example is working on improving the efficiency tirelessly. The 2.5 litre SkyActiv petrol engine in my car develops 185+ bhp, 250 nm of torque and is officially rated at 16.5 kmpl. The engine features direct injection and world's highest compression ratio for a petrol engine but no turbocharging.

It will still drink more fuel than a smaller 1.6 turbo producing similar numbers and will be significantly heavier. Just as a sample - my volvo v40 uses a Ford 1.6 ecoboost that produces 185 PS with 240Nm of torque and an overboost function to 270Nm. There is also a polestar remap to up the power to over 200bhp which still maintains factory warranty. I plan to get this once I complete 10000km. I was an NA guy all this time but after seeing the brutal way this motor delivers power, I am completely convinced that direct injection turbo petrols are the future. The power coupled with surreal refinement levels and nice fuel efficiency (10km/l in the city in bangalore traffic) seals it for me.

[ryshah1991]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

Please do elaborate then! You do realize that I am not talking about turboing a car with a small motor along with some tuners who may or may not have the expertise to have done the job. I am talking about small displacement turbocharged engines made the way they are straight from the factory. As far as I know currently that is only the 1.0 ecoboost and 1.2 tsi or 1.4 tsi in the Jetta. Have you had enough experience with any of these engines? If not I have no reason not to accuse you of basing your statements on half baked truths mate, because as you can see, witnessing a turbo job gone wrong is not entirely the same thing

I have had enough experience with small displacement engines my friend. Everyone has their own point of views and spearheading a single theory is not the way. Each motor has its own pros and cons. While the small turbo motors have the efficiency and are greener. The naturally aspirated engines also have their own advantages. And i havent seen a car turboed at a local workshop by some unskilled labour but have talked to experienced people in the industry. Why the attitude that there's only one way out?

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

Please do elaborate then! You do realize that I am not talking about turboing a car with a small motor along with some tuners who may or may not have the expertise to have done the job. I am talking about small displacement turbocharged engines made the way they are straight from the factory. As far as I know currently that is only the 1.0 ecoboost and 1.2 tsi or 1.4 tsi in the Jetta. Have you had enough experience with any of these engines? If not I have no reason not to accuse you of basing your statements on half baked truths mate, because as you can see, witnessing a turbo job gone wrong is not entirely the same thing

Everyone has their own thinking. I personally like the NA engines for their longevity and the relative ease with which i can work on it (Atleast for my car).

[IshaanIan]

Originally Posted by ryshah1991

I have had enough experience with small displacement engines my friend. Everyone has their own point of views and spearheading a single theory is not the way. Each motor has its own pros and cons. While the small turbo motors have the efficiency and are greener. The naturally aspirated engines also have their own advantages. And i havent seen a car turboed at a local workshop by some unskilled labour but have talked to experienced people in the industry. Why the attitude that there's only one way out?

Originally Posted by ryshah1991

Everyone has their own thinking. I personally like the NA engines for their longevity and the relative ease with which i can work on it (Atleast for my car).

No attitude buddy I agree with you about older engines being easier to work on and like I said earlier, I prefer them too but for different reasons. Your statements about longevity thoug, that is what I cannot come to terms with. So far you have not really given me any reason to believe that you have the experience to say a small petrol turbocharged engine like the 1 liter ecoboost won't run as long as your zen this is not about "everyone has their own thinking" It is about making bold statements, presenting them in the form of truth without having the necessary knowledge to do so. It's called reasoning not assumptions based on vague narrations of experience mate. Have you had long term experience with the boosterjet to make such claims? No one except the folk who tested the motors for Suzuki does. Do you atleast have experience with similar products out there like the 1liter Ecoboost? Ask yourself such questions before making such statements.

The only reason I am replying to you again and again is because I find the attitude of saying whatever one pleases without any reason, thereby marring the image of a product in the minds of less informed folk who come here seeking some knowledge, to be a bigger show of arrogance and attitude. I am not spearheading any theory here simply upholding ethical display of knowledge.

Again, no offense meant, simply posting this for the greater good

[ryshah1991]

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

No attitude buddy but so far you have not really given me any reason to believe that you have the experience to say a small petrol turbocharged engine like the 1 liter ecoboost won't run as long as your zen this is not about "everyone has their own thinking" It is about making bold statements, presenting them in the form of truth without having the necessary knowledge to do so. It's called reasoning not assumptions based on vague narrations of experience mate. Have you had long term experience with the boosterjet to make such claims? No one except the folk who tested the motors for Suzuki does. Do you atleast have experience with similar products out there like the 1liter Ecoboost? Ask yourself such questions before making such statements.

The only reason I am replying to you again and again is because I find the attitude of saying whatever one pleases without any reason, thereby marring the image of a product in the minds of less informed folk who come here seeking some knowledge, to be a bigger show of arrogance and attitude.

Again, no offense meant, simply posting this for the greater good

Woah woah woah, I am not degrading a product for others man. I admire how the manufacturers extract so much from a small block and that shows where the automotive tech has reached today. Please do not insult anyone's intelligence or thinking if you cannot agree with anyone.
May be you have more experience in the new ecoboost or multijet motors that doesn't mean you can say other people are marring products.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

It will still drink more fuel than a smaller 1.6 turbo producing similar numbers and will be significantly heavier. Just as a sample - my volvo v40 uses a Ford 1.6 ecoboost that produces 185 PS with 240Nm of torque and an overboost function to 270Nm. There is also a polestar remap to up the power to over 200bhp which still maintains factory warranty. I plan to get this once I complete 10000km. I was an NA guy all this time but after seeing the brutal way this motor delivers power, I am completely convinced that direct injection turbo petrols are the future. The power coupled with surreal refinement levels and nice fuel efficiency (10km/l in the city in bangalore traffic) seals it for me.

Actually it is not because it is officially more efficient than all the others in its class who employ turbocharging and a smaller capacity motor and that is on regular fuel. The competitors recommend premium fuel. That said I have no issues with turbocharging but it makes the engine more complex and introduces further more moving parts. Then are the usual Turbo related nuances like letting the turbo spool down before switching off the engine, lag and extra maintenance. A turbo would not take kindly to a clogged air filter lets say.