Why aren't/can't all cars Turbo?

[Spade]

Why can't all cars be turbocharged? To me, it is a super efficient means of getting pickup when required... there's no harm in turbocharging and I don't think that it would cost anymore than a NA car if they built turbos right into the streamlined production process like TDIs. Even a small one would suffice. lowering the compression would also increase engine life, only use turbo when needed. a turbo is just another rather simple part in the equation, there is no mystery about it, it is not complex.

 

This is really sad how the car industry markets that crap to us all.

 

I also heard that if you abuse the car, it will most likely blow the turbo before blowing the engine, which saves you a huge amount of money rather than changing / overhauling the engine, and you can still drive without the turbo.

 

ALL CARS SHOULD HAVE TURBO. we should have a worldwide petition. we would never have anymore complaints on slow pickup this slow pickup that... and rubbish magazine writers / reviewers saying that the car has got pretty good response, when you see the 0-100kmh timing at 12 seconds. That's lame. That's BS. All cars should have at least a 6 second 0-100kmh timing.

 

And I never see the reason why all cars (except utility vehicles like SUVs) should not look like Ferraris or lamboghinis or perhaps the look of the new Suzuki's swift... at least Hyundai's Tuscani has done well (again lousy and slow car). Worse still, car buyers shouldn't be allowed to buy ugly cars like the Altis... super Ah Pei car.

 

There should also be a ban on generic looking cars. Every car should have a design basis beginning from the :

 

Rolls Royce (Hyundai Sonata),

Audi RS4 (Mistubishi Airtrek),

VW Phaeton (Mercedes E200),

Lamborghini Gallardo (Hyundai Coupe),

VW Golf GTi (Kia Picanto, Proton Savvy, Perodua Kelisa),

Nissan Silvia S15 (Honda Integra, Toyota Celica),

Toyota MRS (MX5 - ugliest piece of crap),

Subaru Legacy GT (Altis)

 

There's many more... but this topic is supposed to be on turbos...

[Normal_aspirated]

tan ku ku (wait long long), leh.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Normal_aspirated

[Mubarakrashid]

because some drivers/adults still think like kids..

 

by the way, whats your ride bro?

Edited February 20, 2006 by Mubarakrashid

[Kalaplus]

tc = use more fuel leh. more servicing, 5000km instead of 10000km.

u wan 6sec, na also can make it.

dc5 2000cc can do it in 6sec. can eat base rex.

if all car look like ferraris or lambo, all got @ least 6 sec, than each car will cost @ least 300k to 400k, how many car will u see on the road zzzzz.

btw, i dun think dc5, celica, s15 look alike loh?

mrs & mx5 also big diff in look.

u r mad =)

[Spade]

no, looks don't cost any different... you are paying for something that's looks... material wise is the same amount or even less material... shape cannot be a price / cost factor.

 

TC is simply efficient... depending on whether you engage or not depends on your servicing frequency... it doesn't use more fuel when you don't engage turbo.

[Spade]

i know i sound like i talk big. But i'm not proud, i'm a humble owner of a small cute picanto. I just wished that all cars were TC, or at least LPT... light pressure turbo like the SAAB (ugly car by the way)

6 seconds... you don't know what it's like until you've tried it... it's like a drug... and cheaper too!

I've tried the KTM 2-stroke pickup on the bike.... insane... like 3 seconds 0-100kmh... insane pickup.

[Dtvox]

One sentence from me...actually many had quoted here before:

 

There is no replacement for displacement...

 

BTW, turbo has its problem too. Apart from more working parts, there are issues like turbo lag and not to mention the higher insurance premium...

[Genie47]

The more moving parts or subparts an engine has, the more problems will come up. Most engineers work on a reductionist model. The simplest design with the least moving parts or subparts is definitely more robust than one complicated jazzamatazz with more parts.

 

Why do you think the COE cars of old with handomatic windows and arm power steering survived till today? Maintenance is a breeze and replacement is not mind boggling.

 

With the turbo, you add one more component into the engine that can fail. Knowing car owners, turbos don't die, they get murdered.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Genie47

[Mubarakrashid]

u want fast pick up so that u can be the first person to wait at the next traffic light?

 

i've tried turbo cars, drove a ferrari before (rent overseas), sit in rolls royce (owned by my uncle).. all this are performance cars that can go very very fast but frankly, they are really not practical to be the daily commuting ride in at least SG context..

 

bro, Picanto is a nice colorful car that is very very suitable for city driving..in fact i've been asking my one of my galfrens to consider Picanto instead of Nissan March..

[Spade]

not with lady drivers like my aunt who owned a turbo - hers lasted for 10 years and still went on without a hitch, she never engaged the turbo... hahaha. no, in an idealistic world, if every car had a turbo, it would be a different playing field... most people wouldn't simply murder their engines.. cause they know that 1) it would cause a hole in their pocket from FC 2) it would shorten the engine's life span..

 

you see if everybody didn't have turbo, why don't they ram their throttle constantly? because not everybody loves the feeling, and basically the equation is this... if you are hesitant with little, you are hesitant with a lot. Most people are hesitant at ramming their NA throttle because of whatever reason, therefore most people are hesitant with ramming a turbo. that's my take!

[Spade]

a bit side topic, March has better safety stuff than Picanto but it looks too weird and a little ugly in my opinion, I have this feeling it was designed by a female.

[Perseus76]

bro, how old are u....? u sound like u are actually making a very childish remark. No offence.

 

1) when the turbine blows, chances are the debris of the turbine fin will very likely be blown into the engine as well, damaging the engine block.

2) even if u do not rev hard the tubine is always spinning, just that it is not spinning fast enough to let u feel the boast, and it is always fuel consuming.

3) Turbo drinks when in traffic jam

4) u need do servicing more regularly

5) Setup between a TC and NA looks similar, but not exactly the same. The cams are usually different.

6) There are many more additional parts for TC to take care of the pressure, so as not to damage the engine

 

many more to list

 

Nowadays, many NA cars are pretty fast and have good FC. and why do we need 6 secs.....isn't 10 secs or 15 secs good enough for daily driving...? whats the rational?if everyone is 6 secs...then why make so many models of cars? everyone will be the same anyway..? then pple will start to ask, why all the same...? just my opinion. hope i do not offend anyone

[Wolverine]

Who needs TURBO when you can have .....

..................

.....

....

...

...

 

VTEC!!!!!

[Spade]

engineers work on a reductionist model? if it were true then cars wouldn't be so feature packed and heavy, counteracting the pickup ability! any guesses on the most efficient engine / car in the world?

 

sorry about my ignorance on the high consumption of TC cars... I'm sure there are efficient TC cars around, howabout the LPT? VTEC sounds like a reasonable solution, but it seems to still be lacking on low end pickup. why doesn't every manufacturer have VTEC in their cars? is it that complex a solution? how's this for a reductionist model?

 

VTEC / TC... ahh.. all the same, governed by the petroleum industry which we all burn our livelihoods on. Efficient engines are electric engines... the pickup is truly 6 seconds or less. insane insane.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Spade

[Mubarakrashid]

ya..thats why my galfrens goes ga-ga over the Marchie... to me, it is just being overprice..

[Elfenstar]

  Quote

I also heard that if you abuse the car, it will most likely blow the turbo before blowing the engine, which saves you a huge amount of money rather than changing / overhauling the engine, and you can still drive without the turbo.

 

You obviously have never tried driving a TC car with a blown turbo, and i suspect 90% of what you have heard abt turbos is all hearsay.

[Yc86]

  Quote

Who needs TURBO when you can have .....

..................

.....

....

...

...

 

VTEC!!!!!

 

VTEK!!... VTEK!!

Edited February 20, 2006 by Yc86

[Kalaplus]

  Quote

no, looks don't cost any different... you are paying for something that's looks... material wise is the same amount or even less material... shape cannot be a price / cost factor.

 

TC is simply efficient... depending on whether you engage or not depends on your servicing frequency... it doesn't use more fuel when you don't engage turbo.

 

those supercar r design tat way for only 1 reason, the aerodynamics.

they spend alot of $ & time on it.

the material they use, all light weight, v exp.

if u tc ur car, u dun engage it, u have turbo for wat?

stock car come with tc, must low comp, low comp when nv go into boast, no power 1.

even the boast nv kick in, the turbine is still spinning, also wasting fuel...