Turbocharged cars

[Spade]

What are the turbocharged cars in Singapore available off the shelf? What are available via PI? Why doesn't SG bring in more TC cars? are they that unpopular? Why can't any owner TC their car like in australia? Why LTA so adamant that we can't experience happiness when we floor the throttle? it's a myth that TC cars are guzzlers or bad fuel economy.

 

Subaru WRX

Mitsubishi I

Edited February 12, 2007 by Spade

[Elfenstar]

golf gti, evo, lancer turbo, colt turbo, saab 93 and 95, audi a4, passat, megane rs

 

the list is pretty long actually

[Chemz]

maybe its because a wrongly or poorly installed/tuned TC kit will pose a fire threat just like retrofitting of HID and their ballast.

[Elfenstar]

its actually because of safety issues with regards to braking, chassis and suspension dynamics etc.

 

Technically we can mod our cars anyway we want provided we have and engineer certify the safety and emission aspects.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Elfenstar

[MQX87511]

What are the turbocharged cars in Singapore available off the shelf? What are available via PI? Why doesn't SG bring in more TC cars? are they that unpopular? Why can't any owner TC their car like in australia? Why LTA so adamant that we can't experience happiness when we floor the throttle? it's a myth that TC cars are guzzlers or bad fuel economy.

 

Subaru WRX

Mitsubishi I

Nowadays Turbocharged more popular, almost all Conti brands, partially of Kor brands, few Jap brands,

only Japanese majority still stick on Naturally Aspirated,

whoever can list the pros and cons of TC and NA, my contribute 1st,

TC

Pros:

High Power, High torque, low rpm, Fuel efficiency, low emission, low engine capacity lead cheap road tax

Cons:

Premium high, Turbo lag, Jerking, high maintenance cost, low reliability, high risk of overheat,

[7hm]

TC

Pros:

High Power, High torque, low rpm, Fuel efficiency, low emission, low engine capacity lead cheap road tax

Cons:

Premium high, Turbo lag, Jerking, high maintenance cost, low reliability, high risk of overheat,

 

Fuel efficiency mainly come from the engine being small... but seems people who experience with turbos say it also depends on driving style; if you tend to go very light foot all the time it may not actually save fuel. I'm told the best way to save fuel in a forced-induction machine is to climb gears as fast as possible... but without redlining of course So a bit like, medium foot, then light foot cruise. I think turbos still consume more fuel if worked hard versus a naturally aspirated engine.

Since I'm targeting turbo cars I'll just have to try for myself if I get one.

 

Turbo lag nowadays very little. Some turbos are crazy linear, and jerking is usually related to the turbo lag. Or the dual-clutch gearboxes that often come alongside.

[Vega]

A CTR and a GTI have similar fc.

No true that TC cars will consume more.

Depending on the right leg.

[Columbian78]

Driving a car with a turbo does not mean must drive fast all or even most of the time. For me when i first drive the sss, i tend to whack the pedal alot, uneccesarily. But after getting through the newbie phase i now drive smoothly most of the time. Its just like a na car, with additional reserve to output more at short notice. Of cos, sss is just normal turbo not high perf like evo and wrx.

[ChickenMob]

it depending on what kind of TC cars you looking for....

low boost type is more for low end and fuel efficiency, but if for

performance dun expect good FC...

[Quantum]

it depending on what kind of TC cars you looking for....

low boost type is more for low end and fuel efficiency, but if for

performance dun expect good FC...

Agreed, most conti TC are low boost FC efficiency type,

But Volvo, Ford, and partial BMW, Mercedes, Porsche etc are performance TC

[Razer_Blaze]

Turbo Charged engines do not necessary cause high fuel consumption because turbo chargers only compress air and "pushed" it into the

combustion chamber. Benefits of a turbo charger is to produce higher power and torque. Japanese cars usually have the turbo valve open at a higher RPM while Continental cars have the turbo valve opened at a lower RPM. Drivers in a Japanese car have to rev the engine higher to activate the valve and at higher revs means burning more fuel.

 

Nowadays Japanese & Korean cars have tuned to open the turbo valve at lower RPM to produce more torque and power sooner rather than later. Looking at the WRX specs, the previous generation's maximum torque is producted at above 3000 RPM comparing to current generation which is producing torque below 3000 RPM.

 

While for continental cars like Volkswagen Golf, the maximum torque is produced at below 2000 RPM (some models have peak torque at 1700 rpm).

 

 

What are the turbocharged cars in Singapore available off the shelf? What are available via PI? Why doesn't SG bring in more TC cars? are they that unpopular? Why can't any owner TC their car like in australia? Why LTA so adamant that we can't experience happiness when we floor the throttle? it's a myth that TC cars are guzzlers or bad fuel economy.

Subaru WRX
Mitsubishi I

 

[Razer_Blaze]

--Deleted---

Edited May 31, 2015 by Razer_Blaze

[Volvobrick]

It is not a matter of "valve opening" but rather the size of the turbo. Smaller turbos start spinning fast at low rims, thus torque coming on stream earlier in the Rev range, but run out of puff in higher rpm. Bigger turbos are slower to reactor (inertia) but they glue more air, thus higher horsepower eventually, but suffer from lag in general.

 

Twin or even triple turbos can have best of both worlds, but will be more expensive.

[7hm]

Agreed, most conti TC are low boost FC efficiency type,

But Volvo, Ford, and partial BMW, Mercedes, Porsche etc are performance TC

 

I would actually call those three marques 'FC turbos'. But this would obviously be based on marketing at least for Ford which isn't really recognized for having really economical EcoBoost engines.

 

But Volvo, Drive is an incredibly efficient turbo engine. It helps that it has a 'perfect ratio'. Mercedes-Benz also targets excellent efficiency, but it seems that both marques have more or less attained both excellence in economy and performance. If I recall, both are using twin-scrolls or variable geometry turbos. I think BMW uses twin-turbos, but I might be mistaken.

[MQX87511]

 

I would actually call those three marques 'FC turbos'. But this would obviously be based on marketing at least for Ford which isn't really recognized for having really economical EcoBoost engines.

 

But Volvo, Drive is an incredibly efficient turbo engine. It helps that it has a 'perfect ratio'. Mercedes-Benz also targets excellent efficiency, but it seems that both marques have more or less attained both excellence in economy and performance. If I recall, both are using twin-scrolls or variable geometry turbos. I think BMW uses twin-turbos, but I might be mistaken.

since TC so many advantage compare to NA, curious why Japanese makes gave up TC and still stick on outdated NA?

don't tell me it's due to Japanese technology cannot catch conti makes, decades ago Japanese makes already easily made 2.0L TC, with 320bhp/400Nm +6 speed (M) + AWD, http://www.sgcarmart.com/new_cars/newcars_specs.php?CarCode=10318

nowadays still few conti makes can achieve this performance parameters at 2.0 TC, even Volvo latest 2.0 T6 also only achieves 316bhp/400Nm

[inlinesix]

It is not a matter of "valve opening" but rather the size of the turbo. Smaller turbos start spinning fast at low rims, thus torque coming on stream earlier in the Rev range, but run out of puff in higher rpm. Bigger turbos are slower to reactor (inertia) but they glue more air, thus higher horsepower eventually, but suffer from lag in general.

 

Twin or even triple turbos can have best of both worlds, but will be more expensive.

Best of both world is twin scroll turbo & not twin turbo

since TC so many advantage compare to NA, curious why Japanese makes gave up TC and still stick on outdated NA?

don't tell me it's due to Japanese technology cannot catch conti makes, decades ago Japanese makes already easily made 2.0L TC, with 320bhp/400Nm +6 speed (M) + AWD, http://www.sgcarmart.com/new_cars/newcars_specs.php?CarCode=10318

nowadays still few conti makes can achieve this performance parameters at 2.0 TC, even Volvo latest 2.0 T6 also only achieves 316bhp/400Nm

jap gave up hi hp turbo for hybrid of NA & electric motor

 

I would actually call those three marques 'FC turbos'. But this would obviously be based on marketing at least for Ford which isn't really recognized for having really economical EcoBoost engines.

 

But Volvo, Drive is an incredibly efficient turbo engine. It helps that it has a 'perfect ratio'. Mercedes-Benz also targets excellent efficiency, but it seems that both marques have more or less attained both excellence in economy and performance. If I recall, both are using twin-scrolls or variable geometry turbos. I think BMW uses twin-turbos, but I might be mistaken.

Other than ///M, BMW uses twin scroll turbo

[MQX87511]

Best of both world is twin scroll turbo & not twin turbo

jap gave up hi hp turbo for hybrid of NA & electric motor

Other than ///M, BMW uses twin scroll turbo

if i'm not wrong, nowadays world automobile trend still towards TC + Small cc + high Power + Fuel efficiency + low Emission + low price,

hybrid, NA, electric motor hard to achieve Power, Low price, small cc, definitely it will be very low market rate, this why Japanese makes almost were kick out China market,

[inlinesix]

if i'm not wrong, nowadays world automobile trend still towards TC + Small cc + high Power + Fuel efficiency + low Emission + low price,

hybrid, NA, electric motor hard to achieve Power, Low price, small cc, definitely it will be very low market rate, this why Japanese makes almost were kick out China market,

Hybrid juz like electric car, limited to batt tech. Electric motor achieves max torque once car starts moving. IC car can't beat it.

 

Price will be dependent on whether batt can b mass produced. In 20 yrs, it will b all electric car.