1.6 turbo charged versus a normal 2 litre engine

[JaydenSTI]

But the statement, "There's no replacement for displacement" still holds in today's context.

 

Try having the WRX/ EVO that's modified to have more power than a Lambo go max out for long hours. The car/ engine would probably give up, for that's not what engineers of the WRX/ EVO meant the car to do.

 

 

FI car is not meant for endurance whatsoever, remember which car won the 24hours endurance Merdeka Race in Sepang at year 2000?

[Civic6228]

I switched from a 2.0L NA to a 1.6 Supercharged. They are different make and the power output happens to be exactly the same on paper. After driving both, my comments are as follows :

 

1. The power coming from the 2.0 NA is more linear.

 

2. Saving in road tax for a smaller 1.6L SC engine.

 

3. Fuel consumption is similar for both cars.

 

I cannot comment about driving in the NSHW as I have never driven either car up North before. There is this statement - "There's no replacement for displacement" and I agree to this statement. However, for local driving conditions, any TC or SC is good enough. For long distance driving, the bigger displacement will make a difference.

 

TS, any of the cars that you have listed would be better than the Tucson that you are driving. I would go for the Touran for practical reasons.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Civic6228

[Soya]

TC engines produces higher torque at a lower rpm even if it's a lower cc compared to a NA. In practical terms that means better driveability in urban traffic, lower FC and lower emissions. Plus, once u get used to driving a torquey TC car, you wun bother wif a wheezy NA.

 

Save the planet - drive a TC car!

[Proton_neutron]

 

Yeap. If TS is just going to drive the car on Singapore's start-stop roads, a 1.6TC car would do just fine.

 

However, if he frequents NSHW, and with family and luggage in tow, a bigger CC car would be much better.

 

 

[Mkl22]

added cost of replacing the turbo also. one of the main reasons why manufacturers are going to the turbo route is due to emissions. if not for rdtax. i would take a bigger cc anytime. the engine is less stressed and for sure will last longer than a turboed version

[F1f2]

OT a bit

my understanding turbo charge is use additional part as the turbo.

can this part is remove and the engine run as per normal (of course with less power)

[Soya]

OT a bit

my understanding turbo charge is use additional part as the turbo.

can this part is remove and the engine run as per normal (of course with less power)

 

not so simple. TC cars run on lower compression than NA. if the snail goes on MC, the performance is very retarded and much worse than a NA.

[Cephas]

Look for higher HP when you want to cruise comfortably in NSHW....a bigger cc car does a better job in this area.

 

TC cars are more torquey....good for city driving.

 

Best of both worlds....a TC car in the 2L & up category...many options out there....example like the Subaru Exiga 2.0GT....big enuff for your family & groceries & fast enuff for spirited driving.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Cephas

[Pocus]

Akin to small engine doing a big man's work!

I always have this in mind - what about 3 yrs down the road - will the engine sound as nice - and maintenance?

Keep in mind - they are overwork and the wear and tear is bound to happen faster than a bigger cc engine...

this 1.6l turbo is still new(i think) wait for 2-3 yrs and see if the owners complain ...higher noise level, part changes and what not - coz in the end they need to work extra "hard"...just like a human body...work hard labour under the sun and see what will happen..

 

Just my 2 cents - I would prefer a normal 2.0 anytime..

 

You theory would have made sense with it was a original NA engine with an aftermarket bolt-on Turbo. But if the engine is already built stock with a turbo it's different. Most of the internal components would have been tuned or reinforced with tougher parts. This is more so if the turbo was included for performance reasons. With the addition of many other external components that actually complements the engine rather then stressing it.

 

Plus the fact that the ECU and compression ratio is tweak to ensure the engine is in harmony with the turbo, you'll be suprised that even after years, a TC engine still performs and ages as well as a NA engine.

 

These are the reasons why TC engines is also generally more expensive than an NA engine.

 

Back to topic, I'd choose TC engine anything. I think it take one to actually drive and own a TC car to be able to understand how the engine works and more important, squash alot of myths pertaining to TC engine that most ppl have, esp on the maintenance part. (Most of the myths were true though, if your turbo is meant for performance)

 

High low-end torque is very addictive, once you have it and you never want to go back to NA.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Pocus

[Tohto]

The 1.4 TSI engine is no where a better performer than the Lexus 2.5l engines. The tiny turbo engines are only good for 0-100 sprints but once you get on roads like NSHW you will see the difference the big boys and the small turbo engines.

 

How often will you drive on NSHW?

It is more important for our local use context - A lot of city driving.

For cars with huge low end torque, they will wins hands down.

[Yattokame]

the small turbo engine is good for city driving. You don't go 120km/h all over the place do you? it's really good for zipping around in city traffic. Effortless.

 

Even when I had my 156 and Brera (3.2 litre) I found the latter an overkill in local traffic. How many times do I really get to stretch it?

 

haven't tried the touran before as I find it ugly at first sight. Am driving the C4GP now. getting 11.9km/L for my first 10000km as per trip computer.

 

I prefer the citroen for the lack of a middle console between the front seats, which makes it possible for me to slide from one seat to the other for ingress or egress. Very useful in those bloody HDB carparks. However not everyone likes the EGS. I'm a veteran user of semi-automatics so the EGS is 2nd nature to me.

[Joseph22]

the small turbo engine is good for city driving. You don't go 120km/h all over the place do you? it's really good for zipping around in city traffic. Effortless.

 

Even when I had my 156 and Brera (3.2 litre) I found the latter an overkill in local traffic. How many times do I really get to stretch it?

 

haven't tried the touran before as I find it ugly at first sight. Am driving the C4GP now. getting 11.9km/L for my first 10000km as per trip computer.

 

I prefer the citroen for the lack of a middle console between the front seats, which makes it possible for me to slide from one seat to the other for ingress or egress. Very useful in those bloody HDB carparks. However not everyone likes the EGS. I'm a veteran user of semi-automatics so the EGS is 2nd nature to me.

what is the different between EGS and traditional Tiptonic control?

[Eugn86]

Comparing the C4/5008 with the Touran is like cheese and chalk... Some people like the stylish fluid designs of French cars and there are those who prefer a box on wheels...

 

Anyway, i've tried the twin-charge 1.4TSI and my ride has the same engine in the 5008... and i've driven a 2.0-litre NA from Volvo... all I can say is the 2.0-litre is so lethargic and unresponsive in town even with the DSG gearbox... the 1.4TSI is the most lively but you can feel that the engine is really small capacity and it's all the force induction doing the work... the 1.6-litre from PSA feels bigger-lunged and gives more shove when overtaking than the 1.4TSI even though the torque figures are the same. And if you are planning to tune... more can be obtained from a higher-capacity engine too. Fuel consumption wise, the 1.4TSI would definitely give the better fuel economy with sensible driving... of coz both would give terrible economy if driven enthusiastically all the time.

 

My advise for TS.. if your commute is in Singapore 90% of the time... dun bother about the 2-litre. You would be amazed by the response the small-capacity force-induced engines provide... akin to a 2.4-litre NA yet in a lighter and more agile car. Whichever European ride you choose... you will definitely enjoy.

[Eugn86]

what is the different between EGS and traditional Tiptonic control?

 

EGS is a clutch-less manual... It does not have a torque-converter hence the "auto" mode tends to be jerky unless you lift your right foot during gear changers...

 

Tiptronic is a function which allows you to manually select the gear you want in an AUTOMATIC gearbox meaning it has a torque converter for smooth gear change.

[Soya]

the 2.0L NA from the S40 is sourced from the mazda 6. that's gotta be one of the most CMI engines to ever sit under a wowo's bonnet.

 

when buying wowo, juz go for TC otherwise dun even bother.

[TD5000]

Tucson is a SUV and due to it's weight and 2.0 4 cyc na, don't think it can match the 1.6/1.4 TC engines be it overtaking or highway criusing. Will only make a diff if i'ts above 2 litre with V6.

 

These 1.6/1.4 TC engines come with 6sp/7sp gearbox and is able to cruise at very low rpm and at the same time running at close to max torque at around speed of 100km/h. So you just need to tap on the accelerator lightly to overtake whereas the 2.0 na needs to work harder at higher rpm to achieve the same results. Turbocharged/Supercharged are proven engines used since WWII on warplanes so it's not going to wear out in just 2-3 year's time (unless it's a lemon or you wack the car everynight at orchard). So in fact, you're using a smaller engine, with less effort compared to a bigger engine which needs to work harder to achieve the same results.

[Carnut]

Not technically inclined but if you were to ask Usain Bolt to run the 5000m, you think he'll do better than the Kenyans?

[Mike1234]

 

I would pick a 1.6 turbo over a 2.0 NA engine...

 

But i would not pick a (1.4 or lower) turbo