Jump to content

Does having turbo really mean better fuel effiency?


Ahgong
 Share

Recommended Posts

Prius is meant to do heavy start-stop traffic. Not long drive.

That is why when doing long drive, the less efficient car will narrow the gap with efficient car and for this instance, M3 is better.

 

If people want to argue turbo means worse fuel efficiency

 

then they might as well argue a BMW M3 is more economical than a Prius.

 

Here is the proof.

 

:D

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F04MXepYiBs

 

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

actually more and more auto makers are opting for turbo, even the Japanese ... so better to learn how to use the turbo and how to take care of turbo engine.

 

am still old school about no replacement for displacement ... so for the usual 4 door compact saloon ... me thinks should be min 1.4l turbo ... if 1.6l turbo betterer ...

 

just my butt feel [:p]

 

hmm... looks like i got a lotta updating to do.

cos i am always under the impression that turbo will only function well under certain RPM. 

otherwise, it will just be more fuel burnt due to the poor mixture of air vs fuel that goes into the engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

166lyl4.png

 

i removed the annual amounts (but the app shows how much i spent each year on gas total) .. dont want to give you guys a heart attack.

 

and 2016 is still young, only pump twice, thats why mileage look very good ... lol

 

I would like the heart attack, since it's not my money anyway... Hahaha...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

Holy cow, I think I spend around 3k, for approximately 20k km per year. How far can your 5k go?

 

about 10-12k km

5k a year is small change for gtr owners la right? Haha

 

I think its the maintenance & insurance which are the killer.

 

Insurance min 5k/yr?

 

insurance 3k

 

my next servicing should be about 10k. give or take 1-2k.

Link to post
Share on other sites

about 10-12k km

 

 

insurance 3k

 

my next servicing should be about 10k. give or take 1-2k.

At first I thought he meant 10k KM

 

Then I realised it's 10k SGD...........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

At first I thought he meant 10k KM

 

Then I realised it's 10k SGD...........

 

it's the trifecta ... tires will be worn during next servicing (approx 3k), time to change brake pads (3k), and 20k km servicing (4k++)

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's the trifecta ... tires will be worn during next servicing (approx 3k), time to change brake pads (3k), and 20k km servicing (4k++)

 

 

and u go back AD to service right? except for the tire change.

Are u still on stock brembos? did the cross-drilled rotors develop micro-cracks around the edges of the holes? I wonder what would be AD's response to that.

 

 

btw last year I ordered a set of pads fm Amazon for a KL friend's R35. Cost less than usd800 incld shipping n gst (to Singapore).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

and u go back AD to service right? except for the tire change.

Are u still on stock brembos? did the cross-drilled rotors develop micro-cracks around the edges of the holes? I wonder what would be AD's response to that.

 

 

btw last year I ordered a set of pads fm Amazon for a KL friend's R35. Cost less than usd800 incld shipping n gst (to Singapore).

 

tire change also just leave it to them.

 

the thing is, even when my gearbox grenaded (under warranty), they air flew my gb, whereas for the PI ones, it was shipped over by seas. my issues were resolved in 10 days. (and i have a 2010 gb in a 2009 car)

 

even a few weeks ago, i ripped my bumper off (bloody tan quee lan st ... sunken lot + concrete rear stoppers) .. they repaired it within a day ...

 

even my mfd ... well, lets just say they have always taken care of my car like their own baby,

 

i heard about the micro cracks, but so far, mine hasnt been affected.

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

To simplify Turbo, it should be "reuse" wasted/excess energy from the engine.. then pump it back....  should get better FC compare to N.A with the same amount of HP & torque. I am assuming you are saying about small CC engine like 1.6> with turbo..

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's the trifecta ... tires will be worn during next servicing (approx 3k), time to change brake pads (3k), and 20k km servicing (4k++)

 

I think 4k I can service my car for 5 years...

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I was wondering, many cars today (I am referring mainly to petrol engine), go for turbo. They claim to be of smaller capacity but produce more power. It also claims to be much more powerful.

 

Some like Opel claims their turbo works all the time and not only kicks in at a certain min rpm. If turbo is so great, I wonder why not all engines are turbo. This technology isn't that new but maybe there are newer and more efficient ways. I read an article and the writer claims, I quote

 

'Reliability has often been a problem too: turbochargers add another layer of mechanical complexity to an ordinary engine—in short, there are quite a few more things to go wrong. That can make maintenance of turbos significantly more expensive. By definition, turbocharging is all about getting more from the same basic engine design, and many of the engine components have to suffer higher pressures and temperatures, which can make parts fail sooner; that's why, generally speaking, turbocharged engines don't last as long' unquote.

 

Without going into something too technical so that everyone of us can understand. Any input so that we can decide if we should consider turbo cars.

 

Thank you

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...