|
Thanks for the replies/opinions.
l guess, as people have said, when the time comes l need to test out & compare normally aspirated against a number of turbo petrol contenders.
|
Thanks for the replies/opinions.
l guess, as people have said, when the time comes l need to test out & compare normally aspirated against a number of turbo petrol contenders.
I did favour a Mazda 3 2.0 Skyactiv but after your years of driving turbo diesels I doubt it would win you over in a short test drive. The performance is no worse than an equivalent turbo but its free revving engine and slick gear change encourage a different way of driving. I prefer it but I guess the turbo petrol boys would call it the old fashioned way.
|
|
I think another key factor here is whether or not the OP actually enjoys driving. If he doesn't and driving is simply something which has to be done in order to get from A to B, then the Mazda's slick gearchange isn't really going to make up for the lack of torque low down. If this is the case, then i'd say petrol turbo all day long, but also idealy mated to a decent auto transmission.
I'm also not sure who the 'turbo petrol' boys are?. Would Senexdriver's good lady wife be one of these? :-)
As for n/a being 'old fashioned', i think that probably depends on your age as the current turbo fad is certainly not the first. Back in the 80's, turbo's were very popular indeed, Renault in particular had turbo versions of nearly their entire range including the 9!. So for someone of around my age, that turbo fad was very much current when i started to get into cars. Then turbo's fell back out of favour for a few decades with the majority, including Renault, preferring n/a. And now they are back, with a venegence, and are likely to stay until electric takes over!.
Edited by badbusdriver on 23/08/2020 at 10:08
|
|
With the possible exception of Saab LPT's turbos were mainly about high performance in the 80's. Now, forced induction is substituted for capacity. I must admit our Roomster 1.2TSI 105 feels livelier than a motorised shed has any right to.
I still get far more enjoyment from driving my MX-5, which actually has quite decent torque for what it is (1.5 petrol) but (a) it's a bit less that the Roomster's peak torque, and (b) it doesn't all arrive until 4800 rpm. The MX-5 is the faster car by a decent margin, but anyone habituated to turbos would think the Roomster has more urge.
Our Roomster is also an auto so it's a very easy drive.
|
|
I've enjoyed driving turbocharged engines for many years, nothing quite like that huge surge of torque that starts to develop from about 800rpm on well sorted large swept volume (per cyl) engines, petrol or Diesel, especially satisfying on Diesels where you can hear the turbo starting its spool up, half the pleasure is driving to the sound of it and more or less ignoring the rev counter.
Never got any enjoyment from VTEC type NA engine driving, not so bad with a decent autobox but too much like hard work having to chase gears around at high revs, i like lazy torque too much.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say try a few test drives. Back in 2015 I was last looking for a car I wasn't convinced with the idea of a small piddly 1.4 engine in a large car but I decided to try a 1.4tsi Skoda Superb as the price for a 14 month old version was rather attractive. I was surprised as to how well it drove with reasonable tourque from 1500rpm (not quite as much as my previous 1.9pd) and a nice kick as the revs rose (my previous pd would have thrown the towel in). Fuel economy has been good as well.
|
|
|
I think another key factor here is whether or not the OP actually enjoys driving. If he doesn't and driving is simply something which has to be done in order to get from A to B, then the Mazda's slick gearchange isn't really going to make up for the lack of torque low down. If this is the case, then i'd say petrol turbo all day long, but also idealy mated to a decent auto transmission.
Since retiring from work, where l was doing many more miles, along with the daily commute, l actually look forward to driving. l guess that's why, even for the sake of relatively low miles now, l want those to be enjoyable & in the best car possible. The A to B question is valid however, don't see myself as viewing cars as purely a functional item.
The torque debate is an interesting one & come to think of it 5 years plus ago l have accessed n/a cars (circa 2012 - 2014) on a couple of occasions from the work pool car. Both were Honda's, a couple of Jazz's & a Civic & l recall all three being an easy, pleasant drive, lite on the pedals, slick gear change etc. Though very smooth, they did need to be stoked up a little to get going.
|
With the possible exception of Saab LPT's turbos were mainly about high performance in the 80's. Now, forced induction is substituted for capacity.
Saab LPT's didn't actually arrive till the early 90's.
And as we are on the subject of Saab, one of the turbo pioneers of course, worth pointing out that for them using a turbo was always a substitute for capacity. That was the whole point of it, to give the 99 and 900 equivalent power of the 2.5-3.0 6 cyl engines of rivals (which Saab couldn't afford to develop) but retaining the economy (in theory anyway) of a 2.0.
Since retiring from work, where l was doing many more miles, along with the daily commute, l actually look forward to driving. l guess that's why, even for the sake of relatively low miles now, l want those to be enjoyable & in the best car possible. The A to B question is valid however, don't see myself as viewing cars as purely a functional item.
The torque debate is an interesting one & come to think of it 5 years plus ago l have accessed n/a cars (circa 2012 - 2014) on a couple of occasions from the work pool car. Both were Honda's, a couple of Jazz's & a Civic & l recall all three being an easy, pleasant drive, lite on the pedals, slick gear change etc. Though very smooth, they did need to be stoked up a little to get going.
Obviously the best option is to try both n/a and turbo options to see what you prefer driving now. I suspect having got used to the huge torque of a 2.0 turbo diesel, a n/a Jazz or Civic might not be as appealing as you recall!.
|
|
Too much traffic to enjoy driving and quiet roads are usually those to dangerous to do more than 40mph on.
As for turbos.. great when well maintained...but when on third owner, scrupulous oil changes tend not to happen. Turbos hate dirty oil.. and overheating..
I'll give them a miss..
|
Too much traffic to enjoy driving and quiet roads are usually those to dangerous to do more than 40mph on.
I think the OP is considering n/a or turbo with around the same power, so this isn't relevant. Having said that, if you are forced, through traffic or road conditions, to be going along twisty country roads at a low speed, then surely the torque of a turbo will make this more comfortable and relaxing?.
As for turbos.. great when well maintained...but when on third owner, scrupulous oil changes tend not to happen. Turbos hate dirty oil.. and overheating..
I'll give them a miss..
Fair enough if the OP was working with a budget of £5k or less, but double that means a 3 or 4 year old car is entirely feasable. An approved used example from a main dealer is going to have had one or maybe two owners, and will have a proper service history, so should give no cause for concern.
|
|
|
|
I'm now a turbo fan. We have a Peugeot 2008 1.2 puretech EAT6 and I am astonished by how much power (130hp) and torque comes from what is not much bigger than a motorbike engine. I did a lot of research before selecting this particular drivetrain which I think is probably one of the more reliable and nicest small turbo/gearbox combos around. Fortunately MrsF likes the rest of the car it propels as well. In addition to those mentioned above, I suggest the OP considers a Peugeot 308 with this powertrain - fairly recent ones are now within his 10K budget. Incidentally, the cambelt is in oil and should last the life of the car.
|
We have a Peugeot 2008 1.2 puretech EAT6 and I am astonished by how much power (130hp) and torque comes from what is not much bigger than a motorbike engine.
That is actually smaller than many motorbike engines John, not least the Triumph Rocket 3, current versions of which are 2.5 litres (3 cyl)!.
|
|
|
I'm now a turbo fan. We have a Peugeot 2008 1.2 puretech EAT6 and I am astonished by how much power (130hp) and torque comes from what is not much bigger than a motorbike engine. I did a lot of research before selecting this particular drivetrain which I think is probably one of the more reliable and nicest small turbo/gearbox combos around.
You might find this quite interesting! www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/peugeot/2008-2013/go...d
|
Definitely try the 140/150 bhp Leon.
Loads of torque low down where you need it.
You can drive it quickly with no effort and rarely go over 2,500 revs with
50 mpg to boot.
You start driving gutless Mazda quickly and the mpg will plummet.
|
Definitely try the 140/150 bhp Leon. Loads of torque low down where you need it. You can drive it quickly with no effort and rarely go over 2,500 revs with 50 mpg to boot. You start driving gutless Mazda quickly and the mpg will plummet.
Interesting comment re economy.
They seem to be getting a bit better, probably with the help of less aggressive throttle mapping, but the 'tiny turbos', especially the Fords, have been notorious for getting nowhere near their official economy figures. Nevertheless HJ's real mpg suggests about 86% of the combined figure is achieved by the 140 TSI Leoan and 82% by the 150.
Turbos should add efficiency by increasing the charge and I suppose they do, hence the figures achieved on the standard test cycle. In practice, the accessibility of all that torque and power means even old ladies and vicars leave the traffic lights like scalded cats, throwing away the potential fuel savings.
My wife in the 1.2 TSI Roomster starts better than Lewis Hamilton and struggles to get 38 mpg - I control my right foot a bit better and get low 40s. The official combined figure is 49.6.
My MX-5 averages about 48mpg driven 'normally' , despite a lower official figure at 47.1 than the Roomster. It's very flexible and easy to get around with 3000rpm or less. It's economical because at 2,500rpm it's not even a 50bhp car, even at full throttle. Much easier to drive it economically whatever the official cycle suggests.
You're quite right to say that a VVT/VTEC 'on the cam' will have worse mpg - but it's actually much easier to make the turbo cars uneconomical IME.
I admit to a bias against tiny turbos - I think we'll be lucky if our Roomster lasts 12 years. It goes extremely well, but it's a complicated little engine and its prospects are further compromised by having a DSG gearbox. I'm hoping its low annual mileage will help its chances! At least it has 4 cylinders.
Edited by Manatee on 24/08/2020 at 11:16
|
I'm now a turbo fan. We have a Peugeot 2008 1.2 puretech EAT6 and I am astonished by how much power (130hp) and torque comes from what is not much bigger than a motorbike engine. I did a lot of research before selecting this particular drivetrain which I think is probably one of the more reliable and nicest small turbo/gearbox combos around.
You might find this quite interesting! www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/peugeot/2008-2013/go...d
Thanks, but I read it ages ago. I love the bit about the cat scratches! Impressed by how few engine/gearbox(EAT6, not the earlier semi-auto) problems there have been in all the reviews and fora I have explored in its many years of mass production. The only major problem I found (apart from the freak spark plugs) was the batch of duff cambelts a few years ago which I think were slightly mis-sized. They frayed, causing debris which blocked oil channels. Incidentally, I have no personal interest in supporting Peugeot, a proud manufacturer which historically prided itself on engineering excellence and quality, being a cut above its competitors.
|
|
Years ago, one of the motoring tv shows did an A -B economy comparison between a similar size diesel & a petrol powered car, when driven "normally" & then hard. l don't recall the spec' of the cars but the results for the petrol (unsurprisingly) were a marked reduction in mpg when pushed, where as the diesel only suffered a 3-5 mile reduction in mpg.
In earlier posts, some contributors seem to be saying modern pt motors can be driven enthusiastically & still retain expected mpg figures (similar to diesels) where as others are saying pt mpg will still reduce if pushed.
|
Years ago, one of the motoring tv shows did an A -B economy comparison between a similar size diesel & a petrol powered car, when driven "normally" & then hard. l don't recall the spec' of the cars but the results for the petrol (unsurprisingly) were a marked reduction in mpg when pushed, where as the diesel only suffered a 3-5 mile reduction in mpg.
In earlier posts, some contributors seem to be saying modern pt motors can be driven enthusiastically & still retain expected mpg figures (similar to diesels) where as others are saying pt mpg will still reduce if pushed.
It very much depends upon the engine - the make and sometimes the specific engine and even combo with the car. Any car when pushed will drop its mpg - the question is how much, and often depends upon the power-weight ratio and how much torque it develops.
For example, the very nice (belt-driven) VAG 1.4TSI can be fitted in small cars like an Audi A1 or VW Polo, but also in a much large Skoda Octavia. The mpg drop-off will likely be more severe for the latter car than the former two just because it is much heavier, if driven hard.
The best thing to do is to compare the published mpg figures with the real-world ones, bothe of which are published (the latter being from reports from owners) on this website. They, along with reviews of the cars themselves, including user-reviews, will give a good indication as to what extent each model and engine can gie as regards performance vs mpg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
