As We Enter The "Golden Age Of Turbocharging" Who Is Dragging Their Heels?

Automakers are producing their smallest, most fuel-efficient engines ever, while keeping horsepower-happy Americans satisfied. They're doing it with turbochargers, which help four-cylinder engines produce as much power as their traditional V-6 counterparts.

Through the '90s, turbocharged engines represented a small slice of the market, largely relegated to European sports models and performance versions of American cars. Since then, turbocharged engines have expanded to about 21 percent of cars sold in the United States in 2014. Some expect turbochargers to be as popular in America as they are in Europe by 2025, where about 70 percent of all vehicles now sold are turbocharged.

Read Article

TheSteve - 5/14/2015 12:08:38 PM

+2 Boost

I believe nobody is "dragging their heels." Every manufacturer is offering their own solutions, and hoping that enough people buy them. Not all of those solutions are best served with a turbocharger.

I also believe people usually don't buy a vehicle based on who makes the best turbocharger, who offers the most turbocharges (1, 2, or 3 in an engine), etc. Some folks are horsepower fans, and they might elect to buy a car with big-cube engine rather than a small-cube car with a turbo. Some are looking for better fuel economy, so they might go for a tiny 3-cyl normally aspirated engine.

As for those who do offer turbochargers and might be viewed as competing with each other, I believe most buyers don't go beyond the view of "it has a turbocharger." If they want power, they'll likely choose a vehicle with a bigger horsepower number than being fascinated with a smaller engine that delivers more power per liter. And more power can be delivered through cubes, engine design (e.g., more than 100 bhp/liter on a normally aspirated engine), or forced induction.

In other words, I don't believe there is a turbo war raging. There are just lots of manufacturers with lots of offerings, some with turbos.

quizz - 5/14/2015 1:47:00 PM

+3 Boost

Toyota = dragging heels

freeagent - 5/14/2015 4:35:02 PM

+3 Boost

Honda. they used to consistently have the best engines, now they're still good for naturally aspirated, but not in the performance game any more

MrEE - 5/14/2015 8:25:33 PM

+3 Boost

Let's see Honda and Toyota, no turbo's, highest reliability, most 25 and 20 year old cars in service, US fleet nearly 50% older verses European fleet, hmmm who is ahead?

MDarringer - 5/16/2015 9:14:47 AM

+1 Boost

Agree

jeffy210 - 5/15/2015 11:42:08 AM

0 Boost

My only issue with turbos (and my past two cars have had them) is no matter how fancy they get with them, turbo-lag is still an issue. I have to carefully time when I make a left hand turn sometimes to account for the lag. They're wonderful at highway speeds for passing, but they're a pain sometimes in city driving.

HughJass - 5/15/2015 12:16:20 PM

+1 Boost

Toyota. Do they still have any that weren't created by Subaru?

MDarringer - 5/16/2015 9:23:17 AM

+1 Boost

In the US market, VW has been among the laggers. It had TSI out in Europe, but we got garbage engines here.

Ford has splashed with Ecoboost but I don't think the tiny turbo in the Fusion gets better mileage than the 2.5 in real life. I've had the opportunity to drive both on a long trip and they returned virtually identical MPG. The 2.5 was slightly more thrifty (1 mpg). Given that, I would take the 2.5 because no matter how well-designed a turbo engine is, it will wear out sooner than a naturally aspirated one and it will be more costly to fix.