Honda And Toyota Finally Discarding Antiquated Engine Technology For Turbocharging – Aren't They Way Too Late To The Party?

It's a cry echoing through the halls of Honda: The turbos are coming! The turbos are coming!

And it's about time. Japan's Big 3 -- Honda, Toyota and Nissan -- are conspicuously late to the turbo party. Walk onto a Honda or Toyota lot and you won't see a single vehicle with a turbo under the hood. At Nissan, only the Juke crossover and the fire-breathing GT-R supercar use them.

Meanwhile, Ford and some European brands use turbocharged engines extensively, as do an increasing number of models from other U.S. makes and the Korean brands.

Read Article

TomM - 7/27/2015 9:45:14 AM

+12 Boost

Honda and Toyota are the business of selling cars - and it seems that they were able sell them regardless of having turbos or not.
Because they largely sell smaller vehicles - they were not under the same pressure to move to teeny weeny forced engines - since they already were near the top in CFE. Given the added complexity - and cost - I would have done same thing and I believe that a non=turbo engine is NOT antiquated technology - just different. (see Ferrari)
I still suspect that in the long run - the non-turbo engine will last longer.

7msynthetic - 7/27/2015 3:47:14 PM

+6 Boost

Soooo true. Its about making money and with Toyota being one of the biggest in terms of sales I can't say they are doing anything wrong. Their 3.5L V6 was developed for longevity in mind through each cycle and it has proven to be quite robust.

Also, turbo tech is not as reliable as NA. Wait about 5-6 years and the lesser proven turbo models will be begin to poop their pants - bad gas, head gaskets, etc. With all the boost the CLA 45 AMG is putting out now in 10 years it'll drive like a 25 year old smoking/drinking crackhead.

MDarringer - 7/27/2015 10:23:27 AM

+7 Boost

I actually prefer naturally aspirated. Turbo engines like Ford's Ecoboost--in theory--seem brilliant but in practice they may actually deliver poorer MPG. That is definitely the case of the Fusion 2.5 vs Ecoboost.

TomM - 7/27/2015 2:06:28 PM

+8 Boost

I believe that we have been misled regarding the gas mileage advantages of a turbo engine. It would seem to me that they are best noted on long trips on Interstate highways - where you seldom if ever need the turbo. However - in hill country - or in the city where you must accelerate (Especially on ramps of highways) - you have to kick in the turbo much more and much more often - and the mileage suffers. You really cannot compare turbos of about 4-5 years ago to the newer designs of today as far as lag - they have that figured out. But GM has shown with its trucks that it can get just as good or really close mileage without needing the turbo - and without the aluminum weight advantage (There really isn't much)

MDarringer - 7/27/2015 4:13:46 PM

-1 Boost

@TomM, you were not misled. Based on the parameters of the EPA's testing, the Ecoboost it a total win. No one said anything about real world MPG. I'd rather know:

35mph steady state MPG
65mph steady state MPG
0-60mph full throttle MPG
25-70mph full throttle MPG

gkearns56 - 7/27/2015 11:02:06 AM

+8 Boost

I've had a couple of cars with a turbo. I hated them and sold them. Turbo lag and with my one vehicle, seemed like the gas mileage wasn't improved. I'll do a "Super-charger", but dislike a turbo. Every vehicle I buy now must have at least a 6 cylinder in it. We have some mountains near us and I rode in my nephews turbo car. That car's turbo was constantly kicking in, then would stop going up the mountain. I'll stay with a non-turbo technology everyday of week over turbo.

MDarringer - 7/27/2015 6:40:32 PM

0 Boost

I have to agree.

Despite all the technology to make turbos instantly responsive--if I have to live with a boosted smaller displacement engine--I'd go with a supercharger.

For example, I prefer the supercharged Mini to the turbocharged one.

scenicbyway12 - 7/27/2015 3:00:27 PM

+1 Boost

I live at altitude, bring on the turbos'!

MrEE - 7/27/2015 7:11:38 PM

+4 Boost

If gas turbo's were the answer, why would GM and Ford still offer the NA option at similar performance?

MDarringer - 7/27/2015 7:32:09 PM

+4 Boost

precisely

TomM - 7/28/2015 1:22:32 AM

+1 Boost

Cost

IT is still cheaper to produce a NA engine
Gm and Ford - like Honda and Toyota - are not Premium priced cars - and to maintain profitability - they will do what is needed. And Honda and Toyota have the advantage of the exchange rate with the Yen helping them.

Remember - these companies are not in the car business - they are in the money making business BY making and selling cars in reality

skytop - 7/28/2015 7:40:59 AM

-1 Boost

My new lawnmower has a turbo. But Honda doesn't.

MDarringer - 7/28/2015 11:54:22 AM

+5 Boost

Why in hell does a lawnmower need a turbo? LOL

TomM - 7/28/2015 5:40:58 PM

+6 Boost

By the way - the Turbocharger is in itself an antiquated device - that was originally patented in Switzerland in 1905.

There is LOTS of technology on those "antiquated" Honda engines - like Variable valve control - that is far newer than turbocharging is.

phistration - 8/3/2015 2:54:18 PM

0 Boost

Everyone should keep in mind that turbos as they are implemented in the current fleet of small displacement engines serve the purpose of giving a smaller displacement engine the max HP of a larger engine. The fuel savings that are quoted by manufacturers are not because of the turbo itself but because of the smaller displacement. In a steady state condition that smaller displacement turbo engine will get better fuel economy than a larger displacement engine. The reality of the situation is that very rarely is an engine used in a steady state condition. Load and RPM are always varying. If you like to go fast your mileage will suffer. There is no way around that.