Have You Jumped On The Turbocharging Bandwagon Yet Or Sitting This One Out?

Although I am playing with two Ecoboost engine swaps, I'd rather have a Voodoo V8.

I honestly believe that turbo or supercharged engines are more likely to go kaflooey than naturally aspirated engines.

Both of the engine swaps will be auxiliary oil coolers and warm up/shut down timers.

I have a 2015 Q5 3.0 turbo-diesel. Although I wasn't specifically looking for a vehicle with a turbocharger, this was the right one for me.

It has an adequate 240 hp, but a monstrous 428 ft-lbs of torque. Driven gently, it can deliver a genuine 35.67 MPG average for a tank. Stomped, it can do 0-60 MPH in about 6.5 seconds, which is performance car territory.

Pre-purchase research claimed the turbo-lag is "a bit of a problem," though I have never noticed any. Mind you, I'm not a racer who can feel a 1/10 second lag at the accelerator and for whom that matters. For me, I get great fuel economy, and I also have brisk acceleration on tap, when I need it.

Love it! :-)

Our Flex is an Ecoboost not because I wanted a turbo but because the wife picked out the vehicle of her choice. We get 18mpg around town and 28mpg on trips, which I consider respectable for a vehicle of its size.

Driving an old 911 Turbo at the track is a hoot because of the horrible turbo lag that suddenly unleashes violent power. I remember the first time I experienced it. I almost crapped my Andrew Christians...and I have been to performance driving school, but the old 911 definitely was in charge.

I have had 318d turbo for the last 3 years and the Evoque turbo for 1 year. Yes it is a more complex engine and likely to be expensive to repair, but with both you really get a nice shot of mid range torque oomph that is not possible with a small non turbo motor. Only thing that came close was my 70 454 Vette.

You had me at 454 Vette...

I agree with these comments. I'm looking to replace my ATS 3.6 in February and will likely return to the MB fold. We just got the wife a new Mercedes GLK, her second and the 3.5 ltr 6 in the GLK is a terrific engine and the 302bhp is smooth and strong as well as normally aspirated. The 3.6 in the ATS is IMO not as smooth but still a strong mill. Its been a hoot to drive. That said the new C300/C400 are both turbos as are the 329/335 engines in the BMW's. I have a C300 right now on dealer loan and think the mill is buzzy, I'm not fond of it compared to that 3.5 - 6. The Audi engines are also turbos if I'm not mistaken. I imagine the new E Class will also have a different engine line up. So, I may need to get a current E Class or any other car with that 3.5 liter. I plan to keep this car for probably 10 yrs or so (who knows) and just think after that amount of time and/or mileage, the turbos (or excessive moving parts) will degrade... anyone have experience with a turbo that has 100K miles or more? Matt whats your dealer experience?

I had about 97k kilometers on the 318d when I bought it... Sold it with 219k, engine was still going strong.

Between Audi and Mercedes, I say Mercedes is by far the better choice. This may be REALLY counterintuitive to your thinking, but have you driven a Genesis?

It also might be hard to sit this one out. With emissions and CAFE everyone is turning to turbos. I think it will be increasingly difficult to find NA engines in main stream cars. Until electric prices drop (would love a Tesla P85d) turbos rule IMHO.

I am in no hurry for a turbo. No interest in turbo diesel since it doesn't really help city mileage and don't need the high torque in a primary commuter application. Hybrid or electric makes much more sense for my driving mix. Turbo gas isn't worth it either for initial cost, increased maintenance, and potential expense repairs just to be able pass vehicles once in while.

That said, it may be interesting if Honda can bring a reliable turbo Civic to the mainstream and show a true mileage improvement.

Actually - because they use smaller engines - a turbo will help city mileage if you stay off the turbo - ie - don't constantly floor it.
The problem of course is that you almost have to do that to get these little engines to move the cars. My company Fusion Hybrid has pretty much averaged over 40mpg - but there really is little power - and the brakes are weird. With the Batteries - it has little trunk space - so the back seat is another trunk. What I would do - if I had a turbo - is make sure the cooling system is always in top shape - and I would use only Synthetic oil.

@TomM Small-displacement turbos are at their WORST in the city. Stop-and-go is a killer for small-engined, turbo economy. They are CONSTANTLY on turbo. On this one, you've eaten dirt. Small-displacement turbos shine on the highway.

@MDarringer - That is what I said (Read my comment again - about the problem)- but for some drivers (My mother for instance is 96) - she would never press that throttle to get that turbo going - so she will benefit - and there are more drivers like her than there are like us. She also only drives less than 3,000 miles a year - to the store and the hair dresser.

However - After I had my favorite car - the 450SEL 6.9 - I started buying 12 cylinder cars - my first was a Jaguar - and my current one is an S600. The smoothness of the power from a NA 12 cannot be matched by any turbo - and it is likely at my age - that I will have among the last of that kind.

Currently have a turbo 2014 Subaru (Forester XT) and then of course the Stingray. Girlfriend has a naturally aspirated 2015 Forester. Mine is WAY more fun to drive. Both have a CVT, although the FXT's is a lot more responsive. I have nothing against turbos and will take them when that's all I can get.

You lost me at CVT.

The FXT has a very good CVT. Not whiny and gets the XT to 60 in like 6.1 secs which is A-OK for a CUV I ordered for <$30000 (after haggling :-/). It's also in the new WRX where it does even better, of course, and nobody's complaining.

Obviously it's not as responsive (and can't handle the torque of) as new auto or dual-clutch transmissions. But it shows that in the near future we'll be seeing a lot more of them and they'll be alright.

I hope to heaven you're wrong because I have yet to drive a CVT that didn't have NVH problems.

The one in my girlfriend's Forester is, I think, not quite as good as in my XT. That said, it's a far cry from, say, Nissan's early CVTs (don't know about the current ones).

Don't get me wrong, driving any Subaru is nothing silky-smooth like a Lexus or something. But I don't think my XTerra was any better with its auto transmission. And in "pretend 8-speed" mode the XT hustles pretty well and "shifts" instantly -- decent software :)

CVTs will continue to improve. They're already well beyond certain auto transmissions *cough* *cough* ZF 9-speed *cough*.

@Sciros The Nissan CVT is still pretty horrific. Step on the gas and the engine howls but there is not a massive power surge. I truly do not understand Subaru buyers. For me, the NVH of the engine is a deal killer, CVT just makes it worse. The notion that a flat four is smoother than an inline four is pure hogwash.

As for your bash of the 9 speed transmission, having driven it in several Chrysler products, I found it very smooth and responsive. I had read the horror stories, but in three applications, I think it is a great transmission.

Granted, the difference in acceleration and mileage between a Fusion 6-speed and a 200 9-speed is nil.

The multiple Weber carbs I have on my car will NEVER be obsoleted or be bettered by any injection system.

Keeping older, multi-carb engines happy is an art form requiring much patience.

Turbos also are good for mountain driving...you get back a lot of the power loss due to the lower air density at altitude. You can loose around 20% of the engines normal hp when driving up in the Rockies. Even in the high plains that are already 5000+ ft you lose 10-15% and on a hot day even more. I think turbo technology has come a long way and the reliability fear is no longer such a big factor in my car buying decisions unless a specific car has been shown to be problematical.

Turbos are good overall - much better than they used to be. Way back when, my first car was an 82 Audi 5000 Turbo that I inherited from a relative. It had a KKK turbocharger that would last about 40,000 miles - I put two of them in. I let it "cool down" in my driveway for 5 minutes yet the oil still cook. For the time, it was fast, but quite high maintenance. It eventually racked up 150,000 miles so it wasn't the worst car.

After going 20 years blissfully turbo-free I now have an MB GL350 Bluetek (twin turbo 3.0L diesel V6) and an S550 (twin turbo 4.6L V8). The diesel is just great - what a fantastic engine and fantastic vehicle.

The S550 is also great - but where it shines is on the highway. If driving around town, it averages 15MPG or so (to Darringer's point), but once on the highway I've seen as high as 29MPG on a tank driving on flat interstate. Its also crazy, freaking fast! Prior to this one, I had a 2008 S550 with the non-turbo 5.5L V8. It would range from 17MPG in city to 23MPG on flat highway. However, nothing juices the low-end punch like twin-turbos - quite thrilling to drive. I'd say turbo's are here to stay (as long as the don't cook themselves after 30,000 miles.

I'd like to see small turbo engine plus a hybrid. The hybrid would be killer for city MPG and the turbo would be useful elsewhere.