Sub 2.0 Turbo Engines, More car market observations and debates Options

[Silentwolf]

Sub 2 liter turbo engines used to be relegated to mostly other than US duty, but 1.4t and 1.6t engines are popping up all over the place now.

In the 1.4t class we have:
Buick Encore w/ 138hp and 148tq up to 33mpg hwy
Chevy Cruze w/ 138hp and 148tq up to 38mpg hwy
Chevy Sonic w/ 138hp and 148tq up to 34mpg hwy
Dodge Dart w/ 160hp and 184tq up to 41mpg hwy* (*in Areo model, rest are 39mpg)
Fiat 500 Abarth w/ 160hp and 170tq up to 34mpg hwy
Fiat 500 t w/ 135hp and 150tq up to 34mpg hwy


In the 1.6t class we have:
Ford Escape w/ 173hp and 184tq up to 33mpg hwy
Ford Fiesta ST w/ 197hp and 214tq up to 34mpg hwy* (*rumored/unknown)
H Veloster T w/ 201hp and 195tq up to 35mpg hwy
Kia Forte5 SX w/ 201hp and 195tq up to 35mpg hwy* (*rumored/unknown)
Mini Cooper S w/ 181hp and 177tq up to 35mpg hwy
Mini Cooper JCW w/ 208hp and 192tq up to 35mpg hwy
Nissan Juke w/ 188hp and 177tq up to 32mpg hwy


I must admit that the 1.4t engines are a bit underwhelming in terms of performance and MPG potentials. With many, you could do better with larger N/A GDI engines in both overall power and MPGs. Only one that really delivers is the Dodge Dart with the 1.4t Multiair Tiger engine getting great torque while also delivering exceptional MPGs.

To me its the 1.6t engines that deliver more for less. Many are in the 35mpg range which beats many of the 1.4ts and deliver more power than the 1.4ts.

The true advantage to these small turbo engines is that they deliver more tq down low than many larger 4 bangers.
The Veloster T/Forte 5 SX deliver 195tq @ 1750rpms or Fiesta ST w/ 214tq @ 2500rpms. Even the 1.4t shine in low tq with the Sonic RS putting out 148tq @ 2500rpms or Dart Areo putting out 184tq @ 2500rpms. None of the N/A i4s can achieve that even with GDI. Sonata 2.4 i4 with 184tq @ 4250rpms or Malibu 2.5 i4 with 191tq @ 4400rpms or the closest N/A i4 being the Mazda 6 2.5 i4 with 185tq @ 3250rpm. The Skyactive 2.5 i4 has the same tq as the DOdge Multiair 1.4t but 750rpms later. In city or twisty driving, tq does matter. Economy has become a lot more interesting, esp with the Fiesta ST and Forte5 SX due out this summer. Does this now officially fit the proverb, "Having your cake and eating it too!" ??


If I left out any models/engines, let me know.

[Blupupher]

I have not driven any of these vehicles with these smaller turbo engines so i can't personally say (heck, the only turbo vehicle I have ever driven is a F-350 with an ambulance chassis on it) but I say so long as they have the get up and go, then fine. My 2.0 Elantra (and Tuscon with the same engine) is actually the smallest displacement engine I have ever driven.
I do find it odd that the 1.4 models really don't have much if any better EPA figures.


edit: I forgot, I did have an '84 VW Rabbit for a couple of years, and that had a 1.7 L engine, and the wife had an '89 Cabriolet with a 1.8L, so the Elantra is not the smallest displacement engine I have had, but neither of those were turbo charged.

[Silentwolf]

The 2.0 BetaII is the smallest engine i've employed as well, including the Elantra being the smallest car. I have driven a couple boosted vehicles, but all were/are larger aplication (2.3t i4, 3.8sc V6) in heavier vehicles. I'm honestly looking forward to test driving a few on the list above. Might come back and addendum this thread in the future with test drive impressions.


Come on no one else with any comments??

[Bobzilla]

Honda tried this (again) in 2006 with the 2007 Acura RDX. They touted it as "V6 power with 4cyl fuel economy." What they meant was "V8 fuel economy, 3cyl power". It achieved the same economy as the much larger, 3 row MDX and was not that quick. To lug itself around meant the turbo had to be spooled, which means more fuel is burned.

In most cases, it's not "having your cake and eating it too".

[afob3]

We see this with our ecoboost F150. If you can drive very conservatively and stay out of the boost, it gets great mileage for the tank that it is. If you want the torque, you need the boost. Rather than the cake and eat it too analogy, I describe it as very Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.

Unloaded, stead interstate driving puts it at 22+ mpg. Towing our 6000 lb camper nets 11 mpg. The numbers aren't very far off of a similarly equipped v8. The difference is with all that torque I can pass 18 wheelers while towing up hill at 2000 rpm's. That similar v8 would be reving much higher to get that similar torque.

[Bobzilla]

We see this with our ecoboost F150. If you can drive very conservatively and stay out of the boost, it gets great mileage for the tank that it is. If you want the torque, you need the boost. Rather than the cake and eat it too analogy, I describe it as very Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.

Unloaded, stead interstate driving puts it at 22+ mpg. Towing our 6000 lb camper nets 11 mpg. The numbers aren't very far off of a similarly equipped v8. The difference is with all that torque I can pass 18 wheelers while towing up hill at 2000 rpm's. That similar v8 would be reving much higher to get that similar torque.

I hear that a lot as well. I don't get it. I can tow 5k and net 14-15mpg in the hills. Unloaded it's at 24mpg with the small V8. How is the turbo engine better then? [/rhetorical question]

[Silentwolf]

Hold up, you flog ANY engine and your going to see a drop in economy, but what i was touting was the lower torque values (usually whats needed for acceleration in city n such) with good hwy mpgs.

You cant compare the sub 2.0 turbo engines to current V6s since the current crop has a lot more power but also getting increasingly relegated to performance sedans n coupes. Most of the Mid-size family sedans have large I4s.

So lets take the 1.4t Dodge Dart and put it against the 2.0 Ford Focus (pricing within few hundred between both)

Car.......Engine......HP @ RPM....TQ @ RPM....Cty/Hwy mpgs....Curb Weight
Dart......1.4 turbo...160@5500....184@2500....27/41...............3211 (Dodge gives the same weight for both 2.0 and 1.4???)
Focus.....2.0 N/A.....160@6500....146@4450....26/36...............2907


Then the 1.6t Hyundai Veloster Turbo up against the 2.4 Hyundai Sonata. (I would prefer comparing the Forte5 to the Sonata since interior volume is closer but full specs on the 14' SX aren't out yet. I do expect the Forte5 to be similar in weight to current EGT which is under the VT's weight so add turbo would make it same weight class as VT but EPA volume class with Sonata) (pricing within few hundred between both)

Veloster....1.6 turbo....201@6000....195@1750....24/35....2800
Sonata......2.4 N/A......200@6300....186@4250....24/35....3199

MPG and Power specs favor the Dart over the larger engine Focus despite the Dart being Dodge heavy (numbers which also exceed the vaunted Elantra)

Numbers are similar for the VT vs Sonata except that the VT has more torque @ MUCH lower RPMs in a lighter chassis. This is evident in 0-60 times for VT = 6.8 and Sonata = 7.7


Afob: 16/22 is the rated for your truck so you actually meeting the EPA values (which will never take into account loaded weight tho i think that should be a secondary value for trucks)

Bob: For some reason, you have always (ALWAYS) exceeded rated MPGs on any vehicle. SO how bout you and Afob swap trucks and see what you both get for mpgs in the other's truck...

[Bobzilla]

But I don't like the new fords.

That's not true, I could never meet the EPA ratings on my 2000 Sonoma. That thing was lucky to get 27mpg on the highway being nice. round trip to Daytona was 24mpg on one trip. It was rated at 29mpg highway.

[afob3]

Not complaining at all... Just pointing out that you can't expect to get great mileage if you have a heavy foot. It always makes me roll my eyes when new rv'ers complain about fuel mileage when you are trying to pull a 8x8 foot or larger box through the air.

Sorta back on topic... I've never really liked dodges but the new dart has my eye for some reason.

[Bobzilla]

Not complaining at all... Just pointing out that you can't expect to get great mileage if you have a heavy foot. It always makes me roll my eyes when new rv'ers complain about fuel mileage when you are trying to pull a 8x8 foot or larger box through the air.

Sorta back on topic... I've never really liked dodges but the new dart has my eye for some reason.

Get inside a base Dart. You'll feel like you just time-warped to 1995 and you're sitting in a rental fleet Neon. It's baaaaaaaddddd.