if you directly compare toyota and ford (as what your pic suggest)... of course toyota 4 cylinder cost less, cause there are less engineering and less innovation go into the design, needless to say just recycle old technology to reuse

If you ask me overall cost the turbo is higher.

Turbo - more components = more time to assembly = more cost

N/A - less components = less time to assembly = less cost

1.3 rotary please. other engines are rubbish.

toyota already has a 1L turbocharged engine lah
it's in many of their japanese car

Na. Less headache

More or less the cost is the same. Turbo engine nowadays comes with integrated parts to reduce cost like single exhaust port head. Hence, eliminate the use of exhaust manifold.

It's more like how the manufacturer control warranty claim and complaints which affects their aftermarket cost and reputation, turbo engine wear engine oil faster and if it's not taken care it'll break down in no time.

To prevent that, manufacturer has to install more sensors to force user to take a better care of the car. By all these, manufacturer can push responsibilities and cost to end user to prevent warranty claim.

Overall use in real world, NA most expensive to run because fuel guzller, for 10000km journey in a month, example, a 1.5 NA can cost more than RM1000 in fuel usage than modern 1.5L turbocharged engine due low power and torque.

Ahh just stop with downsizing engine and put turbo to budget car. It not suitable here, after warranty end the nightmare comes

Turbo Engine will be more expensive to produce despite smaller displacement:
- Engine Component are stronger (Forged Piston, Forged Conrod, Crank Shaft, Cylinder Head, etc)
- modern Turbo Engine use Direct Injection, using special high pressure injector inside the cylinder. The price is damn expensive
- More engine component : Turbo, Wastegate, sensors, intercooler, etc
- Turbo engine produce very high torque, normal small gearbox can't handle.

This post has been edited by k4sus: Aug 8 2019, 12:07 PM

Japanese K-Car seem no problems, for a price range around RM40-60K local car should offer one as optional, at least consumer got variety to choose, not only just a junk NA pump gas kit engine.

At current RON95 pump prices of RM2.08/l, you are implying a 1.5NA returns an average fuel consumption of 4.8l/100km more than a 1.5T, eg: 7l/100km for 1.5T, 11.8l/100km for 1.5NA.......which makes no sense.

This post has been edited by dares: Aug 8 2019, 12:21 PM

Still Kena smoked by myvi and god car vios! Waste time to know!

Mostly I drive 1.3/1.5L NA only can acchieve 9-11L/ 100km due no power at all, always pedal to the metal. Thing is different in preve turbo or civic turbo, better gas mileage around 6-8L /100km, those variant is gasoline base engine, diesel turbocharged even better gas mileage due lower rpm of rev.

Just do turbo diesel instead... my 2.0 turbo diesel car weight more than my friend's 1.6 petrol turbo yet it has more torque and better acceleration and more fuel economical. I can get up to 850km out of 53L tank on this 2.0, should be even more for those sub 1.6L turbo diesel.

if youre talking about ford, dont forget they are introducing cylinder deactivation tech for post 2018 ecoboost engines.


adding the counter balance pulleys and other fancy stuffs, its a myriad of additional components to the point of unfair comparison.

This post has been edited by jinggothegreat: Aug 8 2019, 12:32 PM

But I rare smoked by this 2 types, I drive 2.8L turbocharged diesel with alpha tech tuned, 6 speed AMT, 2000 rpm already 150kmh.

of course 1.0 turbo.
adding turbo unit should cost more than adding extra 500cc on the engine itself.
probably thats the reason why volkswagen malaysia stopped selling polo 1.2tsi model, too much headache for the price offered

This post has been edited by zerorating: Aug 8 2019, 12:43 PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45628325

ecoboost 1.0 have lots of issues.

1.5 na lasts longer than 1.0 tebu

you all talk about material cost only
actual cost that you all miss out includes manufacturing capacity vs actual utilization, equipment depreciation, taxation, production yield, labor cost, conversion time and cost, management cost, transportation, import/export cost, currency fluctuation, etc