We talk about unit cost itself, 1L Turbo 3-cylinder engine vs 1.5L 4-cylinder Natural aspiration engine which one cost the manufacturing more?





This post has been edited by toyotaviosuser: Aug 8 2019, 11:34 AM

Got songlap or not?
Fake emissions?

1.5 more than 1.0
4-cylinder more than 3-cylinder

so 1.5 4-cylinder cost more to build

cost base on what?

the R&D not count in the total cost ?

but but but tebo engine has more component worrr

Tebu + ICE > ICE

You need to built engine and turbocharger vs built 1 single engine.

Quiz: What does a 1.5L engine aspire?

Answer: 2.0L

How much RnD can cost to affect production cost?

Turbo engine cost more.

More parts = higher cost.

Also, some turbo engine have stronger materials. This will also increase cost.

Avoid small turbo engines. Pure designed for emission only. If mod, confirm sure kaput.

scrap metal price, which weight more?

2.0L Turbo that's the real thing

RnD cost does not affect production cost.

RnD cost + production cost = total cost

Those are calculate as 1 project. The cost of engine will calculate base on that project.

what kind of comparison is this.
1litre engine and 1litre turbo engine = same engine.
obviously 4cyclinder cost more to build than 3.

turbo wise is depend on what size of turbo you put, type of exhaust manifold, intake manifold, piping, intercooler, ecu, and few more hoses + mounting point.

so whats the point you want to know?

Btw read an article some time back, EU is reversing the downsizing of Turbo engines trend since the new emission guidelines. With the revision, apparently the smallest practical turbo with consideration for emission would be 1.6L.

A lot similar question like why ITX mobo expensive than micro atx/atx since it use less component.

Why err?

less 1 piston, piston ring, exahsut hole, sparkplug, ignition coil, 2 valve, shorter rod, just add 1 siput at exausht u cost effective la

plus supercharge, hybrid, solar.

Is toyota will built a 1L turbocharged engine, be interesting, which sedan or compact will base on this mill? Already in my shopping list to get a "car" category of vehicles.

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

Small turbo engines are usually manufactured to a higher precision level with better materials than standard NA.

Bigger doesn't necessarily mean more expensive.

if you talk about civic type r engine, probably yes.
but cheepo peasant car engine, i think those extra cost just to cover up warranty claim if problem arise, material probably slight better oni.

Not necessarily true. If the turbo engine is to make big power, needs more expensive metal or more.metal to hold in boost. Cost therefore rises. Big difference between them is efficiency.

Not really, cheapo peasant car engine that uses low pressure turbo, like the ones used in Conti engines, they are manufactured in higher precision. It is also the reason why they are more susceptible to damaging easier, especially with wrongly specced oils. A low pressure turbo car usually will give you more power and lower FC deficit vs the same amount of gains doing just NA. Because of that manufacturers opt to go Turbo to get more power whilst keeping to emission requirements. But this comes at a cost of a more fragile engine. To compensate, they use better materials, but most of the people in this country abuse it and don't know how to mod it. Spoil it easily

Wrong, if you always step on the fuel pedal like maniac turbocharge engine will also consume fuel a lot higher and besides that turbocharge engine also will not last longer compare to NA due to more heat & pressure generated compare to N/A engine.
Turbocharge engine can only save fuel when driven like RPM 3000 below without full boost, but how many drivers can so discipline their feet all the time.

This post has been edited by littlefire: Aug 8 2019, 03:48 PM

Turbocharged engine just need gentle press the pedal already good enough torque for faster acceleration, the rev around 2000rpm at 5th/6th gear already above 110 km/h, not like junk NA, always floor the throttle also the car move like a snail. NA is total weak of torque that make the car undriveable, especially full loads of goods or passengers. I don't buy any vehicles with junk NA engines, because is more short life span due blown engine and crack piston.

for eu, you can forget NA engines for small cars. i think the ford Ka+ is still with some old 1.2L NA, but fiestas class and above will be with turbo and with active cylinder shutoff.
right now trend towards electrification, lots of mHEVs, pHEVs and FHEVs coming out next year.

for low cost countries and where emissions law is not a factor, the NA engines will be pushed there as long as it is still profitable as its much cheaper, old tech and has been value optimized.

Dont bother with the 1.0 ecoboost

On highway kena tapao kao2 by myvi kuning taliban

Personal opinion

Suzuki swidt sports 1.4 turbo torgue beats a Civic type R torgue

Plus that optimum torgue starts from 2k rev, instead of the normal range of 5k

So in summary, it depends on the engine

Orly?

LOL, u have not known the power of K-Kar.

1.5 litre cost more la, 1L they jz build a smaller engine n then slap a turbo into it gaodim

Bro, raw material cost for turbo engine cost way more as the turbo itself already cost few thousand, while the raw material casting/machining cost for the 1.5 engine is way less compare to that turbo.
Usually material & machining cost itself only cost extra few hundred max. You must need to calculate the assembly cost also, more parts mean more time to assembly the engine up and this also add cost.

Doing manufacturing is not easy as seeing small cc engine must be cheap overall. If too much time spend on assembly and expensive components also will add up more cost. If not why turbocharge model line usually cost more compare to N/A engine? Take example 1.8L Civic is still cheaper compare to 1.5T civic model. You can argue about more accesories for 1.5T, but those extra stuff do you think cost so much compare to like engine cost?

When you are out of warranty, and have a broken Turbo, and need to pay easily 5K above to replace it.. That also with 2nd hand unit, then you will be singing a different tune. Problem with not replacing a broken Turbo is pressure build up, now become Turbo bocor pulak. Trust be, one time sudah kena, forever dun want Turbo engine already.

This post has been edited by azbro: Aug 8 2019, 10:44 PM