Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> 1L Turbo engine vs 1.5L Natural aspiration engine

views
     
daijoubu
post Aug 8 2019, 12:54 PM

Love Many. Trust Few. Do Wrong to None.
*******
Senior Member
5,193 posts

Joined: Jan 2003




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

Bigger doesn't necessarily mean more expensive.
zerorating
post Aug 8 2019, 01:05 PM

Miskin Adab
*****
Senior Member
975 posts

Joined: Aug 2007
From: Lokap Polis


QUOTE(daijoubu @ Aug 8 2019, 12:54 PM)
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.
netmatrix
post Aug 8 2019, 01:11 PM

The machine... it sees everything.
*******
Senior Member
6,733 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Zion


QUOTE(OldSchoolJoke @ Aug 8 2019, 11:35 AM)
1.5 more than 1.0
4-cylinder more than 3-cylinder

so 1.5 4-cylinder cost more to build
*
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.
daijoubu
post Aug 8 2019, 01:19 PM

Love Many. Trust Few. Do Wrong to None.
*******
Senior Member
5,193 posts

Joined: Jan 2003




QUOTE(zerorating @ Aug 8 2019, 01:05 PM)
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 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
littlefire
post Aug 8 2019, 03:48 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,731 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
From: Penang


QUOTE(Harold2009 @ Aug 8 2019, 01:00 PM)
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.
*
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
Harold2009
post Aug 8 2019, 08:34 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
531 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


QUOTE(littlefire @ Aug 8 2019, 03:48 PM)
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.
*
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.
kaffra
post Aug 8 2019, 08:58 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
643 posts

Joined: Oct 2004
From: Deutschland


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.


Boy96
post Aug 8 2019, 09:04 PM

That's a tripod.
*******
Senior Member
3,848 posts

Joined: Dec 2009
From: Ampang


Dont bother with the 1.0 ecoboost

On highway kena tapao kao2 by myvi kuning taliban
shadowglow
post Aug 8 2019, 09:07 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
462 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Ampang


QUOTE(toyotaviosuser @ Aug 8 2019, 11:33 AM)
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?
user posted image
user posted image
*
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
zamans98
post Aug 8 2019, 09:09 PM

oquıɐɹ ǝɥ ɹǝo 'ǝɹǝɥǝɯos
*******
Senior Member
8,510 posts

Joined: Dec 2004
From: KayEL


QUOTE(acbc @ Aug 8 2019, 11:41 AM)
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.
*
Orly?

LOL, u have not known the power of K-Kar.
rooney723
post Aug 8 2019, 09:16 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
596 posts

Joined: Dec 2010
1.5 litre cost more la, 1L they jz build a smaller engine n then slap a turbo into it gaodim
littlefire
post Aug 8 2019, 10:36 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,731 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
From: Penang


QUOTE(rooney723 @ Aug 8 2019, 10:16 PM)
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?
azbro
post Aug 8 2019, 10:42 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,403 posts

Joined: Jan 2007
From: Johor Bahru


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

3 Pages < 1 2 3
Bump Topic Add ReplyOptions New Topic
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0130sec    1.13    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 14th December 2025 - 11:14 AM