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.
1L Turbo engine vs 1.5L Natural aspiration engine
1L Turbo engine vs 1.5L Natural aspiration engine
|
|
Aug 8 2019, 11:51 AM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
531 posts Joined: Feb 2009 |
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.
|
|
|
Aug 8 2019, 12:00 PM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
531 posts Joined: Feb 2009 |
QUOTE(littlefire @ Aug 8 2019, 11:54 AM) If you ask me overall cost the turbo is higher. 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.Turbo - more components = more time to assembly = more cost N/A - less components = less time to assembly = less cost |
|
|
Aug 8 2019, 12:07 PM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
531 posts Joined: Feb 2009 |
QUOTE(arza04 @ Aug 8 2019, 12:03 PM) Ahh just stop with downsizing engine and put turbo to budget car. It not suitable here, after warranty end the nightmare comes 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. |
|
|
Aug 8 2019, 12:25 PM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
531 posts Joined: Feb 2009 |
QUOTE(dares @ Aug 8 2019, 12:20 PM) 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. 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. |
|
|
Aug 8 2019, 12:30 PM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
531 posts Joined: Feb 2009 |
|
|
|
Aug 8 2019, 08:34 PM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
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. 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.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. |
| Bump Topic Add ReplyOptions New Topic |
| Change to: | 0.0165sec
0.98
6 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 14th December 2025 - 03:35 PM |