Twins future question

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by darthpnoy1984

And we got robbed of the turbocharge engine as well and now were seeing cars with turbochargers as a rage lmafo Japan had it over twenty years ago.

People don't understand the buyer and the market.

As a general principle, consumers in the US prefer larger displacement engines or more torque.

Consumers in Japan are less preferential in this manner, mostly because Japan has strict laws on engine displacement and the corresponding taxes that go with each engine displacement. It's one of the reasons why there's so many 2.0L engines (1998cc) and often a turbo is added on to bump up HP for different types of buyers. See this for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax#Japan

I would love to say turbo engines are great, but in the late 1980s and into 1990s the percentage of people actually buying a turbo engine (if it was an option on the car) was below 15% of total sales of those models. Fiscally speaking, it makes no sense. Hell, everyone said they wanted the S15 Silvia but in 1998 the 240SX sold less cars than the Acura NSX.

Sorry to say, enthusiasts and their logic simply do not translate into general consumer buying habits.

-alex

Edit: regardless if you liked the 2nd Gen Mitsubishi Eclipse or not, it still gave you a FWD or AWD turbo option.

Around 7-10% of actual buyers opted for the turbo engine when it was in production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsub...onal_equipment

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by darthpnoy1984

And we got robbed of the turbocharge engine as well and now were seeing cars with turbochargers as a rage lmafo Japan had it over twenty years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

UMMMMMMMM Try 55 years ago in the US of A

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by mav1178

People don't understand the buyer and the market.

As a general principle, consumers in the US prefer larger displacement engines or more torque.

Consumers in Japan are less preferential in this manner, mostly because Japan has strict laws on engine displacement and the corresponding taxes that go with each engine displacement. It's one of the reasons why there's so many 2.0L engines (1998cc) and often a turbo is added on to bump up HP for different types of buyers. See this for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax#Japan

I would love to say turbo engines are great, but in the late 1980s and into 1990s the percentage of people actually buying a turbo engine (if it was an option on the car) was below 15% of total sales of those models. Fiscally speaking, it makes no sense. Hell, everyone said they wanted the S15 Silvia but in 1998 the 240SX sold less cars than the Acura NSX.

Sorry to say, enthusiasts and their logic simply do not translate into general consumer buying habits.

-alex

Edit: regardless if you liked the 2nd Gen Mitsubishi Eclipse or not, it still gave you a FWD or AWD turbo option.

Around 7-10% of actual buyers opted for the turbo engine when it was in production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsub...onal_equipment

I'm not going to say they are a good idea but nearly every economy car sold is moving towards small turbocharged powerplants, including ones that have traditionally stuck with NA. Cruze, Civic, and Ford's ecoboost are just a few examples. I actually find it kind of ironic that you can go out and get a turbocharged engine in many plain jane cars, often with no other choice, yet you can't in our cars.


This is certainly fuel economy driven and not driven by enthusiasts demanding turbos but I suppose you could still call it a forced induction craze in a way.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Yardjass

I'm not going to say they are a good idea but nearly every economy car sold is moving towards small turbocharged powerplants, including ones that have traditionally stuck with NA. Cruze, Civic, and Ford's ecoboost are just a few examples. I actually find it kind of ironic that you can go out and get a turbocharged engine in many plain jane cars, often with no other choice, yet you can't in our cars.


This is certainly fuel economy driven and not driven by enthusiasts demanding turbos but I suppose you could still call it a forced induction craze in a way.

Turbochargers were a performance thing before but not particularly fuel efficient with older electronics. With modern engine controls they can do wonders for both economy and performance.

I think turbos in general need to be viewed in the context of what was available then and now. To say 2017 and 1997 are similar is taking things wildly out of context... back then, the most advanced engine management was an Apex'i Power FC with essentially a 16-bit ECU and dot matrix display.

Today's electronics offer virtually unlimited engine monitoring and tuning, something many people take for granted.

-alex

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Turbochargers were a performance thing before but not particularly fuel efficient with older electronics. With modern engine controls they can do wonders for both economy and performance.

I think turbos in general need to be viewed in the context of what was available then and now. To say 2017 and 1997 are similar is taking things wildly out of context... back then, the most advanced engine management was an Apex'i Power FC with essentially a 16-bit ECU and dot matrix display.

Today's electronics offer virtually unlimited engine monitoring and tuning, something many people take for granted.

-alex

This is exactly why the first production cars (1962 Corvair and Olds Jetfire) dropped the turbos after just one model year. The turbo gave a huge boost but without computers to control everything it they were just about impossible to keep running. Had a buddy with one back in high school and he pretty much had to manually adjust every single thing every time the temperature changed more than 10 degrees or it rained hard. He eventually just ripped it out and threw it away which probably explains their extreme rarity even in collector circles today.

[humfrz]

Now, ol @Tcoat is just laying back ...... he was a turbo innovator, back in his day .....


humfrz

[Kutanks]

Maybe I am in the minority but I like the linear delivery of a N/A motor. I'd rather they bump the displacement to 2.5L and get the power up to 250HP for the next gen...without adding any weight

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Kutanks

Maybe I am in the minority but I like the linear delivery of a N/A motor. I'd rather they bump the displacement to 2.5L and get the power up to 250HP for the next gen...without adding any weight

Again,a light H6 at 2.5-2.8l is my wet dream for this car. Won't ever happen though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gforce]

SAAB invented the fuel economy turbo engine. They needed more power and could not afford to build a V6. They experimented with a V8 I believe.

The fuel economy turbo boosts highest pressures at mid rpm range, dumping boost pressure as rpm climb above 4,000.

This technology has been widely adopted, especially in Europe to develop powerful diesels suitable for passenger cars.

Computers allowed simple boost pressure feedback controls to be added to naturally aspirated fuel mixture and ignition timing computer control. The peak torque developed by these fuel economy type turbos is unbelievable. In most the peak boost is quickly reduced once the desired maximum torque is developed leading to engines with very flat torque curves from anywhere as low as 1500 rpm to as high as 5,000 rpm. Aftermarket tuners unconcerned with fuel economy can easily unleash 30% more torque from older versions of these engines. Not so much now since the factories have developed incredibly sophisticated engine management and turbo boost controls. I recently drove the Mclaren 12C with over 600 bhp from 3.8 litres. Imagine our cars with 300 bhp from 2.0 litres...wait a minute some of us already drive those. My eForce BRZ develops around 260 bhp officially on a dyno. Drives like a factory built car.

The latest turbos are all fuel economy (CO2 emissions officially) driven and the software control is getting so good it is hard to tell from behind the wheel whether the engine is turbo'd or not.

Naturally aspirated engines are dying out because of the CO2 scare. In North America regulated fuel economy is driving this.

Somewhat ironically, enthusiastic drivers do not experience much fuel savings when driving forced induction....

[SlowCarFast]

One thing I have learned from driving the new civics (hatch, coupe, and si &#128521 is that the low displacement, high boost motors tend to rev hang like a mother. This can be somewhat eliminated with some tuning, but itis very annoying in stock form. You have to wait an extra heart beat or 2 before letting the clutch out.

While I would not mind a turbo in the twins, the na motors are nice in their own way. I just wish the mid range torque was better stock.

[darthpnoy1984]

Originally Posted by SlowCarFast

One thing I have learned from driving the new civics (hatch, coupe, and si &#128521 is that the low displacement, high boost motors tend to rev hang like a mother. This can be somewhat eliminated with some tuning, but itis very annoying in stock form. You have to wait an extra heart beat or 2 before letting the clutch out.

While I would not mind a turbo in the twins, the na motors are nice in their own way. I just wish the mid range torque was better stock.

I mean how much better do you honestly need them to be. I feel easy downshift is best way to cure this complaining many have here. I have DD this car on the highway a lot and I never have issue on passing people on the highway nearly 300 miles a week. Hell even my puny 1.5 L Yaris didn't have problems with passing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SlowCarFast]

Originally Posted by darthpnoy1984

I mean how much better do you honestly need them to be. I feel easy downshift is best way to cure this complaining many have here. I have DD this car on the highway a lot and I never have issue on passing people on the highway nearly 300 miles a week. Hell even my puny 1.5 L Yaris didn't have problems with passing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I view it more as an area of possible improvement. Not a flaw per say. I too have never had trouble passing with my brz, but a nice meaty mid range would make the car much easier to drive and more fun in "normal" driving situations.

[Braces]

Porsche undeniably engineered some great NA boxer engines. They obviously know a few things about building engines. Now ... they are all mostly turbos.

Ferrari and McLaren. Small turbocharged V8 in their light weight sports cars.

Ford GT: Turbocharged V6.

Corvette ZO6: Supercharged V8.

Forced injection is moving forward.

[dnieves]

Originally Posted by Kutanks

Maybe I am in the minority but I like the linear delivery of a N/A motor. I'd rather they bump the displacement to 2.5L and get the power up to 250HP for the next gen...without adding any weight

wouldb't happen unless Toyota makes this car without Subaru or someone that doesn't make a similarly powered/priced product it won't happen. Funny Subaru how is worried about product (BRZ) that's not wholly their own scavenging potential sales from their product line when there's nothing like this car -> no 4WD, coupe, and not Subaru fugly*.


*To be fair their level of fugliness has improved (except for the Forrester and Outback).