Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The last few weeks I've went on a few test drives looking for a new vehicle. I was hoping to join the 2.0L turbo club. As you all may know, the 2.0L turbo 4 with DI has become a fashion statement.
I compared two candidates back to back, the Mazda CX-9 with the 3.7L V6 vs Hyundai Santa Fe with 2.0L Turbo
On every paper the turbo engines make more power and better MPG, but in the real world that didn't seem to always have been the case. The Turbo vehicles are Definatley fast, but they lack the bark or grunt of the V6 alternatives and the harmonics are of the opposite side of the spectrum.
In the Santa FE you stomp on the pedal, and literally nothing happens for about 2.5 seconds, literally! There is a massive delay, then power comes in, but it's a very slow progress for the rpm needle to reach the upper limit. In the Mazda CX-9 you stomp on the pedal and you get pushed into the seat and the rpm needle moves very quickly to redline and the car gains forward momentum with force.
Regarding refinement I'm not judging the obvious 4-Cyl noise, but the 2.0L Turbo donk in the santa makes all types of noises such as swooshs, whooshes, ticks, buzzes and whatnot, perhaps too much valves etc due to the turbo setup? Anyways thought that was weird..
Another interesting detail I found was that with the 2.0L turbo, the engine and transmission never seemed to exactly work in harmony. Felt like the transmission never truly matched where the engine was at, when I gave the gas pedal some WOT, the rpm would shift to only about 5000rpm, other times it would hit at almost 7000rpm. Seemed very strange to me. The Mazda CX-9 with the 3.7L V6 didn't posses such issue, in other words it was consistent.
Another trait I noticed was that driving a V6 is easier than a turbo 4, on paper they will state that the turbo has MAXIMUM TORQUE at 1750rpm, but that's not true at all, from a standstill the turbo 4 definitely needed 3000-4000rpm to feel lively. Where as the V6 pulls from idle. Which made for a Very easy and smooth drive in the Mazda CX-9.
Lastly MPG, at the end of the day the Hyundai Santa-Fe 2.0 Turbo returned 18mpg & the Mazda CX-9 3.7L V6 returned 17mpg. Ok now I know you'll all say the turbo just achieved better MPG, but you must take into consideration the CX-9 is much bigger vehicle, almost twice the engine size and had much more performance
!
So at the end of the day sadly the 2.0L Turbo didn't live up to the hype for me!
--What do you guys think of the 2.0L Turbo vs V6?
You could have solved most of those problems with a manual transmission. Turbo 4's are not well suited for an automatic transmission.
So if you want to be in the lead when the light turns green and the right lane ends in 50 feet, a turbo with an automatic would not be a good choice?
Not with a 5,000 pound behemoth with a lazy transmission tuned for gas mileage. In a Focus ST, it'd be fine. The dual-clutch box in the Focus has its faults (smoothness) but laziness isn't one of them.
A four cylinder with a turbo is still a four cylinder, so it'll behave like a four cylinder most of the time.
Personally, I think they have their applications, but the heavier the vehicle, the less they make sense.
A V-6 is much better suited to heavier cars, vans, SUVs, etc.
Things really get interesting when you add a turbo to a V-6. The Ford F-150 "EcoBoost" is a nice upgrade, IMHO. It's fine for an empty or lightly loaded truck because it moves off the line well enough (like a V-6 should) and it has V8-like power for merging, but without the mileage penalty of a larger engine while cruising.
On the other hand, if I used my Ford truck frequently for towing or hauling heavy things long distances, I'd want the low-end torque of a V-8 or even a diesel (which is a different discussion altogether).
You could have solved most of those problems with a manual transmission. Turbo 4's are not well suited for an automatic transmission.
Actually, the automatic will allow something the manual will not: it will allow the engine to make boost DURING the shift, as you don't have to let off the throttle.
I had a 2003 Saab convertible with a 2 liter turbo motor and a 4-speed auto. The drivetrain was smooth and powerful with no apparent lag, very nice running car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanek9freak
You could have solved most of those problems with a manual transmission. Turbo 4's are not well suited for an automatic transmission.
I think the ubiquitous answer is 'it depends' ... I've had a few older turbos both stick and auto.
One ride that fools a lot of people is a Saab 9-5 (and maybe 9-3?) 2.3 4 Turbo "Aero" model, especially the 'sportwagon' through 2006 IIRC (....of blessed memory). Even with the 5spd auto it goes very well and is fun to drive.
The tranny has a sport mode that I've read increase air mass/combustion demand which, for a given accelerator position, results in increased throttle opening and thus increased power. It also seems to provide firmer shifts and 'holds' gears longer even when not at hard acceleration ('normal driving'). Under hard acceleration it appears to shift at about the same 'red line' which would make sense. In this mode the car is a blast to drive and does not feel like a 4 (or a wagon...), especially at speed. Turbo 'lag' at low RPM is not as noticeable and what's there goes away quickly. This is a nice match of engine/transmission in a pretty big car.
For the record, the stick shift versions of this car had more boost and delivered a few more HP, but most of the combos acceleration and drivability are about the wide/strong torque band and this auto is a great match for it.
In real life driving, with a well designed turbo, lag is mostly short duration problem at the stop light/drag strip and on the road the potential improved mpg and mid range performance is worth it for most drivers. The current popularity of turbo 4s by many 'performance' oriented manufacturers (Audi, BMW, etc.) will continue to evolve some well engineered solutions.
I'm on my 4th 2.0T-equipped car (though none have been DI). I've also had other 5 other turbocharged 4-cylinders (one of which was DI) ranging in displacement from 1.8L to 2.6L with output ranging from 145HP to 285-ish HP. While a couple of 'em have been dogs ('84 Ford Mustang Turbo GT was pitiful with 145HP), most have solid or excellent performers.
The key, however, is that these motors were put in relatively light, sporty, performance-oriented models. The absolute heaviest ('06 Mazdaspeed6) still "only" weighed in at around 3600lbs with 275HP stock (tuned to roughly 285HP) and 280 lb-ft of torque (tuned to around 295 lb-ft). That motor was coupled with a close-ratio 6-speed transmission to make the most of the motor's power band/torque curve. Yes you get varying degrees of turbo lag, but the tradeoff is you get gobs of torque down low instead of having to wind the motor out to get to its peak torque.
It's silly that they're putting 2.0 turbo motors in vehicles weighing well over 2 tons with automatic transmissions programmed for fuel efficiency. A 2.0 turbo in a freakin' Ford Explorer? Seriously? I can't imagine that thing is particularly fun to drive; and no matter what the window sticker says I bet it doesn't get any better real-world fuel economy than the V6 considering how much work that engine does to haul that lug around. However, put that same basic motor in the Focus ST with an appropriately geared transmission and it's a beast unchained from its shackles.
Actually, the automatic will allow something the manual will not: it will allow the engine to make boost DURING the shift, as you don't have to let off the throttle.
Im talking about off the line acceleration. A vehicle with a clutch will allow you to feather the RPM much higher to build boost quicker. I could not imagine having a turbo 4 with an automatic, it's almost sacrilegious
Im talking about off the line acceleration. A vehicle with a clutch will allow you to feather the RPM much higher to build boost quicker. I could not imagine having a turbo 4 with an automatic, it's almost sacrilegious
I'm sure off the line stuff comes in handy a lot...I remember it well.
An Audi A4 does 0-60 in about 6.5 seconds, a stick in about 6.2 seconds ... only noticeable with a stop watch and hardly meaningful in day to day driving. On the road in normal driving, the auto will probably beat the stick half the time in passing maneuvers etc. with less hassle.
I'm not sure what the point is...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
