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!
Your observations, in general, are correct. Now, things are different from engine to engine and manufacturer to manufacturer too.
Really however, any turbo engine is going to require some spool RPM's for the turbo to really generate power. As such, they will not feel as instantly powerful off of idle.
I have also found that normal automatics tend to not work as well with the turbos because they do not maximize the turbo's powerband. So your observations may be correct here too.
The place to really enjoy a 2.0L turbo motor is in a stick shift or DSG equipped sportier car, where you can keep the turbo on boil when you want it to kick you in the back. In a family SUV with torque converter automatic, it is going to feel and drive very average, and a torquier V6 is going to feel more appropriate.
Yes, you need a manual transmission to get the best out of any turbo.
I had a Volvo turbo with the stick and it was a blast to drive. The 4 cyl performed like an 8 cyl.
My early (2002) MINI Cooper's got a supercharger instead of a turbo and there's no lag at all with that.
Not having owned a turbo for years, did they ever correct the bearing wear problem? The bearings had their own oil feed, and when you shut down a hot motor it no longer circulated the turbo bearing oil - leading to failure. When the bearings start leaking it literally sucked oil as much as it did air and injected it into the exhaust.
I agree about the manual tranny being the key to enjoying a turbo. Even so, we need to remember that all turbos will have that "lag" that some people hate, and most enthusiasts love.
Those are commuter cars designed for mileage, not speed. They market "TURBO!!!!!" as if it is some whizz bang way to get all conquering performance and mileage at the same time but it isn't. It is just an alternative to using a V6. In a big sedan or wagon I would rather have a V6. I prefer a turbo 4 in a smaller sports car with a manual trans.
Too broad a question. Depends on how heavy the car is, how it is geared, how the computer handles boost and timing.
The car with the better power to weight ratio that delivers more torque to the ground faster is going to win no matter what engine it has.
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.
