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.
But more importantly I'd drive both cars because the power delivery is not at all likely to be the same, at the end of the day drive them both and buy the one you like driving better, or that you think is a better overall deal.
Well I definitely plan to drive both cars to see how a Turbo 4 compares to a V6. The last and only time I drove a Turbo 4 was in the late 90s when I test drove an Audi S4. I also drove an A6 with the 6 cylinder. The S4 was more sporty, while the A6 had smoother acceleration. The Sonata preview says that the Turbo has a maximum boost of 17.4 psi and yields 12.2 hp per pound and 68.5 hp per liter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Warning on this thread - you are going to get lots of guys that drove turbo cars in the 90s and 80s responding (I am not directing this at anyone). Technology has improved imensely and you cannot base or compare the turbos of today to those of a decade ago. Turbo lag and the other problems associated with tubochargine, I beleive, is a thing of the past.
Thanks for pointing that out. I did get the impression that some of the responders are basing their opinions on older cars. What little experience I have with a Turbo 4 is from over a decade ago, which is why I'm not relying too much on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave
This would work if the maker reduced the turbo lag. Some of the 80s turbos had horrible turbo lag and then whiplash after the lag was over. I enjoy the smooth and steady acceleration of my V6.
I'm the same way. I love the power of a V6, but I want the acceleration to be smooth and steady. One reason I don't like 4-cylinder engines in general is the lag and subsequent whiplash you get during hard acceleration. I'm hoping the Sonata Turbo 4 doesn't have that problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave
What if you drive at the posted speed limit, no jack rabbit starts, and no hard acceleration except to pass a slow moving vehicle?
Doesn't that defeat the point of having a Turbo 4 then?
Well I definitely plan to drive both cars to see how a Turbo 4 compares to a V6. The last and only time I drove a Turbo 4 was in the late 90s when I test drove an Audi S4. I also drove an A6 with the 6 cylinder. The S4 was more sporty, while the A6 had smoother acceleration
The late 90s (B5) A4 had a turbo 4, while the S4 had a biturbo V6 (2.7L). I'm not sure what you actually drove, apparently you don't know either.
As someone who's been driving cars with 6 cylinder engines for the last 10 years, I would have a very hard time going back to a 4 cylinder. What I love the most about having a V6 is the passing power. There's no shortage of bad drivers on the road and it's nice being able to easily get around them. While I can still do that with a 4 cylinder engine, most 4s I've driven feel like they're working a little hard too hard. But more and more manufacturers, no doubt feeling the pressure to be more fuel efficient, are coming out with Turbocharged 4 cylinder engines to appeal to the V6 crowd. I just read that the new Sonata will offer a Turbo version that gets 274 hp and 269 lb-ft of torque while delivering 22 mpg city and 34 mpg highway. For someone who's not that familiar with turbocharged engines, can someone give me an idea of the pros and cons, not just in terms of performance, but also maintenance, engine noise, etc.? If you had to choose between a V6 or a Turbo 4 that gets better fuel economy, which would you choose?
The usual limitation of a turbo 4 is that the manufacturer typically has to choose between quick power down low without much power up high, or very little power down low with lots of mid-range to upper-end power. The usual way of getting around this is to have two turbochargers: a smaller one to deliver low-end power and a larger one that takes over to deliver higher-end power. I don't think I've ever heard of this on a 4-cylinder; you're more likely to see a twin-turbo arrangement on a six-cylinder. Or, use a V6 instead of a turbo 4, as a V6 tends to have more consistent power delivery across the entire rev range than a turbo 4.
I have two cars right now, one with a turbo 4 (1995 Saab 900) and one with a V6 (1997 Volkswagen Jetta GLX). The Jetta is definitely a better car for scooting in and out of traffic around town -- it has good response when you hit the gas while the Saab has nothing down low. But out on the highway, when i want to pass someone, more often than not I have to downshift in the Jetta; whereas with the Saab I can just leave it in 5th and step on it, and the thing moves.
It can also depend on the car's purpose and design. I've had a couple of turbo 4s that ran out of steam in the upper end (Mazda 323 GTX, Eagle Talon TSi, Subaru WRX) because they were geared and tuned for quick starts and scooting out of corners and the like, but my Saab is more geared for highway cruising and it performs that task very, very well -- including passing power. And it has 80 fewer horsepower than the the turbo Sonata will have. I suspect the Sonata will behave more like a Saab 900 than a WRX or Eagle Talon TSi.
Turbo motors need some cool-down before ending your drive, you can't do the typical "suburbanite late for work" dash into the parking lot and just switch off, slam the door and run into your office. You can't just tack 30 seconds at idle onto that scenario and be golden either. You can't quit paying attention once a little of the new has scrubbed off either. . .
This hasn't been the case for a while now. Turbocharged cars are now configured such that coolant will continue to circulate through the turbo housing for several minutes after the car has been shut off.
To me, this is just Marketing telling you "Don't worry, be happy". Which is what they get paid to do.
I would like to hear the opinion of the Chief Designer of this engine after a couple of beers, strictly off the record.
Will it survive for a while without any sort of cooldown on your part? No doubt it will. Is this "best engineering practice" though?
At the end of the day, it's your car, your motor. You will spend money, bust knuckles, or both, when the turbo bearing wears out. If I had one of these beasts, I would be doing what I could to lengthen the life of that bearing.
not marketing, they just have a grasp on how the engines that they build, work.
most Subaru enthusiasts know that there is nothing to worry about, hence why we always tell people to NEVER waste money on a turbo timer. If this cool down period were really necessary the car would have come with a turbo timer.
Now would I want to run the thing at redline for an extended period of time and not let it cool down a bit? Probably not. But in most driving conditions, such as spirited driving, or even some track time, a cool down period just isnt necessary.
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.
And what you posted, in bold....so True!!! 
