If Turbochargers save fuel is pretty situational. A smaller engine is quite helpful in city traffic reducing frictional losses and overall weight. But if you drive those engines on the motorway they need to rev higher cancelling out the savings. In very small engines like 1 Litre 3 cylinders it can actually have an opposite effect as in high rev high load scenarios the engine might actually inject more fuel than needed to cool the engine and turbo charger. It also comes with increased wear and the turbo charger itself is in comparison to most other components quite prone to damage leading to expensive replacements. So it can also have a negative financial impact.
No it is not situational. Inline-3 turbocharged engines are not built for power but for efficiency and I am almost sure that you are just repeating opinions instead writing from your own experience. Let's take a look at 1.0 TSI, I don't know about what motorway speeds you are talking but at about 140km/h it consumes 6L/100km (40 mpg). I used to have that car but you don't have to believe my words, video "2020 VW Polo 1.0 TSI 95 HP | Fuel Consumption Test 100-150 KMH". Less than 3000 rpm at that speed (in turbocharged cars power is from the boom in combustion chamber not from rpms). If you talk about reliability than please mind that default oil interval for this engine is 30 000 km (without initial change after 1000km which is crucial because most of contaminants in oil are from manufacturing process) and most people don't know how to operate turbocharged engines (they don't heat up or cool down turbo which is normal thing in turbocharged cars. Many turbocharged cars in the past used to have stickers informing what you should or shouldn't do). Still most of them do 200 000 km without bigger issues. It could be easily increased to 300 000 km on average if used and serviced properly. I talked about this specific number because it was designed for this mileage and if someone buy such car and expect 500 000 km on ODO than it should be considered as health condition. This particular engine was disassembled after 100 000km and it didn't show some extraordinary wear. The REAL problem with smaller engines (turbo 1.0, 1.2) is that manufacturers to cut costs put them into larger cars, like crossovers or suvs which result in poor driving experience and poor efficiency (mostly due weight in the city and air resistance of the car body on motorway).
@@m4ci3j88 Yes they are build for efficiency. And I was expalining how that concept doesnt work. I could also go into how people buying these cars mostly got no clue how to take care of turbo chargers etc and how that is a main factor. But since small turbo charged engines were intorduced the amount of engine repairs as well as the average cost of them has been consistently increasing. Also Im german. So people drive these things up to max speed.
@@m4ci3j88 Its not just that. Turbos need to be cooled down after use and they also require engine oil. Often people dont let them cool down and I know people who change their engine oil after like 4 years. Thats just the reality of it. I love cars and petrol engines hence I try to take care of mine but for many people its just something to drive them from A to B. Without a turbo theres one expensive part less to worry about that suffers from that. And you cant really speak off user problem when people drive these cars at those speeds since the cars reach them. Even though 200kph for a tiny 3 cylinder is stretching it. Its more 160 to 170 kph. My personal opinion is instead of a turbo charger give them a hybrid system. Yes its a bit more expensive but especially toyota has shown that it can be done.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
If Turbochargers save fuel is pretty situational. A smaller engine is quite helpful in city traffic reducing frictional losses and overall weight. But if you drive those engines on the motorway they need to rev higher cancelling out the savings. In very small engines like 1 Litre 3 cylinders it can actually have an opposite effect as in high rev high load scenarios the engine might actually inject more fuel than needed to cool the engine and turbo charger. It also comes with increased wear and the turbo charger itself is in comparison to most other components quite prone to damage leading to expensive replacements. So it can also have a negative financial impact.
No it is not situational. Inline-3 turbocharged engines are not built for power but for efficiency and I am almost sure that you are just repeating opinions instead writing from your own experience. Let's take a look at 1.0 TSI, I don't know about what motorway speeds you are talking but at about 140km/h it consumes 6L/100km (40 mpg). I used to have that car but you don't have to believe my words, video "2020 VW Polo 1.0 TSI 95 HP | Fuel Consumption Test 100-150 KMH". Less than 3000 rpm at that speed (in turbocharged cars power is from the boom in combustion chamber not from rpms). If you talk about reliability than please mind that default oil interval for this engine is 30 000 km (without initial change after 1000km which is crucial because most of contaminants in oil are from manufacturing process) and most people don't know how to operate turbocharged engines (they don't heat up or cool down turbo which is normal thing in turbocharged cars. Many turbocharged cars in the past used to have stickers informing what you should or shouldn't do).
Still most of them do 200 000 km without bigger issues. It could be easily increased to 300 000 km on average if used and serviced properly. I talked about this specific number because it was designed for this mileage and if someone buy such car and expect 500 000 km on ODO than it should be considered as health condition. This particular engine was disassembled after 100 000km and it didn't show some extraordinary wear.
The REAL problem with smaller engines (turbo 1.0, 1.2) is that manufacturers to cut costs put them into larger cars, like crossovers or suvs which result in poor driving experience and poor efficiency (mostly due weight in the city and air resistance of the car body on motorway).
@@m4ci3j88 Yes they are build for efficiency. And I was expalining how that concept doesnt work. I could also go into how people buying these cars mostly got no clue how to take care of turbo chargers etc and how that is a main factor. But since small turbo charged engines were intorduced the amount of engine repairs as well as the average cost of them has been consistently increasing.
Also Im german. So people drive these things up to max speed.
So it's not problem with engine but with users. Buy 1.0 litre turbo engine and expect high efficiency and reliability doing 190-200 km/h 😊
@@m4ci3j88 Its not just that. Turbos need to be cooled down after use and they also require engine oil. Often people dont let them cool down and I know people who change their engine oil after like 4 years. Thats just the reality of it. I love cars and petrol engines hence I try to take care of mine but for many people its just something to drive them from A to B. Without a turbo theres one expensive part less to worry about that suffers from that. And you cant really speak off user problem when people drive these cars at those speeds since the cars reach them. Even though 200kph for a tiny 3 cylinder is stretching it. Its more 160 to 170 kph.
My personal opinion is instead of a turbo charger give them a hybrid system. Yes its a bit more expensive but especially toyota has shown that it can be done.