V6 CJ?

Note in this, our Lancer, small-medium bracket of the market, Toyota Corolla and Mazda 3 are streets ahead of the pack in market share. Corolla top of Mazda mainly due to fleet sales.
Interesting, both are 2ltr non turbo:!! We in Australia unlike many overseas larger markets, (beyond the argument of fuel saving?) don't get any financial benefit, tax breaks etc:
from smaller turbo: engines but are forced to accept these not for economy but for economic reasons. No special engine just for our tiny market! Then it has a turbo!!!! Oh, Wow, up the price!
Makes it sound like a benefit! The 1.6ltr and 1.4ltr tiny engines, with their smaller parts ie: big ends, pistons bearings ETC: No matter how well engineered it is. Pushing around the same size
and weight car as a 2ltr NA engine can't possibly have the same life span. Plus there is all that extra heat to contend with.

Is adding a turbo: to a smaller (cheaper) engine an unwarranted price hike, like the unrealistic huge jump in the price for higher octane petrol?

Resale of older used, especially, high mileage, Turbos: is going to be interesting, a few years down the track.
 
The engines are manufactured in a way that makes the components last just as long as a non turbo engine as long as you keep on top of the servicing and don't endlessly thrash it. Tested again and again and again and again. Also they don't just slap a turbo on the same engine. Different internals, lowered compression, more cooling, better fluids etc are all part of the deal.

The difference comes when you decide between a hot hatch (XR5, Focus ST, MPS) or a little economical crapfest. The price increase is due to a different engine which costs more to build and will sell less units overall. Simple supply and demand at work.

In short, you don't buy a turbo car for economy unless you are boring or a moron. Soon as you put your foot down, bye economy, you're a moron. If you don't put your foot down in your new turbo car, you're boring. May as well have an NA engine.
 
rigby said:
The engines are manufactured in a way that makes the components last just as long as a non turbo engine as long as you keep on top of the servicing and don't endlessly thrash it. Tested again and again and again and again. Also they don't just slap a turbo on the same engine. Different internals, lowered compression, more cooling, better fluids etc are all part of the deal.

The difference comes when you decide between a hot hatch (XR5, Focus ST, MPS) or a little economical crapfest. The price increase is due to a different engine which costs more to build and will sell less units overall. Simple supply and demand at work.

In short, you don't buy a turbo car for economy unless you are boring or a moron. Soon as you put your foot down, bye economy, you're a moron. If you don't put your foot down in your new turbo car, you're boring. May as well have an NA engine.
Click to expand...


If special parts etc are used in turbo: equivalent motors how come many parts, (pistons being one item being an exclusion due to achieve lower compression) of the same part number are used and most turbos: and why are turbos being used mainly in the smaller lower price bracket cars?

The reason for so many manufactures suddenly using turbos in smaller relatively cheaper cars and that includes quality car makers is because majority of their sales are on many overseas markets where they can be sold at a comparatively lower price due to tax concessions. smaller motors less emissions etc: and then they push the economy button, because perhaps they know that there are heaps more boring morons as you refer to them in this world than people like you.

Yes there are also the specially produced motors used in cars that cost heaps more than their cheaper counterparts. These being go faster cars ie: rally cars sports versions or GTS usually with the same size or bigger motors. As in the case of our lancer.

But surely even you must agree, that in general, a smaller turbo motor Rather than the larger NA e.g.: (1.6ltr v 2ltr) motor. As being used in current, especially, smaller, run of the mill cars, pushing the same size and weight car.

Has a hope in hell of lasting as long or being as reliable over the long term! It's all about profit not benefit!
 
Last edited:
Well if you look at previous endeavours close to home you'll find that you literally can not kill a 4g15 in a CE. It's actually impossible. You can run it with no oil for 50km and it still works. It pushes the same 1.1t Sedan as the 4g93 albeit slower. But lasts wayyyyy longer. Slapping a turbo on an engine that reliable? Yep do it. You won't get that huge turbo power but it will keep most of that reliability and be quicker than the 1.8L NA and still quicker than the 4g94 2.0L NA.

Size and weight doesn't count for much in small cars with small engines. Why not turbo the small engine if all you get is 10 benefits at the cost of more servicing?
 
HI rigby, I believe these sort of figures 50km without oil and greater were possible if the motor had been run with molly in the previous fill. Lets take the 4G15 you claim can run with no oil for 50km. How far would it have got, if a turbo had been fitted?

By the way congratulations on your "Forum Joker" 2015 award.
 
Well seeing as how running an engine with no oil is stupid and a really bad test of reliability I'd say don't do it, was just stating that smaller engines can take a hugeeeee beating so putting a small turbo on them isn't really going to detract from that reliability. Sure if you put a td06 on it and run 20psi it will pop in 5 minutes but not a td03 or td04 and 8psi which is about what most factory turbo cars run. Those little baby engines are very tough, makes turboing them from factory with strengthened components easy.

And thanks, it took a lottttt of *wang* jokes to win.
 
I can attest you can't break a 4g15. I didn't service mine for yonks and it was gearbox that died first.

I think the turbo motors of this generation will last EXACTLY the same amount of time as current NA motors. Fact of the matter is that they're only under as much stress as a driver puts on them. I guarantee you could drive an NA into the ground just as fast as I could a turbo if I drove like a nutcase everyday all the time.

All of these mass produced 1.6turbos are so over engineered, every part of them can handle a billion heat cycles and the pressure inside it. They can handle double sometimes. They wouldn't release them with a shorter life expectancy, that would ruin them long term.
Whatever you dislike about turbos was probably relevant up until a few years ago. But they've come much further than that now. Turbo cars broke because they were built for performance and probably pushed etc. now that they're used for economy I can guarantee some old lady's wouldn't even hit boost or much of it.

Time to move on from your idea they're unreliable
 
Yeah I'm not sure they'd release a *poo*ty engine and then give it a 6+ year warranty if they were concerned about it's reliability
 
rigby said:
Yeah I'm not sure they'd release a *poo*ty engine and then give it a 6+ year warranty if they were concerned about it's reliability
Click to expand...
Any properly constructed engine without being abused and properly serviced, with only some, reaching the kilometer limit, should hopefully last that long. I wander if fair wear and tear is part of that warranty?
 
Usually covered. As long as you don't go forever between services and only factory parts go in and out.
 
Except the 4b11s in CJs that get timing chain stretch in 4 years and blow up
 
rigby said:
Except the 4b11s in CJs that get timing chain stretch in 4 years and blow up
Click to expand...

Problem has been addressed!! Thicker chain. We don't have the problem of having to change a timing belt repeatedly or overlook it and have the motor blow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top