Cars that NEED turbo engines.

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch) 08/01/2018 at 17:06 • Filed to: Its turbo time

2

50

I don’t like downsize turbo engines, I think they are a ploy to trick the EPA and stick the consumer with a good performing engine that gets lousy mileage and occasionally blow themselves up. That being said they are really good at one thing: Low down power!

What cars NEED that power down low? Anything that purports to be off road ready. Torque at the wheels is everything off-road, in the past folks would solve that issue with a transfer case with low range reduction gearing that would double (or more) the effective power output of the engine at low speeds but who does that anymore? Especially in the crossover space - one car the Jeep KL - and thats it.

Here are a list of cars with off road ambitions but don’t actually have it where it counts.

Renegade trailhawk - I still can’t figure out why the ONLY engine in this quasi off-roader is the tigershark 2.4. For one, there already IS a turbo engine option for this vehicle. Sure the 2.4 has 180 hp versus the 1.4T’s 160 hp, but the 1.4t has 4 more Lbs-ft of torque, at at way lower peaks (2500 rpm vs 3900 rpm). Thats 15% more power where it REALLY needs it, at torque converter stall speeds. And thats still with the wimpy 1.4. If you put in a smaller version of the hurricane engine (say, 1.6 liters tuned for regular) you would really have something that could put that 20:1 gearing advantage to use. The transmission I know can handle that kind of torque input. Could you even imagine a 200 hp 225 lbs-ft 1.6 Renegade trail-hawk ? That thing would be great!

Subaru XV - Here I tell you something that will sting a little...This is the 2019 Cherokee XJ. I don’t mean its a worthy successor, I mean its taken its place in the market for those people who want a civilized vehicle that suits their outdoor life. No, it will never be the same animal in the hardcore scene but this is the official vehicle of dressing up in outdoor garb and escaping the urban jungle and its pathetic underneath. an NA 2.0 with, well, SOME power. yawn. It doesn’t help that the crawl ratio is even worse than the above Jeep. Sure brake based traction control is a WONDERFUL tool for making the best use of traction but remember it ABSORBS wheel torque meaning you trade traction for power and when you don’t have a lot to start with...you’re going to have a bad time.

Again these are the people that are GOOD at turbo engines and they already MAKE the perfect little engine for this buggy in the FB 16 DIT. at 168 hp its not a huge upgrade to the stock 152 (still useful though) but it has 184 lbs-ft at 1800 rpm! compare that to 145 @ 4000 and weep. THIS is the reason the XV feels so stupidly, dangerously slow. My Cruiser is slower by far than the XV to 60 but it makes more hp running the ac at idle than this 2.0 makes at its peak, as a consequence it feels quicker around town and , more importantly for our discussion, can actually go places that require high power at low speeds...even without low range engaged.

There are 2 cars that people are BEGGING Subaru turbocharge , one is the BRZ which...no, btw...the other is this. Unlike the BRZ there is no excuse here for “but ma turbo packaging!” because the FA20 turbo and EJ25 turbo both fit in this same chassis. So knock it off Subaru and put a turbo in it already. Hell just do an XV XT and be done with it.

I mean there are others that I would say could benefit from a turbo engine, but these are the ones I deem most in need.  What say you?

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:11

2

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

All S ubaru and Mazda cars. 

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:11

0

Low end torque can be had with simple long stroke SOHC engines. No need for turbos to accomplish low end torque.

That being said, I would say any daily driven vehicle can benefit from more low end torque. Low end is where your engine spends most of it’s time in daily use (unless racecar), why anyone would want an engine that has no ummph in your normal driving range is beyond me.

Textured Soy Protein > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:12

3

I’ve never felt like my wife’s Impreza with the same drivetrain as the Crosstrek is dangerously slow. If you get accustomed to letting the CVT wring out every last bit of acceleration on on-ramps it’s actually sorta decent. But you’re at altitude, right?

I’d say that like bro’d out Wranglers, the Crosstrek is primarily used by suburbanites to tootle around town and only occasionally serves as a platform for outdoorsy activities. Also, they dropped the XV from the name.

HammerheadFistpunch > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 08/01/2018 at 17:13

1

false.  NA miata best miata.

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:14

0

eh.... maybe.  Still. Whoosh!

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 08/01/2018 at 17:18

2

“Low end torque can be had with simple long stroke SOHC engines. No need for turbos to accomplish low end torque.”

not...really. There is only so much you can do with NA as it relates to torque low in the rev range. You have to go large displacement which in the case of these vehicles simply doesn’t work for packaging. I mean, 2400 cc is a whopping engine for this class of vehicle an its still DOWN on hp from 1800-3900 compared to the 1.4 T.

This is coming from some one who dailies an engine built exclusively for torque low in the rev range.  You gotta add cubes to the formula if you want low end power and in the case of these vehicles, cubes are off the table.  

HammerheadFistpunch > Textured Soy Protein 08/01/2018 at 17:20

0

I agree that I’ m sure its perfectly serviceable , but it FEELS crazy slow, and you have to rev the nuts off of it to make it go. At altitude? Forget about it...its a major dog... and then try and take it off road, with bigger tires, 500 lbs of overland jewelry and 2 people? yikes. I know they dropped XV but its so much easier to write than Crosstr ek.

winterlegacy, here 'till the end > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:22

0

but what about superchargers

HammerheadFistpunch > winterlegacy, here 'till the end 08/01/2018 at 17:24

0

heat pumps.  Though they do the job and sure sound great.

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:25

0

I dont really get the crosstrek. If I wanted a soft-roader Subaru, I would get an Outback no question. I like the older Foresters too but those are becoming harder to find. But anyways, the newer Outbacks are nice. I especially love the modified ones. They seem to be super practical and actually look nice/dont drive like shit. I would imagine one of those with the 3.6 would be great.

winterlegacy, here 'till the end > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:26

0

See, here’s my thought: if you’re already winding it out to the top of the rev range, why not have some extra supercharger-provided whine? It’s all about the fun.

HammerheadFistpunch > winterlegacy, here 'till the end 08/01/2018 at 17:29

0

I do love me a supercharger, but I think their use in small efficient vehicles is over.*

*excepting whacky engines like the Volvo.

nermal > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:30

1

Some of the most off-road worthy vehicles all have engines that need revs to make power. (Jeeps / Power Wagons / 4 Runners / Tacomas).

The Chevy ZR2 is available with both a high-strung gas engine and lazy diesel. Engine choice doesn’t make much difference in off-road ability there, just in how fast it is on-road .

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:30

1

There was also a hybrid Crosstrek for a while, and while I’m not sure if it is still on sale, the electric component could also help out with the problem area that you described. 

HammerheadFistpunch > Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) 08/01/2018 at 17:30

1

The trouble is a 3.6 Outback is a LOT more money than a crosstrek and if you are a buy new kinda person (which I suspect most of these people are) then you can’t really cross shop them. Pl us they are quiet a bit bigger and thirstier.

Mercedes Streeter > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:32

0

The turbo in my third gen smart is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s much much much faster than previous generations. It won’t pin you to the seat, but it’ll make you go “wait, this is supposed to be a city car?”

On the other hand, for the reasons I mentioned in your previous thread, schmoozing up with the turbo will murder your fuel economy.

And let’s be honest, it only “needs” a lot of boost because Americans think anything that takes longer than 10s to get to 60 is inherently dangerous (not true). They could have made a modern equivalent of the first gen’s engine. 60+ mpg and power when you need it.

HammerheadFistpunch > nermal 08/01/2018 at 17:37

0

I wouldn’t say that 6.4 in the powerwagon is a revver, same with the 4runner, still using the 4.0 instead of the 3.5. I mean, they aren’t oil burners but the 6.4 is pretty lazy and the 4.0 has a pretty broad delivery. That being said I was thinking about Toyota when I wrote this. A 4.0 twin turbo V8 in the tundra would be pretty sweet and a 2.7T 4runner/Tacoma would be awesome.  

HammerheadFistpunch > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap 08/01/2018 at 17:37

1

I remember reading reviews of it that pretty much said “meh”.

HammerheadFistpunch > Mercedes Streeter 08/01/2018 at 17:38

1

I have no problem with the idea of a slow fuel efficient engine.  I know people REALLY miss the original duramax because you could actually get decent mileage out of it instead of only roid rage. 

Cé hé sin > Mercedes Streeter 08/01/2018 at 17:44

0

Sadly, I don’t think anybody can get 60 mpg (esp US mpg) from a petrol 450. I drove one for a week many years ago and it did 54 (imp) mpg, alrthough that remains the best I’ve ever seen in a petrol car.

My 452 does something under 50 (imp) mpg. It does make enthusiastic gasping noises when it changes gear at speed, so there’s that!

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:48

0

Agreed on the Crosstrek. I think for a majority of the people and uses the vehicle actually sees, the power it provides is just fine. But a bit more oomph would make it a lot more fun.

Wife currently drives a 2014 Crosstrek. I am hoping to buy a WRX/STi hatch (up to 2014) as my next car. Contingency plan for if I ever end up wrecking it would be to hopefully swap the drivetrain in to the Crosstrek and buy the wife something newer.

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:48

0

That’s a shame because I could see it having at least some potential. 

Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:50

0

My resident Renegade owner  has the following message:

YES GODDAMMIT YES I WANT A 200 HP 225 ft lb 1.6 RENEGADE TRAILHAWK

And having seen him get stuck in situations where just a little more power would have fixed everything, I can agree.

HammerheadFistpunch > Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo 08/01/2018 at 17:53

1

The renegade is the worst offender because the engine that would help is ALREADY in the renegade...just not in the model people want.

Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 17:59

0

Pretty much yeah. Sucks you have to sacrifice the manual and the 1.4 to get a Trailhawk.  I understand why the former, but don’t fully understand the latter.

HammerheadFistpunch > Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo 08/01/2018 at 18:08

0

my guess is that the 1.4t doesn’t mate with the ZF9HP which is required for that 20:1 crawl ratio.

gmctavish needs more space > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 18:10

0

The Crosstrek is so close to an ideal vehicle  for me. I don’t really need all the space my Legacy has, and I want ground clearance and four driven wheels. I’ve driven one, and I’m fine with the amount of power it has, I just want it to have low range. If it had a 2 speed transfer case that could make up for the lack of torque, it could fill the role of my Legacy and my Raider. 

HammerheadFistpunch > gmctavish needs more space 08/01/2018 at 18:12

1

Thats the bit we wont be getting.  Instead I’d be okay with a lot more power down low to make up for it.  

gmctavish needs more space > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 18:21

1

Which is also why, if and when I’m in the market for a new vehicle, I’ll be getting one of the few “reasonably sized”  SUVs or pickups with a 2 speed t-case

DipodomysDeserti > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 18:25

0

My Jeep would benefit from a turbo so that when I’m loaded down in the mountains I won’t have to downshift into third to keep moving.

HammerheadFistpunch > DipodomysDeserti 08/01/2018 at 18:29

1

hey, you get outta here with your “can get into third gear loaded” attitude.  some of us aren’t so lucky.

nermal > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 18:34

0

The current crop of Toyota truck engines is completely outdated from the point of power produced in relation to fuel used. I don’t know that anything outside of a new-from-scratch engine design can help any of them.

The Tundra is the worst offender in that regard.

DipodomysDeserti > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 18:35

1

Fuel economy, how does that work?

HammerheadFistpunch > nermal 08/01/2018 at 18:45

0

Their specific outputs aren’t too far off the mark given the choice they make to keep revs low (A Tacoma 3.5 is very similar to a GM 3.5 up to the point where the redline hits and the GM engine keeps revving when the Toyota doesn’t) . The trouble is that all their trucks are built with a low efficiency through simple engineering mentality. That means long life, but mediocre at best mileage. Of course some of that comes down to the fact that big heavy square boxes require “X” fuel to push through the air. I mean apples to apples

The only real differences here is that both the GM and Nissan have more overdrive ratios in the box for better highway mileage. 

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 19:59

0

Well I can’t comprehend buying new under any circumstances but I am probably the weirdo in the general public lol. 

i86hotdogs > HammerheadFistpunch 08/01/2018 at 20:15

1

I’m with ya on the Jeep take. Since the Trailhawk didn’t have the stick, I ended up getting the Sport trim and using the money I saved to make my own Trailhawk (tires, lift, skid plates, bumpers)

Mercedes Streeter > Cé hé sin 08/01/2018 at 20:47

0

Mine consistently hit 60. Then again, there was a number of months that my average fuel economy in my US spec 451 was 45-50 mpg, so maybe my driving style has more to do with it. And it's not like I baby it, I just keep things smooth and avoid having to stop whenever possible.

I’ve noticed the same with my bikes. People complain that they only get 30-40 mpg on their Buell Blasts, yet I’m getting 60 on it. *s hrug*

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 08/02/2018 at 07:10

0

Going to call BS on that.

Manufacturers used to stick big V6s in vehicles this size and smaller all the time.

There is no reason a 3l-ish V6 cannot be placed under the hood of the Jeep. It has roughly the same engine bay as the Cherokee, which happens to get a 3.2L V6 stuffed inside without issue.

Likewise, the Crosstrek could easily make use of the 3.6 flat four, which produces a very flat torque band over a wide rpm range.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 08/02/2018 at 11:33

0

I call your call.

The Renegade and the Crosstrek are both one size down vehicles from the two vehicles you mention with 6 cylinder engines. Some HAVE stuffed the H6 into the I mpreza chassis in the past, but its NOT a roomy fit and hardly viable for production

And y ou really think a 60 degree v6 is going to fit in here?

They are roughly the same size in the same way that a Tacoma and Tundra are roughly the same size.

Not to mention that the 2.0T in the Cherokee is actually the more powerful engine vs the 3.2 and even the 3.6 in the wrangler (270/295 vs 271/239 vs 285 /260 )so yes...you need a LOT of cubes to make up the low end power you get with forced induction...in order to get close to 295 lbs-ft at 1800 rpm you would need a very large engine indeed, probably in the 4.5-4.7 liter range.  Even my chunky 4.5 tuned specifically for low end torque only puts out about 255 lbs-ft at those engine speeds.  

Now Im not saying i would BUY the 2.0t in either the Cherokee or the W rangler, because it doesn’t NEED that extra torque on account of reduction gearing but some cars do.

Now in the case of the Crosstrek you could argue that the FB25 would fit, and I would venture thats probably true, but even though it would be a huge improvement a Turbo engine would be a better choice for off road shenanigans.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 08/02/2018 at 11:59

0

All of the engines in question are also DOHC, not SOHC as I specified, but I would guess most people on here are too young to remember the shear torque of long stroke SOHC engines.

DOHC engines take up far more space, while lacking the low-end torque of a SOHC.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 08/02/2018 at 12:08

0

I seriously doubt it would make that much of a difference. NA torque per liter is pretty fixed.

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/what-engines-make-the-most-torque-liter-1677992756

were talking about the BEST motors hitting in the 80 lbs-ft per liter range while the 2.0T in the Jeep is putting out 147.5/Liter. Even if were talking F errari levels of lbs-ft/liter you are still only going to get 280 lbs-ft out of 3.2 liters and at WAY higher rpms.

Look, when it comes to getting power in the 1800-4000 rpm band...you aren’t going to beat forced induction no matter what NA engine technology you use.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 08/02/2018 at 12:16

0

I’m sorry.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 08/02/2018 at 12:20

0

cmon man, really?  NA is my jam for lots of reasons, but FI can be the biz properly applied.  Don’t play the drama button.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 08/02/2018 at 12:22

0

It’s ok, you’ve never known the more torque than HP of a proper SOHC engine, I get it. Kids these days just don’t understand.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 08/02/2018 at 12:25

0

yo DO realize this is what I’ve driven every day for the last 5 years, right?

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 08/02/2018 at 12:32

0

With peak torque well over 3k?

Color me unimpressed. 

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 08/02/2018 at 12:36

0

I dle torque at 230 lbs-ft and 95% peak torque at 2000 rpm?  Color you trollin.

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 08/02/2018 at 12:47

0

I prefer my peak torque just off idle, like the old 300 I6, which made 255ft-lbs and carried 95% of that from 600-3000 rpms.

If you really want max torque from these, throw in a diesel. It’ll make at least 1.5X the torque, near the same power, and be more efficient.

HammerheadFistpunch > Long-Voyager 08/02/2018 at 13:10

0

Yeah, that seems WAY better than what I have...

yellow is the “300 CI“ hp curve, its higher than the green “274 CI“ curve in one spot, the difference? 2 hp. By the time the torque converter is starting to stall the smaller engines is making as much power, from there it pulls away and never looks back.

And again...CUBES. it takes 274- 300 CI to get that kind of low torque. Meanwhile a 2.0 turbo is doing 295 at 1800 rpm. It wont be as lazy and linear as a huge engine, but it wont be a huge engine either.

I mean, I think we both appreciate the joys of big lazy engines but they just don’t work in all places.  

Long-Voyager > HammerheadFistpunch 08/02/2018 at 16:12

0

Now if we look at the graph where 99% of driving is done:

I dle-3500 rpms, the 300 I6 is by far the better choice. I feel the age of modern engines making power up high is just for bragging rights, I want an engine with power and torque down where I’m going to use it, which is generally under 3500rpms.