Turbochargers: I am finally converted
Discussion
I was always dubious of turbo cars, being a disciple of the 'No replacement for displacement' school of thought. I was always put off by the idea of no bottom end, laggy delivery and a wheezy top end but since I bought my Golf at the weekend I am completely converted. There is huge torque there right from idle speed with no lag, the mid range is mighty and the engine sings right up to the red line with no drop off in power. It feels quite simply like there is a much bigger engine under the bonnet than there is but without the weight and friction and there seems to be no downside that I can see. As a bonus it seems to be able to haul a big heavy Golf around at an unseemly rate of knots and still return nearly 40mpg!
So am I just several years behind everyone else to the turbo party or do you all prefer your naturally aspirated screamers?
So am I just several years behind everyone else to the turbo party or do you all prefer your naturally aspirated screamers?
HemiCommander said:
So am I just several years behind everyone else to the turbo party or do you all prefer your naturally aspirated screamers?
NA doesn't have to be a screamer. Even if you ignore throttle response, the main downside for me is reliability risk/cost what with the turbo itself, oil feed, valves, plumbing, intercooler.The Golf is great but I'd rather have a 130i for similar money. I can't imagine anyone driving a N52 engined car and then saying "I'd rather have a turbo". But each to their own etc...
nickfrog said:
The Golf is great but I'd rather have a 130i for similar money. I can't imagine anyone driving a N52 engined car and then saying "I'd rather have a turbo". But each to their own etc...
The 130i is >25% more expensive for a similar age and mileage and isn't as practical a proposition though. I did strongly consider it but concluded the Golf was the better option for me.The reliability is a concern. What with the turbo and all its associated gubbins and plumbing and direct injection it is worrying but the Golfs reputation seems fairly solid.
As said for everyday use Turbo's are the way ahead. If you want to push it everywhere where you have the space N/A is the way. I live in a very built up area so don't get to stretch my cars legs that often and such a turbo suits me fine as it offers plenty of mid range punch to get to decent speeds and the torque helps with getting to speed better than necessarily maintaining it like in a N/A.
Modern forced induction is so much better now gone is the time of stereotypical turbo lag and a punch in the back unless of course you have a Huge Turbo.
(Same 1.8t engine as you?)
If i lived somewhere more rural i'd be better off looking at the N/A route but as it stands a nice spread of effective torque suits me best, so it depends on where you live and your driving style i suppose
Modern forced induction is so much better now gone is the time of stereotypical turbo lag and a punch in the back unless of course you have a Huge Turbo.
(Same 1.8t engine as you?) If i lived somewhere more rural i'd be better off looking at the N/A route but as it stands a nice spread of effective torque suits me best, so it depends on where you live and your driving style i suppose
Edited by Madkat on Tuesday 11th February 10:25
HemiCommander said:
I was always dubious of turbo cars, being a disciple of the 'No replacement for displacement'
There isn't.. a turbo is just squeezing more air into the space, ergo artificially increasing the displacement.So that little 2 litre turbo is actually sucking in 4 litres of air at full boost
No Golf turbo will scream to the top end - i think you're in the honeymoon period old boy!
Modern diesels are clever though; you get that instant slug of torque and they feel genuinely quick at every day speeds. Indeed, unless you get up to silly speeds, a genuine performance car isn't going to have any advantage. The engines are also much quieter, and of course there is the economy to boot.
Part of it is you become lazy though. My (turbocharged) Golf feels MUCH quicker than my old man's Boxster S, but that is mainly because you have to get back into the mindset of changing down gears and using the whole of the rev range again.
Modern diesels are clever though; you get that instant slug of torque and they feel genuinely quick at every day speeds. Indeed, unless you get up to silly speeds, a genuine performance car isn't going to have any advantage. The engines are also much quieter, and of course there is the economy to boot.
Part of it is you become lazy though. My (turbocharged) Golf feels MUCH quicker than my old man's Boxster S, but that is mainly because you have to get back into the mindset of changing down gears and using the whole of the rev range again.
skyrover said:
HemiCommander said:
I was always dubious of turbo cars, being a disciple of the 'No replacement for displacement'
There isn't.. a turbo is just squeezing more air into the space, ergo artificially increasing the displacement.So that little 2 litre turbo is actually sucking in 4 litres of air at full boost
skyrover said:
They are better than they were IMO, but the large N/A still has the advantages of simplicity and longevity.
This is indisputable. Sadly my last large NA engine was on course to drink ~£6000 of petrol every year so I have decided to downsize. If something breaks I'll use some of the £3-4k saved on fuel to mend it 
.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff