Turboed petrols

V8 Interceptor

Its been a few years now since turbocharged petrols became the mainstream with manufacturers but I've actually yet to drive one. All I've ever owned were NA petrols and turboed diesels.

Is there much of a difference driving a turbo petrol vs an NA? Is it less free revving? I'm guessing the powerband is somewhat different.

How about lag?

I know there's huge variations between cars and engines so I'm just asking in general because my next car is gonna be a petrol and it might have a turbo

Stallingrad

Most modern turbo petrols are brilliant. Generally smooth, free reving with torque available from low down, no noticeable lag.

You will love them!

fancy pigeon

I occasionally drive a twin turbo 300ZX. A nice economical, mainstream, practical everyday car*

*15-18mpg, a bastard to drive on anything remotely damp, turbos come in with a bang at 4k rpm and shoot flames under the right circumstances when changing gear, can seat 2 comfortably and not much else, will try to kill you every chance it gets. And I absolutely love it!

jimgoose

Drove a 181 1l Ecoboost Focus belonging to Woman's auntie a couple of months back. I didn't have time to get properly cosy with the thing, but I did note that it pulled remarkably like the 131 1.6 diesel Focus that Woman has. I liked it.

Marcusm

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Its been a few years now since turbocharged petrols became the mainstream with manufacturers but I've actually yet to drive one. All I've ever owned were NA petrols and turboed diesels.

Is there much of a difference driving a turbo petrol vs an NA? Is it less free revving? I'm guessing the powerband is somewhat different.

How about lag?

I know there's huge variations between cars and engines so I'm just asking in general because my next car is gonna be a petrol and it might have a turbo

I had a twin scroll twin turbo v8, little noticeable lag because the twin turbos came in at different points. It did seem to continue increasing power forever (in a good way).

Currently have a turbo i4 and a supercharged v8. Noticeably different power delivery.

zilog_jones

Lag generally isn't an issue with low-performance turbos. I haven't driven one of these myself, but I know a few people with them and they seem happy enough (either moving from diesels, or previous NA petrols).

Cee-Jay-Cee

I had an FSI polo rental on holidays last year and was very impressed with the low down power/torque, lower gear acceleration was very impressive for such a small engine and it was able to hold its own on the motorway up to around 140kmph with power to pass other cars if needed (at that speed)

V8 Interceptor

Marcusm wrote: »

I had a twin scroll twin turbo v8...Currently have a turbo i4 and a supercharged v8. Noticeably different power delivery.

I just remembered my username...………..What an OP

zilog_jones

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I had an FSI polo rental on holidays last year and was very impressed with the low down power/torque, lower gear acceleration was very impressive for such a small engine and it was able to hold its own on the motorway up to around 140kmph with power to pass other cars if needed (at that speed)

Do you mean TSI? FSI is just direct injection and would have to be a pretty old model at this stage.

CJhaughey

I had a 1l Focus Ecoboost as a rental and while it was OK low down with a single occupant it never felt great when I had 3 passengers inside plus myself.
It was fine for just tipping about in but the economy wasn't great.

jimgoose

CJhaughey wrote: »

I had a 1l Focus Ecoboost as a rental and while it was OK low down with a single occupant it never felt great when I had 3 passengers inside plus myself.
It was fine for just tipping about in but the economy wasn't great.

Mmm, wouldn't surprise me - like I said, I had only a very limited drive in one.

Andrewf20

I tend to go for na myself mainly for their free revving nature and better reliability (generally) due to less complex engines. I therefore have less guilt revving out a na vs a turbo. I always notice the turbo lag in different turbos and do miss the more free revving nature of the na.

CoBo55

My last two cars were petrol Octavia's, a 09 1.4 TSI (122 bhp) followed by a 172 1.0 (115 bhp), both were dsg. The 09 was by far the nicer drive and more economical overall than the 1 litre. The 1 litre had amazing economy on long journeys 5.0L/100 being achieved on quite a few journeys but town driving was abysmal often as low as 10L/100km for a full tank. The 1.4 recorded a best of 47 mpg on a long journey but never fell below 41. These are all full tank to empty figures every time. I've gone back to diesel and the difference is amazing, I can't see myself going petrol for a long time. Sorry about the mixed units I've only recently trained myself in the modern units.

ShadowHearth

Stallingrad wrote: »

Most modern turbo petrols are brilliant. Generally smooth, free reving with torque available from low down, no noticeable lag.

You will love them!

Definitely agree, at least from my own experience with my own car. 1.8tsi engine and if you did not know it was turbo, you couldn't really say it was. No turbo lag that I felt with it.
1.8 is still a bit bigger engine for this day and age ( I know, sad times we live in ), so it helps to be more linier, but I am not sure about these tiny turbo charged engines, never drove one.

dastardly00

jimgoose wrote: »

Drove a 181 1l Ecoboost Focus belonging to Woman's auntie a couple of months back. I didn't have time to get properly cosy with the thing, but I did note that it pulled remarkably like the 131 1.6 diesel Focus that Woman has. I liked it.

Woman?

V8 Interceptor

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I tend to go for na myself mainly for their free revving nature ….do miss the more free revving nature of the na.

So there is a difference in that regard?

mr_edge_to_you

We have a 171 1.0 (115bhp) Skoda Octavia. It's a cracking car to drive. We absolutely love it. We find it very economical - our shortest journey is 7km.

V8 Interceptor

CoBo55 wrote: »

My last two cars were petrol Octavia's, a 09 1.4 TSI (122 bhp) followed by a 172 1.0 (115 bhp), both were dsg. The 09 was by far the nicer drive and more economical overall than the 1 litre. The 1 litre had amazing economy on long journeys 5.0L/100 being achieved on quite a few journeys but town driving was abysmal often as low as 10L/100km for a full tank. The 1.4 recorded a best of 47 mpg on a long journey but never fell below 41.

I'm surprised at that. I'd have thought it'd be the other way around.

Mr Magnolia

One of the madest drives i ever had was a Lancia Delta Integrale. I've driven a db9 but the Lancia was just.... mad.

I'd a mate 20yrs ago who drove nothing else but petrol turbos. His tag line:

"Happiest when; engine screaming, tyres screaming, passengers screaming"

Henry Ford III

Had 2 x Fiesta ST's. Great engines. Plenty of power, loads off torque, and no issue revving. Driven gently they were very economical too - 40mpg+

Stallingrad

We liked the 1.4tsi 150bhp Act in the Superb so much we bought two.

CoBo55

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I'm surprised at that. I'd have thought it'd be the other way around.

It broke my heart, there was definitely something wrong with it. Some days it sounded like a bag of nails and you actually see the fuel gauge dropping. Other days it was as smooth as silk, tipping along in the high gears not a bother on it, never as glad to see the back of it tbh.

Lord Nikon

Turbo all the things.

CrankyHaus

Stallingrad wrote: »

We liked the 1.4tsi 150bhp Act in the Superb so much we bought two.

Lovely engine in the Golf too. Very smooth and responsive. Never noticed any lag.

CoBo55

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Lovely engine in the Golf too. Very smooth and responsive. Never noticed any lag.

Sorry I didn't get that engine in the Octavia, 1.5 as it is now.

jimgoose

dastardly00 wrote: »

Woman?

My good lady.

V8 Interceptor

All the responses bar one have been positive. So when you hear people - esp Motoring journalists - mourning the death of the NA, what exactly are they missing?

Midnight_EG

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

All the responses bar one have been positive. So when you hear people - esp Motoring journalists - mourning the death of the NA, what exactly are they missing?

Yeah but you're talking to people who like turbo petrols...wait until the diesel brigade comes :cool:

10fathoms

Last 2 cars and current cars all turbo petrol.

Went from a 2000 Subaru Forester GT, to an 2005 Octavia VRS 1.8T (the best and most reliable cars I've ever owned despite absolutely dogging it daily) to a 2017 Focus RS.

Turbo petrol really is the best powerplant if you aren't too worried about economy and want something that's fun to drive. And even better if you're into tuning etc.

sunnysoutheast

I loved the Passat 09 1.8T I had way back.

Was very impressed with a hired 1.0T Golf DSG last year.

We will have the dreaded L/N plates at the end of this year going up so will have to get something suitable, probably a Focus 1.0 Auto. Slight complication in that they don't sell them in Ireland and not sure how imports will work after Brexit!

MTBD

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

All the responses bar one have been positive. So when you hear people - esp Motoring journalists - mourning the death of the NA, what exactly are they missing?

I had a Fiesta ST for a year. Great car and the engine was mighty impressive. But it's not exciting. Very quiet, died off towards the end of the rev range and a bit characterless. I find all modern turbo petrols like this. Very impressive as everyday cars but they take away from the excitement factor of a highly strung na car. Ive had a rake of of N/A sports cars and they just give you goose bumps when revved out.

Compare the excitement of the engine in an e92 m3 vs a 335i. Both can be had with similar outputs with a little remap but the 335 just is nowhere near as exciting.

Ciano35

I have a 106 gti 1.6 N/A, and a Corsa OPC 1.6 turbo. The 106 is about 120bhp, the OPC 192bhp. The Corsa has great power and love it as a daily, but I always find myself looking forward to taking the 106 out for a spin. Power is there instantly and revs eagerly to nearly 7.5k rpm. :cool:

Wildly Boaring

CoBo55 wrote: »

It broke my heart, there was definitely something wrong with it. Some days it sounded like a bag of nails and you actually see the fuel gauge dropping. Other days it was as smooth as silk, tipping along in the high gears not a bother on it, never as glad to see the back of it tbh.

Have the 1.0 tsi in an ateca. Similar enough experience.

Long journey at 100 kph over 40mpg.
Short journeys low 30s.

Doesn't bother me as it's wife's car. She does max 10k km annually. Assumed when buying that ot wouldn't be too economical. Assumed correct.

Good acceleration to 100kph and pretty lively to those speeds. Struggles a bit after.

V8 Interceptor

MTBD wrote: »

Ive had a rake of of N/A sports cars and they just give you goose bumps when revved out.

Ciano35 wrote: »

Power is there instantly and revs eagerly to nearly 7.5k rpm. :cool:

Can't decide who's telling the truth! Most folk are saying the turbos rev as high as the NA's!

Ciano35

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Can't decide who's telling the truth! Most folk are saying the turbos rev as high as the NA's!

I don’t know about tsi’s or any other turbo petrols, but my Corsa only revs to 6.8k. 106 is much more fun! And then there’s Honda, what does the s2000 go to, like 9.5k?

CoBo55

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Have the 1.0 tsi in an ateca. Similar enough experience.

Long journey at 100 kph over 40mpg.
Short journeys low 30s.

Doesn't bother me as it's wife's car. She does max 10k km annually. Assumed when buying that ot wouldn't be too economical. Assumed correct.

Good acceleration to 100kph and pretty lively to those speeds. Struggles a bit after.

Is yours manual? Mine was dsg I think it suited the car better, because of the higher gearing it had legs up to about 120 km/h. The 1.4 was a much sweeter car. Another thing that drove me crazy on the 1 litre was the stop start, it was as rough as a tractor.

Andrewf20

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

So there is a difference in that regard?

Yes. Tbh most of the turbo petrols I have driven were fairly run of the mil rentals. Although I have driven a mark 5 Golf GTI and a 2016 Fiesta ST. And I still preferred the NA. Heel and toeing is a bit more of a waiting game in the turbos as the revs take slightly longer to build. And there's definetly a sense of fragility in the turbos which numbs your driving enthusiasm a little.

The Golf GTI / Fiesta ST pull very strong at low revs but further up the rev range, the power seems to diminish (a bit like a diesel), while the NAs pull harder with the high revs. As a result, you sometimes feel like changing up earlier for better acceleration instead of dragging it all the way to 6000rpm.

I drive an E36 323i so thats what im comparing these cars to. With NAs dying off, I am beginning to value them more and more. Ive 400,000km on the engine and shes still pulling strongly.

MTBD

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Can't decide who's telling the truth! Most folk are saying the turbos rev as high as the NA's!

Very few modern turbo cars rev beyond 7,000rpm and most are done by 5,500- 6,000. Even the really high performance ones like m4 or Giulia QF only rev to 7,200 or that. Compare that to the old m3 at 8500.

The way I would sum it up is that modern turbos are more impressive initially and you really think "wow, this is quick" but it gets a bit boring very quickly. It just becomes very normal in a way that holding on to revs in a N/A car doesnt. I almost always changed gear in the fiesta by 4500 rpm as there was not much point holding on any longer. So basically I would drive very quickly everywhere and it was always quite fun but it just became completely normal. There was never a sense of occasion when I would want to go for that "special" blast early in the morning. My old MR2 definitely felt more special in that regard despite being much slower. Good N/A engines reward you for holding on to revs and that is far more exciting in my view. It completely changes the driving experience.

The odd modern turbo engine is capable of it too but they are rare.

PS I'm not including old school turbos like Subarus and Supras in this. I'm talking specifically about modern low down torque obsessed turbo petrols.

ShadowHearth

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Yes. Tbh most of the turbo petrols I have driven were fairly run of the mil rentals. Although I have driven a mark 5 Golf GTI and a 2016 Fiesta ST. And I still preferred the NA. Heel and toeing is a bit more of a waiting game in the turbos as the revs take slightly longer to build. And there's definetly a sense of fragility in the turbos which numbs your driving enthusiasm a little.

The Golf GTI / Fiesta ST pull very strong at low revs but further up the rev range, the power seems to diminish (a bit like a diesel), while the NAs pull harder with the high revs. As a result, you sometimes feel like changing up earlier for better acceleration instead of dragging it all the way to 6000rpm.

I drive an E36 323i so thats what im comparing these cars to. With NAs dying off, I am beginning to value them more and more. Ive 400,000km on the engine and shes still pulling strongly.

Mazda is the only one who still goes bigger displacement over turbo. I like that idea.
On the other hand in the new Mazda 3 2.0 engine makes only 120hp. New akyactive-x will have about 180hp, but don't think it will stay N/A.

ExoPolitic

CoBo55 wrote: »

My last two cars were petrol Octavia's, a 09 1.4 TSI (122 bhp) followed by a 172 1.0 (115 bhp), both were dsg. The 09 was by far the nicer drive and more economical overall than the 1 litre. The 1 litre had amazing economy on long journeys 5.0L/100 being achieved on quite a few journeys but town driving was abysmal often as low as 10L/100km for a full tank. The 1.4 recorded a best of 47 mpg on a long journey but never fell below 41. These are all full tank to empty figures every time. I've gone back to diesel and the difference is amazing, I can't see myself going petrol for a long time. Sorry about the mixed units I've only recently trained myself in the modern units.

Wow, my 2004 bmw 320d 2.0 turbo is more economical than both of those, more powerful and less dpf and things to go wrong...

Around 38 - 40mpg town driving 44 combined and I had 60mpg on the last long run.

MTBD

ExoPolitic wrote: »

Wow, my 2004 bmw 320d 2.0 turbo is more economical than both of those, more powerful and less dpf and things to go wrong...

Obviously, it's diesel. Diesel contains more energy per litre than petrol. The only reason it's not dearer than petrol is tax.

MTBD

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Mazda is the only one who still goes bigger displacement over turbo. I like that idea.
On the other hand in the new Mazda 3 2.0 engine makes only 120hp. New akyactive-x will have about 180hp, but don't think it will stay N/A.

To be fair I think very few Irish people will ever have experienced a decent na engine. Everything here was a 1.0-1.8 litre 4 cylinder. Very few people bought 2.0 and almost nobody went above that. That's probably why those who did like big old na engines lament them but most people don't. They literally don't know what they are missing in most cases.

V8 Interceptor

MTBD wrote: »

Very few modern turbo cars rev beyond 7,000rpm and most are done by 5,500- 6,000. Even the really high performance ones like m4 or Giulia QF only rev to 7,200 or that. Compare that to the old m3 at 8500.

The way I would sum it up is that modern turbos are more impressive initially and you really think "wow, this is quick" but it gets a bit boring very quickly. It just becomes very normal in a way that holding on to revs in a N/A car doesnt. I almost always changed gear in the fiesta by 4500 rpm as there was not much point holding on any longer. So basically I would drive very quickly everywhere and it was always quite fun but it just became completely normal. There was never a sense of occasion when I would want to go for that "special" blast early in the morning. My old MR2 definitely felt more special in that regard despite being much slower. Good N/A engines reward you for holding on to revs and that is far more exciting in my view. It completely changes the driving experience.

The odd modern turbo engine is capable of it too but they are rare.

PS I'm not including old school turbos like Subarus and Supras in this. I'm talking specifically about modern low down torque obsessed turbo petrols.

Sounds pretty much like driving a diesel.

Mr Magnolia

The vintage road tax of €56 will start coming into it's own for big oul petrol turbos/non-turbos soon. Would love to pick up an old E400 or E500 for herself*






*well I say herself but....

MTBD

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

The vintage road tax of €56 will start coming into it's own for big oul petrol turbos/non-turbos soon. Would love to pick up an old E400 or E500 for herself*






*well I say herself but....

You just know they will feck it up for us somehow. The CO2 system was just beginning to work for us too and that got snatched away. I doubt there will ever be a system which favours big petrol engines no matter how old they get.

V8 Interceptor

How old does a car have to be to qualify for classic tax?

jimgoose

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

How old does a car have to be to qualify for classic tax?

30 years.

Casati

MTBD wrote: »

To be fair I think very few Irish people will ever have experienced a decent na engine. Everything here was a 1.0-1.8 litre 4 cylinder. Very few people bought 2.0 and almost nobody went above that. That's probably why those who did like big old na engines lament them but most people don't. They literally don't know what they are missing in most cases.

I’ve rented a good few larger sized na four cylinder cars in the U.S in the last few years are they generally are horrible compared to a 2.0 diesel or even a turbo’d 1.6. I find they need huge revs to make any progress and trashy engine tone makes them less relaxing to drive than a 2.0 diesel that wont need high revs to make progress. I’m talking about run of mill large/ full sized cars, Altima, Campry, Malibu, Santa Fe with engine sizes between 2.2 and / 2.6 litre. Generally all these cars are heavy on fuel too, ie mid 20’s mpg, maybe 30 mpg converted to our gallons. I won’t be lamenting them anyway!

The one turbo’d car that stuck out as being v nice was the Fusion (Mondeo) 1.6 eco boost which is a lovely engine, v responsive and had a nice note.

I’ve good experience of the VAG 1.2 TSI in a Yeti and it’s lovely but returns at best about 7 litre a per 100km driving at 100km/120km motorway. The 1.6 diesel would get you 5.2ish for similar spin.

V8 Interceptor

Casati wrote: »

II’m talking about run of mill large/ full sized cars, Altima, Campry, Malibu, Santa Fe with engine sizes between 2.2 and / 2.6 litre.

They'd be midsizers but I know what you're saying.

'Tis a wonder they're not V6's with engines from 2.2L.