GOD HELP little TURBOS

peregrine

Active Member
Lifetime Premium Member
We the lucky owners of CJ and CF lancers will be laughing all the way to the bank when trade in time arrives
in four to five years time and beyond. When second hand opposition turbo 1.6 down to smaller engines
start costing thousands of $$$to repair and just keep maintained. We the non turbos will rule the market.
 
Modern turbo vehicles don't really cost any more for regular maintenance though to be honest. A properly maintained turbo car should last as long as an NA car. Manufacturers are increasingly turning to smaller turbocharged engines for emissions reasons.
 
We the lucky owners of CJ and CF lancers will be laughing all the way to the bank when trade in time arrives
in four to five years time and beyond. When second hand opposition turbo 1.6 down to smaller engines
start costing thousands of $$$to repair and just keep maintained. We the non turbos will rule the market.
What is the point of this post and where is the proof?
 
Proof can only be evidenced in the future! But the past can be a guide. Small engines wear out quicker then large engines, put a turbo
on a smaller engine dragging the same weight as a larger engine and !!?1;/ Need I say more!
 
Smaller engines don't wear out faster in appropriate applications. They are not dragging the same weight, they are BUILT to deal with what they are given, much the same as your motor. Most of the car's you're talking about also come with 5/7 year factory warranty these days, I'd say that's pretty good guarantee they're built to last. Manufacturers wouldn't cover them that long anyway. I'd also wager that there are factory turbocharged motors that will long out last anyway 4b11 or 4b12.
 
Your points are taken. However, there is no way with mass produced engines of equal quality, in the cheaper end of the market, that a NA 1.6 ltr engine will last as long as a 2 ltr NA engine dragging a vehicle of the same body weight.
Simple mathematics gives you the answer. OK then add a turbo to the 1.6 ltr engine increasing its pulling power and therefore able to run similar gear ratios. Still simple mathematics gives you the answer!
Added strain from increased pressure. especially on smaller:- bore, pistons, big ends in fact all bearings. plus added cost on services and ultimate upkeep of the turbo.

In the case of our lancers when they added a turbo to the 2ltr engine, the price jumps up to cover the extra cost of much more stringent production to bring the engine to a standard to cope with the extra requirements for the turbo.
and the engine stayed the same size!!!
 
Last edited:
Peregrine i think taking into account the block material and new manufacturing standards means theres very little difference now a days.

A good example of this, is the 1996-2003 CE with the 1.8L 4G93 engine. The conrods in this engine are literally double the thickness of the ones in the 2003+ CH 4G94 2.0L engine. The smaller engine received a turbo from factory in the guise of the four door, all wheel drive CM5A, and they have been known to rust out the chassis before the engine goes. The larger engine tends to blow very quickly with the same or smaller amounts of boost.
 
Could argue a response to this but prefer to let it rest. Compliments of the season!
 
Back
Top