Supra Forums banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
hey guys i was reading a thread earlier and i was just wondering, why dont they put turbos in any of the new cars out there anymore (straight from the factory)? i mean the new 350Z doesnt, rx, etc. If the answer is obvious, please dont barrage me with insults.

-David
 

·
Boost4fun
Joined
·
1,848 Posts
I think that cost was surely a concern since turbo applications add generally a lot of bucks to the development of a car.
On the other hand the manufacturers here in Europe are currently going back to the charged route since they can meet the fuel gas consumption and exhaust limitation agreements better with charged engines.
You can see therefore also the all new BMW 3series with a "Supra-like" 3 ltr. inline 6 cyl with two turbos!:) Looking forward to this hotty ;) The first turbocharged BMW engine since the 80s! :bowdown:
Audi and VW is doing a big portion of their sales with the famous 1.8ltr. turbo in the A3 and A4...
So I think that we have currently a "revival" of the blown engines:)
Gerd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,539 Posts
$$$$$$$$ is the answer. There is more research and development that goes into a turbo powered vehicle, this costs manufacturers more $. Also there are typically more components in a turbo powered vehicle - and the engine usually requires stronger internals - both of these mean more $. Finally, a turbo powered vehicle is more likely (especially in the hands of younger buyers who typically purchase them) to have failures and more expensive components to replace , this leads to higher than normal warranty work and thus more $ again for the manufacturer.
 

·
(overspooled)
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
EPA requirements IMO...Al good factory turbo vehicles use cast irom blocks and forged guts...This is becoming somewhat of a lost art...not sure why. People will pay the money, but too small of a customer base to justify production I guess....i.e. no more mkiv after 98....
 

·
Ex-hardtopper
Joined
·
1,919 Posts
Morefaster said:
EPA requirements IMO...Al good factory turbo vehicles use cast irom blocks and forged guts...This is becoming somewhat of a lost art...not sure why. People will pay the money, but too small of a customer base to justify production I guess....i.e. no more mkiv after 98....
I think one of the main reasons why the MKIV died after 1998, was because 1) nobody wanted to pay 50k for a sports car and 2) it was the dawn of the SUV craze... sports cars were at the back of the pack in terms of demand.
 
G

·
SUVs killed every TT Japanese car....first 300zxtt, then rx7 tt and supra tt last....cheap gas in late 90s and early this century allowed for SUVs to sell like hot cakes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,602 Posts
Of course cost factors into the picture but cost of what? Ultimately, manufacturers need to spend money in order to make money when it comes to meeting EPA/ECE regs. After that, the powertrain engineers need to make sure that the package is suitable regarding driveability and performance. There are two avenues to take with turbos. One is for pure sports and the other is for meeting fuel economy/emissions goals. I am speaking of the later because that is what is important right now- not how to build another low-volume, CAFE-defeating supercar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,581 Posts
A recent few "cost no object" examples:

SL65 AMG = twin turbo V12

Bentley GT = twin turbo W12

Bugatti EB110 = 4 turbo 12cyl

Bugatti Veyron = 4 turbo W16cyl
 

·
Alpine Hardtopper
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
Most car companies are familiar with turbos, and most have had bad experiences with them. It's more money to build a turbo car...turbo components...different engine internals, and the already mentioned increased development costs. Also, it's currently VERY hard for a turbo car to pass the EPA emissions tests. It's pretty darn easy to get a car to pass the EPA emissions (ignoring the major problems diesel engines are having) once the cat is warm. But part of the EPA test is a cold soak, followed by a simulated driving cycle. MOST of the harmful/regulated emissions come out in the time between when the engine starts and catalytic converter light-off (when it reaches operating temperature). It's becoming more and more critical to get all the exhaust heat in to that catalytic converter ASAP.

In comes the turbo car....the turbo acts like a large cast iron heat sink between the engine and catalytic converter. If it takes a car 15 seconds longer to reach converter light-off, that's HUGE in terms of passing or not passing EPA emissions certification.

The other problem that comes in to play is waranty costs. It's *far* too easy for a person to turn up the boost pressure on a turbo car. Heck....that's why we buy them! But turning up the boost stresses the rest of the components - particularily engine/turbo conponents. As a manufacturer, you don't want to be replacing engines under waranty because your customers turned up the boost. But you don't really want to deny everyone with an engine problem waranty coverage because then the public will hate you and stop buying your cars. On top of all that, the mechanics that work at all your dealerships typically don't know a thing about turbo cars. They're likely to make a ton of mistakes that cost you even *more* money in waranty repairs. All the waranty problems with the 3rd Gen RX7 nearly put Mazda out of business.

With companies like Hyundai advertising "no maintanence until 100,000 miles" it becomes harder to sell turbo cars. In so many cases, the turbos aren't even going to last 100,000 miles. Likely they will fail shortly after the car is out of waranty...leaving more bad word-of-mouth advertising about the manufacturer.

But, the good side is that a 2.0L turbo 4 cylinder can effectively replace a N/A 3.0L and offer similar performance (prior to the customer turning the boost up and blowing the N/A 3.0L away). And on the highway, the 2.0L engine should be getting better fuel economy than the N/A 3.0L. Or, if you like, call it a turbo 3.0L that's replacing a N/A 4.3L V8 <grin>.

In Honda's case, they decided it was cheaper (build and waranty costs) to build engines that revved like crazy to make turbo-like power levels from their small engines. But luckily for us, there's still plenty of companies making OEM turbo cars. I'd like to get a hold of an Audi S3 or RS3, and BMW is supposed to release a 3 series with a turbo this year.
 

·
Alpine Hardtopper
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
Notorious 2JZ said:
SUVs killed every TT Japanese car....first 300zxtt, then rx7 tt and supra tt last....cheap gas in late 90s and early this century allowed for SUVs to sell like hot cakes
Forgot to mention the Mistu 3000GT VR4. Okay, who are we kidding....the SUV's didn't kill that car....that car killed itself <ha!>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Nick 95 6sp said:
A recent few "cost no object" examples:

SL65 AMG = twin turbo V12

Bentley GT = twin turbo W12

Bugatti EB110 = 4 turbo 12cyl

Bugatti Veyron = 4 turbo W16cyl

jesus christ haha 4 turbos with 16 cylinders.... :rofl:

thanks for the reply guys i guess i just missed the big point. I guess the price factor didnt really kick in for me cuz when they were new i was like what in the 3rd gradE?! haha yea but thanks for the replies guys appreciate it
 

·
(overspooled)
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Toyota attributed cost as a factor in the ceasation of production, but I wonder....for example toyota spent more money to develop the toyota camry than GM Ford and Chrystler did to develop their entire product lines (allegedly), ho much could it cost to build a car like this again...If people will pay 50k for a c6, why not 50k for an import sports car...theres still vipers in production....and this issue mainly plauges the us...so it must be an import issue and the result of market study...
 

·
Alpine Hardtopper
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
From the sounds of it, the market study has already been done. Toyota *is* developing another Supra (looks to be mid engine?). And Nissan is supposed to release the GT-R on a modified G35 coupe platform in the next 1.5-2 years. Ya Hoo for new import performance cars!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,180 Posts
crossways said:
$$$$$$$$ is the answer. There is more research and development that goes into a turbo powered vehicle, this costs manufacturers more $. Also there are typically more components in a turbo powered vehicle - and the engine usually requires stronger internals - both of these mean more $. Finally, a turbo powered vehicle is more likely (especially in the hands of younger buyers who typically purchase them) to have failures and more expensive components to replace , this leads to higher than normal warranty work and thus more $ again for the manufacturer.
Once again, crossways hits it on the spot again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,180 Posts
cord4530 said:
Most car companies are familiar with turbos, and most have had bad experiences with them. It's more money to build a turbo car...turbo components...different engine internals, and the already mentioned increased development costs. Also, it's currently VERY hard for a turbo car to pass the EPA emissions tests. It's pretty darn easy to get a car to pass the EPA emissions (ignoring the major problems diesel engines are having) once the cat is warm. But part of the EPA test is a cold soak, followed by a simulated driving cycle. MOST of the harmful/regulated emissions come out in the time between when the engine starts and catalytic converter light-off (when it reaches operating temperature). It's becoming more and more critical to get all the exhaust heat in to that catalytic converter ASAP.

In comes the turbo car....the turbo acts like a large cast iron heat sink between the engine and catalytic converter. If it takes a car 15 seconds longer to reach converter light-off, that's HUGE in terms of passing or not passing EPA emissions certification.

The other problem that comes in to play is waranty costs. It's *far* too easy for a person to turn up the boost pressure on a turbo car. Heck....that's why we buy them! But turning up the boost stresses the rest of the components - particularily engine/turbo conponents. As a manufacturer, you don't want to be replacing engines under waranty because your customers turned up the boost. But you don't really want to deny everyone with an engine problem waranty coverage because then the public will hate you and stop buying your cars. On top of all that, the mechanics that work at all your dealerships typically don't know a thing about turbo cars. They're likely to make a ton of mistakes that cost you even *more* money in waranty repairs. All the waranty problems with the 3rd Gen RX7 nearly put Mazda out of business.

With companies like Hyundai advertising "no maintanence until 100,000 miles" it becomes harder to sell turbo cars. In so many cases, the turbos aren't even going to last 100,000 miles. Likely they will fail shortly after the car is out of waranty...leaving more bad word-of-mouth advertising about the manufacturer.

But, the good side is that a 2.0L turbo 4 cylinder can effectively replace a N/A 3.0L and offer similar performance (prior to the customer turning the boost up and blowing the N/A 3.0L away). And on the highway, the 2.0L engine should be getting better fuel economy than the N/A 3.0L. Or, if you like, call it a turbo 3.0L that's replacing a N/A 4.3L V8 <grin>.

In Honda's case, they decided it was cheaper (build and waranty costs) to build engines that revved like crazy to make turbo-like power levels from their small engines. But luckily for us, there's still plenty of companies making OEM turbo cars. I'd like to get a hold of an Audi S3 or RS3, and BMW is supposed to release a 3 series with a turbo this year.
Well said. Turbo cars can also become a pain in the ass for both the manufacturer and customer. Turbos aren't as practical as normal aspiration for your average person. Neither are superchargers. Any type of forced induction (turbo/supercharger) I think is more oriented toward a race car than a street car, for reasons of practicality and the reasons mentioned above by Dan Cordon.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top