I just rented a 2019 Jetta with a 1.4 liter direct inject 4 cyl engine with turbo. It had an 8 speed automatic and auto start stop to save gas at red lights. I drove from NY to FL and got 43 mpg going about 80 mph. I think it's rated 30 mpg in the city. It's full sized with lots of room for 5. I am impressed with these new high tech designs that are not hybrids (no lithium batteries) so they are less expensive (the Jetta is $18,800 base model). Has anyone found that these small turbo engines have a shorter lifespan than the non-turbo? Here's a link to a motor-trend article:
www.motortrend.com/cars/volkswagen/jetta/2019/
The most extreme is the Fiat 500 Twin Air -- twin cylinder 850cc but with a high level of turbo boost the official fuel comsumption appear fantastic but the real world experince not so and the 1.3 and 1.4 versions considerable bettter especiall in mixed urban/suburban use.
A friend in the trade tried one over the weekand reported it was a real hoot to drive but reported fuel consumption in the low -mid 20's (imperial mpg so 18-19 US MPG) --- I have no doubt he drove it like a hooligan but you would be hard pushed to drag the 1.4 version down below 30mpg.
My own personal experience was with a Fiesta 1,000cc Ecoboost hire car performance was good comparable with good 1.4 or 1.6 but the fuel consumption was also similar. My own daily drive is pretty good for showing real fuel consumption involves a fairly long uphill journey, about half in a 30 mph limit and half in a 60 limit on a cold engine, with the return journey 2 hours later. The fuel consumption turned out exactly the same as a 1.4 Rover 45 39mpg which is about 32 US mpg.
If only we could build a clean diesel, I have driven Rover 75 for some years now on the daily run as above the 1.8 petrol version averages 28-34 mpg ( 23 - 29 us mpg) the 2.0 turbo diesel 39-53 mpg (33-44 us mpg) and feels more powerful.
" We're trying to plug a hole in the universe, what are you doing ?. "
(Walter Bishop Fringe TV show)
The main factor that has made turbos reliable is the switch to synthetic oils. Synthetic oils don't form varnish and tar deposits in the turbo's oil feed. A few years back Renault turbo disels also used by GM and Nissan had major issues with turbo failures destroying whole engines, the cause was the major users of light trucks and delivery vans were small contractors who cut corners on servicing neglected oil changes and when they did used cheap 20w-50 mineral oil.
" We're trying to plug a hole in the universe, what are you doing ?. "
(Walter Bishop Fringe TV show)
70 years back the then UK car company Austin released a 4 cylinder 1200cc engine developing 35hp. The design was a good basic push rod overhead valve inspired by the clasic Chevy 6 cylinder. Like Chevy engine it developed stayed in production a very long time --- more than 50 years -- eventually it 1980s itbecame a 2litre with 4 valves per cyinder and a turbo it developed a very reliable 197hp 5 and a half times the original power output
" We're trying to plug a hole in the universe, what are you doing ?. "
(Walter Bishop Fringe TV show)
I had a 92 Eagle Talon 4 cylinder turbo for ten years and I hated to see it go. I bought a 2002 Subaru WRX 4 cyl. turbo in the summer of 2001 and it's still a daily driver today for my oldest son.
I could have just been lucky, it happens. All I did differently from anyone else was to use full synthetic oil (called for in the spec for my 2018), never tempt fate when a timing belt was due, and drive it mildly until it warmed up, which never seems to take very long.
"I'll never know it all but I'm willing to settle for knowing where to find the answer!"
I swapped 1983 VW Quantum turbodiesel 1.6 into a 1981 VW pickup years ago and after gifting it with a 5 speed have driven the snot out of it. It routinely gets 45 MPG in town and has gotten 60 mpg when I stayed at 50 mph tops, extra air in the tires, etc. But usually on a trip I cruise between 75-80 MPH and ignore the MPG's. Oh wait, you said "new" turbo'd small engines. Never mind.
