http://www.dailyturismo.com/2017/01/brick-house-1988-volvo-245-dl-turbo.html --- Post updated --- My car is famous.
2017 Kia Stinger 4 door sedan, comes in RWD or AWD, top level model has a twin turbo V6, entry level has a 2.0 litre 4 cyl turbo. Not the prettiest thing in the world but damn, it is certainly a bloody cool car.
Not as far as I know, but I'd say it should be pretty quick. Not German quick but ya know, could compete probably with a Commodore.
All I can think about it is, they're both turbos and that's freaking sad. Turbos on everything is the cancer that is killing new cars. They're not even anything special anymore. It used to be, you saw a turbocharged car, you knew it was pretty quick, at least for what it was. Now, you see a turbocharged car, you just think "huh, that would have been a naturally aspirated V6/V8 if the tree worshippers would shut up for two seconds."
No. I'm talking about the new tendency to use them as EPA-compliant prosthetic displacement rather than a legitimate "power adder". For example, when Chevrolet replaced the Cobalt with the Cruze, they went from a 2.2 NA, 155 HP, to a 1.4 turbo, 138 HP. This was the top engine available on the Cruze (whereas the 2.2 was the base engine on the Cobalt), but was less powerful than any Cobalt, even the early base models, in a car that weighed over 3000 lbs (which is disgusting in and of itself). They also did it with the Malibu, going from a V6 to a 2.0 turbo I4. This is incidental to the fact that I strongly dislike I4s anyway due to most of them sounding awful. I really cannot think of an engine layout I like less than the I4, both on principle and because of the sound.
Oh yea, take an example of a late model BMW... I would rather have the sound of their legendary i6 rather than driving a luxury car with an angry vaccum cleaner sounding engine. Also, reliability might be worse with those smaller engines... lol, one day we are gonna have a midsize car with a 1.2L 2 cylinder turbo making 400hp one day.
But then you have the Mustang, who's Ecoboost makes more power, more torque, and gets better fuel economy than the V6. Even sounds good, as far as I'm concerned. Are turbos used as replacement for displacement? Yes, but it makes it much easier for the manufacturer to get more out of an engine while still complying with increasingly strict (and rightly so) emissions laws. Some (like GM apparently) do it poorly, but I think it's the obvious way to go in the current climate (both economic and atmospheric).
Except it sounds pathetic to get a 4 cylinder mustang. (I hate the angry vaccum cleaner sounding engine in the mustang) Ford should've put the 2.7 EcoBoost V6 instead of the 2.3 EcoBoost.. Fuel economy shouldn't be far apart...
