IT MAKES POWER AND MAKES IT QUITE FUN TO DRIVE. HECK ITS USED AS A BUSINESS TACTIC IT CAN MAKE YOUR CAR SOUND AMAZING AND ONLY PRIUS SCRUBS LIKE IT. Wow im getting ahead of my self anyways IN THE 90S YOU WOULD SAY YES AND ASK CAR GUYS THEY LOVE IT. ANY GAS ENGINE WOULD BEGOOD
True it may be better on a diesel engine but remember you can tune it so it works at the same rpm as a diesel engine would have and it all depends on manufacturer i am a mechanic and i don't see much faults with a turbo engine ive only ever seen one turbo engine have faults
Don't complain about it "polluting", because it doesn't. Stop saying that you don't need to max out your vehicle. If you understand how a turbo works then you can get good power, low emissions, and amazing MPG just by tuning it. Turbos are not always on, they engage when the RPM hits a point where the turbo is tuned to turn on, once in the proper RPM range it forces cold air, which is heavier and more dense, thus creating more HP. The more power to weight a car has the less it has to work to sustain a speed. Thus it needs less fuel to move the car along. The problem comes with where the turbo is engaged. Most gas cars engage the turbo around 4500 RPM making it only working when your foot is firmly planted. However, in diesel vehicles it engages MUCH lower, around 2000 rpm. If we were to have the turbo spool up at a lower RPM then it would provide consistent power without the added fuel burn.
Car should have turbo engines for the moments when you have to move and get out of the way. How cool would it be to have a turbo charged car that can get from point A to point B in a quick efficient manner. Turbo charged cares would also help Law enforcement and emergency service vehicles move quicker.
It does not need turbo engines because it causes a lot of pollutions with aldoes horsepower and it causes rash driving in roads,country side and it will be a disturbens to people and the driver. Itmay cause accidents,bad for the car and some place like the race track it is very bad.
Turbochargers are junk and one of the most stupidest technologies that humans have ever created for cars. In my country if turbo fails, the repair/replacement costs are about 700-1500 euros+60-85e(per hour labour cost). Double costs if twin turbo. Lets also not forget the added hoses, seals, pipes that are needed for the turbocharger system, that need replacement when car gets older. Turbochargers commonly fail or have issues before the engine itself fails. Common issues of turbocharged systems are leaking oil seals or increased oil consumption, turbo bearing failure, sticking turbo actuator, leaking hoses, failing turbo sensors. Example Opel even had an issue, where casing of the aged turbocharger cracked and started leaking. Turbochargers are also one of the main reasons for more expensive oil changes, because you have to spend more money on oil to reduce risk of turbo failure, shorter oil change interwalls also necessary.Turbo lag is very annoying sometimes.
Naturally aspirated engines last longer and are much more reliable.
Naturally aspirated engines are easier, cheaper to maintain and repair(if needed). Relialibity is the most important, not perormance, not fuel economy, not emissions control. It really annnoys me that majority of car manufacturers went for turbocharged engines and discontinued production of larger naturally aspirated engines. It really should not be impossible for these days to build a reliable and long lasting naturally aspirated engine with high compression ratios (around 15.1-17.1 compression ratio for petrol engines).
No cars with gas engines like SUVs should not have a turbo. Sure they are more efficient but they are like a 2 stroke dirt bike not built to last. Older cars are the better choice because they last twice as long as one of the new pieces of garbage. Just like choosing between a 2 stroke and a 4 stroke, 4 strokes last twice as long as junk two strokes. If you buy a brand new car, they are most likely to have a turbo so in about ten or so years, you will probably have to do some work on them. So which would you rather have, faster and more power and efficiently or longer engine life?
Few people, at least in the United States, need their cars to ever go as fast as they're capable of maxing out at. It's simply needless to equip cars with engines that can propel them to speeds far beyond what they're advised to ever actually be driving at, it encourages reckless behavior.