Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahdir
Considering how fast the Tesla Model S (Performance Edition) is, give it 20 years  |
If I had over $100K to spend on a car, it would not be an electric anything. It would most likely be a Viper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast
Some people want their perfect car with the perfect engine (insert whatever's appropriate for you in both those places) and they don't want any other option.
|
I'm all for options. But replacing engines with small turboed engines, and not offering NA is not more options, it is fewer options. And reducing options while offering only the more expensive alternatives is called screwing your customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast
Turboed cars have been very reliable for ages. I can't say anything about airplanes but the car I'm driving isn't my first turbo car.
Yes you can abuse a turbo car so that the turbo fails. Some cars have inherent flaws that destroy the turbo. Some have other flaws that destroy other parts of the engine or car. It's not the turbo or not turbo that is the issue, it's how the rest is designed.
|
I usually keep cars for the long run, so turbos scare me. I don't care how good some people say they are, to me, they are a several thousand dollar unnecessary time bomb ticking away under the hood that NA cars do not have at all.
If GM (and Ford and all the others too for good measure) are so confident that there are no longevity issues with them, and want to convince me that it won't potentially cost me a fortune that a NA engine wouldn't cost me, they should put full lifetime warranties on the turbo and any related component that a NA engine wouldn't have. After all, if they really are in all cases good for the life of the rest of the engine as they are trying to convince me of, it wouldn't cost them a thing. If not, I'm not interested.