Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy
I really don't think Turbo 4rs are significantly more fuel efficient than NA V6s. And why compare FI V4s to NA V6s? Why not compare their torque and power to other FI engines? Turbo V6 or Turbo V8? Once you start boosting things it's just a matter of money anyway.
|
You seem to have answered your own question. Unless for some reason cost isn't an important determining factor for GM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome
A lightly boosted V6 will run circles around a lightly boosted I-4, so the I-4 will need more radical components to handle higher boost just to keep up with the V6. That means for the same level of performance you will shell out more money for the I-4, and have less headroom to tune it because it will already be pushed closer to the limit just to feel like a mildly boosted V6.
Why is it that everyone who claims how a boosted I-4 is so awesome acts like an I-4 is the only engine that gets better with boost?
|
Radical components? Most of the factory turbo 4s run hypereutectic cast pistons just like a lot of the n/a engines, but with lower compression. Besides that the turbo 4 will have 2/3 the internal components of the 6 by definition. 2/3 the pistons, valves, rods, 1/2 the head(s), less exhaust piping, etc. GM's LNF has hypereutectic pistons and there are dozens of folks pushing 320+whp out of them with just a tune and exhaust. GM even offered upgrades to around 300hp that maintained the warranty. I don't see why anyone would compare turbo 4 and turbo 6 when it comes to factory equipment as cost difference is going to be significant. GM isn't going to compare an n/a v6 and a turbo v6 directly for the same trim level because the cost difference is too great, but a turbo 4 can cost about the same and offer better performance with packaging advantages. A turbo 4 like the LNF could replace the current v6 without adding cost while offering greater torque at an earlier rpm and higher efficiency.