Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3
I'm all for options. But replacing engines with small turboed engines, and not offering NA is not more options, it is fewer options.
|
The discussion is about
adding an engine, a Turbo I4. That there is
speculation that it may or may not remove some of the existing engine(s) is a totally different thing. As most have said, they likely won't remove the V8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3
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.
|
That is up to you, but you're ragging on something not because it's worse, but that you're scared of it. I honestly don't know how to respond to that. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3
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.
|
Why would an engine component have a different warranty simply because of the fact that some people haven't used them before?
Turbos on cars have been around since what .. The 60's with SAABs being first to use them and BMW shortly thereafter?
I'm sure you can name loads of turbo cars that have had engine issues and I'm sure I can name loads of N/A cars that have had engine issues.
Let's agree to disagree.
Turbo-engines aren't for you, fair enough. But the discussion here is about
adding them to the lineup, not
replacing and
adding = more choice.
// Stefan