Thank Goodness

[Nizmo]

I have always been intrigued by those fast 4-cylinders and awhile back, even considered buying an Audi A4 with that motor, but then heard nothing but heartache stories from owners who had to put lots of oil in them to go anywhere..

And when I asked the Audi Dealers nearest me about it, they would NOT comment on the oil use issue at all !!
So, no sale, Bucky...
Dan F

Dan,

Those were troubled times for VAG turbo motors. The original 1.8t comes to mind actually. In those times oil quality and availability was "meh" at best and they were recommending ridiculous oil change intervals at the time. They`ve come a long way with their engines and oil quality has improved 10-fold. I would almost venture to say VAG leads turbo technology now-adays. I would buy their products with no hesitation (wait... I did...) in this day and age. Other makes are quickly adapting to the turbo technology though.

[nickclark08]

Eco boost for the win!

wait - maybe you weren`t talking about Ford.

Eh, oh well

I see both sides of the argument turbo 4`s vs. 6 or 8 cylinders. As with my politics, I took the moderate approach - twin turbo 6.

[jatleson]

The Focus is on my radar if new car shopping is ever needed, but I was referring to the N54 (twin turbo, straight 6) BMW engine.

[Setec Astronomy]

I can remember back then it seemed like every time a magazine tested a performance car it was slower than last years model. It truly was a depressing time. If you would have told me back then what kind of cars we would be driving in 40 years I never would have believed you. We truly are living in the golden age of automotive performance. Even the firebreathers of the sixties would be shown the taillights of a modern car, and couldn`t touch it in drivability or fuel economy.

You know that was really my point. We lived through the dark days of the first CAFE, and the double-whammy of the full force of emissions controls at the same time, and like you said, every year the cars got worse, the power, the driveability. It was all doom and gloom. But then the car companies mastered the fuel injection, the 3-way catalysts, and the cars got better, and the performance renaissance of the 90`s was precisely because the combination of reduced mass and increased efficiency, just as applied to airplanes and race cars, can give longer range or increased payload, but the flip side of it is increased performance. If you increase the efficiency of an engine, you can do the same work with a smaller engine, or you can do more work with the same engine (and the same amount of fuel...increasing efficiency also reduces emissions, simply because you are burning less fuel).

We`ve already been in this new CAFE cycle for a few years, and we`re seeing higher horsepower numbers than ever. These kind of regulations drive investment in innovation and optimization, which ultimately results in better performance cars, not worse. I think this move is short-sighted. If in another 3-4 years it became clear that the requirements were outstripping the technology, that would be the time to dial it back.

[jrock645]

Honestly there`s nothing wrong with turbo 4`s, I really think it`s the way to go. Weighs less and has the same if not more power, plus better economy.

Yes, but they sound like a 4, and 4’s sound hideous when you have to step on it. Meanwhile a 6 lets out a little growl and just purrs along.