New tech vs old tech

Small Turbo's made high power an option for me, i never wanted a big car with a big engine. I prefer supermini's.
That being said. I sell each one of my cars at the 100 000km mark and get another, so yes, they definately will not last to 300 000kms as my first (NA) car did, but thats not a factor.
 
stroller said:
I'm part of the old school type in that I believe that the N/A engines are a better bet for durability and for hard driving.
Firstly the smaller turbo motors were developed to meet the emission legislation in first world countries. I don't think that they were installed because they were 'better' or used less fuel. Nor do I think that it's a matter of natural progression. Forced induction has been around for ages.
Secondly, I'm convinced that they are more finicky. Many OEMs have not made turbo models available in SA because of the quality of our fuel. This issue was debated in a thread about the new Ford Fiesta ST and Suzuki has made this same reservation.
Thirdly, in a recent Car mag there was an article about which cars needed 95 octane instead of 93 octane. The finding was that turbo engines should drink 95 while N/A motors would be quite content to imbibe 93 octane. That results in quite a saving on running costs.
Finally, N/A motors must be cheaper to manufacture - Obviously - no turbo and all the other adds to make the turbo produce. Therefore turbo motors must cost a lot more to repair should things go wrong and the fact that more things can go pear shaped.
Click to expand...
I'm at the coast, we only get 95. Now what?

Simulation wise, not real world though, most of those turbocharged engines easily hit 200-250 000 miles, ~320 000-402000km, before failing. The "real world tests" have all been as reliable as non-turbocharged. We're not using the same tech from the 80s/90s, so you can't base it on those.
https://www.designnews.com/electron...bo-engines-reliable-long-term/210258542158513
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/should-i-buy-a-turbocharged-car
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/sc-auto-motormouth-1005-story.html

These are older, currently we still can't have a statistically large enough sample to really do studies:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82755551.pdf < from 2015, talks about how the biggest failure of turbochargers are basically due to the lubrication system, using a better system (theirs was a hydraulic accumulator) decreased turbocharger failure by 10-15%. That's just one thing that's been implemented in the last 5 years.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.865.7840&rep=rep1&type=pdf < from 2013, quite an interesting article on failure. Most failure is due to poor oil quality/bad quality filter replacements.

The cost of replacing/fixing the turbochargers should, hopefully, also reduce as there are so many of them now, it's a very common design.

And again, you need to look at the turbocharged engine's implementation for each car, they're not all equal.
 
Johnatan56 said:
I'm at the coast, we only get 95. Now what?

Simulation wise, not real world though, most of those turbocharged engines easily hit 200-250 000 miles, ~320 000-402000km, before failing. The "real world tests" have all been as reliable as non-turbocharged. We're not using the same tech from the 80s/90s, so you can't base it on those.
https://www.designnews.com/electron...bo-engines-reliable-long-term/210258542158513
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/should-i-buy-a-turbocharged-car
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/sc-auto-motormouth-1005-story.html

These are older, currently we still can't have a statistically large enough sample to really do studies:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82755551.pdf < from 2015, talks about how the biggest failure of turbochargers are basically due to the lubrication system, using a better system (theirs was a hydraulic accumulator) decreased turbocharger failure by 10-15%. That's just one thing that's been implemented in the last 5 years.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.865.7840&rep=rep1&type=pdf < from 2013, quite an interesting article on failure. Most failure is due to poor oil quality/bad quality filter replacements.

The cost of replacing/fixing the turbochargers should, hopefully, also reduce as there are so many of them now, it's a very common design.

And again, you need to look at the turbocharged engine's implementation for each car, they're not all equal.
Click to expand...
What are you paying for petrol tomorrow?
 
stroller said:
What are you paying for petrol tomorrow?
Click to expand...
I think R16.49 per liter with the R1 increase.
You can't get 93 at the coast, (or at least I have never seen anywhere in CT that offers it) the price doesn't matter.
stroller said:
Is coastal octane 93
Click to expand...

Octane 95.

EDIT:
dj_jyno said:
Depends on how the car is set up. Some cars, especially performance cars will see a noticeable improvement in performance when using 95 at Reef altitudes. 95 won't damage your car, but there's not always a real benefit. If you want to take a drive down to the coast, fill up with 95, otherwise it will be slightly lethargic when you get there (due to timing being retarded to prevent engine damage due to knock).

We only get 95 at the coast due to the higher atmospheric pressure. We used to get 97 here, but that has since fallen away after leaded pump fuel was banned. 97 at the coast ~ 95 in Joburg, and 95 at the coast ~ 93 in Joburg.

So, oc, any octane fuel is OK, as long as it's unleaded. LRP is the devil!
Click to expand...
 
Car magazine recommends 95 instead of 93 octane on the Reef for turbo cars while 93 is OK for N/A engines.
What is the difference in price?
What would be the saving over 100,000km for someone who doesn't have money to burn?
 
Last edited:
On which are your car lighter on fuel anyway? There should be a difference I believe?
 
stroller said:
Car magazine recommends 95 instead of 93 octane on the Reef for turbo cars while 93 is OK for N/A engines.
What is the difference in price?
What would be the saving over 100,000km for someone who doesn't have money to burn?
Click to expand...
As said, one can't get 93 here at the coast. :D
I am assuming you're asking someone else. From a quick Google, seems go with what your car suggests, lots report slightly better mileage on 95, depending on what the engine is tuned for.
You're way higher up if in Johannesburg, so your usage/experience will be different.
 
My car's sticker says Unleaded 98 only - can't get it, going on for almost 15 years already, running on 95
 
inanabhay said:
My car's sticker says Unleaded 98 only - can't get it, going on for almost 15 years already, running on 95
Click to expand...
According to Sasol's site that's for racing: https://www.sasol.com/online-store/...utomotive-fuels/sasol-98-unleaded-racing-fuel
And from the economist:
To sum up, if the car’s handbook says that premium petrol is “recommended” (rather than insisting it is “required”), then the engine will automatically adjust itself to run smoothly on a lower octane fuel.
https://www.economist.com/babbage/2012/09/17/difference-engine-who-needs-premium
Click to expand...
 
As from Wednesday 95 octane will cost R17.08 and 93 octane will cost R16.85 in Gauteng.
Over 100,000 km the saving will be R23,000.00.

95 Octane is recommended for turbo motors while an N/A motor can do with 93 octane.
 
stroller said:
As from Wednesday 95 octane will cost R17.08 and 93 octane will cost R16.85 in Gauteng.
Over 100,000 km the saving will be R23,000.00.

95 Octane is recommended for turbo motors while an N/A motor can do with 93 octane.
Click to expand...
Need to also factor in engine maintenance etc.
It's all dependent on the car and you can't only take petrol price only into account.
 
stroller said:
As from Wednesday 95 octane will cost R17.08 and 93 octane will cost R16.85 in Gauteng.
Over 100,000 km the saving will be R23,000.00.

95 Octane is recommended for turbo motors while an N/A motor can do with 93 octane.
Click to expand...

No, the saving with 93 octane is only R2 300. Calculation: 100 000/10 * (17.08-16.85) - assuming 10km/l consumption.
 
SoTrue said:
No, the saving with 93 octane is only R2 300. Calculation: 100 000/10 * (17.08-16.85) - assuming 10km/l consumption.
Click to expand...
stroller said:
As from Wednesday 95 octane will cost R17.08 and 93 octane will cost R16.85 in Gauteng.
Over 100,000 km the saving will be R23,000.00.

95 Octane is recommended for turbo motors while an N/A motor can do with 93 octane.
Click to expand...
Should I Use 93 Or 95?
The AA recommends that, unless you are driving a turbo or supercharged engine, you should opt for 93. What is important to keep in mind is that 95 is more expensive than 93. The does, however, usually give you better mileage. Interestingly, your region is also a big contributor to what fuel you can use. If you live in Johannesburg, it is recommended that you use 93 octane fuel. Coastal regions should use a 95 octane fuel. The high altitude and low air pressure means that there is no real performance gain with a high octane fuel. If you are still somewhat in doubt, the rule of thumb is to use a higher octane fuel in a high performance car. What Happens If I Use The Wrong Octane?
The easiest way to determine whether you should fill up with 93 or 95 is to check your handbook. Do not panic, however, if you use the wrong octane a few times. If you are using an octane level lower than you should, it will decrease performance and fuel efficiency. Prolonged use could eventually cause your engine to knock and cause long-term damage. Using a higher octane grade is simply a waste of energy. This is merely coming out of your pocket and is just more of an expense to you.
Click to expand...
So if your car is rated for 95, you can get slightly higher fuel efficiency as well. So if the ~1.4% more you pay helps with ~1.4% more distance or that reduction in engine maintenance, it might be worth.
If your car is not rated for 95, don't bother, just stay with lower 93 grade. And in higher climate like Johannesburg, you won't get any performance gain, so no point paying the extra.
 
Talking 3 cyl turbo engine. Not the bigger 3L turbo engines.

The switch to smaller turbo engine(3 cyl) is primary to reduce fuel usage and emissions.

The smaller engines make almost the same power as the larger N/A engines they replace. The bearings are smaller than a similar power N/A engine.

This means more load and stress on the bearings.

I once drove a N/A car that had over 850 000kms. (engine was unopened). Just regular services. This is unlikely with any turbo engine.

I would say a N/A engine should last longer than the newer 3 cyl engine. Small N/A engines are usually less stressed than small turbo engines. Turbo engines run hotter cyl temps

The rebuild of a turbo can be reasonable. But it is expense you do not have with a N/A engine.

New turbo from OEM is usually eye watering expensive. Then there is the labour costs to remove and refit turbo.

Turbo at the reef is a win.
 
silver6933 said:
Talking 3 cyl turbo engine. Not the bigger 3L turbo engines.

The switch to smaller turbo engine(3 cyl) is primary to reduce fuel usage and emissions.

The smaller engines make almost the same power as the larger N/A engines they replace. The bearings are smaller than a similar power N/A engine.

This means more load and stress on the bearings.

I once drove a N/A car that had over 850 000kms. (engine was unopened). Just regular services. This is unlikely with any turbo engine.

I would say a N/A engine should last longer than the newer 3 cyl engine. Small N/A engines are usually less stressed than small turbo engines. Turbo engines run hotter cyl temps

The rebuild of a turbo can be reasonable. But it is expense you do not have with a N/A engine.

New turbo from OEM is usually eye watering expensive. Then there is the labour costs to remove and refit turbo.

Turbo at the reef is a win.
Click to expand...
Would one then expect to get a better trade in on a similar model N/A engine than a turbo petrol?
 
Johnatan56 said:
So if the ~1.4% more you pay helps with ~1.4% more distance or that reduction in engine maintenance, .
Click to expand...

Regarding regular N/A engines (excluding high perfromance turbo and N/A Engines and large engines > 3.0L)

At the reef running 93 will get you more km per liter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X