turbos (petrol) in froggies
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    nJm
    nJm is offline
    Guru nJm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,930

    turbos (petrol) in froggies

    Why doesn't PSA offer a turbo on any of its cars anymore? From what I understand, the 505 (or CX?)was the first production model to get one, and then a turbo was offered on the 205, 405, 406, Xantia, XM etc. Reason I'm interested is I've spent the last three days driving a Volvo S60 2.4T AWD sedan. I have never driven a car with an engine like this. It has bags of torque (285nm @ 1800rpm - 5000rpm) with enough effortless performance to shame most BMWs and even some of the newer Commodores. However, unlike a large V8, this 5cyl turbo manages to use between 6.5-8.8L/100km while on the freeway. Over the past three days (which has included a lot of heavy foot driving around town, some high speed driving and normal freeway cruising) it has averaged around 9.5L/100km. Very impressive. If PSA offered a low pressure turbo like this in the 407 etc then they could have a winner on their hands.

    <small>[ 13 July 2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: nJm ]</small>

    Advertisement
    Nick
    1983 Peugeot 505 GR


    "All of its cars from the 1.1 litre 205 through the ugly duckling 309 to the 2.2 litre 505 GTi had a rightness and a righteousness about them that turned every humdrum drive into a journey. Someone, I once wrote, in the bowels of Peugeot understands handling and how a chassis should feel." - Jeremy Clarkson

  2. #2
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,370
    Hi Nick,

    the way of the future appears to be HDi turbo deisels, dunno about you but if I had a choice of a new froggie, it would without doubt be a HDi turbo deisel C5. If there was a C5 turbo petrol I seriously doubt it'd change my opinion.

    I own one turbo charged car, and to be honest, I have more fun driving the 2cv around town. Foot flat to the floor winding it out to the redline through the gears, scaring sh!+ out of everyone as I give my elbow gravel rash around the corners (haven't had anyone manage to pass me on a corner yet ). The turbo, there's just a frenetic gearchange from 1st to second, and every speed limit in my area (except 100km/h zones) can be reached effortlessly. and then .... you chuck it in 4th or 5th and where you point the steering wheel it goes. You try some round-abouts at 60km/h and it just goes around with barely any understeer... Much more fun to have the ID or 2cv on it's door handles, while you madly try to balance the car on the accelerator with the rediculous huge grin on your face dance dance

    HDi turbo deisel, I can certainly see this is the way of the future, enormous torque, great fuel economy, effortless

    Lotsa power sounds like great fun, but really it's just really frustrating 'cos you can never 'open her up' without risking instant license lost

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/citro%EBn-forum/90325-best-project-car-you-have-ever-seen.html
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  3. #3
    Fellow Frogger! AlsPug504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    310
    In terms of petrol and diesel as far as fuel use goes. I think that what nick has said is of interest.

    The trade off with the HDI's is that it looses power (60kw for the one I have seen) for its fuel economy. Which results in you stepping on the gas harder so the average fuel use goes up.

    I reckon Honda has it sowen up with the integra VI. It gets 7.0l to the hundred average and offers 118kw's. With good torque. This results in you not fangen it so hard so ring the performance out of it so the average fuel use does not rise. and so economy is better.

  4. #4
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    3,626
    ALSPug,

    The thing with diesels is you don't need foot flat to the floor at all. The torque is just there - so readily accessible. I can hardly call the 5 or 6L/100km for a C5 high consumption. HDi's in fact haven't lost power, they've gained power in a massive way compared to previous generation diesels.

    Mind you... I wouldn't mind a new Megane II with the 2.0L turbo petrol I've seen reviewed wink I would probably settle for a diesel 1.9L DCi 6sp manual though. mmm 6 gears.

    Derek

  5. #5
    Guru davemcbean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Camden NSW & Selwyn NZ
    Posts
    2,334
    I think the reason why Nick called the thread "turbos (petrol) in froggies" was so we wouldn't have yet another thread focusing almost totally on the turbodiesels.

    Dave
    NZ Fleet
    1976 504 Ti
    1984 205 GT twin carb
    1991 205 SI 1.6GTI motor
    1994 106 Xsi
    1996 Mondeo V6
    Aus Fleet
    1955 203C
    1997 Civic Cxi (great allrounder- revy, flexible, nimble, comfortable , economical, simple and durable )

  6. #6
    1000+ Posts Rod Hagen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,630
    As far as I know the 406 is still offered in Europe with a turbo 2litre petrol motor , Nick. Maybe one will apear on the 407 as well. They seem to put them on their mid / larger cars generally.

    In Australia I suspect that its simply a matter of the economies of model rationalisation. They are alrfeady selling the 406 with three different engines - the V6 , the 2 litre and the diesel. Any more probably wouldn't make sense in a market this size.

    Cheers

    Rod
    Rod's Home Page

    Rod's car page

    Peugeot 407 SV HDi estate 2008, Peugeot 407 SV Hdi Sedan 2006, Peugeot 406 ST (deadish), Peugeot 307 XSE, - Previously 403s, 404, 504, 505 sLI Wagons, 306 XSi, Renault 12, Citroen DSpecial

  7. #7
    Fellow Frogger! AlsPug504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    310
    I would not disagree with you deka moden diesels are very good as you say. You're right they have gained power.

    However relative to the 118kws avalible in the integra there is a 58 or so Kw differance.

    As a performance option what I am suggesting would also be good. The basic honda engine is very good. With a larger sized turbo, a lot more power would be available, without fuel economy sacrifice.

    Honda aint froggy I know, However it is the best I have seen in this regard.

    Als

    <small>[ 14 July 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: AlsPug504 ]</small>

  8. #8
    1000+ Posts Rod Hagen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,630
    Sorry Als, but isn't the Integra a lightweight coupé that comes in at something like 300 kilograms less than a 406 HDi? Isn't its torque figure somewhere like 65 Nm down on the 406 too?

    Its barely any heavier than a 206 in fact,. which has better fuel consumption!

    Isn't this an "apples and oranges" comparison? Or am I thinking about a different Integra?

    Cheers

    Rod

    <small>[ 14 July 2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Rod Hagen ]</small>
    Rod's Home Page

    Rod's car page

    Peugeot 407 SV HDi estate 2008, Peugeot 407 SV Hdi Sedan 2006, Peugeot 406 ST (deadish), Peugeot 307 XSE, - Previously 403s, 404, 504, 505 sLI Wagons, 306 XSi, Renault 12, Citroen DSpecial

  9. #9
    Fellow Frogger! AlsPug504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    310
    So far as I can tell from the info I got, its 1200kg 2.0litre and I ve sat in it. Its not that small. Year 2001 - 2 model. I also know when I did the comparison, the apples were comparable. both are manual. The 406 is well in the ball park. It too comes as a coupe.

    Als

    Even so if you do sums 100kg differents and a drag co efficent of .047 a 1200kg vehical vs 1300kg vehical moving at 100kay, 15% thermal efficent. 1200kg requires 28.3kwh of energy which translates to 2.9litres of fuel per hour.
    1300kg requires 32.7 Kwhs and 3.39 litres of fuel per hour. I dont see why weight should be a big problem when you consider that there is room for 100% improvement. My figures are very conservative.

    <small>[ 14 July 2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: AlsPug504 ]</small>

  10. #10
    nJm
    nJm is offline
    Guru nJm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,930
    The Integra you're talking about has 191nm @ 4000 rpm which is quite impressive. However, it doesn't come close to a low pressure turbo. There is a new volvo 5 cylinder coming out, a 2.5L unit with 320nm @ 1500rpm! And the torque curve is flat, all the way up to 5000rpm. In the previous version I drove (a 2.4 with 285nm), it had the same amount of torque at 2000rpm as it did at 5000rpm. You could floor it from 60 in 5th gear and it would still accelerate up steep hills. Totally incredible. Mind you, I will give honda credit for getting so much torque out of a high reving engine - the mid 90s Honda CRX with a Vtec 1.6L had 150nm @ 7000rpm!
    Nick
    1983 Peugeot 505 GR


    "All of its cars from the 1.1 litre 205 through the ugly duckling 309 to the 2.2 litre 505 GTi had a rightness and a righteousness about them that turned every humdrum drive into a journey. Someone, I once wrote, in the bowels of Peugeot understands handling and how a chassis should feel." - Jeremy Clarkson

  11. #11
    1000+ Posts Rod Hagen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,630
    1160 kilos, with highway fuel consumption
    5.2 l/100km * and city Fuel Consumption 8*l/100km for the 2001 Integra

    compared to highway fuel consumption
    4.6l/100km*city and 7.4*l/100km for the 406 HDi, which weighs in at 1410 kg*

    The 406 HDi puts out 255 Nm compared to the Integras 191 Nm

    A 206 XR 1.6 l weighs 1100 kilos (just 60 kilos less than the Integra) and returns 5.2 litres Highway and 7.2 city.

    Cheers

    Rod
    Rod's Home Page

    Rod's car page

    Peugeot 407 SV HDi estate 2008, Peugeot 407 SV Hdi Sedan 2006, Peugeot 406 ST (deadish), Peugeot 307 XSE, - Previously 403s, 404, 504, 505 sLI Wagons, 306 XSi, Renault 12, Citroen DSpecial

  12. #12
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,370
    Yeah,

    a guy at work has a brand new Integra, I haven't even bothered to sit in it yet. Talk about a bland looking peice of merde. It's a tiny car, and only 2door from memory. How could anyone possibly compare (it's very poor for it's tiny size) fuel economy with a large Peugeot?? How about a compare it's fuel economy with a mazda II. Don't they get about 4-5litres/100km's. They only weigh a couple of hundred kilo less than the Integra. Why does the integra get such woeful fuel economy in camparsion, when the Pugeots and Citroen large cars can equal & better it's ecomony.

    I should get me an Integra, what a brilliant way to blend into the modern mediocre traffic :p :p

    Man I love this sh!+ stiring stuff roll_lau roll_lau

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  13. #13
    Sense Pug307's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,355
    Rod Hagen:
    As far as I know the 406 is still offered in Europe with a turbo 2litre petrol motor , Nick. Maybe one will apear on the 407 as well. They seem to put them on their mid / larger cars generally.
    I think the 2.0 Turbo died when the D9 appeared.

    Peugeot 307 XS 1.6
    Aussiefrogged in MEL, PER, SYD, BNE & ADL.
    Rendezvous Adelaide 2005

  14. #14
    Sense Pug307's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,355
    I think the problem with the Integra and many of their super high specific power output engines is that they're designed for the racing track, not day to day driving.

    The beauty of the low pressure turbo in the S60 is that you have the "low rev, why bother changing gears because I have so much torque a sniff above idle" characteristics of a good turbodiesel, combined with the high rev punch of a good engine - max torque from 1800-5000rpm, it's just brilliant, pulls great from anywhere, but doesn't get wheezy at the top end. If you're driving normally, the fuel consumption is very reasonable too. If you think max torque from 1800 is good, that's the old engine. The current engine which has been out for almost a year has 320Nm from 1500rpm.

    When you look at the torque curve of these engines, it's hard to miss what's so great about them. You don't have that typical small multivalve engine issue of needing revs. You don't have that problem of larger older two valvers becoming asthmatic as the revs rise. It's really ideal, because the engine pulls just as well near idle as it does near the redline. Plus who can argue with turbo whooosh

    The problem with some of the Honda VTEC and other super high output sporting engines is that they're almost useless at low revs. The problem with the diesels is that when you rev them, you're wasting your time. Good LPTs manage to marry the strong points of both. They're smoother than diesels too.

    I can't argue with low pressure turbo petrol engines. Good economy and good performance whenever you need it. Or want it.

    Peugeot 307 XS 1.6
    Aussiefrogged in MEL, PER, SYD, BNE & ADL.
    Rendezvous Adelaide 2005

  15. #15
    Good Sport danielsydney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    4,917
    I dont want to start another posting war but the Saab range have the light turbo's. They have heaps of torque,and quite luxurious.

  16. #16
    nJm
    nJm is offline
    Guru nJm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,930
    Yes they do. I haven't driven a Saab before, but from the reviews I've read in british magazines, the new Saab 9-3 isn't very exciting to drive, even in Aero form. From what I gather Volvo is still more of the driver's car (lol that sounds so funny!).
    Nick
    1983 Peugeot 505 GR


    "All of its cars from the 1.1 litre 205 through the ugly duckling 309 to the 2.2 litre 505 GTi had a rightness and a righteousness about them that turned every humdrum drive into a journey. Someone, I once wrote, in the bowels of Peugeot understands handling and how a chassis should feel." - Jeremy Clarkson

  17. #17
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,370
    Yep, low blow turbo's are great.

    My CX is basicly the very first generation of this design and was picked on at the time for not having staggering power output and frightful acceleration (like other cars of the time). But read any reviews, and they rave about what a brilliant turbo installation it is. None of the nothing ... nothing ... nothing ... WHAM, were away with screaching tires and running over the car infront like the Saabs, Renaults and BMW turbo charged cars of the era. Infact the Renault 25 V6 turbo back then sound frightful eek! eek!

    Things have come a long way with turbo design in the last 20years, they have variable vanes and all sort of stuff on the turbine itself. So where my CX's turbo doesn't start to blow until 1800rpm, and only generates serious amounts of boost from 2200rpm on. The current turbo's tend to start blowing at about 1500rpm (generating useful boost at that too). Upshot in when the CX when new it generated as much torque as the biggest Rover V8, but at 1000rpm LESS...

    Currently they generate even more torque but it's a dead flat torque curve from about 1500rpm. Not even high capacity V8's can claim that dance dance

    Forget 'power' guys, it's all torque, that's what makes driving effortless

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  18. #18
    Fellow Frogger! Paul Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Camperdown, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    624
    Hi All,

    I drove a 2.0 XM Turbo on the weekend - would have been a great car but for the Autobox! Every time the Turbo kicked in the damn thing changed up a gear! If you held it in third it was fine, but there's not that much point to it all then. (Much like the Auto SM I also drove that day - a most unhappy match - but that's another tale wink )

    It did go pretty well for a big car with a small engine when you hustled it - and it sounded much better than the plain 2.0 XM, which to me sounds disappointingly tinny.

    In France and the UK it is the CO2 tax that will kill these engines - you can get as much performance out of a diesel with less CO2, so they cost much less to run (and the owner pays the tax remember eek! ).

    In this country the small displacement turbos are always going to be outsold by the V6s - the I've got more cylinders than you mentality .

    That said, I gather from others that the Xantia CT Turbo is a much happier setup than the XM - a few hundred less kilos makes all the difference.

    Paul
    Paul Smith

    1974 DS23 EFI BW Auto
    1974 G Special 1220


    http://www.simplicitas.com.au

  19. #19
    Real cars have hydraulics DoubleChevron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Ballarat,Vic,Aust.
    Posts
    16,370
    Hi Paul,

    actualy I think you'd be dissapointed with the Xantia if your were after acceleration. 'CT' stands for Constant Torque wink According to the specs I've seen the 16valve Xantia is FASTER than the CT turbo !!!

    However checkout the torque the CT produces eek! eek! I think you'd probably start in 1st, then immediatly change to 5th and accellerate away

    If you want accelleration try a Series I BX16valve or a CX GTi Turbo (your welcome to drive mine if your ever in the area again wink ).

    seeya,
    Shane L.
    'Cit' homepage:
    Citroen Workshop
    Proper cars--
    '85 Series II CX2500 GTi Turbo I
    '63 ID19 http://www.aussiefrogs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90325
    '72 DS21 ie 5spd pallas (last looked at ... about 15years ago)
    '78 GS1220 pallas
    '92 Range Rover Classic ... 5spd manual.

    Yay ... No Slugomatics


    Modern Junk:
    '07 Poogoe 407 HDi 6spd manual

  20. #20
    Fellow Frogger! AlsPug504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    310
    Rod Hagen:
    Sorry Als, but isn't the Integra a lightweight coupé that comes in at something like 300 kilograms less than a 406 HDi? Isn't its torque figure somewhere like 65 Nm down on the 406 too?

    Its barely any heavier than a 206 in fact,. which has better fuel consumption!

    Isn't this an "apples and oranges" comparison? Or am I thinking about a different Integra?

    Cheers

    Rod
    You may be right. But integra is petrol NOT diesel. I belive the subject was on petrol.

    Reason I reckon a big turbo particularly exhaust housing is good is so you dont keep driving in Boost. Greater airflow means more fuel.

    From my work recently, not on the forum! Petrol will have a better opportunity at greater fuel economy at far greater torque. Tell you more after my dyno runs.

    Als

  21. #21
    1000+ Posts Rod Hagen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,630
    Sorry if I misunderstood, Als. I assumed you were talking about the diesel because of your post saying:

    The trade off with the HDI's is that it looses power (60kw for the one I have seen) for its fuel economy. Which results in you stepping on the gas harder so the average fuel use goes up.

    I reckon Honda has it sowen up with the integra VI. It gets 7.0l to the hundred average and offers 118kw's. With good torque. This results in you not fangen it so hard so ring the performance out of it so the average fuel use does not rise. and so economy is better.
    The HDi is, of course, a diesel.

    Cheers

    Rod
    Rod's Home Page

    Rod's car page

    Peugeot 407 SV HDi estate 2008, Peugeot 407 SV Hdi Sedan 2006, Peugeot 406 ST (deadish), Peugeot 307 XSE, - Previously 403s, 404, 504, 505 sLI Wagons, 306 XSi, Renault 12, Citroen DSpecial

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •