[HRV4ME]

Having owned a vehicle now with a turbo engine, I can honestly say I sure hope they do not put one in the HRV. Yes, there will always be those that want them, think they need them, etc.

However, the one thing I like about Hondas is the simplicity...for isn't that what they have always excelled with?

From my experience, a turbo engine is obviously more expensive, but above all impacts ownership costs significantly due to the addition maintenance, typically lower reliability, and extra costs for service. .

 

[Ex-cape]

If they need to make an "Si" performance version, fine, but I am not a fan for mainstream turbocharging as previously mentioned here: http://www.hrvforum.com/forum/289-h...on/4898-who-planning-buy-hrv-6.html#post47001

 

[Bicepeak]

I don't think Honda has any intention of putting a turbo in every HR-V. It will just be an option or another version of the car. It is wise for Honda to offer that choice.

 

[idearat]

I read a great quote once: "People buy horsepower, but they drive torque.". Turbos allow them to raise published horsepower while keeping consumption low, but is the resulting power really usable in normal driving? Sure, it might help in those ego and hormone fuelled stoplight drags, but is that worth the cost and complexity? And does a turbo with laggy, peaky power really make sense in an awd car, in any conditions where the awd is needed?

I'm sure they're much better than they used to be, but the last time I drove a turbo the lag drove me crazy. I get great satisfaction from driving a standard transmission car with ultimate smoothness and precision, constantly adapting to traffic and conditions, power and momentum and braking all harmonizing like instruments in an orchestra. When I'm 'on' it's like a dance, the car and I as one.

Whoops... waxed a bit rhapsodic. Bottom line: turbos are like dance partners with lots of energy but two left feet and no rhythm.

I suspect the main appeal of turbos is the badge on the rear.

 

[ddemetra]

I've never owner a turbo engine, but have heard :
- reduced engine life
- Extra maintenance
- Less reliable

I"ve seriously considered the new 2015 VW sportwagen as an alternate to the HR-V, but the 1.8 turbo has me second guessing.

 

[Red]

Im not worried about Turbo Hondas because they are Hondas Turbos. What I mean is that Honda was last on the FI bandwagon, Honda moves slowly, to me that indicates that Honda doesn't make a move without a sure foot.

Based on how bullet proof and over built the old gen engines were, I have just as much faith in the new Earth Dreams crop...

 

[Rory]

There will be ta urbo version in the UK.

Diesel though. >

Somewhat baffled by the comments on additional maintenance and service? They do fail though, but usually only at high mileage.

 

[Red]

There will be ta urbo version in the UK.

Diesel though. >

Somewhat baffled by the comments on additional maintenance and service? They do fail though, but usually only at high mileage.

Agreed, especially considering the main fault with small turbo engines is carbon buildup from Direct Injection. And thats not the fault of turbocharging...

 

[HRV4ME]

Yes, think you nailed it. Appreciate your thoughts and sharing.

I read a great quote once: "People buy horsepower, but they drive torque.". Turbos allow them to raise published horsepower while keeping consumption low, but is the resulting power really usable in normal driving? Sure, it might help in those ego and hormone fuelled stoplight drags, but is that worth the cost and complexity? And does a turbo with laggy, peaky power really make sense in an awd car, in any conditions where the awd is needed?

I'm sure they're much better than they used to be, but the last time I drove a turbo the lag drove me crazy. I get great satisfaction from driving a standard transmission car with ultimate smoothness and precision, constantly adapting to traffic and conditions, power and momentum and braking all harmonizing like instruments in an orchestra. When I'm 'on' it's like a dance, the car and I as one.

Whoops... waxed a bit rhapsodic. Bottom line: turbos are like dance partners with lots of energy but two left feet and no rhythm.

I suspect the main appeal of turbos is the badge on the rear.

 

[TrueNorth]

I don't see why you are so against a turbo engine. If its a good turbo engine than why would it be a problem?

The maintenance thing just doesn't sound like a big problem to me. Make sure to get regular check-ups and it'll be fine.

 

[HRV4ME]

Have you on ever owned a car yet with a turbo engine?

As for the reason, look over my previous thoughts and others for valid concerns.

I don't see why you are so against a turbo engine. If its a good turbo engine than why would it be a problem?

The maintenance thing just doesn't sound like a big problem to me. Make sure to get regular check-ups and it'll be fine.

 

[Leon]

So...don't get one with a turbo?

I would not ask Honda not to include it as an option if others want it, for whatever reason lol.

 

[HRV4ME]

Yes, all valid issues.

I've never owner a turbo engine, but have heard :
- reduced engine life
- Extra maintenance
- Less reliable

I"ve seriously considered the new 2015 VW sportwagen as an alternate to the HR-V, but the 1.8 turbo has me second guessing.

 

[idearat]

So...don't get one with a turbo?

I would not ask Honda not to include it as an option if others want it, for whatever reason lol.

For my part, I agree... my post was about my experience (some years ago now), and not to suggest Honda shouldn't make them or offer them in any car they want. For all I know the new crop are silky-smooth and effortless and I'd love it once I drove it.

But I'm happy it's launching with a normally-aspirated engine anyway, and I'm sure the power will suffice for my needs.

 

[hal9000]

I doubt you have anything to worry about. If they put a turbo in the HRV I doubt it would be the standard engine. I'm thinking something similar to what they offered with the Element. Have your fake rugged look for the LX,EX. Then lower it .5" add turbo,big wheels, paint cladding and call it an SC.

 

[HRV4ME]

Agree. It's like expecting a turbo in the Fit because some think it's "sluggish".

But I'm happy it's launching with a normally-aspirated engine anyway, and I'm sure the power will suffice for my needs.

 

[HRV4ME]

Let's hope not.

I doubt you have anything to worry about. If they put a turbo in the HRV I doubt it would be the standard engine. I'm thinking something similar to what they offered with the Element. Have your fake rugged look for the LX,EX. Then lower it .5" add turbo,big wheels, paint cladding and call it an SC.

 

[Ex-MA Hole]

I wish they would offer it with a turbo. Owned one previously, would buy again.

 

[Ex-cape]

To clarify what I said earlier, if they want to offer a turbo as a performance option fine. I just hope they don't follow the popular trend of replacing simple, reliable powerplants with smaller displacement, turbocharged engines to gain fuel efficiency across the board. Ford has invested heavily in this mindset with Eco-boost, GM is following along too. The jury is out on how these engines will endure over the long haul relative to their simpler counterparts. Elevated operating temperatures and 100,000+ RPM rotating parts are bound to challenge the better metallurgy and lubricant technology that gave us 200,000 trouble-free mile vehicles.

 

[HRV4ME]

Well stated.

To clarify what I said earlier, if they want to offer a turbo as a performance option fine. I just hope they don't follow the popular trend of replacing simple, reliable powerplants with smaller displacement, turbocharged engines to gain fuel efficiency across the board. Ford has invested heavily in this mindset with Eco-boost, GM is following along too. The jury is out on how these engines will endure over the long haul relative to their simpler counterparts. Elevated operating temperatures and 100,000+ RPM rotating parts are bound to challenge the better metallurgy and lubricant technology that gave us 200,000 trouble-free mile vehicles.