Here’s a novel concept. IF turbos became the norm, they would be more affordable.
-
Equipment manufactured in smaller lots cost more, because the tooling and production cost vs. the amount of parts produced is greater.
-
Take that exact same amount of tooling and prep, and instead up the number of units produced into the millions. The cost decreases significantly.
-
I’ve designed custom tools in the past (what I was schooled to do originally). The cost to produce one prototype I’ve done was $16,000. The cost of production was in the hundreds, if hundreds were to be produced.
-
Also, consider that more commonplace turbos would mean more third-party manufacturers will be producing replacements for certain makes of cars. They will be more readily available and competition will also shave off cost.
-
In short, Turbos will become less of an exotic item, and more of just another a common part, like a master cylinder or altenator.
-
…and don’t jibe me about them spinning in the tens of thousands of rpms. While that sounds extreme, it’s not really anything special to produce anymore. Not on a mass scale.

displacement. less parts to break.

I suppose the addition of a turbo/supercharger will add $2G’s to a new car/truck. I would like it if GM put a turbo in the Colorado like back in the day with the Syclone’s.

This means it’s going to be that much easier to tune cars and get more power out of them. SWEET.
.
Most factory-turbocharged vehicles have forged internals, which means they can take a bit of a beating. So, all you need is an aftermarket boost controller to up the boost level, bigger injectors, and some tuning, and you’ll easily be making more than the stock horsepower.

Bigger displacement… think about it people less moving parts means less parts to break. Hey VW guys ever find out what it costs to replace your turbo in a 1.8t. Yeah lots of Duechmarks

My Jeep already runs on premium and gets 10mpg, so you tell me what i want.
Also here is a little math:
lets say you have a 20 gal. tank and 87 is $3.29 and 93 is $3.59:
3.29*20=$65.80, your V8 gets 13mpg, 65.80/13=$5.06
3.59*20=$71.80, your turbo 4 gets 23mpg, 71.80/23=$3.12
(if you do not understand or i am a complete loony and fucked something up, TOO BAD!!!)

Aspirating engines with turbochargers often gives huge boosts in power. Also, most stock cars can often be tuned to squeeze out more power. No reason auto makers can’t do on assembly lines what everyday people do in their garages or driveways.

This way automakers can continue to cling tenaciously to producing IC cars, deny people a change that’s really needed in what powers them.
-
Sounds like a plan…

No replacement for displacement they say. Really though, I already got a factory turboed Spirit R/T pushing 224 stock. Gets 30+mpg and is almost every bit as quick as a new Mustang GT I’m rebuilding it. I could go all out and break 500hp off of just 2.2l of displacement, but I’ll keep her between 300-350 because I want to keep a factory look. I’ll keep my smaller cars for daily transportation. I’m still craving a V8 for the weekends though.

Turbos will typically require the higher octane gas, so more costly, but more mileage, it might all wash out, but i’m positive.

Well….
.
I’m a fan of both.
.
I love my 5.7 liter, and have plans to stroke it to 383 CI.
.
That said, I just sold our Supercharged 3.8L Riviera. That car was pretty quick, and with a few minor modifications, they can run really quick.
.
Also, one of my all-time-favorite cars is the 1987 Buick Regal Grand National.
.
Buick did some amazing stuff back in the day. Those cars were faster and quicker than any other car. The Corvette guys hated them.
.
I guess it didn’t help that a lot of the GN guys had bumper stickers that read: “I brake for Corvettes” !!!
.
As long as cars have performance, and don’t all become hybrid-boring-drones, I’ll be happy.
.
I don’t want the best performance car out there to be the Prius “R”!