Sorry I meant Hyandai Elantra GT and Nissan Versa Note. Wife has some mobility issues so step one is ease of getting into and out of the driver’s seat. I loved the Forester, even at 30 large, but she thought the driver’s seat was very uncomfortable. She knows the days of Tracer/Escort wagons availability is over (although they still sell them in Europe and they’re gorgeous).
The Chevrolet Trax is about $10,000 less than the Buick Encore. They both share the same base platform, the Buick is more luxurious. You could put options onto the Trax and make it luxurious too, and it would likely be less than a roughly equivalent Encore.
We have had an Elantra GT for a couple of years and I like it a lot. It’s comfortable, nicely equipped, and the back seat is a bit roomier than that of the Mazda3. That was the main other car we considered and would have been quite happy with it, too. It is likely to get slightly better gas mileage and handles much better than the Elantra. You’re right that little wagons are effectively extinct, the Jetta being a rare survivor. A few years ago the selection of hatchbacks was also lousy, but at least there are a few plausible options. You might also check out the Scion xB, which is boxy and very roomy. The Kia Soul is also quite roomy for its size, though the styling is a bit unusual. If you’re somewhere all-wheel-drive is an advantage the Subaru Impreza hatchback is pretty nice, though the AWD adds complexity and weight so gas mileage is usually a bit worse. I would stay away from the Versa Note as recent Nissans have not been doing very well on reliability. I suspect the resale value will also be poor.
Versa’s do well around here,reliability is subjective,todays unreliable cars are yesteryears reliability champs,avoid the issue buy a Fit,the highly affordable Versa,was dumbed down a little too much for my taste.
Oh,BTW,turbos do well at higher elevations
In the early days of turbo’s ('70’s and '80’s) reliability and longevity were issues. Saab really set a new standard for turbo charging in the early and mid-'80’s. Their secret was to design the motor from the start knowing it was to have a turbo. Other manufacturers had just added turbo’s to existing motors with less success.
I had an '87 Saab turbo with a manual transmission and it was very quick and fun to drive. It also got decent mpg and held up fine. Today’s motors with turbo’s were designed from the get go to have a turbo - stronger pistons, better manifolds, better computer controls, etc. For the 1st 100K to 150K miles the turbo will not have reliability issues in today’s cars. Even the more frequent oil changes are less significant (compared to a naturally aspirated motor) due to better cooling of the turbo, better oil flow into the turbo, better oils, and cleaner running motors that reduce oil contamination. Just follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for oil type, weight, and change frequency and you are OK.
When a turbo car ages into it’s later years and higher miles then a turbo charger can show the effects of wear and tear. A turbo has essentially 2 fan blades on the same shaft. One fan is spun by the exhaust gases passing by it. One the other side of the shaft is another fan that pushes ambient air into the cylinders. Moving more air under pressure into the cylinders in effect makes a cylinder “larger” meaning more power each time the cylinder fires. It allows a smaller motor to act like a bigger motor as far as producing power. Those extra “stresses” on the motor are now accounted for in design so the pistons, connecting rods, cooling system, are all capable of handling the extra forces and last a long time.
The turbo itself eventually will wear out. It is spinning at very high speeds, typically 10,000 to 15,000 rpm and that demands a lot of the bearings. Also the exhaust side is exposed to very high temps and extra “dirt” from combustion, which is a tough place for a bearing to live out it’s life. There is also extra “plumbing” involved and a thing called a “waste gate” the takes off excess pressure from the turbo so the combustion process happens just as the computer controls dictate to reduce pollution.
The turbo itself and all the plumbing and controls associated with it will eventually need some extra attention compared to a naturally aspirated motor. But, we are talking about many years and miles down the road from when the car was first put into service. Over those years the turbo has produced lots of power while increasing fuel efficiency.
If the OP is talking about buying a new car I’d recommend one with a turbo. Even if he or she doesn’t drive the car hard, the turbo will still be a benefit. If the OP is looking at cars with 100K and more miles and doesn’t have a budget for a few big repair bills on such an old car - then I’d pass on a turbo.
Uncle T, excellent post. You forgot about the shaft bearing cooking its oil from the exhaust heat and speed (you dropped a zero when posting the turbo rpms), but you posted an excellent post.
I might also add that the oil lubricating the shaft bearing can (when the seals are worn) get pushed from the high-pressure exhaust side to the low-pressure induction side, causing other mischief.
Fortunately, turbos today are far more resilient and long lasting than the early versions. Perhaps synthetic oil is a factor there too.
Holy cow, are you saying turbos spin at 100,000 RPM? That’s a lot.
Yep
Yes, Bing, I am. And faster.
And yes, that’s fast.
I stand corrected - in the late '60’s my brother’s college professor was given a Wankel rotory engine with the task of testing ceramic materials to see if a cylinder seal(s) could be made to work and hold up to the heat, wear, and stress. It was a small displacement motor and easily spun up to 15,000 to 20,000 rpm. That’s apparently where I pulled the rpm number out of memory. The little Wankel was impressive in power. They put it into a small motorcycle and it spun the back tire so fast that several rear tires were shredded in a hurry. Alas, the seals they tried out didn’t last long and that was indeed a major engineering issue with the rotary motor.
No biggie.
Those Wankels were a fantastic concept. Eliminating all the energy losses inherent in all those parts constantly changing direction (the reciprocating parts) is definitely a worthwhile goal, and ol’ Felix was the first to figure out how to do so in an internal combustion engine. Figuring out how to use the inertial energy to supplement the combustion energy rather than just accepting the lost inertial energy was genius. It’s really unfortunate that they could never seal the apex seals sufficient to pass modern emissions requirements.
Those with the most reliable motors, Toyota and Honda among them, are reluctant to make turbos standard fare in their cars. I would not venture down that lane for now.
While I don’t doubt the reliability of turbo engine, I’d rather have a small, naturally aspirated engine generating the necessary power by revving to high rpm–just like those 8000rpm Honda engines back in the 90s. This is the minimalist approach to power that requires properly sorted out lubrication, valve springs, and connecting rods. When plumbing, intercoolers, and turbos aren’t necessary, the entire package can be smaller, allows a lowered hood, thus improving aerodynamics. With the advent of wide ratio multi speed transmission, lower gearing can augment the small engine’s inherently low torque.
Been my experience around here when the turbo went,the cheapskate owners wouldnt replace them(they are not that expensive to rebuild),older Subarus and Mustangs used to creep around sans turbo(dont know if the newer cars will run with them out of the system or not) But the older turbo engines usually had a turbo as an afterthought.
The tiniest cars are bigger nowadays due to the increaded crash crumple zones needed to meet occupant protection standards and the ol’ garage wasn’t built to fit many of these. ( my two ‘‘car’’ garage is merely a one truck garage. )
…with all of these unknown potential maintainence requirements being brought up here…I’d advise visiting the dealers and pulling the owner’s manual out to see the answers to many of these things like : fuel & oil type, oil and other fluid change intervals, timing belt or chain etc.
You could pre-answer your concerns in this manner once you take your tape measure… ( YES, take it with you so they know you’re not kidding )…to the dealers.
Ken, I too have an old garage (1940) made to fit the old norms. My current car, a 2005 tC, is considered small by current standards, yet it barely fits, whereas my old '91 Camry and my '89 Toyota Pickup had plenty of room. I guess when I get my Bentley I’ll have to build a new garage…
I could not fit my 79 Chevy pickup in my one car garage at the old house. The mirrors made it too wide and were not swing-lock .
old house ? …1976 !
Wankel had an interesting idea, but not without some inherent problems. The combustion chamber has a lot more surface area (on the sides) per volume than a piston engine. That means loss of heat and inefficiency. The rotary seems fated to be an interesting failure except possibly for specialized uses. It has been suggested they might be reasonable range extenders for battery vehicles as they are small and comparatively inexpensive and the inefficiency would matter less in an engine that wouldn’t even be used for most everyday driving.
There is really no way a range extender so called can be as efficient as a common hybrid. Utilizing the gas engine both as a way to generate electricity and at times as a driving force is the most efficient way of motivating an automobile when not using electricity alone. The Wankle is an inefficient, polluting ICE thus far. It may be compact and it maybe simple…but it likes gas. Hybrid gas motors are themselves efficient motors. Why use an inefficient gas burner to generate electricity when gas mileage is your goal. For a home generator where simplicity and low cost and occasional use…sure, inefficient motors are used.
I would compare a Wankle to a two stroke engine. Hopefully, they both end up in the same place…the museum. There has been enough effort to make them feasible and practical and NO ONE has done it save for a novelty sports car application gimmick and a few other minor uses and two stroke replacements…like snowmobiles.