[Ayoob]

From what I hear I should gain a boost in fuel efficiency if I'm not drag racing my car. I get 26mpg now, so a boost in efficiency would pay off in a relatively short period of time with $4 gas. I don't drive much now, but I will be driving much more in a year or two.

I might consider adding a turbo to my 1998 Ford Explorer if I can get some efficiency out of it that would prove cost effective over two years or so.

The turbo kits are about $700 each, and I'd expect another $500 for installation and QC. For $2400, that's a total of 600 gallons of gas to break even. That would mean roughly a total of 13K miles between both vehicles. I could rack that up in a year or a year and a half. I think it might be worth it.

Any thoughts?

[SeaGypsy]

No experience with turbo petrol, but turbo diesel is the ants pants when it comes to volume/weight/distance. It is possible to get up to 30% better efficiency with heated forced air through furnace convection burners in general, so I guess the figures would be in the same/ 22% - 30% saving. Again when you floor it you still burn a lot of juice, but cruising is much easier.

[seahorse3]

I say yes. Here's why: life is a big survival game. In survival, every tool should be multi functional, at least dual purposed. The turbo fits that bill. First, it saves you fuel or can. Thus, if you can afford it now, it may save gas you can't afford later. The second purpose is simply outrunning the bad guys. Put some good wheels on that baby, get your "9" out, and you are ready to roll.

[PrestonSturges]

Talk to people who know cars.

[Ayoob]

I talked to people who know cars, and the bottom line is I shouldn't. That engine isn't made to be used with a turbo. I shouldn't even swap out the engine with the 1.8 liter turbo, because the computers will be all clusterhugged when they try to talk to each other. The guy told me to sell my beetle and buy the beetle turbo S.

Well, I have another idea.

[evilgenius]

Yeah, first of all the compression in your stock engine is too high to stick a turbo on it. Secondly, you will be putting something on your car that only you know very well. You won't be able to sell your car down the line unless you can find an enthusiast to buy it. You are much better off selling it now and buying something with higher mileage, assuming that is your goal in the first place. A lot of early 2000's cars get good mileage. You should be able to sell yours to a PO unaware sucker and get yourself into a PO aware car at no appreciable cost. I like Honda, Toyota, etc. Subaru's can have head gasket problems, so watch out. Perhaps a Korean Hyundai is worth a look?

I had a '98 Acura Integra that I rebuilt the engine on. It got 37 mpg until fate took it from me. Before I rebuilt the engine it was getting 33 mpg with a bad intake valve. It's amazing what you can get out of the right stock car if you keep the maintenance up on it.

[Shaved Monkey]

I always thought the way turbos work is you get a smaller than required engine which gives better fuel economy.
The turbo kicks in when you want to go fast, occasionally, sucking heaps of fuel but not out weighed by the larger percentage of savings from having a small engine the rest of the time.

am I wrong????

[PrestonSturges]

Not to mention the difficulty of servicing the unit or getting parts in the future.

[seenmostofit]

Not to mention the difficulty of servicing the unit or getting parts in the future.

It's a 2001 Beetle. It is already the future. And not only are there parts available, but turbos. The problem isn't availability, but VW's stealerships, weird engine oil requirements, VW reliability, those types of issues.

[The_Toecutter]

Ayoob, a turbo won't help fuel efficiency much in a gasoline engine. In the case of your Beetle, I wouldn't allow the turbo to provide more than 2 lbs of boost to the engine. It would give you a slight performance upgrade(maybe an extra 12-15 horsepower), wouldn't be enough pressure to destroy your engine, and may give an additional 1 mpg or so on the highway.

Not worth the money, unless you want to build a race car out of the Beetle and make all of the upgrades necessary for it to stand up to its newly-acquired horsepower(probably nothing near your intent).

The timing-belts on those things are weak.

A non-damaging, cheaper, and more-effective means to increase fuel economy does exist, while still providing a performance bonus. Load Reduction:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070120052314/http://www.max-mpg.com/html/alaska/main.htm

In summation, a Beetle TDI with a little tweaks, including aerodynamic modifications, low rolling resistance tires, low friction engine oils and transmission fluids, obtained 60 mpg at 65 mph, 76 mpg at 55 mph. About 5% of the highway fuel economy gain over a stock Beetle TDI is attributed to its spoiler, which reduced the Cd of the car to 0.28, from a Beetle's stock 0.38.

I'm sure your Beetle would benefit substantially from aero mods and other load reduction techniques. They're very inexpensive to implement; $700 spent in this way, mostly on a new set of tires, could easily increase your overall fuel economy by 25% or more. You just have to build the body parts out of plastic, fiberglass, or any other suitable material.

The same applies to the Explorer, but given its shape, not as much could be done(unless it's a pickup truck variant). A bellypan is obvious, but I would recommend against a grill block on an excessively thirsty and inefficient engine as is found in it, V6 or V8. You might get an extra 1-2 mpg from a bellypan alone, and it would be far easier and far less expensive to install than a turbo, and can even be installed in a way to facilitate easy/harmless removal for vehicle resale. LRR tires would work well and give an extra 1-2 mpg, but would reduce its functionality with regard to hauling cargo.

Also, Sea Gypsie is right. In your case, the Explorer could benefit substantially from a mechanical-injection diesel of any sort, provided you are willing to put in the work needed to fit the engine. A Cummins from a boneyard diesel truck or inline 4, 5, or 6 from an wrecker Mercedes can be hauled off for a few hundred dollars if you search enough places. You may even be lucky enough to get a good working diesel car for cheap, forget just an engine. But such an engine in that Explorer would yield 22+ mpg on the highway at 70 mph, low 30s mpg at 55 mph, with the potential to sip at 45-50 mpg at a steady 30 mph in top gear. And run on biodiesel.

Performance of a hypothetical diesel Explorer can vary widely with choice of engine, even though the fuel economy may not vary much(all diesels would probably do ~40% better fuel economy than the stock gasoline V6 Explorer). Consider that stock V6 and V8 Explorers had 220 lb-ft and 280 lb-ft of torque respectively, when comparing a potential diesel engine to place into it; there are lots of choices available for varying budgets.

The OM603 6-cylinder in a Mercedes 300 SDL makes 201 lb-ft of torque and 149 horsepower, which is a close match for a stock V6 Explorer, but has a wider torque band. You can find 300 SDLs in rough shape for very cheap, especially if the climate control and other luxury features are broken, or a transmission is out.

The puny-yet-indestructable OM616 from a Mercedes 240D at 100 lb-ft will still allow highway speeds with its puny 70 horsepower and is extremely durable, able to last 1 million miles with the right maintenance. You can find a rusted/derlelict 240D with a good engine for under $500 if you look around.

A Cummins 5.9L inline 6 diesel from a 1989-1993 Dodge Ram would provide 400 lb-ft; that Explorer would be a monster as well as being more fuel-efficient but that engine also weighs ~1200 lbs thus requiring ballast in the rear to help with weight distribution, and the vehicle may break from the torque without beefier U-joints and driveshaft. Cummins have parts extremely plentiful, and they are extremely simple to rebuild and service compared to their competition.

And to the extreme slow end of things, you could rig a 15-20 horsepower Kubota tractor engine to it. It would probably do 55 mph even still, but would take a very long time to get there.

If I were to go through that kind of work though, I'd sooner pick a chassis besides an Explorer.

A fellow in Canada put a 6.5L Duramax into a Corvette Stingray to get 38 mpg at highway speeds:

http://www.thedieselpageforums.com/tdpforum/showthread.php?t=27855

Buying a pre-1994 diesel Chevrolet Suburban in good shape may not be a bad choice, if you don't mind the upgrades it will need. 140 horsepower, 260 lb-ft. The 6.2 and 6.5 Liter mechanically-injected Duramax is a not-so solidly-built engine compared to a Cummins, but one of which parts are still available, along with replacement parts to make them reliable. However, the redline of them is very low, and some very tall gearing would be in order if some Corvette-like speed is desired. In your Explorer, the 3,200 rpm redline of a Duramax 6.5L diesel would probably get you to 85 mph still.

A Datsun 240Z with a solid body and mechanicals but a destroyed engine picked up for cheap would be a good match for a 6-cylinder Mercedes diesel; with an upgraded injector pump using wider threads, 300 horsepower, 12 second ¼ mile drag races, and 40+ mpg at 70 mph is possible in the same vehicle. Even a Ford Ranger or late 80s Chevrolet S10 would work well with a Mercedes 240D engine, if you're on a tight budget but have the time and workspace to devote. A Jeep 4WD CJ with a Cummins would make an excellent bug-out vehicle. A Honda CRX with a tractor engine and some aeromods could easily be made to exceed 80 mpg.

Look for preferably rear wheel drive vehicles that are inoperable due to engine problems, but are otherwise in good shape, if you want to build a custom diesel.

Or you can buy an old one in decent shape. Isuzu Pup diesel trucks are awesome. Cheap, reliable, well-built, simple, and efficient. Mercedes 240Ds are very cheap still. A Pinzhauer makes an excellent bug-out vehicle if you can't afford a Mercedes Unimog, and both get respectable fuel economy for what they are.

[vaseline2008]

From what I hear I should gain a boost in fuel efficiency if I'm not drag racing my car. I get 26mpg now, so a boost in efficiency would pay off in a relatively short period of time with $4 gas. I don't drive much now, but I will be driving much more in a year or two.

I might consider adding a turbo to my 1998 Ford Explorer if I can get some efficiency out of it that would prove cost effective over two years or so.

The turbo kits are about $700 each, and I'd expect another $500 for installation and QC. For $2400, that's a total of 600 gallons of gas to break even. That would mean roughly a total of 13K miles between both vehicles. I could rack that up in a year or a year and a half. I think it might be worth it.

Any thoughts?

A turbocharger sends compressed air into the car's engine thus necessitating an increase in fuel to balance out the fuel/air mixture ratio. Without the additional fuel to "cool" down the combustion, the engine will run "lean" and basically overheat the pistons and engine block. A larger engine for example puts out more "power" because it is consuming more fuel per operational cycle (or RPM if you prefer). If you think that adding a turbo to your engine is going to somehow increase fuel efficiency then you are flat out wrong.

I think the marketing ploy that Ford has done with their "Ecoboost" strategy was really clever. A 3 liter V6 engine equipped with a turbocharger(s) will consume less fuel than a 5 liter V8 at idle and light loads (the opposite of a "lead foot"). However the moment you put the pedal to the metal, all bets are off. So yes, in comparison to an engine of greater displacement a smaller engine with a turbo will be more efficient for you are not burning fuel at the greater consumption rate as the larger engine for the entire duration.

Almost sounds like you would rather have a hybrid kit.

Plug-In Kit Turns Any Car Into a Hybrid for $3,000

[Ayoob]

Bottom line, I'm not going to monkey with my car. It's been paid off for six years and still does an outstanding job of getting me from A to B for a fairly low price. If I thought I could convert it to a hybrid and get 50+mpg I would do it, but this is hype for now. The turbo is not going to work.

My bike gets 45mpg as it is, so I can ride if I want to save money. Even better, I can take a bicycle to the train to bicycle to work, and bike to train to bike to get home. In nice weather that's a great option. In nice weather, it's even better to bike to train to bike to work, and just bike home. I really like biking home. It only takes me about ten minutes longer than driving and I get to work some exercise into my day.

In a couple years it's going to be different. I'm looking at a 60-80 minute commute each way no matter how you slice it. I have two towns to commute to, so living in between is my best bet. The best I can do is driving 45 minutes each way or riding a bicycle three hours plus each way. Riding a bike is just not feasible. I would never see my family. Lance Armstrong would never see his family. An electric-assisted bike at 20mph would make it a laughable two and a half hour commute each way. I'd be better off upgrading the lighting on my motorcycle and investing in better gear to deal with the elements. For another $2K, I could trick it out for my purposes and maintain 40mpg with relative safety and save a lot of money in the long run.

No matter what, transportation is going to suck.