Just read it - all that 'extra' TLC (and expense), presumably for any turbocharged car, seems quite a lot unless you're buying that sort of car specifically for the high performance or load-lugging ability. For those 'light-pressure' turbo petrol engined cars that are currently in fashion, the expense of all this (more expensive fuel, running the engine when stopped , extra servicing work, etc) surely outweighs the supposed benefits of having the small petrol engine with it.
At present I'm umming and arring whether to take the lunge and change my car within the next 6 months, and other than a sort-of direct replacement for my Mazda3 1.6 petrol (probably the 2ltr petrol, normally aspirated), most of the alternatives that aren't insipid (other than the Honda Civic 1.8 petrol, which is getting on a bit and quite high on emissions compared to others) are of the small-medium sized light-pressure turbo-petrols, such as the VAG stable (I like the 1.4 but just don't trust their general reliability at present), Ford EcoBoost (some issues generally on reliability, but more about very poor real-life mpg) and a few others, including one in the Volvo V40 (unsure about - not a load of good or bad publicity as there's less about than the others), which is currently second on my list.
I'm still leaning towards the more 'straightforward' normally aspirated Mazda3 as a result (I'm normally quite conservative when it comes to choosing cars), but to be honest I'm not really sure. The Volvo V40 turbo petrols have a funny line up after reading the reviews here - not sure what to make of it, especially in the light of how to look after them - some appear to be much more 'performance biassed' than others of the same displacement or bigger. Very odd (especially as I'm seriously contemplating getting an auto for the first time as well).
|