re: Would you rather have a turbo(s) or 2 more cylinders?

This depends on what kind of vehicle and what I want it to do.

I can't stand the ecoboost V6 Ford F150; to me a truck should have a V8.

For performance cars I am partial to a 6 cylinder turbo.

For a luxury car, V8, or even better V8 turbo.

quote:

---

Please.

It wasn't only GM that had coking problems in the 80's.

Improved oils and water cooling have pretty much solved the issues years ago.

---

Did you read my other posts?

Yes. And yet the GM dig in the post I referenced.

quote:

---

I got the 5.0 in my new F150.

---

Same. I love it.

I wouldn’t be afraid of buying an ecoboost. More power than any half-ton V8. The V8 probably has a better chance of lasting longer.

quote:

---

I wouldn’t be afraid of buying an ecoboost. More power than any half-ton V8. The V8 probably has a better chance of lasting longer.

---

V8 will beat an ecoboost in initial launch as well which is when you usually need the power the most.

There is no replacement for displacement. I’ll take the v8.

Depends on the engine displacement and the size of the turbos...

Pros and cons. Turbo's are easily programmable if you're into tuning. They are more efficient as opposed to higher displacement, but at a cost of more wear on engine components.

Personally, the lag on most turbo VW's and Bimmers drives me nuts. I'll take a naturally-aspirated, high compression ratio 4 cylinder over a turbo. I'd rather have a defined, smoother torque curve than a kick in the nuts when the turbo engages.