OT: pricing of turbo vs non-turbo of same model car

[eddief]

I was just reading about the new Honda Civic Coupe. The entry level turbo model is about $1500 more expensive than the non-turbo one. What would you guess is the extra cost to the manufacturer for adding the parts and plumbing for the turbo? I'd easily pay the extra, but was curious to know if the added manufacturing expense is simply a couple of hundred bucks.

[AngryScientist]

a turbo engine is significantly more complicated than a NA engine. there is the exhaust plumbing, the intake pressure piping, and the waste gate system to deal with excess boost. Assuming it's oil cooled, an oil system modification and plumbing is necessary also. this requires more complicated ECU programming to make it all work. a good turbo is a precision engineered component manufactured to pretty tight tolerances. they are not cheap units.

[tumbler]

Considering the price of a lot of OEM upgrades, $1500 sounds pretty reasonable. I'm sure their manufacturing cost is less than that, but you're also paying for the R&D and other overhead that went into that model. Like the Scientist said, you aren't just adding one part to the car. Turbochargers can sometimes be a PITA, but with Honda producing it, it's probably pretty solid and a worthwhile upgrade.

[paredown]

I know with the older gen Volvos, they also added sodium filled valves to the turbo models vs regular for the normally aspirated I-5s

[ftf]

Turbochargers can sometimes be a PITA, but with Honda producing it, it's probably pretty solid and a worthwhile upgrade.

Actually I would stay away from a Honda turbo, while Honda's had great success with N/A engines, their track record with turbos, notably the Acura RDX, is less than stellar, the RDX's turbo was notoriously thirsty on gas, and unreliable.

Personally I would think long and hard about spending more for a turbo produced by Honda, until they can prove they are reliable and economic.

[JAGI410]

$1500 is a bargain!

[soulspinner]

Hope the CVT is better in the new one. Our 2014 is among the most boring cars Ive ever driven, and being in the auto biz Ive driven a lot.

[carpediemracing]

A lot of cars/SUVs/etc will charge maybe $2500 for the upgrade from 2WD (FWD or RWD) to AWD. That's really cheap when you consider the cost of just a transfer case (typically thousands if you have to replace just that one part), forget about all the extra hardware.

For the turbo it's got to be similar.

At the same time manufacturing cost vs "total cost" (marketing, design, legal stuff like patent defending, etc) are two different things.

The Missus knows someone that manufactures these "things". They sell on Amazon for $40, about $30 if it's on sale (rarely). They're sold by distributors, who pay $15 I think. They cost something like $2 to make. But that doesn't include the overhead for things like the initial patent process, searching for a vendors, etc.

Likewise you look at a car like the Honda that might cost $19k retail, with invoice maybe a couple thousand below that. I think a realistic net margin on a car is something like 10-13%, possibly less for entry level ones. It's highly unlikely that the turbo (and related development stuff) alone costs 10% of the total car.

[carpediemracing]

It may be that the Hondas are making significantly more power than advertised. I think the power at the wheels basically matches their claim for power at the crank. Based on typical 15%+ losses due to drivetrain friction it means there's a substantial increase in power at the crank.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, the turbo is available only with an automatic, at least for now.

[carpediemracing]

Finally, this may be a thing like "You know, I can buy a steel frame tube set for $150. I don't know if a frameset is worth $2500." etc. I don't know if that's accurate for steel but I found my bike's tubeset for about $150 total.

[MattTuck]

Finally, this may be a thing like "You know, I can buy a steel frame tube set for $150. I don't know if a frameset is worth $2500." etc. I don't know if that's accurate for steel but I found my bike's tubeset for about $150 total.

How do tube companies stay in business? haha

[benb]

Honda doesn't do turbos that often and I agree the RDX was kind of lame especially considering it is not a real performance vehicle, but they've got plenty of experience with turbos going back to their success in F1 in the big turbo era.

I drove the RDX a few times and at least it didn't have any lag... It was kind of a Honda thing though, first variable geometry turbo or something so they didn't stick it in a halo model on the first try.. they stuck it in something where it wasn't going to totally kill the vehicle. RDX owners were probably pretty tolerant of bad fuel economy since it's an expensive SUV and they also weren't the type I'd bet to get upset if the performance wasn't amazing.

[ftf]

Honda doesn't do turbos that often and I agree the RDX was kind of lame especially considering it is not a real performance vehicle, but they've got plenty of experience with turbos going back to their success in F1 in the big turbo era.

I drove the RDX a few times and at least it didn't have any lag... It was kind of a Honda thing though, first variable geometry turbo or something so they didn't stick it in a halo model on the first try.. they stuck it in something where it wasn't going to totally kill the vehicle. RDX owners were probably pretty tolerant of bad fuel economy since it's an expensive SUV and they also weren't the type I'd bet to get upset if the performance wasn't amazing.

Well after a few years they dumped the turbo in the RDX and replaced it with a V6, I would say not only because the performance wasn't amazing, only 240hp, they have made N/A motors with similar HP, (Prelude. S2000) and frankly it wasn't reliable, a far cry from what Honda owners were used to.

Yes Honda has made turbo racing engines in the past, the RDX is the only one I know of, until now, in a consumer car, two very different use profiles.

I like Honda just fine, I've owned 3 Hondas in the past, all great cars but I would wait on a Turbo one.

[Ralph]

Actually I would stay away from a Honda turbo, while Honda's had great success with N/A engines, their track record with turbos, notably the Acura RDX, is less than stellar, the RDX's turbo was notoriously thirsty on gas, and unreliable.

Personally I would think long and hard about spending more for a turbo produced by Honda, until they can prove they are reliable and economic.

This is so ancient history. The RDX engine was a performance engine. Never designed for economy....not designed for max tq at low RPM, not geared (transaxle gearing) for low RPM operation for fuel economy. New cars so different.

Honda don't know turbo's???? Every looked at a F1 Honda Turbo engine, Indy turbo, etc.

Newer turbo cars are made more toward the idea of economy...plus power. Many run on 87.

BTW....in addition to all the above parts mentions....the engine has to be designed for far greater internal pressures than a NA engine. Think forged pistons and rods, perhaps steel crank, etc.

[ajhapps]

Any upgrade is never worth the premium in material or labor costs, but if you want leather seats, you pay the $1,000 price, right? Same with engine upgrades - want the turbo, the extra 2 cylinders, etc.? If the cost vs performance is worth it to you, go for it!

I've owned a S2000 since 2002, and had an Integra GS-R before that... man, what I would give for a factory turbo on either of those cars! Low end torque is not a Honda strong point in their NA engines.

[Ken Robb]

Some turbo models also get upgraded brakes, driveshafts/cv joints, etc. in addition to the engine parts.

[Spdntrxi]

I own 2 turbo cars.. 3rd gen Mazda rx7.. Twin turbo and a subura Forester xt .. Ofcourse they should cost more then their Na counterparts .. 1500 sounds about right ..maybe even cheap. You will think it's bargain to you have to replace turbo..;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ftf]

This is so ancient history. The RDX engine was a performance engine. Never designed for economy....not designed for max tq at low RPM, not geared (transaxle gearing) for low RPM operation for fuel economy. New cars so different.

Honda don't know turbo's???? Every looked at a F1 Honda Turbo engine, Indy turbo, etc.

Newer turbo cars are made more toward the idea of economy...plus power. Many run on 87.

BTW....in addition to all the above parts mentions....the engine has to be designed for far greater internal pressures than a NA engine. Think forged pistons and rods, perhaps steel crank, etc.

I didn't say they didn't know turbos, I said their one turbo in a consumer car sucked and it did. Strange no one refutes that point.

Yes newer turbos are made for fuel economy, and they are quite good, Honda hasn't proven themselves in reliability of their turbo passenger vehicles, the RDX was notoriously unreliable, again no one refutes this point.

[batman1425]

The value is amortized across 10k's of vehicles, so per unit cost will always be good value. Make no mistake though, every cent that goes into design and construction is kept track of. Save a penny on 1 part times 500K units in a production run or parts that span multiple runs/years? Massive savings. Every penny counts on that scale.

Check out the doc on netflix - "A Faster Horse" about the design of the current gen mustang. Fascinating to see what goes into the development program of modern vehicles.

[pjm]

Practically every manufacturer offers turbo engines nowadays, I think Honda can handle it:rolleyes: Turbocharging has been around a long time and is a fairly simple concept.

[FlashUNC]

Just wait for the Civic Type R. I'm sure that'll be a fun turbo'd vehicle.

[batman1425]

Practically every manufacturer offers turbo engines nowadays, I think Honda can handle it:rolleyes: Turbocharging has been around a long time and is a fairly simple concept.

Simple in concept - but if too many corners are cut - can end up being a real POS. My experience with the middle run 2.0T VAG platform was less than ideal, and turbos aren't a new thing for those guys. Had a friend with a similar experience. Bad seals in the oil cooling system, fried bearings, oil consumption problems, etc.

WHEN it is done right, its a great thing - just needs to be done right!

[tumbler]

Simple in concept - but if too many corners are cut - can end up being a real POS. My experience with the middle run 2.0T VAG platform was less than ideal, and turbos aren't a new thing for those guys. Had a friend with a similar experience. Bad seals in the oil cooling system, fried bearings, oil consumption problems, etc.

WHEN it is done right, its a great thing - just needs to be done right!

Nobody cuts corners like VW :)

[stephenmarklay]

I am not familiar with Honda’s track record on turbos but I have owned a lot of turbo cars and would certainly own another.

I actually have a 2015 Honda Fit and I bet with a turbo it would be great.

Also, generally speaking turbo cars have all the motor bits to change, many times the transmission is different to handle the extra torque and other bits too.

I have never had a turbo issue in other cars.

[josephr]

turbo, no turbo...CVT would be a deal-breaker for me--- especially to get it equipped with anything you're pretty much stuck getting a CVT....in spirited driving, always worried the rubber band is gonna snap.

[rounder]

I do not not know about all of the turbo or non-turbo differences.

But I have driven over 400,000 miles in the last 15 years in audi turbo engine cars. No problems other than the 2008 car where audi did an engine repair under a factory recall issue and fixed the problem. I was satisfied.

Had one A4 that died in a flood. It was a CVT car. The CVT was the most boring transmission I ever saw...would never get another.

[carpediemracing]

Having gotten extremely disillusioned by our VWs I'm eyeing the Hondas. I'd rather a similar driving configuration between our two vehicles, i.e. controls/layout are similar. Our two cars are sister cars so other than a slight variation in door panel stuff (one car has its window buttons at a tilt, the other is level) and minor radio stuff, the two cars are indistinguishable.

We also have a very short garage so we're limited to vehicles about the same length/width as a Golf (hatch) and a Jetta wagon.

I have no idea how the Civic Si and Type R would be configured relative to one another but both are historically available in manual and both are supposed to be on the way over here. If we could get a 5 door / hatch for each that would be a dreamy first choice for our next pair of cars. Looking at the dimensions of the European Type R it would be a tight fit on the Golf side of our garage. The other side we have a bit of room.

[carpediemracing]

turbo, no turbo...CVT would be a deal-breaker for me--- especially to get it equipped with anything you're pretty much stuck getting a CVT....in spirited driving, always worried the rubber band is gonna snap.

I'd want a manual also. But I think a CVT will be pretty durable. I have to imagine that those CVTs are tough.

Having said that I've managed never to drive a CVT to my knowledge.

(I just Googled one car that might have had a CVT. Ends up it has a 1 speed transmission. Heh. e-Golf.)

[Ken Robb]

Newer Mazda 3 sedan or hatchback with 2.5L engine and stick or excellent 6spd. automatic is a dandy driving car with very good fuel economy. This is the opinion of a guy who had only BMWs for 30 years.

[pjm]

I do not not know about all of the turbo or non-turbo differences.

But I have driven over 400,000 miles in the last 15 years in audi turbo engine cars. No problems other than the 2008 car where audi did an engine repair under a factory recall issue and fixed the problem. I was satisfied.

Had one A4 that died in a flood. It was a CVT car. The CVT was the most boring transmission I ever saw...would never get another.

Audi with a CVT? Don't remember that.

[pjm]

Newer Mazda 3 sedan or hatchback with 2.5L engine and stick or excellent 6spd. automatic is a dandy driving car with very good fuel economy. This is the opinion of a guy who had only BMWs for 30 years.
I'll second that recommendation. I, too, drive a BMW E90 and a Mazda 3 hatchback and I sometimes prefer to drive the Mazda because it's just so easy and fun to drive. It corners nice and flat, the controls are nice and light, the six speed manual is great and it gets 35 miles to the gallon on regular gas. Don't get me wrong, it's no BMW, but it's no penalty box either.

[Spdntrxi]

My subie has cvt .. In sport mode I'm actually impressed with its performance .. Other cars with cvt... Not so much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk