3 ms·
Simpler, more reliable engines exist. However, they will not meet consumer and governmental requirements for efficiency and performance. These are not "mainten
by jmercouris 5y ago
Simpler, more reliable engines exist. However, they will not meet consumer and governmental requirements for efficiency and performance.
These are not "maintenance costs", they are features, which have maintenance cost. There is a big difference.
- ErikVandeWater 5y agoYou're misinterpreting the post. The point of the post is that an engine that has a turbocharger is worse than an engine with the same performance without a turbocharger. Yet turbochargers are marketed as features that make the engine better. Manufacturers should be downplaying the inclusion of a turbocharger to achieve 35mpg, instead of marketing it as a feature.
- jmercouris 5y agoI'm not misunderstanding. Features are merely attributes. Whether they are virtuous or not is irrelevant. A turbocharger, whether good or not, is a feature. My point is that features may have maintenance cost, they are not in of themselves a maintenance cost.
- ErikVandeWater 5y agoLet's use a thought experiment. If a car was able to get 3 more MPG by forcing the driver to get out and manually hand-crank the car every time it needed to start, would you place images of drivers getting out of their car and hand-cranking it prominently in your advertising? Of course not. The same concept applies to turbochargers. "We got 3 MPG better by substantially increasing the pressure in your engine, and this will wear it out more over time" is not something that should appear in marketing.