3 ms·
You'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 tu
by ErikVandeWater 5y ago
You'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.