But the premise is that I, or we, ran GM, in which case, there would be a frickin' way for Buick to get a Y-car.

 

Ok, good frickin' point.

 

"Ow, my freakin ears!"

"I'd expect this kind of language at Denny's but not here!"

 

You guys are too frikin' funny!

 

I know.

But I'm sure each and every one of us would have said the same thing a mere 5 or 6 years ago regarding Cadillac getting the "Y" body, so never say never.

No advantage, just marketing.

Why not simply put an LS1 or LS2 in it's place? Better or same mileage, less weight (turbo & intercooler with plumbing eliminates any V6 weight advantage over a alumunum V8), takes up not much more if any more space.

Go figure.

 

Porche isn't an inline 4, it's an opposing 4,(Boxter) or 6 @ 180*...Also Buick Turbo V6's are near Legendary, on the street, track and nearly everywhere else...one ride, one smile, you'd know.
Turbo cars are more efficient b/c they pack more air, above "normal air pressure", which is what a NA car sees. Even at cruising speeds, instead of drawing a vacuum of say -18psi, they run at or above "0"psi, ensuring good cylinder filling...requiring less throttle to move.

Milage, power/BIG torque, upgradeability...3 good reasons for a turbo..

 

I believe that a turbo works nearly as well with a flat engine as with an inline. The problem is the length from exhaust port to turbine. With a Vee engine, you really need a turbo for each cylinder bank, which is expensive. In a high end car, it's not a problem. For a $35K vehicle, I believe it is.

The turbo Buicks were great, but I think they'd have a bit of turbo lag compared to modern turbos.

What do you think of the new Saab turbo V6? The C&D review certainly wasn't very good, complaining about power delivery. Also, it wasn't as quick as the Acura TL, which only has 400cc more from a non-turbo V6. I don't know for sure, but I'm betting the Saab engine with turbo costs more to build. For a second comparison (they're in the same issue), try the Saab 9-3 turbo versus the Pontiac Grand Prix GXP. All three cars are directly comparable, 'cause they're all FWD transverse engines.

 

Actually, turbos are more efficient because they convert wasted energy from the exhaust system into added energy in the intake system. You can pack more air in by using a supercharger, but you would not have an efficiency gain.

Randy

 

I think he meant more efficent then a NA car, not a SC car.