All hybrids are built in Korea, so far.Hi, not sure if related to anything or matters in any ways but was yours made in the US or Korea kia factory. Sorry you are having a tough time.
Sorry dude, this is good info. I'm more comfortable with the naturally aspirated I think. The more I learn the more I lean this way.Mine started rapping like a diesel about a month after purchase. Dealer is supposed to check it again on the 27th. It can really only be heard from the passenger's side, which I forgot to tell them at first check. I'm in the process of working on a deal to trade it in, so we'll see if I still have it for that appointment. I'm at 6,500 miles, a transmission replacement, that's acting up again already, this engine noise, and it isn't vey good in the snow (probably the tires). It's turned out to be less than I hoped for, so I think it's time for it to go, if I'm able to. If not, I'll end up pushing for Lemon Law, then get something else. I'm currently working a deal on a new Outlander. Real fuel economy not much different than I'm actually getting with the Sportage Hybrid. I'll keep everyone updated.
Well yeah, if you consider the component quality to be similar, simpler is always going to be less prone to malfunction.Sorry dude, this is good info. I'm more comfortable with the naturally aspirated I think. The more I learn the more I lean this way.
RAV4 hybrids are impossible to get, but I guess I'll just get on a few lists. If it doesn't work out, maybe I'll go with the non-hybrid sportage. Thanks for letting me know about your issues.
In addition, turbo's have been reliable on many diesel engines for ages.The turbo vs. NA debate has been back and forth and the specifics of the engine is probably going to make more of a difference since turbocharged engines are designed for the increased forces from the start. Theta II in both NA and turbo guise is subpar either way, the EcoBoost has been around a while and the different engines under that brand have had varying reputations.
Of course there's the whole "having less parts to fail" benefit of NA engines which I'd say is a plus but it's also worth considering the rest of the vehicle since transmission choices can vary, etc.
Diesel engines have much stronger cylinder walls and engine blocks though.In addition, turbo's have been reliable on many diesel engines for ages.
The turbo's on domestic commuter vehicles is a relatively new thing, and apprehension is understandable.
We always related a turbo to be for the track and boy racers, but in our application it brings significant efficiency gains.
What ron1004 means is that turbodiesels are common and their turbochargers aren’t blowing up on the regular so turbos can certainly last, but it’ll probably come down to the specifics of a given application like how I remember hearing some blurb about turbo Subaru's (back in the day) allegedly being more resistant to headgasket issues.Diesel engines have much stronger cylinder walls and engine blocks though.
I really don't think the turbo will help with the efficiency in real life driving though. EPA MPG testing, probably, but not when real people drive in real life settings. But then, I've never had a turbo engined vehicles, so don't take my word for it
www.caranddriver.com
The takeaway? On bulk, turbocharged vehicles do live up to their fuel-economy labels. And they don’t suffer in the real world any more than naturally aspirated vehicles. That said, there are hundreds of cars, turbocharged and not, that exceed or fall short of the official fuel-economy numbers—some by 20 percent. The data largely vindicates the EPA’s fuel-economy methodology, but it’s an even stronger endorsement of that old axiom: Your mileage may vary.
No one said they're "better", but there's a few reports confirming improved efficiency.Looking at the graph, I don't think I am convinced that Turbocharged engines are "better"
