Yep, makes good sense. Much more sense in a diesel than in gasoline. Cannot overboost
a diesel, and expecially given that background in the photo- high altitude, it makes sense. And YOU CAN CHOOSE
it. If I want any Accord - it HAS TO BE a turbo.
The bigger the vehicle, the lower the gas mileage, the more it makes sense. IF THE FIRST COST IS EQUAL.
11 mpg for 10K miles is 909 gallons. At $3.10/gallon, that is $2818. At 14 mpg, that goes to
714 gallons, and $2464. Savings of $353 every 10K miles. So even if the turbo pukes in 60K
miles (unlikely) you will have saved $2118 in fuel, plus a more driveable vehicle. That will
probably more than cover the cost of a new turbo. If the turbo makes it to 100K miles, you have
almost $3500 in savings on fuel, plus better driveability.
BUT - as you point out - the initial cost of $14K more. Even at 100K miles of driving, the savings are
~1/4th the added cost.
So break even is 490K miles, economically. If the first cost was the
same, the choice would be easy, lots of savings. But at that HUGE first cost.
If you were a commercial hauler, then it may make sense, depending on how long the turbo
would live. Might do that break even mileage in one year as a commercial trucker. Pretty
hard at 7,000 per year.
In my case, the turbo Accord does NOTHING better except maybe burn a little less fuel, at an irrelevant
savings level.
Oh, wait, not a NA diesel vs a turbo diesel.....a NA gas vs turbo diesel. OK, reworked the fuel calcs for
gasoline. Not as good.
Bill