VW Golf, Opel Astra, Holden Barina / Chev Aveo, Daihatsu Sirion/Boon X4, Daihatsu Move, Nissan Micra/March (supercharged), Nissan Tiida, Suzuki Alto, plus almost every Kei car ever.
Obviously they range in market and price, but there were still a reasonable amount of cars around with turbos that were definitely lower spec / affordable
Again, you can call me all the cars you know from 2012 with a turbo, thatās not the problem Iām pointing at.
IRL, a NA engine could be an option for the buyer, a solid option. In automation itās not. The turbo is just OP, it reduce the PU lol. You can keep telling me all the turbo cars you know, itās not the problem.
I have taken the type of car to be a fiat Punto sporting, a Peugeot 207 GT or an Opel Corsa Sri type of thing Some of which were turbo engines so itās not too weird, you can always do a larger engine which would be like the fiesta zetec s or Corsa Sri.
2012 also wasnāt the first year of tce as I had a twingo in 2008 that had a 1.2 turbo which was branded as tce
I missed that part of the argument, but point taken in that respect.
I think we run into different cultural car standards regarding what constitutes a budget car here. On the EU market at least the turbo makes sense for this kind of car. It seems to aim at the non-base models of small and mid-size cars.
An NA engine still works, but I personally highly doubt that is suitable for a rally school, unless they want to go through the trouble of adding a turbo themselves.
Alternatively, they are really looking for a banger, in which case, not chosing a turbo at all is much in your favour, even if statistically the turbo might have an advantage.
Right the twingo got it.
But yeah letās make a complete list of turbos you know, itās not like Iām repeating itās not the problem Iām pointing.
Rightā¦ non-turbo mission accepted
No Iām not sure they would add a turbo necessarly. You can have about 120-150hp with a respectable NA engine (And imo itās enough for a school).
Thatās interesting that I received the opposite arguing on the discord lol, with people saying that going for NA would be preferable for an Aussie rally school, who hasnāt the same standards than in Europe.
I think thatās a power figure to aim for regardless.
And thatās what I mean with different cultural standards. 120 horsepower basically implies a small turbo charged engine in the EU.
While in the US and AUS, the turbocharged cars on sale in 2012, certainly in that class and before increased emission standards, where only the real performance versions. While the NA engines on sale where the ones too big for the EU market.
In Europe itās standard to put a tiny turbo on a tiny engine for fuel economy purposes, in fact I canāt think of a supermini that doesnāt have a small turbo engine as an option. We got the 1L I-3 turbo ecoboost in 2012.
The turbo here is truly a thing here. They add too much stats at the costs of nothing, it isnt too high on material costs and still ++, but with that new rule of maximum PRICE and not MATERIAL COSTS, it could be preferable using a NA
Yeah but arenāt we in Australia for this CSR?
This discussion just turned to NA vs Turbo real quick
Hence my point that regardless of limits, the NA choice might be far better for evaluation.
Reliability seems quite important so from that point of view I would say na isnt a bad idea, also service costs would be lower too
Yep, thatās what Iām talking about 
But I prefer to be sure that NA will be condisered by the buyer, despite of the stats that are worse than a Turbo in almost every ways
Still waiting for the minimun 4-5 seat rule
Service costs, ease of drive and reliability are in the important bracket, whereas sportiness is in the less important one so ive been making my first car without a turbo as most of the stats are better
Smart FourTwo Sport.
(rally version)