Goodbye, gasoline. Hello, diesel, turbos, and electric cars.

Love them or hate them, diesels, turbocharging, and electric cars will be the new norm for the automotive industry, Read writes. The shift toward smaller, tech-heavy engines has played out in family cars, luxury rides, and even performance models.

Pawel Kopczynski/Reuters/File
A Mercedes 4 cylinder diesel engine is seen during a media preview day at the 2013 Frankfurt Motor Show.

By most accounts, the conventional gasoline engine's days are numbered. Long before electric cars become commonplace, automakers expect to wean themselves off gas-powered powerplants, replacing them with fuel-efficient alternatives.

On Monday, Ford's Joe Bakaj told Detroit News that the time is coming when most Ford vehicles will come with either a diesel or an EcoBoost engine, the latter of which relies on turbocharging, direct injection, and other innovations to wring mileage from every drop of gas.

Then on Tuesday, Volkswagen said essentially the same thing, claiming that within three or four years, every vehicle in VW's lineup will be either a turbo or a diesel.

And even before these grand pronouncements, we saw this trend migrating across the entire auto industry. Have you looked for a V8 lately? The shift toward smaller, tech-heavy engines has played out in family cars, luxury rides, and even performance models. 

THE GOOD, THE BAD

Obviously, turbos and diesels have a number of benefits -- otherwise, automakers would be far less enthusiastic about the switch.

For starters, they're efficient. Diesels, for example, operate at high temperatures. That means that more of the fuel that's pumped into the engine is burned, which boosts output. (Nifty bonus: diesel engines tend to last much longer than conventional ones.)

Turbochargers, on the other hand, force additional air into an engine's combustion chamber. That boost of air means an increase in combustion, which translates to an increase in efficiency: less gas is wasted and more is converted into energy.

Even better, a turbocharged engine is lighter than its traditional counterparts. For example, properly designed, a six-cylinder turbo can eke out about the same power as an eight-cylinder conventional engine. So, not only does that engine offer a boost in efficiency, it makes the vehicle lighter, which means the engine doesn't have to consume as much fuel to move it. That's like a double-whammy of fuel economy.

All of this helps automakers meet the increasingly strict federal regulations around fuel efficiency. But there are a couple of downsides.

Turbo engines are more complex than conventional ones. And the more parts something has, the more likely it is that one of those parts will break. Designs have improved over the years, but they're not perfect.

Ironically, Ford's EcoBoost is a perfect example of this problem: though it's increasingly popular, many consumers claim that the EcoBoost has left their vehicles with significantly reduced power that's much worse than the traditional "turbo lag". In Ohio and Louisiana, customers have sued Ford for that, and last spring, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation into the matter.

Diesels present a different challenge -- one of public perception. Many Americans associate diesel engines with the loud, foul-smelling cars that became popular during the 1970s and 80s. Though diesels are very popular in Europe and elsewhere, Americans have a tough time thinking of them as the clean, elegant, sporty vehicles they've become over the past couple of decades. So as much as they have to offer, we're not sure that many in the U.S. will be inclined to buy them. 

Do the pros of turbos and diesels outweigh the cons? Sound off below -- or sit back and watch as the great migration begins.

And be sure to check out Green Car Reports' take on Ford's announcement and Volkswagen's, too. They offer some very interesting perspectives on these and other matters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.