TC Turbocharger

[G B L]

I am agreeing  with you. If you spend enough time operating at 5000 feet and above with a limited hp engine then the Turbo (which does not have a hp loss ) is the power plant to chose. If you are not at Altitude the extra cost is harder to justify

Edited September 27, 2016 by G B L

[DapperVan]

Just throwing in my 2 cents. I shopped TC's for about 3 months before finding the right one. I drove from LA to Vegas to buy it, meaning I had to pay the sales tax in cash back here in CA. Obviously I did a lot of homework before making that decision.

To me, there is a minimum amount of torque I'm willing to have in a vehicle. I have sold too many cars because I thought I could live with them being gutless, but realized soon after that I just couldn't (2008 Suzuki SX4, 2013 Subaru Crosstrek XV come to mind) and sold them for a big loss. I wasn't going to make the same bad choice again with the TC.

Even though, for the same price, I could get a LWB Titanium trim model with the rear captains chairs, in leather AND rear A/C AND locally...I still chose the stripper model SWB all the way out in Vegas because that's how much better the 1.6 turbo drives over the 2.5. I don't care if Ford only rates it 9 hp more. I'm telling you right now the engines are night and day. 

Truth be told I'd still like more power, especially at the top end, but I'm waiting for the aftermarket to handle that. I also have a Fiesta ST with the same engine and turbo, yet it has 20 more hp...only because of the ECU tune. As soon as someone makes an ECU tuner for the TC there's another 20 hp. 

200 hp in this van will be a lot of fun.

[G B L]

I hear you and at some point I will get to drive a 1.6 and get a first hand experience.  I wanted a wagon and the Short wheel base Seat configuration was was not acceptable. My choice used a different set of variables. Both outcomes are Valid.  I also think that 200 to 240 hp in this van would be a lot of fun.