View Full Version : Turbo charged automobile engines - educate me
Ground rules: Only reply if you have first hand knowledge. Tales and stories from your next door neighbor's hairdresser's boyfriend doesn't count. Please elaborate, not just "it sucks" or "it's wonderful". And finally, no attacking others replies. Thanks, here goes:
I am not very familiar with turbo engine and just found out recently that many passenger cars and SUV are now using turbo charged engine. Ford Edge, Chevy Equinox and its Buick cousin, VW (several models), just to name a few.
How reliable are turbo engines?
Are they difficult to maintain?
Does a driver/owner have to treat it differently in the day to day operation?
Why are so many companies going to turbo engines?
Sam, Turbochargers have been used on automobile engines for many decades. In the beginning they were used to raise the power output of performance vehicles. They are now used to get adequate performance out of smaller/lighter engines. An example would be Cadillac. The turbo engines are less than half the displacement of their naturally aspirated engines. They are as reliable as anything else if properly maintained. I doubt most drivers even know their engine is turbocharged. My wife's car has twin turbos. One for low rpm boost and the other for high rpm boost. She doesn't have a clew. All she knows is the car is peppy and gets 30 mpg.
As far as longevity of a turbo engine I had a Volvo XC70 with a turbocharged 5 cylinder motor that had 330k miles on it when I finally sold it. Never had a problem out of the motor. Currently I drive a turbocharged Lincoln MKZ that is up to 75k miles. I know these are small samples but I would not hesitate to buy a vehicle I like because it was turbocharged.
At this point, most new cars with turbos are going to be 200K mile reliable cars. I've had an Eagle Talon, Dodge Colt, and Evo 8 so all my personal experience is with Mitsubishis 4G motors, which were/are very good. Still had a little bit of lag compared to the newer cars. BMW/Mercedes/Audi/volvo models have almost no turbo lag at this point/use anti-lag tech. Some cars now spool the turbo electrically so you are always on boost, but makes the car a little twitchy. Example, coming off a stop light giving it gas, let off the accelerator quick you'll get some bucking as the anti-lag systems don't seem to vent well on the 4 cylinder motors if you do a full lift off throttle. (have not noticed this on the v8s and is not as pronounced on the V6s). Gas mileage and power per unit of displacement are why so many manufacturers are going this route. It does add complexity but at this point, it's not a major reliability concern. The twin turbo V6s and V8s out there are amazing, boat loads of power with almost none of the draw backs vs. the 4 cylinder variants. When compared to NA V8s, you are sacrificing the throttle response and overall engine sound with turbos. BMW actually uses the stereo to compensate for the lack of true engine noise--I still love the new M2 despite this "feature".
You need to use Premium fuel in most. At this point the turbos are buried in the engine by or nestled in engine in such a way as to make it user unserviceable. It's not just a bolt onto the exhaust manifold and a downpipe anymore, the whole system is integrated.
In the winter, if you drive the car hard I still believe in letting the engine cool down at idle for a few minutes vs. shutting it off immediately. I've seen my friends Ford F150 with 3.5 ecoboost shock turbos and that was supposedly not an issue. If its cold enough and you've been towing a large snowmobile trailer for 500 miles--you do not want to let that -25 air back into the engine through the exhaust when the turbos are full temp. They were replaced under warranty, but it is something to watch out for (First gen/first model year F150 with the EcoBoost, guessing they have it figured out by now). My Dad's Ram 2500 with Cummins has been bullet proof.
They are as reliable as any other engine currently on the market, but failure can be catastrophic. I treat turbo vehicles like Euro vehicles. Once they fall out of warranty, they’re gone.
No special concerns, though some are used on high compression engines using premium gas. It’s not always the case, but to get the turbo on my car, I had to get a premium only engine. Some may benefit from a cooldown after use, but most are now safe to turn off immediately.
Would I do it again? Yes. I am a performance junky. Would I rather have a supercharger instead? Also yes.
They can be very reliable as long as your don't exceed the boost levels the engine and the turbo were designed for.
Most factory cars are run at boost levels way below their maximums for longevity.
Other than turbo lag, there isn't many bad things I can say about them. I had a '15 SantaFe 2.0T and I don't have a single negative thing to day about it. Excellent fuel mileage, plenty of power for what it was. I will say that it was a lease and I was below milage on it, but still. There was some turbo lag when you got on it.
Turbos also give you the opportunity to have fun relatively inexpensively. Sometimes it may be as little as changing the spring in the wastegate and you have more power. Just don't go crazy, as stated in the opening sentence of this post.
My experience is 89K with an '02 WRX. My observations were more frequent oil changes, but that's it. In the old days, the turbos themselves could fail if shut off hot (bearing failure), but modern turbo engines continue to cycle oil through the turbos after shutoff until the temps are low enough to prevent cooking the bearings.
As stated above, turbos have been reliably used in performance applications for decades with few issues. That WRX sucked for fuel economy as a 2.0L 4 cylinder, but that's because I didn't drive it like a granny. If I had I'm sure it would've done great on fuel, but then I wouldn't need a turbo WRX.
Now they put them on many engines so they can get improved EPA ratings. Those turbos are smaller, provide boost at much lower RPM but don't boost power as much as bigger turbos. My aunt has an '18 Honda CRV with a 1.5L turbo. It's plenty peppy for what it is, but it's no race machine (I helped her purchase it and we've taken trips in it, so I do have personal experience driving it). It unlike my WRX gets great mileage. Honda HAS had issues with that engine though. Allegedly it was a software/injector issue causing raw fuel to contaminate the oil. I have her checking the oil regularly They're supposed to have it fixed on all '19's and newer, but I'd make sure it was fixed if I was buying a low mileage used '17 or '18 with that engine. Again, it's not a turbo related issue, so I'm not sure that counts.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/honda-delays-cr-v-turbo-engine-fix-details-rollout-plans/
Hope that helps!
In the winter, if you drive the car hard I still believe in letting the engine cool down at idle for a few minutes vs. shutting it off immediately. .
This is the thing that I'm concerned with. If we forget to let the engine cool down and shut it off immediately like a conventional engine, would that damage the turbo?
Now glocktogo wrote that modern turbo still circulate oil to cool off the engine after shut off, so that would make it acceptable to immediately turn the car off after a drive.
Thanks all for the different observation on your own experience. I'm still learning.
Other than turbo lag, there isn't many bad things I can say about them. I had a '15 SantaFe 2.0T and I don't have a single negative thing to day about it. Excellent fuel mileage, plenty of power for what it was. I will say that it was a lease and I was below milage on it, but still. There was some turbo lag when you got on it.
.
What exactly is turbo lag? Is it like it sounds? i.e. you press the accelerator and there is a slight lag before the car accelerate?
Didn't know the the Santa Fe was available with turbo. Speaking of Hyundai product, are you aware of the almost 2 million cars recall that Hyundai and Kia are faced with? Engine failure due to improper design and manufacturing causing metal shaving inside the engine and causing catastrophic failures.
gunnerblue
07-29-19, 10:08
Both my patrol vehicle, a 2013 F150, as well as my wife's 2017 Expedition have Ford's 3.6L Ecoboost with 127,000 and 52,000 miles respectively. Both engines themselves have been trouble-free. The Expediton did need its throttle body (common issue with Ford) replaced so I don't know if you'd count that as turbo-related or not. Turbo lag is noticeable and annoying, much more so in the F150 and really only from a dead stop. It is exactly as it sounds- a delay in movement after pressing the pedal. I do not maintain any different than a non-turbo vehicle. My next personal truck will be either a turbo gas or turbo diesel for towing capability.
contax_shooter
07-29-19, 10:11
Turbo lag is the delayed response from when you hit the throttle for acceleration. Typically, a turbo will need to suck air out of the atmosphere to spit it into your engine for combustion. This is only a big problem for aftermarket systems with larger turbos for performance. Your typical OEM turbo-charged engine will be very efficient because it was designed from the ground up to work in unison.
What exactly is turbo lag? Is it like it sounds? i.e. you press the accelerator and there is a slight lag before the car accelerate?
Didn't know the the Santa Fe was available with turbo. Speaking of Hyundai product, are you aware of the almost 2 million cars recall that Hyundai and Kia are faced with? Engine failure due to improper design and manufacturing causing metal shaving inside the engine and causing catastrophic failures.
That is exactly what it is. There is a time delay from the time you increase throttle, to the time the impeller spools up, builds boost and provides more HP. With factory cars it's usually not that bad because the turbos are small, the mass on the impeller isn't that bad so it spools up "fast enough". The delay is usually not much more than the time it takes the automatic transmission to realize you want to accelerate and downshift. In my SantaFe I also noticed that the car would not come into full boost till about 3500-4000rpm. Since I didn't have a boost gauge, I assume this to be the case. At that point, you felt a difference in the rate of acceleration. You could tell it was making more power.
Hyundai uses the 2.0 Turbo in a bunch of cars. Can't complain about 264hp from a 2.0L 4 banger. They also have a 1.6L Turbo.
I am unaware of the recall, the car went back in January 2018 when the lease was up. I tried to get one for my wife when her Sonata lease was up, but between 2015 and 2018 Hyundai got effed. In speaking with a friend who works for them, they would overestimate the residual values on their cars to make the leases better. This is why I was able to get a fully loaded SanteFe SPort 2.0T for $370/mo and only the fist month payment at signing. When the cars came back from lease, they were loosing money on them at the auctions like crazy. Went back in 2018 for a SantaFe Sport Ultimate ($4k more in MSRP) and they were asking $490 for the same terms. Yeah, no more Hyundai for us. She has a Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited now lol.
Alex:
Thanks for the explanation. You were lucky, but I think the engine problems mostly affected the Kia's GDI engine, I'm not sure what Hyundai's equivalent name is.
Here's the story on the engine recall and knock sensor problems. Again, although the article was about Hyundai, Kia is having the same problem.
https://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/2696
Coal Dragger
07-29-19, 10:46
Turbo lag is the amount of time between you inputting a throttle command for more power, and the engine being able to respond with that power due to needing the turbo to spool up and make boost. Remember in order to make power, you have to burn fuel, to burn that fuel you need air, and the turbocharged engine relies on that air being forced into the engine. If said turbocharger is not spinning at adequate RPM’s then there will be a noticeable delay where the engine feels sluggish until exhaust gas velocity picks up enough to spin the turbocharger turbine and impeller enough to make positive manifold pressure on the inlet side.
Generally the larger the turbocharger the more susceptible they will be to turbo lag, but the higher the potential power output will be. A larger turbocharger housing, usually expressed in millimeters, and larger turbine wheel and inlet impeller can move a lot more air and effectively compress it into the cylinders to enable more fuel to be burned. The downside is that more exhaust gas volume and velocity are needed to make the hot side spin fast enough to get the fresh air side to make that boost. So the driver has to compensate by downshifting more often to get the engine to boost by allowing the engine to turn more RPM’s, increase exhaust gas volume and velocity; therefore producing boost on the inlet side. So in days of old, a turbocharged engine that was designed to make a lot of power had to be kept on the boil just like any other high RPM oriented performance engine.
Today’s turbocharging strategy usually is a smaller displacement engine with a small turbocharger, the smaller turbochargers spool very quickly because the interior dimensions of the turbine side and inlet side encourage sufficient turbine/impeller wheel speeds with less exhaust gas volume and velocity. So boost is nearly instantaneous and often times renders a torque curve for the driver where peak torque is achieved at around 1600 RPM’s and is maintained for several thousand more RPM’s. This makes for a very linear power delivery and makes the engine respond like a larger displacement naturally aspirated engine. The fuel economy advantages are questionable since getting into boost = burning more fuel, but driveability is good. The small turbo set ups often feel a bit flat at higher RPM’s because the small turbo not only is incapable of moving large amounts of air (expressed as cubic feet per minute) but acts as an exhaust restriction.
Even the big turbo applications are seeing less and less lag or virtually none thanks to variable vanes, and adjustable nozzles to get the larger units to make boost sooner. Then you have compound turbos, one small and one large but those are not common in OEM applications. Either way performance cars with big turbos can make impressive power thanks to advances is turbo geometry control, fueling, and engine control.
If for some reason you wanted to take a big engine, and slap turbos on it... well those are evidently hilarious. Go look up Nelson Racing Engines for example. Plenty of twin turbo V8’s with large displacement and big turbos making well in excess of 1000hp on pump gas at boost levels that are relatively mild. They don’t really have much turbo lag because the engine is large, and if they do the driver doesn’t notice too much because they’re already powerful before the boost develops.
There’s a lot of other technical issues to consider for performance applications and longevity like charge air cooling, oil management for cooling the turbos down after operation, exhaust gas temps etc. The easy answer is that in stock form most manufacturers understand how to make these cars and trucks reliable and seamless for the end user.
My last turbocharged Subaru was hard on oil though and that is a common occurrence. Oil consumption, and oil condition will probably be worse than a naturally aspirated engine. So check the oil often, top off as needed, and take the manufacturer long oil change interval with a grain of salt.
I would personally be hesitant to keep a vehicle with a turbocharged engine past warranty limits, unless I have a budget to deal with the turbos inevitable failure. Hopefully that failure doesn’t wreck the engine. I’ve had a few at work on locomotives fail, and it’s bad news when they do. The last one spun itself apart and grenaded so hard bits of metal penetrated the long hood doors on the locomotive. I’m sure the engine sucked in a whole bunch of what was the air inlet impeller. Spectacular catastrophic failure.
I would personally be hesitant to keep a vehicle with a turbocharged engine past warranty limits, unless I have a budget to deal with the turbos inevitable failure. Hopefully that failure doesn’t wreck the engine. I’ve had a few at work on locomotives fail, and it’s bad news when they do. The last one spun itself apart and grenaded so hard bits of metal penetrated the long hood doors on the locomotive. I’m sure the engine sucked in a whole bunch of what was the air inlet impeller. Spectacular catastrophic failure.
You're the second person to show concern about keeping the vehicle past the warranty limits. That scares me.
Thanks for your well thought out explanation. I've learned a lot this morning.
Sam--Are you looking to add forced induction or buying OEM?
You're the second person to show concern about keeping the vehicle past the warranty limits. That scares me.
Thanks for your well thought out explanation. I've learned a lot this morning.
I think the key is to manage oil maintenance more frequently. My closed deck 2.0L WRX didn't burn or use any oil between changes, but I had it changed more frequently than the factory recommended. If it looked dirty, I took it in for a change.
Replacing a turbo can be expensive, but in many cases they can be rebuilt for not too much, as long as you have it done before they fail catastrophically. When I sold my WRX at 89K, it wasn't because I was worried about upcoming maintenance/repair costs.
Another note on turbo lag, the smaller the turbo, the less the lag. Older setups like my WRX wouldn't come into the powerband until around 3K rpm. Many of the newer "efficiency" turbo setups will come on around 2K rpm.
To me it felt like driving a NA 4cyl until you hit the other side of an intersection, then it felt like another 2 cylinders kicked in. :)
Sam--Are you looking to add forced induction or buying OEM?
Just trying to learn if buying an all around family vehicle that has turbo is an option for us. After reading all the great comments here, I'm still not convinced that our family is ready for one.
Just trying to learn if buying an all around family vehicle that has turbo is an option for us. After reading all the great comments here, I'm still not convinced that our family is ready for one.
It’s almost hard to avoid if you want anything that is fun to drive (in a family car). The Toyota V6 RAV4 Sport was a fantastic small crossover, but good luck finding a low mileage used one.
Dr. Bullseye
07-29-19, 13:42
Turbo charged engines as opposed to normally aspired engines simply generate more heat for a given displacement, more heat, more horsepower. But more heat, less reliability.
Coal Dragger
07-29-19, 14:46
You're the second person to show concern about keeping the vehicle past the warranty limits. That scares me.
Thanks for your well thought out explanation. I've learned a lot this morning.
I’m not sure how much turbocharger failure potential or maintenance requirements should or should not scare you.
An honest self assessment of your vehicle use, driving cycle, and ownership duration and mileage should factor in.
Additionally some research about the engine in question will help, specifically how the manufacturer deals with the issues of turbocharger lubrication, cooling (If present), and charge air after cooling. Obviously lubrication is critical on a component like a turbocharger that is going to have a turbine and impeller connected via a shaft spinning at 100,000 RPM’s, the bearing and shaft must have adequate lubrication, and enough flow of that lubricant that it doesn’t coke up from heat or otherwise cook and break down. Since one side of the turbo is flowing blazing hot exhaust gasses, the oil takes a temperature beating. One solution on higher end setups is liquid cooling of the turbo, but it’s not as common as one would hope.
Then there is after cooling of the charge air. Also often mistakenly called intercooling (although intercooling can also be done). Effectively the compressed air in the intake manifold is hotter than ambient after being compressed, and the after cooler cools it back down to varying degrees before it gets into the intake and cylinders. The advantages are dramatic the more effective and efficient your after cooling is, the charge air being cooler allows more air density resulting in more power. The cooler charge air also reduces the chances of premature detonation also known as knock, and reduces exhaust gas temperatures and combustion temperatures so you are far less likely to damage pistons, rings, valves, and your turbocharger.
A well designed turbocharged engine can be incredibly durable, for example turbo Diesel engines particularly those in heavy equipment, class 8 trucks, locomotives, and marine applications. However the power output versus displacement is usually low by automotive standards, meaning the engines are under far less stress.
If you keep a vehicle long term and it sees a lot of stop and go driving or idling, a turbocharger might not be your preferred method of attaining desired power. The third party contractor that provides transportation to train crews has a fleet of GM Suburbans and Ford Expeditions. The GM’s of course use the venerable larger displacement cam in block V8 that is naturally aspirated, and the Ford’s all have the 3.5L EcoBoost turbo V6. Oil changes are probably not as frequent as they should be, tons of idling time, stop and go driving, and getting beat on by drivers who don’t own them. The GM’s are noticeably more robust and all have significantly higher mileage than the Ford turbo engine Expeditions. I will note that the older Expeditions with the 5.4L naturally aspirated V8’s were also hot garbage, so maybe Ford doesn’t know how to produce a durable engine for a user who will expect to put on 350-450K miles.
Hammer_Man
07-29-19, 14:57
As an experienced Euro car tech, I can tell you turbo engines are fun, but can be more expensive to keep running over the long term. Turbos generate a lot of heat, which require extra cooling, and oil supply equipment. Extra parts equal extra opportunities for failures down the road. I've been pretty impressed by Mercedes turbo engines, but not so much BMW, Mini, or VW turbo engines. Modern engines have pretty much minimized turbo lag to the point that it's mostly in-noticeable. Bottom line do some research into the specific vehicle you're interested in, and see what actual owners have to say.
This is the thing that I'm concerned with. If we forget to let the engine cool down and shut it off immediately like a conventional engine, would that damage the turbo?
No. Diesel trucks are all turbo and are quite reliable. Same as I would recommend for them, a few minutes idle after long uphill pulls or towing. Hot rodded turbo sports cars and aftermarket turbos (as well as a big V8) can tax the capacity of the factory radiator. This and 80-90s engine management limitations are where most of the turbo problems lore came from.
A modern direct injection turo has almost no lag with plenty of low end torque. Most have more power with premium but run safely with regular.
I have been interested in, owned, and hung out with performance turbo fans since the 90s. I don't see any comparison of reliability concerns then, and my wife's Ford Edge EcoBoost.
Turbo charged engines as opposed to normally aspired engines simply generate more heat for a given displacement, more heat, more horsepower. But more heat, less reliability.
Heat does not generate HP, in fact, all other things equal heat reduces HP.
The higher heat comes from the compressed air. The more you compress it, the hotter it gets.
Since heat is bad, the air is usually passed through an inter-cooler to cool it down. Since it is now cooler, it is denser and can make more HP.
Having owned several vehicles that are turbo or super charged, I see no difference in reliability, following the recommended maintenance schedules.
Coal Dragger
07-29-19, 15:36
No. Diesel trucks are all turbo and are quite reliable. Same as I would recommend for them, a few minutes idle after long uphill pulls or towing. Hot rodded turbo sports cars and aftermarket turbos (as well as a big V8) can tax the capacity of the factory radiator. This and 80-90s engine management limitations are where most of the turbo problems lore came from.
A modern direct injection turo has almost no lag with plenty of low end torque. Most have more power with premium but run safely with regular.
I have been interested in, owned, and hung out with performance turbo fans since the 90s. I don't see any comparison of reliability concerns then, and my wife's Ford Edge EcoBoost.
Turbo diesel trucks are really not that reliable anymore, not with all the emissions gear on them. They are getting better though. Still so much expensive crap to go wrong on any turbocharged engine, particularly a diesel.
Turbo lag: not a real thing.
In most turbocharged OEM cars, only a fraction of exhaust gas is operating the turbo, the rest is bypassed into the downstream exhaust. And turbos are used on cars that with economical engines that make relatively low horsepower and the turbo simply gives the engine that extra HP so you can keep up on the highways. Or they are used on diesels to increase the overall towing power and torque.
They are not building Buick Grand Nationals or T-Type's anymore and most cars are gas/eco friendly cars coming with economical engines with "micro" turbochargers.
My Porsche Cayenne has a turbo, but is just as fast as a non turbo Cayenne GTS. They claim more HP but that is at 5600 RPM and not through out the whole RPM band.
Turbo lag: not a real thing.
It is a real thing.
The difference in response between a supercharged engine and a turbo charged engine is night and day.
For every day driving, yeah it does not matter.
It is a real thing.
The difference in response between a supercharged engine and a turbo charged engine is night and day.
For every day driving, yeah it does not matter.
No turbo setup will ever provide instant on demand torque like a supercharger will, but superchargers are parasitic, whereas turbos aren't for the most part. That's why turbos are preferred by most auto manufacturers for EPA reasons. Also, many of these newer designs use a Hot V setup with smaller and in some cases, twin or sequential twin turbos. They get on boost much faster and are far more efficient.
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1113129_what-is-a-hot-inside-v-turbo-engine
It is a real thing.
The difference in response between a supercharged engine and a turbo charged engine is night and day.
A column of air moves evenly no matter the velocity. If you blow up a balloon, it inflates evenly. A turbochargers compressor is governed by the turbine, a geared supercharger is governed by the engines RPM. A turbocharger is not designed to give power throughout the entire powerband but at higher RPM's. A geared supercharger is designed to increase horsepower throughout the entire RPM range.
I get what your saying, but most people when referencing "turbo lag" thinks that the column of air has to move so many inches through ducting before it can have any effect on power. Its simply designed to perform at the top end. On the newer OEM cars, the turbo is only there to assist you getting onto and maintaining speed on the freeway.
Turbo diesel trucks are really not that reliable anymore, not with all the emissions gear on them.
We are not talking about electronics or complicated diesel emissions equipment, because a gas turbo has all the same former and none of the latter as an NA gas engine.
My biggest reliability concern with any new car is that they found a way to make rodent attractant into environmentally friendly wiring insulation...
And turbo lag is glorious in a manual sports car. It means the turbo is big enough to make gobs of top end power.
OK I cannot take it anymore. This is what Turbo Lag means. It is not top end, it is not HP, it is not freeway acceleration, it is not boost threshold.
What is turbo lag? It's the delay between when you open the throttle and when the turbo begins delivering boost—when the engine is above its boost threshold RPM. Some engines have nearly zero turbo lag, some have a ton. But there isn't an engine out there that can deliver an immediate hit of boost below its boost threshold RPM. It's simply not possible.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a14242489/you-might-not-actually-know-what-turbo-lag-really-means/
Turbo lag is the time between mashing the throttle and feeling the rush of torque from a turbocharged engine. The lag comes from the time it takes the engine to create enough exhaust pressure to spin the turbo and pump compressed intake air into the engine and is longest when the engine is in a low-rpm, low-load cruising situation.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/what-is-turbo-lag-how-do-you-get-rid-of-it/
Now, does anyone have a good source for AR-15 clips....
Coal Dragger
07-29-19, 16:50
A turbocharged gasoline engine isn’t as reliable long term as a naturally aspirated engine either.
If you want long term mechanical reliability you want generous displacement for the rated power, natural aspiration, high quality internal components, and probably port fuel injection to avoid high pressure fuel pumps and fuel rails. Keep it simple, lowly stressed, and overbuilt.
Outlander Systems
07-29-19, 17:14
I like how it took three more pages after this to explain what you already laid out pretty simply.
Turbo lag is the delayed response from when you hit the throttle for acceleration. Typically, a turbo will need to suck air out of the atmosphere to spit it into your engine for combustion. This is only a big problem for aftermarket systems with larger turbos for performance. Your typical OEM turbo-charged engine will be very efficient because it was designed from the ground up to work in unison.
Port injection? Is not the carburetor "more reliable" than all the newfangled computers and sensors in EFI? Can we keep this confined to technology than is actually used on a modern car? An over built engine doesn't meet modern MPG requirements, and takes away from how much they can put into crash protection.
Mainly, I see most of your negative assumptions based on older turbo tech.
Digital_Damage
07-29-19, 17:29
Well the way I understand it is... poop (Exhaust goes in), power(More combustion) comes out.
am I doing it right?
Large displacement NA is actually less reliable than modern forced induction engines... in HP per HP comparison...
Coal Dragger
07-29-19, 17:40
Well the way I understand it is... poop (Exhaust goes in), power(More combustion) comes out.
am I doing it right?
Large displacement NA is actually less reliable than modern forced induction engines... in HP per HP comparison...
The experience of fleet buyers and operators contradicts your statement. Evidently Ford agrees and is addressing the issue for work truck applications.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/amp27310861/ford-73-liter-gas-v8-engine/
My observations of a fleet running DI turbocharged gasoline and NA V8’s has also been that the NA rigs with simple V8’s are way more reliable.
You have some evidence of your claim?
Coal Dragger
07-29-19, 17:46
Port injection? Is not the carburetor "more reliable" than all the newfangled computers and sensors in EFI? Can we keep this confined to technology than is actually used on a modern car? An over built engine doesn't meet modern MPG requirements, and takes away from how much they can put into crash protection.
Mainly, I see most of your negative assumptions based on older turbo tech.
Yep port fuel injection has by far the best long term track record of low maintenance requirements, economical parts/repairs, while providing perfectly acceptable performance and reliability. Not claiming direct injection will not get there, but high pressure fuel pump failures are not uncommon and cost significantly more to replace than a low pressure fuel pump.
You assume I’m anti-turbo, that’s not the case, but if long term ownership is the goal or high mileage usage is the goal with minimal downtime and maintenance then stick with simple proven NA gasoline engines of the port fuel injection variety.
Digital_Damage
07-29-19, 17:49
The experience of fleet buyers and operators contradicts your statement. Evidently Ford agrees and is addressing the issue for work truck applications.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/amp27310861/ford-73-liter-gas-v8-engine/
My observations of a fleet running DI turbocharged gasoline and NA V8’s has also been that the NA rigs with simple V8’s are way more reliable.
You have some evidence of your claim?
must have missed the "HP per HP comparison..." These large displacement can only generate equitable power in the low end.
Coal Dragger
07-29-19, 17:55
I’m gathering that you don’t know much about internal combustion engines....
Digital_Damage
07-29-19, 18:00
I’m gathering that you don’t know much about internal combustion engines....
In automobiles not really... but my aerospace engineering degree says I know how to build crazy flying machines.
Smuckatelli
07-29-19, 18:06
Ground rules: Only reply if you have first hand knowledge.
How reliable are turbo engines?
Are they difficult to maintain?
Does a driver/owner have to treat it differently in the day to day operation?
We have had this car since October 2003:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15135389/volvo-s60r-v70r-first-drive-review/
We have had no issues with the turbo, we have 207,500 miles on it.
We have only done regular scheduled maintenance. We did have to get the clutch replaced when our oldest was learning how to drive the manual transmission back in 2009.
I haven't treated it differently than my other cars before it or the current cars that the family has now.
The only down side is that it takes higher octane gas.
The experience of fleet buyers and operators contradicts your statement. Evidently Ford agrees and is addressing the issue for work truck applications.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/amp27310861/ford-73-liter-gas-v8-engine/
My observations of a fleet running DI turbocharged gasoline and NA V8’s has also been that the NA rigs with simple V8’s are way more reliable.
Now it's about what engine Ford is putting in an F-750? And commercial fleets? I agree, a 3.5 EcoBoost might be too small there. I'll also point out that it could simply be what that market wants, not that a larger EcoBoost would be unreliable.
The engines that are going into passenger cars, SUVs, and F-150s are not as undersized as that example, nor run at high load as often.
Coal Dragger
07-29-19, 19:23
Not saying that they do, but even in similar size and weight vehicles I’ve observed quite a difference in available up-time in the Ford EcoBoost and the ubiquitous GM small block V8 (LS/Vortec architecture). The naturally aspirated GM V8 lasts longer, plenty I’ve been ferried about in with over 400K on the odometer. Quite an achievement considering who’s driving them, how they’re driven, and how they’re maintained. The Ford EcoBoost is better than their old 5.4L V8, which as noted was never a good engine, but thus far the EcoBoost still lags behind the GM V8 in long term service life under the conditions I’ve observed. The company that has them usually ditches the Ford Expeditions at about 250K or so, and keeps the GM’s in service to about 450K. They all break to varying degrees, but the GM’s can be more economically returned to service.
Thanks all for the good info. I have enough to make the decision. We're done.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.