I don't trust any turbos.
Never had one, probably never will.
As everyone is jumping on the turbo-4 bandwagon, so are American manufacturers. But given (1) their horrible reliability in the eighties and (2) that they are essentially new at it after such a long absence in the US from the turbo scene, do you trust their reliability? These engine are going into family sedans whose typical owners won't use synth and who will never cool down when necessary. If Ford/GM mess up even a little with shielding oil lines, proper cooling, etc., could we end up with a mess?
Or are the European branches of Ford/GM experienced enough in turbos that they won't mess up the US models?
American carmakers improved big time, like everybody else. I'd trust them for 120K miles minimum. Yet I don't see the least necessity of a turbo in a mainstreamer - waste of money and more concerns for nothing.
2007 E90 AW 323i Step | Lowered 1.25"/1" | BMW Performance Exhaust | PBX | Debadged | Scangauge II | Style 162 18" & 161 17" wheels & rear 15mm spacers
The typical owner of many turbo econoboxes probably didn't use synthetic oil or treat those motors any different then any other appliance over in Europe. Also, the domestics have had plenty of practice outside the US with small turbo motors so I don't see any problem.
I had a 1987 LeBarron Turbo,family owned from new, and that thing had the original turbo with over 179.000 miles on the engine. Horrible reliability in the 80's? I don't think so. America lead the revolution on water cooled turbos that everybody embraces today. Now the straight oil cooled turbos could present problems if not cooled down for a couple of minutes after running. This was why turbo timers were developed as well as pre and post oilers. I think turbo design has come a long way as far as turbo's designed for different applications instead of the one size fits all approach of the 80's. I don't know about poor reliability even with the oil cooled ones as I have a Callaway turbo Scirocco with around 75,000 on the clock that had doubled as my DD for a couple of weeks. My 1.8T retired its original turbo at 85,000 so I guess that destroys the watercooled turbo argument, however I did not own that car from new.
Here in the US, you only have to look at how the VW 1.8T engine was serviced by dealers. The manual recommends 5W-40 VW spec oil. If that is not available, then at least ACEA A3 oil, and if that is not available, then API spec generic 5W-30 (you can sense the desperation of the service manual writer ) Guess what all dealers used: the cheapest 5W-30 oil they could get their hands on, leading to numerous problems down the line. VW and Audi dealers wisened up a little. But I wonder how GM/Ford dealers/customers will handle the oil requirements of their family sedans.
http://www.speedsportlife.com press vehicle(s) this week: Scion FR-S 6MT, Miata Club PRHT
Twitter: @SSLByron, @SpeedSportLife
But I was more generally referring to the reliability of turbos of that era, which weren't widely used in American cars, but they were used in enough cars like the Sunbird that a reputation for turbos being "bad" was born.
Been pissing on the dog for 230+K miles now No turbo problem, no oil burning. The engine is still good. I am curious (not tempted yet) about the fusion/malibu, but I would prefer first to see how the new American turbo engines hold up over a few years.Don't you drive a VW? Talk about the hydrant pissing on the dog
It was the tuning/computers/carburetors that managed old turbo cars that were horrible. PCV systems were terrible.
Ran bad, blew seals, horrible gas mileage. Also don't forget it was the emissions crisis era in the 80's, where cars with V8s made like 180hp with turbos and under the hood was a sea of vacuum lines/emissions equipment everywhere.
Those days are long gone.
I trust them, and love them. As a matter of fact, i feel every engine should have one. It's wasted exhaust energy that should've been properly harnessed decades ago.
What about the 03-05 srt4 neon's?! Domestic turbo engine, with no real engine issues. Easy as always to tune and make power.
I think the real question should be related to Direct Injection Turbo engines. I also think the real answer to this question is the capability of the stock cam driven fuel pump and carbon build up in the engine. This seems to be the common issues with new turbo engines, from any auto maker.
I'll take my Koenigsegg Agera R anyway they want to give it to me. It can be pink, covered in 'Hello Kitto' livery and have a plate that reads 'I SUCK IT" and I'd still drive it with pride....
Look at your signature, now back to mine, now back to yours, now back to mine. Sadly, yours isn’t mine.
I don't think anyone has a serious advantage in R&D/manufacturing when it comes to drivetrain technology and reliability today, frankly. Which means I'd unhesitatingly recommend a Chevy Cruze or Sonic with the 1.4T motor.
GM products with the 2.0T motor have proven to be very robust in service. Thus far, no major failure trends with the Ford EcoBoost V6, either, in transverse or longitudinal applications.
All of the others--which have been stock for the most part--have been faultless for 70+k miles. That includes my Saab, a Subaru 2.5T, my current VW's, and another Audi.
turbos have horrible reliability?
maybe home brew strapped on to otherwise factory stock turbos do, but turbos designed in from the beginning have really had almost zero problems in cars/trucks.
<-owner of an 80s turbo car with a non-rebuilt stock turbo with over 120k miles, that has been tracked, autocrossed and otherwise beat to hell.
I'm scared of turbos and to be honest, I don't fully understand how they work. I don't know if oil is routed through them to cool them, variable vane, bypass valves, blowoff valves, intercoolers. When I look at friend's turbo engine bays, I don't honestly know everything I am looking at.
Three wheeled cars inherently are unstable. NA motors don't have any real drawbacks besides efficiency.
Also, turbo lag. I have driven turbos, just not owned one.