New American turbo fours: do you trust their reliability?

[bustedbucket]

I read his comment as a mathematical issue and not a mind-set / generational generalisation.

On an unrelated note, I really like oldschool turbocharging. Huge turbolag followed by rocketsled acceleration is, for me, a never-fail recipe for hilarious times.

Agreed! The snoozing to BOOST! off/on powerband is definitely my favorite. Used to have a '74 bug that was as oldschool as it comes when it comes to turbo tech and it's sorely missed for its lightswitchiness. 7.5:1 comp, draw through 4bbl, t04, mbc. Give me an old school '76 930, bmw 2002 turbo, etc. type engine over a modern high comp tinkertoy turbo setup anyday, less power or not.

[BRealistic]

Why would I trust the long term reliability of a new American turbo four any less than a German turbo four?

[ThreadBomber]

The thing that gets me is how complicated stuff is now. Turbos are one aspect of it but the amount of stuff in an engine now is crazy. For example the 2.0TSI not only has your typical DOHC arrangement(driven by one chain), but it also has two balance shafts driven by another chain and an oil pump driven via a third chain . One of the balance shafts obviously rotates in the other direction so coming off the chain is a gear which drives an opposing gear on the shaft. The water pump is driven by a gear on the other side of one of the balance shafts.

It's just nuts how complicated this stuff is, a turbocharger and its accompanying parts is like 20% of the whole deal.

[Turbio!]

The thing that gets me is how complicated stuff is now. Turbos are one aspect of it but the amount of stuff in an engine now is crazy. For example the 2.0TSI not only has your typical DOHC arrangement(driven by one chain), but it also has two balance shafts driven by another chain and an oil pump driven via a third chain . One of the balance shafts obviously rotates in the other direction so coming off the chain is a gear which drives an opposing gear on the shaft. The water pump is driven by a gear on the other side of one of the balance shafts.

It's just nuts how complicated this stuff is, a turbocharger and its accompanying parts is like 20% of the whole deal.

And the thing that gets me is, despite all this complexity, cars today have failure rates many times lower than simpler cars of the '70s and '80s.

[av_audi]

And the thing that gets me is, despite all this complexity, cars today have failure rates many times lower than simpler cars of the '70s and '80s.

Why, because when you keep at something for a long time, you refine it, you find out the weak links and you fix them. But have you noticed how every time a new way of doing things is introduced, they still go through a learning curve to smooth out the rough edges? One example is direct injection. It stresses certain things in unfamiliar ways. So my point was basically that perhaps Ford/GM may need to go through one or two iterations to perfect their addition of turbos under the hood of family sedans. And btwy [not addressed to you], I didn't even state this as a fact, but I posed it as a question, but it was still attacking America for some people . Who knows, maybe they will get it right the first time. We'll find out soon enough.

[Turbio!]

So my point was basically that perhaps Ford/GM may need to go through one or two iterations to perfect their addition of turbos under the hood of family sedans. .

GM has been producing small-displacement turbo fours for many, many years, and so has Ford. I'm not sure why you think this is new to either of them.

[av_audi]

Yeah because a truck, tanks (Although US tank use Turbines), buses, heavy duty equipment do not take a bigger beating and work under a lot more extraneous conditions.

Completely irrelevant. These cars are designed within a set of severe cost constraints. Engineers try to come up with the cheapest design that are "good enough." How close can you get to good enough to satisfy the bean counters, without giving up so much that you cross a line into unreliability territory, is the name of the game. It is very easy to overlook small things when you walk such a tightrope, especially at a bean counter dominated company like GM.

I work at a company that does a little bit of R&D for GM, and trust me, they count pennies, not dollars on what goes into cars. I am just making this up, but I can easily imagine a scenario where the size of the heat shield for the turbo oil lines can be debated ad nauseam, because 50 sqinch versus 120 sqinch might add up to $1 a car, which is a huge deal.

[Turbio!]

I work at a company that does a little bit of R&D for GM, and trust me, they count pennies, not dollars on what goes into cars. I am just making this up, but I can easily imagine a scenario where the size of the heat shield for the turbo oil lines can be debated ad nauseam, because 50 sqinch versus 120 sqinch might add up to $1 a car, which is a huge deal.

Every OEM does this. Any OEM that didn't count pennies would be hemorrhaging money. I guarantee you that VW, Toyota, Hyundai and even BMW and Mercedes agonize over every red cent that goes into components.

[ToucheTurtle]

Yes American companies are totally new at the turbocharging game they've only been doing it since 1962

[av_audi]

GM has been producing small-displacement turbo fours for many, many years, and so has Ford. I'm not sure why you think this is new to either of them.

If so, I stand completely corrected. I just haven't seen them in high sale volume mainstream domestic cars. Are you talking about products made in Europe (Opel, Saab, etc.)?

I know there have been some turbo engines for domestic niche products, like the Chevy HHR SS and Saturn Red, which are extremely small production cars that do not generate the kind of statistics anyone would notice. And when you say "for many many" years, do you mean since 2007-2008?

So which are the cars in which GM been using turbo-fours for "many many" years? (honest question)

[av_audi]

Every OEM does this. Any OEM that didn't count pennies would be hemorrhaging money. I guarantee you that VW, Toyota, Hyundai and even BMW and Mercedes agonize over every red cent that goes into components.

I have never claimed otherwise. My mechanic has pointed to me many penny saving decisions in MBs sitting in his shop with the hood open, waiting to have the consequences of penny pinching fixed. Folks, I am not beating on American auto makers, at least not in this thread.

[Turbio!]

If so, I stand completely corrected. I just haven't seen them in high sale volume mainstream domestic cars. Are you talking about products made in Europe (Opel, Saab, etc.)?

I know there have been some turbo engines for domestic niche products, like the Chevy HHR SS and Saturn Red, which are extremely small production cars that do not generate the kind of statistics anyone would notice. And when you say "for many many" years, do you mean since 2007-2008?

So in which are the has GM been using turbo-fours for "many many" years? (honest question)

Yes, I'm talking about Opel and Saab. It's all the same company. It's all the same engineers, components, and designs. Saab and Opel engineers designed the Ecotec and its turbo variants.

[[spoon]]

Completely irrelevant. These cars are designed within a set of severe cost constraints. Engineers try to come up with the cheapest design that are "good enough." How close can you get to good enough to satisfy the bean counters, without giving up so much that you cross a line into unreliability territory, is the name of the game. It is very easy to overlook small things when you walk such a tightrope, especially at a bean counter dominated company like GM.

I work at a company that does a little bit of R&D for GM, and trust me, they count pennies, not dollars on what goes into cars. I am just making this up, but I can easily imagine a scenario where the size of the heat shield for the turbo oil lines can be debated ad nauseam, because 50 sqinch versus 120 sqinch might add up to $1 a car, which is a huge deal.

Every car is built/designed/engineered under cost restraints because every car is built to a price point. It seems like some here are just ignoring anything that they don't agree with or that goes against their prejudices.

GM started turbocharging in 1962 with the above Old Jetfire. The Buick Regal had a history of turbos. There was the Grand National. The Syclone/Typhoon of the early 90s. The Sunbird of about the same time. There was a turbo TransAm at this time as well. North American vehicles didn't see much in the way of turbos in the later 90s and early 00s but Holden and Opel used them.

[nm+]

Again, wasting your words because that has nothing to do with being over engineered. Being under stressed has nothing to do with over engineering. Do you know what over engineered mean or is? Are you an engineer designing engines? Do you do any work remotely around these engines?

Oh my god. This is the best question.
You must be really ****ing new around here.

Also as far as I can tell you are the only one who used the word "over-engineered" so congrats on out smarting yourself or something.

[av_audi]

Yes, I'm talking about Opel and Saab. It's all the same company. It's all the same engineers, components, and designs. Saab and Opel engineers designed the Ecotec and its turbo variants.

Simple question: did you even read the first post of this thread?:

Or are the European branches of Ford/GM experienced enough in turbos that they won't mess up the US models?

In any case, it is not as simple as saying it is all the same company. It never is in such big multi-national companies. These are different people on different continents. There are different design teams. And sometimes groups don't talk to each other enough because they are competing with each other or they just don't care. But you did provide an important clue, that the Ecotec was designed by a bunch of different branches and companies. I read up on it a little bit. Hopefully this bodes well for GM.

[[spoon]]

Simple question: did you even read the first post of this thread?:



In any case, it is not as simple as saying it is all the same company. It never is in such big multi-national companies. These are different people on different continents. There are different design teams. And sometimes groups don't talk to each other enough because they are competing with each other or they just don't care. But you did provide an important clue, that the Ecotec was designed by a bunch of different branches and companies. I read up on it a little bit. Hopefully this bodes well for GM.

Ford is competing against GM but GMC, Opel, Holden, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and Buick are all working together. The Ecotec has a very long history of use in pretty much every GM brand. Much like Ford's use of the Duratec from everything from Ford NA, Aus, Euro, and even Mazda vehicles. Each might add their own tune to the engine but a Ecotec/Duratec is the same thing. They're not redesigning the block for each region. It's the same as a 2.0T or 3.0T or 4.2 Audi/VW engine. The tunes might be different but the engine is the same.

[BRealistic]

Yes American companies are totally new at the turbocharging game they've only been doing it since 1962

Would modern customers be ok with adding special "Turbo-Rocket Fluid" to a separate reservoir?

[Turbio!]

Simple question: did you even read the first post of this thread?: .

I did. I'm answering it. Don't get condescending.

In any case, it is not as simple as saying it is all the same company. It never is in such big multi-national companies. These are different people on different continents. There are different design teams. And sometimes groups don't talk to each other enough because they are competing with each other or they just don't care. But you did provide an important clue, that the Ecotec was designed by a bunch of different branches and companies. I read up on it a little bit. Hopefully this bodes well for GM.

Why didn't you read up on it first?

[Shomegrown]

If I drive my gasser not passing 3K everyday it will also be under stressed. It is the nature of the Diesel to be more durable due to the design aspects involved. That has nothing to do with being over engineered, but you seem to lack the grasp of the use of the word over engineered.

But if you drive the diesel under the same profile as that gasser, the operating point is much further under the max design stresses of the diesel engine making last longer. The diesel has a much more robust bottom end, the wear coatings are thicker and more durable, and it's just built to a level it will last longer under light use.

I think you understand that, but it seems you're more interested in the semantics of "over engineered". I don't think it's a misuse of the word if you consider it in relation to what the customer needs. You may be thinking of the word simply in relation to the design requirements of the engine in which case you're right too - it's designed to a spec, and that's how we make it.

Then you should know that they are NOT over engineered. Who do you work for and what do you related to these engines? Are you in the design department or materials or what?

If you think "over engineered" is a poor choice of words, what do you think he should have said?

The engine may not be over engineered compared to the design requirements of making a modern and clean burning diesel. However to meet the design requirements, the engine ends up being over engineered for the average driver in the US and how they use their vehicle.

His point was that turbocharged diesel engines tend to outlast comparable gasoline engines. And he's right.

I've done component design, development and application engineering, and powertrain quality monitoring in the field. Most of that work has been on diesel engines working with around a dozen engine and vehicle manufactuerers.

[Turbio!]

But if you drive the diesel under the same profile as that gasser, the operating point is much further under the max design stresses of the diesel engine making last longer. The diesel has a much more robust bottom end, the wear coatings are thicker and more durable, and it's just built to a level it will last longer under light use.
.

The question that comes to my mind is whether it makes a lot of difference for the consumer. Most drivetrains, whatever the fuel type, made today will last a quarter million miles with responsible maintenance. The projected service lifetime of the other major components of the car is the limiting factor, not the durability of the engine itself. Is the difference you're describing really going to be meaningful?

[jimbogxp]

I guess I do. I own one. 290HP 2.0L in my Solstice GXP. So far so good but at 25k miles, that's meaningless.

[vasillalov]

The latest N55 BMW motor has a single turbo and hasn't seen any problems,

That's because the N55 is weak sauce compared to N54. It takes an act of a god to get the N55 tuned to produce any decent amount of power.

[B3sat16v]

While I don't think the idea that the US might not be able to build a decent turbo is silly, he has a point. Large diesel motors are massively over-built in a way that won't happen on a small gasser. Even with passenger car diesels there still a level of overbuilding (and different design) that doesn't exist in gassers.

Even VW/Audi, which has a long turbo history seems to have on average fewer problems with TDIs than gas turbos.

Oh my god. This is the best question.
You must be really ****ing new around here.

Also as far as I can tell you are the only one who used the word "over-engineered" so congrats on out smarting yourself or something.

Chap you used it first. What do you think massively overbuilt is. That construes over engineering something.

And it seems like your SA (Situational Awareness) is not very good since as you can see I have been around here for over a decade.

[nm+]

Chap you used it first. What do you think massively overbuilt is. That construes over engineering something.

And it seems like your SA (Situational Awareness) is not very good since as you can see I have been around here for over a decade.

1: "Over-building" is not "over-engineering." You were (are) being a pedantic *******, I returned the favor.

2: Really? I can't read dates. You need to lighten the **** up francis or go to some other forum because you don't seem to "get" TCL.
Seriously, you shomegrown if he knew anything about engineering engines. Only a real noob would ask that.

[Aonarch]

Over building and over engineering are not synonymous with one another.




Sent from my iPhone 7GS.

[Jrod511]

I worry more about long term durability than I do about reliability. I have VW's 1.8T to thank for making me nervous on both counts. So, I am very interested to see if in 5 years if this new crop of Turbo engines starts eating up sensors, diverter valves, expensive and unnecessary complex coolant piping, ignition parts BL&D, etc.