User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:00:22 PM EST
[#1]
Quoted: Turbocharged engines in cars have become more and more prevalent in recent times. If a manufacturer decides to make a turbocharged car, do they typically beef up the engine to handle the increased pressure the turbo puts on it? Or do they just slap a turbo on an engine originally designed to be naturally aspirated? How much less longevity do turbocharged engines tend to have compared to normally aspirated engines? A possible way to answer is in terms of percentage. Ex: A turbocharged engine will last 75% as long as a naturally aspirated engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:02:34 PM EST
[#2]
They are just as reliable and have been for a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:03:05 PM EST
[#3]
1: purpose built or modified to accommodate the change.
2: depends on a multitude of factors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:04:26 PM EST
[#4]
Yes, turbo internals are beefier than NA cars. Ask any Honda/Nissan/Toyota tuner what happened when they threw a turbo on a NA engine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:05:35 PM EST
[#5]
Yes they do beef them up, usually forged pistons and rods and forged steel crankshaft. Some of this stuff is actually in the N/A engine as well. Example is the Ford Coyote. They can handle a decent amount of HP with a turbo or supercharger slapped on top with no other changes.
Longevity, IMO, is directly related to HP output. More HP ACTUALLY SEEN, will decrease life. A 800hp@ 70000rpm engine isn't gonna wear a whole lot if it never goes above 2500rpm. Obvious some caveats to that like solid lifters and super stiff valve trains. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:05:44 PM EST
[#6]
The Audi 2.7 and 2.8L engines started as same block, but the 2.7 has lower displacement due to thicker cylinder walls to handle boost (compression) pressure. So, yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:07:12 PM EST
[#7]
The GM 2.7L I4 was designed from the ground up to be turbocharged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:07:26 PM EST
[#8]
They just slap on an eBay Chinese hair dryer and fucking send it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:08:09 PM EST
[#9]
I don’t care for the trend of smaller motors running under constant boost vs an appropriate sized motor getting the job done. Think of it this way.
Small motor under constant boost is like a toddler running around screaming all day. His ass is going to get worn out sooner than later. I know from experience that my old 350 Chevy with a 6-71 that was under driven and had two 600 cfm Holley carbs pulled 24-26 mpg just cruising. With 4:11 gears in the back. Pulled it off and slapped on a single 4bbl on a cast iron intake and got 8 mpg. In my opinion, mfgr should be sticking with a V8 with smaller turbos. But you always have to build the motor stronger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:09:02 PM EST
[#10]
You never hear about engines exploding. Trannies go out, etc, etc, but not blown cylinder heads. (Except Subaru of course)
The oil gets dirtier quicker. Full synthetic is mandatory, and 5000 mile oil changes is a good idea, though you could stretch it to 8000. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:09:48 PM EST
[#11]
Quoted: They are just as reliable and have been for a long time. Reliability isn't the same thing as longevity. Quoted: 1: purpose built or modified to accommodate the change. 2: depends on a multitude of factors. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:09:50 PM EST
[#12]
Quoted: Turbocharged engines in cars have become more and more prevalent in recent times. If a manufacturer decides to make a turbocharged car, do they typically beef up the engine to handle the increased pressure the turbo puts on it? Or do they just slap a turbo on an engine originally designed to be naturally aspirated? How much less longevity do turbocharged engines tend to have compared to normally aspirated engines? A possible way to answer is in terms of percentage. Ex: A turbocharged engine will last 75% as long as a naturally aspirated engine. Lower compression ratio and oil jets for pisttons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:10:41 PM EST
[#13]
Transmissions are also beefed up.
Mazda has a slightly tougher torque converter in their turbo 2.5 along with a much larger cooling capacity to deal with the heat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:10:45 PM EST
[#14]
Quoted: Turbocharged engines in cars have become more and more prevalent in recent times. If a manufacturer decides to make a turbocharged car, do they typically beef up the engine to handle the increased pressure the turbo puts on it? Or do they just slap a turbo on an engine originally designed to be naturally aspirated? How much less longevity do turbocharged engines tend to have compared to normally aspirated engines? A possible way to answer is in terms of percentage. Ex: A turbocharged engine will last 75% as long as a naturally aspirated engine. I have a factory Mazda CX-9, grand touring edition with the turbo engine. I think it's like 275hp and over 300 ft/lbs of torque. It's our family car and that car moves. I also have a 98 Integra that I'm building and putting in a turbo. This is my unreliable car. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:11:51 PM EST
[#15]
The Honda civic and accord share the same 1.5 L engine.
The civic gets 8 pounds of boost. The larger accord gets 12 pounds of boost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:12:26 PM EST
[#16]
I worked on the development of the Buick GranNational and GNX. There were no structural changes to the block as I recal. The former had a Garret Airresearch 2.0 turbo (12lbs @ waste gate) and the GNX had a 2.5 turbo (14lbs @wastegate). Compression ratio was 8:1 if I recall They worked fine as long as you didn’t make a hot run with the turbo spinning then shut it off. If you did that the oil would Char and send damaging particles through the turbo, and destroy the unit. Later turbos like Mopar had a passage for antifreeze circulation and improved the service life. That was in the 80s. A lot of improvements have come down the pike since then. They are common on trucks and small motors now. I still would not want to tow with one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:12:43 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t care for the trend of smaller motors running under constant boost vs an appropriate sized motor getting the job done. Think of it this way. Small motor under constant boost is like a toddler running around screaming all day. His ass is going to get worn out sooner than later. I know from experience that my old 350 Chevy with a 6-71 that was under driven and had two 600 cfm Holley carbs pulled 24-26 mpg just cruising. With 4:11 gears in the back. Pulled it off and slapped on a single 4bbl on a cast iron intake and got 8 mpg. In my opinion, mfgr should be sticking with a V8 with smaller turbos. But you always have to build the motor stronger. Ok boomer, tell me you understand nothing about modern engineerings without telling me you don't understand anything about modern engineering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:13:25 PM EST
[#18]
This gives you some of your first answer. Not exhaustive but pints out some of the changes/improvmements made in the 8AR from previous AR series engine
https://www.toyota-club.net/files/faq/16-01-01_faq_ar-engine_eng.htm The piston def for the 8AR is covered here. I might have some more if I can find some public sites that cover, I'll add. https://www.aisinaftermarket.eu/story/the-story-behind-the-development-of-the-internal-combustion-engine-piston/ The 8AR dev was pretty comprehensive, even by their standards. It was an important engine for a prominent, upscale division and extra effort went in. But it was also the first productio TC engine for Toyota in a bit, so that factored as well. Some other mfgs have different strategies. FWIW - do a search of the various online sales sites. Search 200t Lexus. Sort for highest miles. Notice the number of near 250k. Do that for '12-' 15 IS 250s, which were a GR series engine (the Toyota V6 in everything) . It's about correct engineering and proper testing. Even with good mfgs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:13:31 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Honda civic and accord share the same 1.5 L engine. The civic gets 8 pounds of boost. The larger accord gets 12 pounds of boost. New 1.5 civic turbo engines are INCREDIBLY efficient. They are HORRIBLE for modding but dear god they get good gas mileage and are pretty damn dead nuts reliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:16:35 PM EST
[#20]
It all depends..while a bone stock motor can be turbo-ed and reliable, it all depends on how hard it is run, even an engine specific built to handle a turbo and good boost, doesn't mean it will be bullet proof, right person run it hard enough or adjust something wrong and it is easily burn't down/broken compared to the stock engine..As far as components, yes a turbo built for the job is going to have a lot of better parts than the N/A stocker will from compression ratio to cam profile to different stronger pistons/rods/crank/block then figure port configuration and even combustion chamber shape and volume...Even fasteners and gaskets may and can be altered to help reliability...Anything can be broken if run hard enough, don't care who builds it with what parts, right person can destroy it, same goes for a turbo bolted on a bone stock engine, it can hold up well if its operated with in certain perimeters...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:21:13 PM EST
[#21]
I no longer work at a dealership but my friend who does replaces turbos all the time. But he works at a GM dealer so that could be the issue. But I would prefer a N/A engine for a daily driver than a small turbo engine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:21:22 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The GM 2.7L I4 was designed from the ground up to be turbocharged. Probably more importantly at GM, it was intended as a truck engine, that also had downsizing strategies implemented in development. Thats in no way impugning GMs truck engineering operations. It's a very good engine and I'd prolly choose it over any AFM offering. So were the turbo diesels out of Powertrain Torino, but they were hampered by emission necessities in some markets. Enough of VM Motori content tho. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:22:20 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, turbo internals are beefier than NA cars. Ask any Honda/Nissan/Toyota tuner what happened when they threw a turbo on a NA engine. Lol. Many of those companies offer "performance center" blowers that go on stock motors. A VG33er for example is identical internally to a VG33e. Often they are the same motor. Stay within the factory of safety and it's fine. Do stupid things like those "tuners" and they pop. Same thing happens with a turbo motor. Go stupid and they pop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:23:31 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Audi 2.7 and 2.8L engines started as same block, but the 2.7 has lower displacement due to thicker cylinder walls to handle boost (compression) pressure. So, yes. The 3.0AVK is NA and is a stroked 2.7 with move valves in the head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:25:44 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I no longer work at a dealership but my friend who does replaces turbos all the time. But he works at a GM dealer so that could be the issue. But I would prefer a N/A engine for a daily driver than a small turbo engine. The owners may not be maintaining them properly. Or maybe a combination of them being GM and not being properly maintained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:30:30 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The owners may not be maintaining them properly. Or maybe a combination of them being GM and not being properly maintained. In ford it is almost always carboned up oil feed line due to lack of oil change intervals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:31:22 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t care for the trend of smaller motors running under constant boost vs an appropriate sized motor getting the job done. Think of it this way. Small motor under constant boost is like a toddler running around screaming all day. His ass is going to get worn out sooner than later. I know from experience that my old 350 Chevy with a 6-71 that was under driven and had two 600 cfm Holley carbs pulled 24-26 mpg just cruising. With 4:11 gears in the back. Pulled it off and slapped on a single 4bbl on a cast iron intake and got 8 mpg. In my opinion, mfgr should be sticking with a V8 with smaller turbos. But you always have to build the motor stronger. Turbos have been in general aviation for decades. They are reliable. Backyard mechanics adding a turbo to an engine that wasn't designed for it will probably bring failure sooner, but simply having a turbo doesn't mean the engine is some ticking time bomb. Your preferences are your preferences, but a turbo engine will always be more efficient. That's just common sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:32:36 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I worked on the development of the Buick GranNational and GNX. There were no structural changes to the block as I recal. The former had a Garret Airresearch 2.0 turbo (12lbs @ waste gate) and the GNX had a 2.5 turbo (14lbs @wastegate). They worked fine as long as you didn’t make a hot run with the turbo spinning then shut it off. If you did that the oil would Char and send damaging particles through the turbo, and destroy the unit. Later turbos like Mopar had a passage for antifreeze circulation and improved the service life. That was in the 80s. A lot of improvements have come down the pike since then. They are common on trucks and small motors now. I still would not want to tow with one. I towed with a turbo for many years. It was a turbo diesel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:33:20 PM EST
[#29]
I have a 2024 Toyota with a turbo. The use an OTTO rather than an Atkinson for the turbo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:33:26 PM EST
[#30]
Depends. Some turbo motors are based on an NA motor. Some are built to be turboed from the ground up. If it was designed well, they can last a very long time. If it wasn’t designed well, they’ll fail early. Same as with NA motors. (Example: Northstar V8s vs GM truck 5.3s)
A turbo doesn’t make a motor inherently unreliable. The design does. It is a bit harder to design a reliable turbo motor but by no means uncommon. Hell, 12 valve Cummins and 7.3 Powerstrokes are the legends of reliability, and both are turboed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:35:37 PM EST
[#31]
Me and my Mustang Ecoboost are in on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:36:42 PM EST
[#32]
Turbos need lower compression. NA needs higher compression.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:39:39 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Me and my Mustang Ecoboost are in on this thread. Isnt it harder to hit bystanders with with less torque and rear end drift?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:40:34 PM EST
[#34]
If ANY manufacturer took an N/A engine and just slapped some turbos on it and shoved it out the door, I would never, EVER buy one of their products again. I'm 1000% certain that compression ratios, piston designs, valve timing, materials selection, etc etc are all evaluated when a company releases an FI powered car.
As for longevity, when you say "engine", do you mean pistons? block/sleeves? bearings? valves? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:43:47 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If ANY manufacturer took an N/A engine and just slapped some turbos on it and shoved it out the door, I would never, EVER buy one of their products again. I'm 1000% certain that compression ratios, piston designs, valve timing, materials selection, etc etc are all evaluated when a company releases an FI powered car. As for longevity, when you say "engine", do you mean pistons? block/sleeves? bearings? valves? Dont forget not having enough oil cooling and coolant cooling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:44:05 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know from experience that my old 350 Chevy with a 6-71 that was under driven and had two 600 cfm Holley carbs pulled 24-26 mpg just cruising. With 4:11 gears in the back. Pulled it off and slapped on a single 4bbl on a cast iron intake and got 8 mpg. I'm not calling you a liar, but I will suggest that you are absolutely mis-remembering something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:51:40 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In ford it is almost always carboned up oil feed line due to lack of oil change intervals. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The owners may not be maintaining them properly. Or maybe a combination of them being GM and not being properly maintained. In ford it is almost always carboned up oil feed line due to lack of oil change intervals. Depends on the Ford  Attached FileCossie's semi production so not quite fair. But the trick is the intersection of dev resources, program goals and product price point/total cost per unit. It's easy to make a million dollar super car's engine. Make one for a $50k, or $25k vehicle. Compare Ford Europes offerings with the Lima Turbo. It's easier when the cost acceptance point of your buyer is higher. Let's set aside my fav Cosworth. The two acknowledged kings are -t urbo's JZ and RB. Specifically thr 2JZ-FTE and the RB26DETT. Efforts from the late 80s that I'm not sure anyone would call non-durable. We can also get into what Toyota did specially for the TA64 rally efforts - the homologation examples of the 4T-GTE over NA T engine lines. The TRD 396 Evos show what can be done as well, but that's a works effort, not semi-production once again. Racing prgtemamsdorn slays have the same QRD components as prod anyway |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:52:43 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Depends on the Ford https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/14291/IMG_0707_jpeg-3301549.JPG Cossie's semi production so not quite fair. But the trick is the intersection of dev resources, program goals and product price point/total cost per unit. It's easy to make a million dollar super car's engine. Make one for a $50k, or $25k vehicle. Compare Ford Europes offerings with the Lima Turbo. It's easier when the cost acceptance point of your buyer is higher. Let's set aside my fav Cosworth. The two acknowledged kings are -t urbo's JZ and RB. Specifically thr 2JZ-FTE and the RB26DETT. Efforts from the late 80s that I'm not sure anyone would call non-durable. We can also get into what Toyota did specially for the TA64 rally efforts - the homologation examples of the 4T-GTE over NA T engine lines. The TRD 396 Evos show what can be done as well, but that's a works effort, not semi-production once again. Racing prgtemamsdorn slays have the same QRD components as prod anyway COSWORTH?! Holy poop! Whats it in? Numbers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:57:00 PM EST
[#39]
Quoted: Turbocharged engines in cars have become more and more prevalent in recent times. If a manufacturer decides to make a turbocharged car, do they typically beef up the engine to handle the increased pressure the turbo puts on it? Or do they just slap a turbo on an engine originally designed to be naturally aspirated? How much less longevity do turbocharged engines tend to have compared to normally aspirated engines? A possible way to answer is in terms of percentage. Ex: A turbocharged engine will last 75% as long as a naturally aspirated engine.  Thank you..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:57:07 PM EST
[#40]
With enough hp and rpm you can blow any motor up.
Nothing like seeing a blower exit the hood of a funny car. Eta I want to see where turbo tech goes with electrical turbos. Programmable, Like the fuel systems in modern diesels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:57:38 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I worked on the development of the Buick GranNational and GNX. There were no structural changes to the block as I recal. The former had a Garret Airresearch 2.0 turbo (12lbs @ waste gate) and the GNX had a 2.5 turbo (14lbs @wastegate). Compression ratio was 8:1 if I recall They worked fine as long as you didn’t make a hot run with the turbo spinning then shut it off. If you did that the oil would Char and send damaging particles through the turbo, and destroy the unit. Later turbos like Mopar had a passage for antifreeze circulation and improved the service life. That was in the 80s. A lot of improvements have come down the pike since then. They are common on trucks and small motors now. I still would not want to tow with one. You misspelled, Grand National. The blocks were 109 castings, so they were a higher nickel content. Different heads, 8445 castings. I have a blown up piston from my first one, IIRC, the pistons were hypers and different than the NA ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:57:56 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Isnt it harder to hit bystanders with with less torque and rear end drift? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Me and my Mustang Ecoboost are in on this thread. Isnt it harder to hit bystanders with with less torque and rear end drift?   Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:58:08 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a 2024 Toyota with a turbo. The use an OTTO rather than an Atkinson for the turbo. Not all Toyota. 8AR Otto/Atkinson explanation here. It impacted QRD in no way. https://www.enginelabs.com/news/new-lexus-2-0-liter-turbo-morphs-otto-atkinson-cycles/ Im more enthused about a lack of EGR on the T24A than anything |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 3:59:05 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I worked on the development of the Buick GranNational and GNX. There were no structural changes to the block as I recal. The former had a Garret Airresearch 2.0 turbo (12lbs @ waste gate) and the GNX had a 2.5 turbo (14lbs @wastegate). Compression ratio was 8:1 if I recall They worked fine as long as you didn’t make a hot run with the turbo spinning then shut it off. If you did that the oil would Char and send damaging particles through the turbo, and destroy the unit. Later turbos like Mopar had a passage for antifreeze circulation and improved the service life. That was in the 80s. A lot of improvements have come down the pike since then. They are common on trucks and small motors now. I still would not want to tow with one. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 4:00:24 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You misspelled, Grand National. The blocks were 109 castings, so they were a higher nickel content. Different heads, 8445 castings. I have a blown up piston from my first one, IIRC, the pistons were hypers and different than the NA ones. We also had forged cranks. The LC2 was a well built engine except the rear main seals were crap from Day 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 4:01:20 PM EST
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 4:04:06 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We also had forged cranks. The LC2 was a well built engine except the rear main seals were crap from Day 1. And 2 dot rods... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 4:04:07 PM EST
[#48]
turbo's have been on diesels for how long....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 4:05:38 PM EST
[#49]
109 turbo cranks were filleted iirc, otherwise same as na. I haven't run a stock crank in forever, all forged roller, billet caps and a girdle on the ol 3.8, er 4.1ish stroker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2024 4:06:02 PM EST
[#50]
Pontiac put a turbo on the 301 V8 that already had a lightened crank. Guess the results. 1979 Trans Am.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
