Yeah my last ecoboost (2012) didn’t even make it to 300K miles.  Funny thing- the engine and transmission were still fine… it was the rest of the truck that was about to go.

Not a mechanic. Went with the Frontier over the Tacoma BECAUSE of the non turbo 6 on the Nissan. I guess we will see over the next 20 years if that was the right decision.

I'd also add better design and engineered solutions since they became somewhat common in the 80s (pretty low bar if we start in the 60s)

Water cooled turbos and better air cooled turbo designs (bearing material and housing heat transfer refinement like finning with enough surface area). Improvements in oil flow, heat management, hot stop mitigations (any recall turbo oilers hayday, accumulators to protect to an extent on start). There's many active systems - like new thermo control valves or system designed multiple t-stats. More complexity but manages parameters better.

But your dead on, loose nut behind the wheel makes a difference. Warm up, cool down.

"Better" oil over time, if people use proper specs.

Some of these are vulnerabilities can be exposed with poor decisions, but it kills bearings with propensity as well (S65/S85 I'm looking at you)

I think we all obsess a bit much.

Maybe a more important aspect: Do you dig the truck?

As AgeOne finally convinced me, reliability is merely a slice and maybe you move a few percentage points in your favor. In the end even the most problematic vehicles don't have universal issues. Even a few Maserati Biturbos were trouble free . . For short periods of time.

So buy what you like because EVERYTHING is better than decades ago. If you'd have bought a Toyota in 89 , todays Land Rover is prolly as good.

Here's another engineering mitigation for turbocharged applications, when properly designed for duty cycle - as many have noted increased cooling and active thermal management, and additional enhancements when developing and engine for truck use.

@AgeOne

Thanks.

In past times, there was "turbo lag" with the revs having to climb before the turbo kicked in.

Its impressive how much torque at low RPMs some modern turbocharged cars make.

Impressive. What kind of oil change intervals did you use? Also, what kind of oil?

If it was a pre-Renault Nissan I'd say that was the right decision. I guess these days it could go either way. Good luck.

Depends on the engine.

IMO turbos potentially increase longevity in essentially the same way a bigger displacement engine can, assuming everything is built to handle the pressure and heat.

Cylinder pressure is a fairly linear problem, so long as components aren't pushed beyond their design envelope it doesn't inherently reduce longevity. Turning more RPM to make more power gets very non-linear at some point and inherently increases wear.

There are more than a few old Cummins 5.9s that have outlasted multiple trucks running tons of boost at low RPMs.

Subaru head gaskets had nothing to do with turbos unless you actually over-boosted them enough to lift a head. That was all about stuffing too much displacement in a sleeved case so the sleeves were touching in the old 2.5L engines.

I could imagine how many people started driving right after starting the engine, and turned off the ignition right upon stopping, in the history of turbocharged cars.

A new Land Rover bought today will be as reliable for the life of the vehicle as a new Toyota bought in '89?

And it was a turd.

Over the life a majority of new buyers keep their Rovers, probably.

Over the entire useful life of a vehicle, probably not. Tho both the ultimate and economic life will likely be shorter for Rover.

This is more of an expression of quality seen in industry measurements over time. Generalizations of total brand comparisons aren't entirely fair since there's many drivetrains - some problematic some not.

If you'd ask me the easier choice between a '24 Land Cruiser or a '89 Land Cruiser and a current Defender - obviously the '24. I'd take a current Defender over a brand new '89 Land Cruiser for the duration of the Defenders 4yr, 50k warranty.

My F-150 3.5L EcoBoost twin-turbo is still going strong after 150,000 miles.  Not sure what kind of ratio that is.

Same here.

One of the first things I did to mine before taking it to the dyno tuner was install this intercooler (CAC, or whatever you want to call it.)
The OEM crap Ford uses needed to be removed as soon as possible.

Most of the issues with various forced induction engines are production or maintenance related. I think the various EcoBoost problems fall into one or the other.

Including the 90k 2021-2022 Bronco, F-150, Edge, Explorer, Lincoln Nautilus, and Lincoln Aviator 2.7 and 3.0 it took Ford 2 years and NHSTA leaning to get done. In this case the improper mfg of valves to spec. Regardless the 3.5 EcoBoost is a different animal.

The 1.0 EcoBoost tho, with the belt driven oil pump seems to be a design issue given the belt and tensioner issues. At least the specs weren't sufficient.


But again this has nothing to do with turbocharging directly.

As someone who has owned over a dozen of Biturbos (and variants), this is a lie.

on both FI and NA a significant number of solutions have improved engine reliability, while also decreasing it in other ways

the thread though is based on a flawed premise.

I can't think of any time a manufacture has taken a bone stock NA motor, popped a turbo on it without changing anything but the plumbing and shipped it as is.

so its hard to point out a engine that was made less reliable because it was the turbo version, when the alternate engine isn't even the same engine or is a highly modified version of the motor.

I'm sure there's some example out there of a manufacture just slapping a turbo on a unmodified OEM motor but I can't think of it.




Direct injection, water cooled manifolds, advances in turbo efficiency, dual plane turbos, variable geometry, variable cam timing, variable lift, variable manifolds, more efficient intercoolers, more efficient cats/ exhausts, oils quality, lower friction everywhere inside the motor, pumping losses.

Its been a long way to get here from drop the compression a few points, put larger wrist pins and bigger injectors.

@dsg2003gt

How long does it take the turbo to kick in if you get on it?

I wonder how much the aftermarket cooler cost.

I actually remember those from a long time ago. I guess they are good for people handy with cars.

I wonder what domestic truck maker (not heavy industry trucks) does turbos the best.

That 2.4 intrigues me. I think it's awesome they shoved it in the Crown but too bad for me it's only the top trim jk even the base is out of my price range. Perfect commuter with a bit of giddy up. I was thinking about a Ranger but they dropped the longer bed option so Toyota and Nissan are it and the 2.4 would be perfect here with our base altitude over 4,000 feet.

My wife has a 2018 Civic and it's a pretty nice car.
I recently drove the the newer 4-cylinder Accords but decided to keep my 2016 V6 Accord.

My car is 12 years old (Mercedes E550 Coupe) and has a 402HP twin-turbo V8 in it with 118K miles.  No issues with regular maintenance.  I usually drive it 'normally' but push the engine harder on occasion.  0-60 time is under 5 seconds.

Mobil 1, every 8-10K

No idea.

Though if i were in the market the 2.7 colorado would be my pick, but im partial as i hsve a 2.8 duramax colorado.

I took a quick look online and noticed Chevy still makes a S10 with a 4-cylinder diesel for Mexico and South America. Someone opined they should bring that back to the US.

The top of the line Porsche sport cars are all NA. 911 S/T, 911 GT3 RS, 718 GTS 4.0, 718 GT4, 718 Spyder RS.

The turbo cars are still turbo cars like they have always been.

And all the rest have gotten the smaller engine with twin turbos formula.

Exactly. You can generate cylinder pressure with forced induction or you can do it with higher compression rates. Either way you're generating cylinder pressure.

An NA motor of modest horsepower for its displacement and a TC motor of the same power and displacement are going to have essentially the same longevity.

What we're seeing though is that the motors aren't equivalent. The trend is to go smaller and then drive the power output up with a turbo and higher rpms. An engine that spends longer at higher rpms is going to experience more wear, it's delivering more cycles for the same usage - there's no escaping this

Except the modern trend is for turbo engines to produce more power at lower rpm than the NA engines they are replacing.

Modern turbo engines in the vast majority of new cars and light trucks make lots of power at low rpms. They aren't the turbo lag, peaky engines of decades ago.

And a turbo engine the same displacement and power as a NA engine with the same displacement and power does not make any sense. What would the turbo be doing if the the engine's made the same power?  

@Alacrity

In what regard?

Either way it’s a complex area of a multitude of variables, sometimes simple, some times complex, to pinpoint. Often times it’s a gradient scale. Application & circumstances also play a role.

There’s also the statistical anomaly referred to as “Luck”.


Funny.

Looking for a new car for the wife I started looking at the new Supra.

Once I found out it was basically a rebadged BMW with an overly complex engine & management system, and vehicle as a whole, it was a hard pass.

No thanks.

I buy a Toyota for it to be a Toyota, not a BMW.

That being said, Toyota isn’t perfect, & I’m highly disappointed in their most recent fuck ups on the truck engines.

We almost bought one of the new Tundras…


For a lot of reasons, but the turbo concept itself wasn’t one of them.

And that is by today’s standards.

At the time it wasn’t that bad.

That’s how bad it was then.

Doubt it. GM wouldn't put forged cranks in their diesel engines and chintzed on connecting rods. All the concern here over powdered metal gun parts, Ford used PM connecting rods in 7.3 diesels.

We're not talking high performance engines here. The trend is smaller displacement engines with turbos to get the HP numbers. No way are those engines going to last as long as a less-stressed engines of greater displacement. Example is the Other Resident's '23 Chevy Equinox with a 1.5-liter turbo engine. Her '15 Equinox had a 2.4-liter non-turbo. And even Toyota, always highly rated in the past for durability, is having problems with smaller engines.

I've sold over a dozen replacement 6.6 Duramax diesel engines for 2010/ Chevy LML pickups with broken cranks.

What do you think the compression ratio in modern turbo or NA engines is?

Think that's fair. The only one I can think that might apply wasn't factory - did Stage II Calloway base kit have any internals on the MK1 US 1.8? Almost certain the Stage 1 didn't, but bit before me and really wasn't my jam. Can see less when the power increase  is mild - 25-30%. Esp since IIRC you could get away with no fuel mods (tho the micro-fueler was reco'd, again IIRC) Double tho . . . How'd the Stage II hold up over time? Recall some 100-125k examples that supposedly had very early install but no idea repair histories.

But I also think there's been greater and lesser efforts.

Compare something like the  2.3 LL23 when turbo'd to some of the stuff going in Europe. The LL23 Turbo improved over time. But I think initially  only internal difference in the early non-intercooled, draw through carb'd examples (79-80) were forged pistons. Crank and Rods were same (the rods remained throughout, there were small journal cranks) and I don't believe there was much if any internal cooling improvements.

The Renault Cleons definitely got some love then the snails showed up. From the 5 C1J to the 5 Turbo and 2 C6J a lot, and very much internals. But 150% power increase made in an absolute requirement and homologation specials often rec'd attention so they could be further modified. The 5 Turbo was very much not a normal 5 from rear engine, requiring a A310 suspension, gearbox etc. So no surprise the 160 hp 1.4L C6J was markedly different as well. Adding a 100 hp to the 1.4L C1J (think LeCar) predicated it. Even the NA 5 Alpine's lump got love, so this was more about response to specific output impacting durability. But even when the Renault Sport 180CV and 200CV kits were added, they didn't suffer catastrophically. So there's variability in engineering choices.

Still the management of these early engines was very basic by today's standards, but that's one of the major improvements that often gets missed. As you point out not just Forced Induction. Sensors (esp knock control), controllers, and the systems ECUs stitch together make that 200 hp seem pedestrian now. Computational advances have made shit almost magic.

But even with recent engines you see wide differences in program goals (Sheldon's oft repeated the " 50-percent longer duty cycle" for truck T24A) so likely outcomes. Let's highlight the stated differences Toyota included in the truck T24A  vs transverse. "Commercial grade in terms of design requirements". I quoted Brown and Moritsu previous on the improvements they've highlighted publicly. Obviously these improvements cost, so unless mfg determine some need, things that enhance QRD are left aside. But this is always the case, unless where it's more economic to utilize volume pieces already in production that exceed the necessary specs, since new production is disadvantageous - which almost always decided on cost. Which make transverse T24A pretty decently designed, tho the truck versions get more love and likely better service lives when similar used, and a bit of margin in more demanding use cycles.  

They don't last very long at all the proof is that all long Haul semis he's naturally aspirated diesel engines without turbochargers. Have you ever seen a turbocharged semi that can go hundreds of thousands of miles? I thought not

those goddamn microfuelers

It was kind of a miracle when they worked. granted they were all 20+ years old when I saw them driving around, which was a really old car back then (its like average age anymore )

IIRC, and its been a long time the US gti was down like 20hp from the euro motor because it had lower compression pistons citing fuel quality concerns.

the screaming yellow zonker is the car VW should have put into production but CIS hamstrung the motors from that generation bigly.

those old 1.8 8v motors were pretty beefy. way beefier then 90hp called for....

the main concern on those cars with any modifications was the differential rivets stetching and the gearbox would self machine allover the highway

Aren't most long haul trucks TC diesels?

From an ownership and reliability standpoint the concern for me is cost of repair.  How many of these vehicles require the engine removal or vehicle disassembly for even minor repairs.  New BMW and Mazda I6 come to mind with the timing water pump and oil pump on the backside of the engine.  Toyota TC V6 trucks have to remove the cab .....in a full sized truck to replace the engine.  

Combine the labor with the high cost of components because of modularity and people will say XYZ vehicle is unreliable because to fix one small problem cost them thousands.  

Replacing a v8 with a twin turbo v6 may be more efficient short term but given the extra upfront cost and long term cost to repair it doesn't seem to pencil out at least not for the early adopters

They pretty much all are now. Heck, I had a 80’s GMC toter with a Detroit Diesel in it that had 989,000. Big old turbo on that thing. I think my BiL still has it.

I took the post as sarcasm.

@gtfoxy

Favorable randomness works itself out over large enough samples.

When you indicated you're right more than wrong, I assumed that wasn't tied to a generalized idea of "complexity" so I'm curious the criteria.

Given your analysis described is accurate, consistent and I'm assuming has significance, what counter application is causing it to be ignored? Organizational values?  Economics (which you alluded to and ai suspect)? Market value? Discounting ?

What kind of methodologies are these? Stuff like DBN is seeing application anymore tied to FMECA - this kind of analysis? I was just trying to get a feel for the sophistication and the basis.

Extending my comment on complexity above - things are obviously more complex as we move through time, that itself doesn't necessarily portend poor outcomes, at least in near term time slices. So my threshold comment was tied to what constitutes "overly complex". Realizing the context (multivalve in 1960 and today for example) and the reasoning (advances and acceptance) plays a role.

it really depends. for example some of the early Toyota motors like the 1jz and 2jz were overbuilt can hold quite a bit of boost but if you try to boost a stock 240sx with a KA its prob a lot more likely to blow. really depends on the motor and cooling systems

There's two separate models with S10 nameplates in Latin markets.

The S10 that's made at GM SP in Brasil is basically a Colorado tho it gets updated in MY '25 with a small refresh and improved XLD28. It's still a bit rich for many markets, which why the unibody Montana get slotted underneath.

In Mexico, importation of the S10 Max (a Chinese built SAIC product badged Chevy) was based on pricing considerations for the market. 2.4 Petrol in MX is a Mitsu Sirius decedent (that shit won't die). 2.0 petrol in China and elsewhere is just the Opel MGE. The 2.0 Diesel in the DobleCab Turbo is the twin-turbo high output version of the joint SAIC/GM engine. $32k for the top tier trim makes it kinda premium for the MX market - but that's the entry for a somewhat dated, low content trim Hilux. So there's some value and prolly extended margin for Chevy MX.

FWIW, States got the Brasilian - or vice versa, but couldn't keep the LWN. As Colorado's Chief Eng Nick Katcherian put it, speaking for GM



I keep that in my quote bin. I'm betting if the diesel take rate was 50%+, maybe as low as 35%, it could have remained. I'm unsure the the technical issues with meeting particulates tho. SCR had a pretty good handle of NOx, but I might have missed something.

I have had two Tacomas with dealer installed TRD superchargers…both had head gasket issues.  

I am a Toyota loyalist, and I hope some of the “beefier” upgrades some have mentioned will lead to good longevity…but I’m not banking on it.

About to turn 380,000 miles on my 2016 Tundra.

LOL I never had to mess with that shit but I feels ya. Interesting solution tho

The JH spec likely helped the Calloway engineers. If it was the 10.0:1 Euro spec 1.8L , despite a number stating compression is immaterial, how'd that go with Stage 2 at suggested 10lbs. Def think meth inj.

Peeps bag on the Frogs, but fuck if they didn't do some cool shit. Aside from Renault Sport mentioned, Mk1 16 S is prolly my fav of all Golfies.

The Toyota and Legacy 3 V8s benefit from very long development and use, which needs to factored in as well. Plus Japan Bubble resources and strict expectations for Lexus in massive dev efforts on the Toyota side. But it's not just V8s. Land Rover 2.25 H engines likewise, but they all were very good designs, and often under-stressed. The Rover H petrol sharing some with the diesel, including the block. The later 5 bearing blocks were very durable - like Toyota lifespans if not interrupted by the Prince of Darkness or vibrations wrecking cooling. But they all have fairly low specific outputs.

So there's a lot of intersections - internal cost, competency, market considerations, etc.  What if peeps would except lower power rather than demanding more each generation? How would that impact efficiency and durability?  Peeps say that is what they want but they don't want it's at 12 sec 0-60.

Engineers are often not technicians friends. Add Mini Cooper Turbo R&R (CarNinja can remove the engine in like 60 minutes tho) But it's not the turbos alone. Lot of spark plug  are asinine - lot of transverseV6, Pontiac tilting the 3800 or removing the intake in the G8The 5VZE plugs were kinda a pain. Getting sparkers out of the 3v 5.4. . The GR water pump is supposed to require engine out.

Lots of basic stuff is made tougher by packaging styling decisions, or other necessities/preferences. The Hybrid Turbocharged i Force MAX is, well. . .

Attached File


Imagine clothed

My 2019 Ranger has 170,000 miles on it. I had a problem with the alternator in 2020, but that was my fault. 10k oil change intervals. I need to change my plugs soon (second time). Otherwise super reliable, good fuel efficiency, good power, and 87 octane. As far as I am concerned, it was a very, very good buy, and I have already gotten my money's worth out of it.

It depends

and

It depends

If it was ever offered as a stand alone option on all trims I bet it would have met that threshold.