I'd research the N20. There's some concerns. I'd suggest none of the proclivities have much to do with TC. With good previous Maint and the will to maintain and repair, sure. Always hard to tell. There's plenty 328i and N20's over 200k. How much cost to get there? Dunno.

22R was considered iconically reliable and durable.  The factory turbo version, 22R-TE not so much. Less due to intrinsics than constraints. But it wasn't one of TMCs finest turbocharged efforts. TCing a stock 22R successfully requires some work. There's better candidates, but do the work and it's ok.

Yes.  L3B 2.7 is built to diesel standards. 310 hp. 430 tq.

False.

This. I wouldn't own an N20 as a daily driver. It's unreliable by BMW standards. You can do preventative maintenance to keep it running, but that would be expensive if you aren't doing the work yourself.

Thanks

In for information about turbocharged engines from the 70s being touted as current info

Buick v6 and v8 engines for decades were some of the toughest engines out there. I built a few Buick 350 and 455's in my time. The Rover engines using Buick's  design from the 60's was also extremely tough. I got 412k from one of them. I had a Buick 3800 in a FWD Bonneville suck coolant into the cylinders thru a hole the EGR passage. Stupid me kept restarting it with coolant in the cylinders.  Engine flush and new manifold fixed it with no bent rods. That's a tough motor.

Would a supercharged diesel hybrid (with the charger powered by the battery system) work?

So the turbo is fine on the 3.6?

Typically, forced induction creates more heat in the engine, because it requires more fuel to be burned. And, of course, the power is increased (all things considered).

Besides engine and driveline parts being used that are stronger, the shape of combustion chambers and pistons are manipulated to adjust for air and fuel flow and cylinder pressures.

Obviously, engine management systems are reprogrammed as well.

Typically, forced induction creates more heat in the engine, because it requires more fuel to be burned. And, of course, the power is increased (all things considered).

Besides engine and driveline parts being used that are stronger, the shape of combustion chambers and pistons are manipulated to adjust for air and fuel flow and cylinder pressures.

Obviously, engine management systems are reprogrammed as well.

I'm curious what the longevity of those heavy trucks will be. You're referring to pickup trucks, right?

Heavy refers to the big trucks pickup trucks are usually light duty with a few being medium(450/4500-550/5500)

With as complex as new vehicles are I think that there's a ton of stuff that is just as likely to cause an issue as a turbo. In magic land where the EPA doesn't exist I think it would be pretty easy to make a unicorn engine that's not complicated makes good power and lasts damn near forever but that's not the world we live in.

THIS is the way.
( Of course, you'll need a bigger chinese fuel pump, and some high flow chinese injectors, chinese charge air cooler, and some chinese oil supply and drain hoses, a few chinese electronic sensors, and a chinese wastegate.... but pretty much any old  single cam, pushrod V8 engine with rocker arms will take 12 pounds of boost until you run out of road  or  drivers license.)

THIS is the way.
( Of course, you'll need a bigger chinese fuel pump, and some high flow chinese injectors, chinese charge air cooler, and some chinese oil supply and drain hoses, a few chinese electronic sensors, and a chinese wastegate.... but pretty much any old  single cam, pushrod V8 engine with rocker arms will take 12 pounds of boost until you run out of road  or  drivers license.)

THIS is the way.
( Of course, you'll need a bigger chinese fuel pump, and some high flow chinese injectors, chinese charge air cooler, and some chinese oil supply and drain hoses, a few chinese electronic sensors, and a chinese wastegate.... but pretty much any old  single cam, pushrod V8 engine with rocker arms will take 12 pounds of boost until you run out of road  or  drivers license.)

You need to calm down with your chinese keyboard

I don't have near enough practical experience with the engine to predict specific necessities to ensure good outcomes. I really don't have much specific knowledge of the HFV6 family, but I'll repeat the most obvious serial comments in the thread - don't expect similar QRD with identical engines if you turbocharge one.nThis is laid out a as criticism, but it's a silly proposition.

Of course not. Any time you change major operational characteristics of an engine there needs to be engineering mitigations, as Toyota found with its 4GR. Issues here weren't even TCing, but due to GDI adoption and displacement reduction without sufficient attention to various failure points created.  In Toyota's case the near iconic GR line was revised for increased efficiency and reduced cost. The end result was severe carboning resulting in a 9 year unlimited mile warranty extension. Most point at the lack of port injection, but as Lexustech48 has indicated the major component of remedy was a piston change to reduce hot spots.

When designing engines/systems much needs to be considered. When there's a change that impacts operation - whether lack of lead to forced induction, changes need to be made.

In TC applications this is some of what you see. I'm sure I've glossed over some. TurboInfidel could address authoritatively but participates less anymore. There's others but I'll give a shot at some details absent and stitch together some of what's been mentioned separately so far.

• Compression reduction mentioned.
• Thermal Management and material choices to deal with increased heat. Also design attention - such as positioning ring lands lower on the piston to protect and sometimes the inclusion of cast iron ring groove.
  
• Increased Durability, reinforced components - rods, springs, pistons crankshaft to deal with higher specific power
• Improved Cooling - hard to add internally if not originally design considerations - the oil jets mentioned above along with other strategies very difficult to retrofit. Still increased cooling system capacity and increased under hood airflow helps. I'm not a huge fan of heat shielding, but it's pursued. Some newer units (L3B, T24A, etc) use thermo-control valves (not solely in TC apps but there's advantages for TC) Intercooling helps. The non-intercooled version of LL23 in the XR4Ti was notorious for underhood heat, for reasons additional and IC helps much beyond as well.  But the loss of the IC exacerbated.
• Improved Fuel Delivery - more air requires more fuel. In some cases this can be electronic/parameters. Others require physical upgrades - injectors need to be properly sized, pumps, lines and flow - consistently. The Maserati Biturbo much better after the Weber-Marelli FI and Spearco IC.
• All of this needs to be conducted so there's ECU changes, sensor and monitoring.

How much of this is/can be done on retrofits impacts. In mfg it costs. But the reality is much that would improve QRD is neglected TC or not - it's just exacerbated with some mfg in lower margin applications since they can't commit resources to optimize. When correctly developed TC can have practical, useful life spans as long and as trouble free as NA - the 8AR, JZ, RB, B202, K20C, various Porsche have demonstrated high levels of QRD - in many cases iconically so. But no doubt there's more costs - in development, production and maintenance. If you want bottom feeder solutions, any forced induction is a poor choice as much for post sale care as the initial considerations - as Korea Motors sees.

Only some of this applies to the GM but should give you a better general idea.

It does give a better idea, thank you for taking the time to explain that in depth. I appreciate it.

I’m very much of the mind that often times simpler is better.

There are, indeed, multitudes of things .gov directly, & indirectly, have forced upon the automotive industries over the decades that reduce reliability as well as longevity.

In many of those cases is simply a matter of, “Well, if that wasn’t there it wouldn’t have failed or have cause this to fail.”

At the same time a companies bean counters can play just as large a role in such instances of failure. The standing joke, that’s not too funny, is they build, & sometimes engineer, things to last only as long as the warranty.

“Technological Advances” also come with their own inherent problems. One area that I knew was going to be a mixed bag for many years was the variable vein turbo.

When that concept came out in the 90’s I knew there would be growing pains & failures. It’s an overly complex mechanism in a harsh environment. Decades later I got to experience first hand how correct I was back then. & many times over I might add.

Sometimes it sucks being right.

I’m right on these sort of things much more than I am wrong.

Nah. That’s a myth. And a bad one at that.

Theoretically or in the market as it exists? Assuming the second >

The problem with diesels is regulatory disfavor. The already higher costs of diesel engineering and production is increased by emissions regs, and efficiency and durability suffer. It's so difficult to build a cost acceptable unit in these markets, even when diesel was economically favored in Europe, everybody cheated. Every mfg. VAG and FCA feloniously in the States. Peeps did time. Thats some serious risk shift, but it was also due to poorly forecast consequences.

Generally the increased cost isn't  warranted by the level of increased efficiency. Toyota did do a mild 48V on the 44% TE 1GD that helped urban.

Attached File


It's a system. Peeps overemphasize the significant emissions and minimize market demands (power mostly) in these discussions.

Despite comments no petrol TC platform is really built to "diesel" standards, somewhat due to cost, but also weight. It wasn't advantageous to meet program goals of the L3B by using a LWN Grey Cast Iron block instead of aluminum. The cost and drawbacks aren't  warranted. This applies to hybrid systems as well.

I'm a SBC guy from the 80's.
I put a new motor (Twin turbo N54) and upgraded the turbos on my 5Series.
Of course the full MHD tuning suit.
Factory about 8 lbs...TDO4's in the teens...
I didn't have the boost limited and put it to the floor to pass when I really shouldn't have.
Dash lit up like Hiroshima and the the text was "transmission malfunction. Do not turn off vehicle as it my not start again".
It did and the tranny has been OK. The DME/TCM/Crank sensor were definitely not in agreement.

I'm curious your criteria and the thresholds?

Like the ones in the new twin turbo tundra?


turbo's just aren't for me, especially in trucks.

I have a 3rd gen tacoma and my dad has a 2019 tundra.

Now its all well and fine if they want to put turbo's in these for the people that want them but at least give me the option to buy the NA engine and not force me into a turbo engine if I dont want one.

As a result the next truck I buy will likely be an F150 with the 5.0 even though I would MUCH rather have the tacoma or tundra. turbo's just kill it for me.

Glad I'm not the only one that thought the post had some BS in it.

What you don’t want is an BMW.

In short OP a Turbo engine is designed to be Turbo-ed...  An engineer can engineer in any duty cycle they are tasked to.  

Slapping a aftermarket turbo on a NA car is a recipe for disaster, but that is not what you asked about.

@Alacrity

I guess my fundamental question was on the technical merits of a supercharged system setting its power from the hybrid system/battery as opposed to regular turbo systems getting power from the exhaust manifold.  Hell, maybe there’s no benefit over one system vs another, maybe it’s not cost effective, maybe something else.  I can’t claim any significant technical knowledge in that area.

It seems like the euros have done some good things with efficient, turbocharged diesel engines. I just wondered about the technical challenges/merits to a hybrid configuration that utilizes them.

The US’ mythology and hyper-regulation of diesel is a significant obstacle to any development, of course.

The issues with the wastegate actuator was production not design. By this logic we should eschew multivalve systems due to the early 3UR camshafts snapping.

There actually were some criticisms of the 2UZ when new for the overcomplicated valve train (4 valve per on truck V8 was novel but Ford proceeded a year and two in the, Expedition, F150 and the the E). Re-erupted then with the UR. In hindsight it's as silly then as now. Complicated Toyota V8s worked out ok.

But the V35A had no significant turbocharger issue in the 5 years prior in the LS, and no issues in J300 LC or J310 LX600. The remedy sucked (cab removal for R&R) and the V35A has gone on to have other issues that have nothing to do with TCs. But the wastegate actuators seems to stay fixed when replaced and the issues are confined to certain production sets, and haven't occurred past them. How many vehicles were effected?

Whenever there's an issue peeps are quick to point out the failure, but fail to note the lack of issue in service after. They also tend to ignore very good QRD in closely related engines or a decade worth of data and exemplary experience from engines like Toyota's first TC'd engine in a bit, the 8AR. T24A hasn't  shown any problems in 3 years either. I'm assuming the general acceptance of Turbo Diesels applies, tho they aren't immune from poor design, inadequate testing and improper mfg. Toyotas had a number of great Diesel series which, when TC'd, had issues.

But I do feel ya bro. In other places Toyota offered very basic non-TC'd engines like the Y (in thr Global Hilux but also the Van in the States, which had much Hilux content), the 2TR that was available in the Taco (TR's still available in many trucks globally). Maybe you meant no TCing - diesel or not. Toyota has offered non-TC'd versions of the L consistently. Most recently the 3L and 5L. I've had a lot of time in both - the 5L in a Prado J150 (GX 460 sibling) is very odd. But the deal is, most anybody who buys them, is because they can't afford something else. Or it's an NGO or .mil outfit and they don't get a choice . Because bluntly, even in places where super-slab speeds don't exist.  sub 100 ponies and mid 100s torque isn't enjoyable in 4000+ lbs trucks when everyone else has more. So blame the modern world and current buyers because you could get simpler engines that meet emissions and efficiency regs.  But nobody would tolerate them.

@TxRabbitBane

Nor will I claim anything near.

First issue is what do we call electric forced induction? TC is scavenged power from exhaust, SC is direct power from engine (belt or chain, rarer gear). E-Charger is what many default too. Volvos screwed around with one a decade ago, and Porsche T- hybrids and some MB models include to various extents.

The one I'm most familiar with is the one on MBs AMG 53 that has a momentary electric compressor (that gets marketed as a supercharger) as part of the 48V mild perf-hybrid system and in concert with an electric booster motor (think of it as a traditional hybrid helper motor). They don't provide power rating increases but rather produce power during the short turbo spool up time, compensating for lag. People eschew complexity - this has it all. Traditional turbo, electric super, hybrid - lol it works and it's fast. Unbelievably  issues been constrained to interior electronics and pretty rough automatic transmission shifting. Lol we still cant get that  pretty old technology right at times.

Long way of saying, all this varied use and I don't know of anyone working on or contemplating a serial-hybrid powered by an E-charged diesel  range extender. Can't recall anyone working on SC'd diesel outside Gale Banks. Most of the few diesel PHEV are BMW or MB mostly EU market. Steyr had a 2 stroke (no shit) diesel APU they were deving as an experimental range extender - slated for Biodiesel as a tech demonstrator. Mazda uses a real Supercharger in the Skyactiv-X kinda diesel cycle petrol engine.

The reason nobody has is likely the same reason diesel hybrids aren't mainstream - juice isn't worth the squeeze. Cost efficiency ratio likely disfavors when compared to others. I think Banks pursued the 6.6 SC as a unique product for specific applications as road SC diesel have never been popular. I've noted some wild stuff I was aware, but nothing like that. All this conjecture. But not even the Chinese mfgs. But maybe someone is pursuing and someone can point us at it.

My wild assed guess is that a configuration like I have described probably adds negligible performance increase (if any) over a similar turbocharged diesel (which has a lot of R&D behind it) with added complexity and cost.

Turbo diesel/electric hybrid is on paper one of the best well-to-wheels total efficiency options, if not the best. However, it is also extremely high cost relative to any other option for engineering reasons too detailed to present here. WRT to the Euros, their diesel particulate regs, after trailing ours for decades, have caught up to and surpassed ours. The TDi is a dead man walking, and the fall of BEVs won't matter to that.

The reasons the Euros concentrated on diesels have more to do with their available refining capacity while rebuilding from WWII (it was mostly diesel) and their taxes they imposed on engine displacement to limit consumption post-WWII. Of course being good socialists, once they levied a tax, it was never going away. Diesels, and later turbo diesels, were a way to get some torque for around town punch out of small displacements. The US has no "mythology and hyper-regulation" in comparison to Europe. Quite the opposite, some emissions regs aside.

WRT to your original idea, it is just not practical to get enough HP to spin a SC, positive displacement or centrifugal, fast enough and hard enough, with any reasonable hybrid package. It takes far more power than most people realize to spin one, and there are significant efficiency losses in the blower itself that are not present if you just take the same electrical power (anywhere from 30-70 HP at full chat) and add it directly to the drivetrain with an electric motor.

Turbos run hotter.  That makes the hard on the lube oil.

It's why the recommended oil/filter change for turbo engines used to be less miles than the NA engines.

See the recent thread about the Ford turbo engines in some police vehicles blowing up/catching fire?

Know anyone with a V8 turbo diesel in a truck?  Ever notice how they let it idle after stopping before shutting it off?  Need to get the oil temps down below a certain level before shutting off the engine stops oil circulation leading to decreased oil life.

I used to say I'd never have a turbo car/truck.  Now I've got one (435iX) and it's pretty awesome.  Not a bit disappointed in it for any reason.  But I change the oil/filter every 6,000 miles.  Not the 10,000 to 12,000 recommended by people who won't be paying for an engine rebuild or a new car after a few years of driving.

Tell that to the Toyota 2jz motor and the BMW b58(in partnership with Toyota). The BMW b58 is finally a reliable power plant overbuilt and good for daily driving. These are going to be stuck in a lot of things besides BMWs. A couple of small bolt ones and a tune gets you to 450-500hp without a huge drop in efficiency or driveability. Heck it still gets 30mpg out of a 450 hp turbo straight 6. Pretty tough to beat. Forged crank and rods with good reliability. I'm going to pull the trigger on a 440 this year most likely.

cylinder pressures are cylinder pressures and more pressure causes more heat.

design the engine to withstand both and it's a mute point.

With everything being computer controlled turbo engines last just as long.

now go onto Focus ST/RS sites and see how retarded the people are on there and how they cause all their own issues.

Attached File

I thought the Ford Police engine having issues was the 3.3 NA? I just glanced at the thread so I might be wrong.

You're right man. The recalled are  Base and Hybrid 3.3. 1% defect estimated, but yea not turbo. More fun to bag on turbos than NA in turbos-are-shit threads, even when it's wrong.

Attached File

I'm no mechanic but given that in the early 2000s Toyota was offering TRD superchargers as a factory option on very pedestrian cars that didn't normally offer forced induction, I guess it can be done.    You could get a TRD supercharger on any number of vehicles, including the Camry/Solara, Celica and Tacoma, installed at the dealer and with a factory warranty.  

I may be looking into this soon -- have a line on a pristine (<60k miles) Gen 1 standard cab 4WD short bed Tacoma (with the 2.7L I-4) which is rather slow but am thinking that a factory TRD supercharger might be the ticket ....  Would love to turn it into a Marty McFly homage, with a bit more power than stock ... :D

double tap

Does seem suspect

Shut the thread down, nothing more can reasonably be said. There isn't going to be a magic "All turbo engines do X" or "All turbo engines have X amount less life than non-turbo".

The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

New base model in hardtop form:
Mustang Ecoboost $32,000 (turbo 4)
Mustang GT $43,000 (V8)

When I bought my 2021 Ecoboost Convertible the disparity was about $12,000 but now they don't offer a stick with the Ecoboost so that has reduced the price difference.
Yea, a V8 would be nice but I wasn't down for adding another 12k to my payment (only 3 left) for extra HP that would go unused in city traffic.

The V8 probably has better longevity compared to my turbo 4 but the Ecoboost should be able to go 200k given good care. For the 12k difference one could replace the Ecoboost motor with a new one, whenever.

Yes the engines are re-designed to run turbos.

the second question is loaded with too many variables.

FWIW, turbo engines often last much longer than they used to, and due to the ability to both make more torque at lower RPM and the necessity of lower compression they also stress the engine for much less time than a NA motor with higher compression and running at a higher speed on the highway...but longevity is all up to the driver and the maintenance in either case.