Camry to dump V6 for you know what.

[FoMoJo]

At best some of them can be a match in mpg, but then again they aren't as refined and aren't nearly as reliable/durable/long lived.

Nonsense. 

[GoCougs]

Nonsense. 

I've already explained why this is and pretty much any reputable test validates the explanations.

[FoMoJo]

I've already explained why this is and pretty much any reputable test validates the explanations.

This sums it up best..."This turbo V6 is an impressively versatile engine, delivering huge supplies of power when asked yet achieving above-average fuel economy when driven gently."

Any remarks about reliability are of no consequence.

[GoCougs]

This sums it up best..."This turbo V6 is an impressively versatile engine, delivering huge supplies of power when asked yet achieving above-average fuel economy when driven gently."

Any remarks about reliability are of no consequence.

Nah, pretty much everybody knows a turbo is by design not as durable/reliable/long lived as the engine itself - you're lucky to get 150k out of a turbo (more like 100k) - leaving one with a huge repair long before the service life of the car is up. Gonna be brutal when all these plebeian cars - esp. the F-150 EBV6 - are gonna need new $2-3,000+ in new turbos in 5-10 years.

[FoMoJo]

Nah, pretty much everybody knows a turbo is by design not as durable/reliable/long lived as the engine itself - you're lucky to get 150k out of a turbo (more like 100k) - leaving one with a huge repair long before the service life of the car is up. Gonna be brutal when all these plebeian cars - esp. the F-150 EBV6 - are gonna need new $2-3,000+ in new turbos in 5-10 years.

Am I gonna believe you or these guys?

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like/comments/page/2/

[Madman]

Nah, pretty much everybody knows a turbo is by design not as durable/reliable/long lived as the engine itself - you're lucky to get 150k out of a turbo (more like 100k) - leaving one with a huge repair long before the service life of the car is up. Gonna be brutal when all these plebeian cars - esp. the F-150 EBV6 - are gonna need new $2-3,000+ in new turbos in 5-10 years.

I'm calling bullshit on this this one.

I've owned four turbocharged cars and I've NEVER replaced a turbo.  My Volvo 740 had almost 300,000 miles on it with the ORIGINAL turbo.

[CJ]

I'm calling bullshit on this this one.

I've owned four turbocharged cars and I've NEVER replaced a turbo.  My Volvo 740 had almost 300,000 miles on it with the ORIGINAL turbo.

This.


My 850 was on the original turbo when I changed it over to a very low mileage 16T I happened to find.

[GoCougs]

Am I gonna believe you or these guys?

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like/comments/page/2/

You're gonna have to believe Ford. From Ford's corporate media site on the release of the 3.5L Ecoboost V6:

"The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of 150,000 miles or 10 years."

[GoCougs]

I'm calling bullshit on this this one.

I've owned four turbocharged cars and I've NEVER replaced a turbo.  My Volvo 740 had almost 300,000 miles on it with the ORIGINAL turbo.

Nah, even big rig turbos (far more robust) only last ~250-300k miles. Just because it is ORIGINAL doesn't mean it isn't blown, and yours most certainly was.

As demonstrated ad naseum - through basic technical knowledge as well as manufacturer admission - turbos generally don't last as long as the motor itself.

[Soup DeVille]

150,000 miles though is beyond the lifespan that most new car buyers are going to plan on keeping their cars anyways; and certainly at the point where the longevity of lots of other expensive to replace items are becoming questionable.

And as you've just pointed out: you can blow a turbo and the car will keep running.

[MrH]

You're gonna have to believe Ford. From Ford's corporate media site on the release of the 3.5L Ecoboost V6:

"The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of 150,000 miles or 10 years."

Lol. That was some serious

[CJ]

Nah, even big rig turbos (far more robust) only last ~250-300k miles. Just because it is ORIGINAL doesn't mean it isn't blown, and yours most certainly was.

As demonstrated ad naseum - through basic technical knowledge as well as manufacturer admission - turbos generally don't last as long as the motor itself.

Explain my brother's 200k mile 850R on the original turbo. No oil consumption, boosted wonderfully. Best friend's 2001 S60 T5. You know the drill...150k, turbo is in great condition.

[Soup DeVille]

Well, my point is that the reliability difference: if it proves to be there (likely will), will be marginal, and unlikely to affect many purchase decisions.

[GoCougs]

150,000 miles though is beyond the lifespan that most new car buyers are going to plan on keeping their cars anyways; and certainly at the point where the longevity of lots of other expensive to replace items are becoming questionable.

And as you've just pointed out: you can blow a turbo and the car will keep running.

True, but my ultimate point is cars have a design life greater than 150,000 miles/10 years (including engines) and in general most cars are on the road longer than 150,000 miles/10 years. And sure by the point some things will probably need fixing so why risk big $$$ for turbo replacement if the turbo didn't yield any improvment vs. its N/A competitor?

[GoCougs]

Well, my point is that the reliability difference: if it proves to be there (likely will), will be marginal, and unlikely to affect many purchase decisions.

Probably, but that doesn't absolve the risk so why risk it, if the N/A competitor motor was as good or better in all regards?

[GoCougs]

Lol. That was some serious

Hmm. I'd already mentioned that Ford had made that claim so I was a bit lost where that was all coming from.

[Soup DeVille]

Probably, but that doesn't absolve the risk so why risk it, if the N/A competitor motor was as good or better in all regards?

Well, its all about sales, isn't it? If the turbo motors can be sold as an improvement; if the public sees it as an improvement, and doesn't really see the downside...

[GoCougs]

Explain my brother's 200k mile 850R on the original turbo. No oil consumption, boosted wonderfully. Best friend's 2001 S60 T5. You know the drill...150k, turbo is in great condition.

Quite a few small block Chevy V8s make it to 250,000 miles but even the biggest of Bowtie fanboys will tell you the design (and average) life is a heckuva lot shorter than that. (Read: anecdote is not evidence.)

[2o6]

This shit always goes in circles and leads to absolutely no positive discussion.




I don't fucking get why either side entertains this shit.

[GoCougs]

Well, its all about sales, isn't it? If the turbo motors can be sold as an improvement; if the public sees it as an improvement, and doesn't really see the downside...

Agreed, my ultimate point is there is a downside even if people don't see it...

[Soup DeVille]

Agreed, my ultimate point is there is a downside even if people don't see it...

There may be a downside in most cases, but as far as this particular case (The rumored Camry turbo 4) goes, I'm willing to give it a chance and see how it plays out.

[Madman]

Nah, even big rig turbos (far more robust) only last ~250-300k miles. Just because it is ORIGINAL doesn't mean it isn't blown, and yours most certainly was.

My boost gauge and my Volvo mechanic beg to differ.  The closest I ever had to come to touching the turbo was replacing the oil seals.

My Peugeot 505 also had a fully functioning original turbo when I sold it at nearly 200,000 miles.

Nice try, anyway.  Thanks for playing.

[FoMoJo]

You're gonna have to believe Ford. From Ford's corporate media site on the release of the 3.5L Ecoboost V6:

"The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of 150,000 miles or 10 years."

Sounds pretty good.  No doubt, with proper maintenance most will live a lot longer than that.  The majority live beyond 250k miles. 

[12,000 RPM]

This shit always goes in circles and leads to absolutely no positive discussion.




I don't fucking get why either side entertains this shit.

Slow work days

[FoMoJo]

Slow work days

Well, it's raining here today so I've got the day off.

However, a realistic discussion on the merits of a smaller displacement turbo boosted engine, vs. a larger displacement non turbo boosted engine of comparable stats, is in the potential.  You can, potentially, get better mpg and you can, potentially, get more power with the Turbo engine.  It really depends on for what purpose you are using the vehicle at any given time.  If you are cruising, using a light foot, you get better mileage.  If you are in lead foot mode, you can make a lot of power, but mpg is impacted.  With a NA of larger displacement, you are limited in the mpg you can achieve, less than the smaller displacement turbo, and limited in the power you can make, less than the smaller displacement turbo.

In comparing, for instance, a 2 liter Turbo I4 to a 3.5 liter NA V6, it can be reasonably stated that, when not in boost, the mpg of the Turbo I4 is better than the mpg of the NA V6.  However, tap into the power band and you will sacrifice mpg but make more power than the NA V6.  While the power band of the turbo I4 is a bit later in coming than the NA V6, it is more sustained and, therefore, more useful.  Having it arrive a bit later, as well, provides for better mpg while cruising at normal speeds.

In conclusion, it can be said that the turbo boosted engines of various displacements can be best utilized for mpg and power in the hands of the knowledgeable driver, as opposed to the technically inept lead foot.  However, even in the hands, and feet, of the average commuter going from point A to point B in most traffic conditions, there is definite advantage in mpg...unless late for work or a hair appointment and then the turbo spooled to maximum boost will get them there in a hurry with a smile on their face.

[12,000 RPM]

A lot of it comes down to design as well. If the engine is too small and in boost all the time it won't reap any benefits. The data seems to show that bigger turbo engines do better. For example, MB E550 4matic gained 3 overall MPG along with 60HP/lbf going from the 5.5L NA to the 4.7L TT V8. Folks who slap aftermarket turbochargers see improvements in highway/cruising mileage when the turbos are sized for street driving. So there are def real world examples of turbos working... if there weren't the technology would have been abandoned long ago, like the rotary etc.

[GoCougs]

Sounds pretty good.  No doubt, with proper maintenance most will live a lot longer than that.  The majority live beyond 250k miles. 

No, it doesn't sound good; it sounds positively awful. And no, by definition the "majority" will not live beyond 250k miles, or even get close to it - Ford went to so far as to brag about 150k/10 years .

[FoMoJo]

A lot of it comes down to design as well. If the engine is too small and in boost all the time it won't reap any benefits. The data seems to show that bigger turbo engines do better. For example, MB E550 4matic gained 3 overall MPG along with 60HP/lbf going from the 5.5L NA to the 4.7L TT V8. Folks who slap aftermarket turbochargers see improvements in highway/cruising mileage when the turbos are sized for street driving. So there are def real world examples of turbos working... if there weren't the technology would have been abandoned long ago, like the rotary etc.

Exactly.  Turbos, in a previous era, were thought of, mainly, as a power adder.  When used as a potential power supplement for smaller engines designed, primarily, for fuel efficiency, the criteria and result is different.  In reference to smaller displacement engines, the 1 liter EcoBoost I3 will be quite interesting to watch as far as real world stats are concerned.

[12,000 RPM]

No, it doesn't sound good; it sounds positively awful. And no, by definition the "majority" will not live beyond 250k miles, or even get close to it - Ford went to so far as to brag about 150k/10 years .

Most cars dont make it anywhere near 250k; why this is your bare minimum of how far a car should get is not really clear.

Plus, your last car had a grenade transmission, yet I don't recall you having any issues with it. Sure, turbos add another failure point, but there's not much proof that turbos will 100% fail at or before 150K miles, and even if they do fail they don't cost much to rebuild/replace, and they won't necessarily grenade the engine when they go. You're overblowing all the negatives.

[GoCougs]

My boost gauge and my Volvo mechanic beg to differ.  The closest I ever had to come to touching the turbo was replacing the oil seals.

My Peugeot 505 also had a fully functioning original turbo when I sold it at nearly 200,000 miles.

Nice try, anyway.  Thanks for playing.

How do seals go bad? The seal and bearing surfaces go bad. New seals will make things better for a bit but it'll be back to bad right quick as the seal/bearing surfaces are still bad.

You had a bad turbo, bro.