Camry to dump V6 for you know what.

[GoCougs]

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.

Watch the strawman (again) - 250k miles was someone else's throw down.

Not sure what you're talking about - the Accord was a rock star. The AT light came on but the dealer said NPF. But even if it weren't a rock star, why purposefully add the pain of turbo replacement to a $3k+ A/T replacement, for no real-world gain?

lol - turbo replacement is a major expense - easily $2k+. F-150 owners are gonna pay a lot more than that obviously.

[GoCougs]

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.

None of this makes sense, esp. hack job turbo "upgrades."

Turbos "work" at gaming the EPA testing procedure.

[FoMoJo]

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 .

You need to do some research.

[hotrodalex]

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.

You end up with a crappier powerband.

N/A is better for consistency, reliability, driveability, etc.

[GoCougs]

You need to do some research.

Oh what exactly? You threw down and Ford itself told you you were wrong  .

[FoMoJo]

You end up with a crappier powerband.

N/A is better for consistency, reliability, driveability, etc.

Please explain. 

For discussion, there are some interesting numbers in this site...http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html

[FoMoJo]

Oh what exactly? You threw down and Ford itself told you you were wrong  .

We're not debating what Ford said.  Research shows that a higher percentage of modern water cooled turbos last up to 250k miles.  Some last longer.  Some fail sooner.

[MX793]

Oh what exactly? You threw down and Ford itself told you you were wrong  .

Ford's number is likely a "no sooner than" value at which a statistically significant number of vehicles will need their turbos replaced.  It does not indicate that the majority will require replacement at that mileage.

[GoCougs]

We're not debating what Ford said.  Research shows that a higher percentage of modern water cooled turbos last up to 250k miles.  Some last longer.  Some fail sooner.

Sure we are; you made a statement that was exactly counter to Ford's press release. Peruse the Audi, WRX and GTI forums to get an idea of how long "modern" turbos last (250k miles is a fairy tale).

[12,000 RPM]

None of this makes sense, esp. hack job turbo "upgrades."

Sure it does. At the minimum, it makes more sense than citing statistically insignificant "data" such as message board gripes and convenient speculation based on "engineering principles". Statistically significant, provable, correlation driven data.

Turbos "work" at gaming the EPA testing procedure.

How, exactly?

[FoMoJo]

Sure we are; you made a statement that was exactly counter to Ford's press release. Peruse the Audi, WRX and GTI forums to get an idea of how long "modern" turbos last (250k miles is a fairy tale).

I'm rather surprised that you are so captivated by what Ford said.  It's pretty clear that the meaning is as follows.  As for Audi, WRX and GTI, I expect that the general usage is rather different than someone buying an EcoBoost with fuel efficiency in mind.

Ford's number is likely a "no sooner than" value at which a statistically significant number of vehicles will need their turbos replaced.  It does not indicate that the majority will require replacement at that mileage.

[GoCougs]

Ford's number is likely a "no sooner than" value at which a statistically significant number of vehicles will need their turbos replaced.  It does not indicate that the majority will require replacement at that mileage.

True, but note Ford did not use any sort of official/statistical language (sigma, B10/B50, etc.), so it's hard to say. As with all statistically process things (such as designing and manufacturing turbos) standard deviation on life is going to be tight - B50 life isn't going to tons more than B10. I'm guessing the 10/150k isn't B10 but then again probably not B50. Either way it's not a lot of life WRT major components on a modern automobile (engine, transmission, differential, t-case, etc.) yet Ford felt it important enough to note it (i.e., that it's quite a bold statement given how frail turbos typically are).

[GoCougs]

I'm rather surprised that you are so captivated by what Ford said.  It's pretty clear that the meaning is as follows.  As for Audi, WRX and GTI, I expect that the general usage is rather different than someone buying an EcoBoost with fuel efficiency in mind.

Not captivated, I'm just needling you a bit given you were adamant about EB life, when Ford had an official statement stating otherwise. .

True, those cars are not plebeian but that doesn't absolve their participation in the data set.

[Madman]

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.

You obviously missed the fact I had a very good Volvo mechanic (who knows more about turbos than you ever will) give my turbocharger a clean bill of health.

Oil line seals are made from rubber.  Rubber deteriorates over time.  Replacement rubber o-ring seals cost literally pennies.

How does a weeping rubber o-ring equate to a blown turbo?  You really are full of shit.

[GoCougs]

You obviously missed the fact I had a very good Volvo mechanic (who knows more about turbos than you ever will) give my turbocharger a clean bill of health.

Oil line seals are made from rubber.  Rubber deteriorates over time.  Replacement rubber o-ring seals cost literally pennies.

How does a weeping rubber o-ring equate to a blown turbo?  You really are full of shit.

So rubber hoses are now "seals"?

Perhaps your turbo did last that long but that but you seemed miff that turbo daintiness is news to you. Not sure what to tell you, other than, well, to tell you.

[GoCougs]

Sure it does. At the minimum, it makes more sense than citing statistically insignificant "data" such as message board gripes and convenient speculation based on "engineering principles". Statistically significant, provable, correlation driven data.
How, exactly?

And I've provided it ad naseum in this thread.

It's easy to game a test if you know what the test is; ergo, design to the test - EPA mpg testing and otherwise. Automakers have been doing this for quite some time engines and elsewhere (1-3 skip shift, test-specific AT programming, hard-as-rock OEM tires, etc.).

Turbos game the test through soft boost maps. Keep it off boost and it will do well, esp. since turbo equivalent to a N/A motor is much smaller (i.e., ~2.0T vs. Japanese 3.5L V6s). Thing is these boost maps are mostly irrelevant in the real world - they lead to huge lag and poor performance and otherwise no one drives exactly as the EPA test. Once you get into any sort of boost mpg drops relatively dramatically (IMO, a good portion is due to lag, which induces more throttle input than would otherwise be necessary to achieve the desired acceleration (which, yes, isn't exactly a problem with the motor or test itself)) as contrary to popular opinion turbos aren't a free efficiency ride - there is an efficiency drop esp as the turbo spools (i.e., energy needed to accelerate the turbo before boost (CR) builds) and then there are secondary issues with running a slightly rich A/F mixture for safety.

[12,000 RPM]

And I've provided it ad naseum in this thread.

It's easy to game a test if you know what the test is; ergo, design to the test - EPA mpg testing and otherwise. Automakers have been doing this for quite some time engines and elsewhere (1-3 skip shift, test-specific AT programming, hard-as-rock OEM tires, etc.).

Turbos game the test through soft boost maps. Keep it off boost and it will do well, esp. since turbo equivalent to a N/A motor is much smaller (i.e., ~2.0T vs. Japanese 3.5L V6s). Thing is these boost maps are mostly irrelevant in the real world - they lead to huge lag and poor performance and otherwise no one drives exactly as the EPA test. Once you get into any sort of boost mpg drops relatively dramatically (IMO, a good portion is due to lag, which induces more throttle input than would otherwise be necessary to achieve the desired acceleration (which, yes, isn't exactly a problem with the motor or test itself)) as contrary to popular opinion turbos aren't a free efficiency ride - there is an efficiency drop esp as the turbo spools (i.e., energy needed to accelerate the turbo before boost (CR) builds) and then there are secondary issues with running a slightly rich A/F mixture for safety.

U keep calling the accuracy/relevance of EPA testing into question and claiming manufacturers "game" the system.... however if they actually weren't relevant, lawsuits like the ones you cited would be a lot more prevalent rather than just anomalies. Where are the fuel economy lawsuits from owners of BMWs, VWAGs, Benzes, etc? Again regardless of manufacturer gamesmanship at the end of the day 99% of cars on the road fall in line with their EPA testing mileages, especially after they made those changes a few years ago.

So to that end I'm calling BS on your "soft boost map" theory- and it most def is a theory. I've driven a few modern turbo cars... cars like the GTI and 335i are anything but "laggy", and if they are driven normally they do what the EPA says they will. All of my cars have done about what the EPA says they would.... in the Z I get 17-19 MPG on a stop and go tank and 25-27 MPG on long trips.

All you've posted "ad nauseum" are spurious connections and unsubstantiated theories... like I've said/shown "ad nauseum" reality doesn't jive with you

[GoCougs]

Meh, no more use in arguing. Turbos don't get as good mpg and they are not as reliable or as robust as a N/A motor. That's just the way it is and it has been addressed  .

[CALL_911]

GTI is laggy in first and second

[Char]

Staying out of boost is an easy way to "simulate" better gas mileage. I like turbo engines too - but let's try to keep the facts straight here.

[Byteme]

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.

The US DOT says the average car is scrapped at about 145,000 miles.

IHS Automotive (via the Wall Street Journal) "Vehicles on U.S. roads have never been older, now averaging 11.3 years.

In light of that 10 years and 150,000 sounds like a reasonable target especially since we don't know what the 10 year/150,000 mile data point means.  Is it the mean failure point, average failure point, Minimum, what?

[GoCougs]

GTI is laggy in first and second

I felt it too but not a big deal IMO for that car. VWAG isn't a great N/A motor builder and stuffing in a N/A V6 wouldn't fit the character (and styling) of that car.

[GoCougs]

Staying out of boost is an easy way to "simulate" better gas mileage. I like turbo engines too - but let's try to keep the facts straight here.

It's actually dipping in/out of boost (accelerating the turbo) that is the mpg killer for turbos. 

[Madman]

So rubber hoses are now "seals"?

No, the oil feed and return lines are not made from rubber, they're metal.  The seals in the lines are rubber o-rings that look like this.



I replaced all the engine seals on my 740, including the camshaft, crankshaft and oil pump seals at the front of the block when I did the timing belt.  I also replaced the two rubber o-rings on the distributor shaft at the back of the cylinder head and the aforementioned o-rings for the turbocharger oil feed and return lines.  The turbocharger itself never required any maintenance.

Perhaps your turbo did last that long but that but you seemed miff that turbo daintiness is news to you. Not sure what to tell you, other than, well, to tell you.

Every big-rig you see on the highway has a turbocharger.  These units have a service life of hundreds of thousands of miles and are not "dainty" by any stretch of the imagination.  I'd love to hear you spew your uninformed bullshit about turbochargers to anyone who has ever turned a wrench on a Kenworth, Mack, Peterbilt, Freightliner, International, etc.  They'd laugh in your face.  Right before punching it!

[CALL_911]

I felt it too but not a big deal IMO for that car. VWAG isn't a great N/A motor builder and stuffing in a N/A V6 wouldn't fit the character (and styling) of that car.

It's fine, I'm not complaining about it

[GoCougs]

No, the oil feed and return lines are not made from rubber, they're metal.  The seals in the lines are rubber o-rings that look like this.



I replaced all the engine seals on my 740, including the camshaft, crankshaft and oil pump seals at the front of the block when I did the timing belt.  I also replaced the two rubber o-rings on the distributor shaft at the back of the cylinder head and the aforementioned o-rings for the turbocharger oil feed and return lines.  The turbocharger itself never required any maintenance.



Every big-rig you see on the highway has a turbocharger.  These units have a service life of hundreds of thousands of miles and are not "dainty" by any stretch of the imagination.  I'd love to hear you spew your uninformed bullshit about turbochargers to anyone who has ever turned a wrench on a Kenworth, Mack, Peterbilt, Freightliner, International, etc.  They'd laugh in your face.  Right before punching it!

Nah, I think I had it right - you had a bad turbo, bro.

Thing is with industrial turbos (big rig, marine, etc.) the turbo itself is not only far more robust (and expensive) in design they operate within either a relatively narrow or forgiving process window vs. a typical gasoline engine:

Narrow engine RPM band (i.e., turbo runs mostly at constant RPM = less stress)
Mostly constant load (= constant EGT = less heat stress cycling)
The turbos are much bigger (= spin at a much lower RPM)
Industrial engines are cycled/turned off far less frequently (= less heat stress cycling)
Diesel EGT is cooler than gasoline (= less heat stress in total)
Diesel engines don't use a throttle (= no back pressure which stresses the turbo)
Lower boost pressure (= less stress on the turbo)

With this new found knowledge you plainly can now see how this all helps increase service life vs. a retail gasoline turbocharged passenger vehicle. Even still, an industrial diesel engine will go through a number of turbos over its design life (they are considered maintenance items).

Any more questions?

[Madman]

Nah, I think I had it right - you had a bad turbo, bro.

I did?  Really?  Wow, you must be smarter than my dealer-trained Volvo mechanic.  Pretty impressive, considering you've never even seen the car! 

I guess all that boost indicated on my gauge was just my imagination, right?

[12,000 RPM]

Nah, I think I had it right - you had a bad turbo, bro.

Thing is with industrial turbos (big rig, marine, etc.) the turbo itself is not only far more robust (and expensive) in design they operate within either a relatively narrow or forgiving process window vs. a typical gasoline engine:

Narrow engine RPM band (i.e., turbo runs mostly at constant RPM = less stress)
Mostly constant load (= constant EGT = less heat stress cycling)
The turbos are much bigger (= spin at a much lower RPM)
Industrial engines are cycled/turned off far less frequently (= less heat stress cycling)
Diesel EGT is cooler than gasoline (= less heat stress in total)
Diesel engines don't use a throttle (= no back pressure which stresses the turbo)
Lower boost pressure (= less stress on the turbo)

With this new found knowledge you plainly can now see how this all helps increase service life vs. a retail gasoline turbocharged passenger vehicle. Even still, an industrial diesel engine will go through a number of turbos over its design life (they are considered maintenance items).

Any more questions?

Big rigs shift a ton more than regular cars because of their narrow power bands, which = more spooling up and cycling. They also run boost levels in the 30-40psi range. Higher pressure ratio = faster spinning turbo, regardless of turbo size. So it's kind of a wash.

[MX793]

Lower boost pressure in a diesel?  Better check again.  Your typical 12-13L big rig motor is running north of 20 psi of boost.

[FoMoJo]

Meh, no more use in arguing. Turbos don't get as good mpg and they are not as reliable or as robust as a N/A motor. That's just the way it is and it has been addressed  .

It's still nonsense.