Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jalopnik)   No   (jalopnik.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Turbocharger, Internal combustion engine, likely possibility, six-cylinder engine, turbo motors, V6s, better fuel economy, fuel efficiency  
•       •       •

2058 clicks; posted to STEM » on 14 Apr 2021 at 5:35 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



62 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
TWX [TotalFark]
2021-04-14 4:36:50 PM  
It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales fo failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.

Thirty years ago, the naturally-aspirated four cylinder was typically a more reliable engine than the V6 (particularly from Japanese automakers) because of its lower total overall output.  If you wanted particularly a Japanese pickup truck to last for 200,000 miles, you went with the I4, not the V6.  But a naturally-aspirated carbureted or even naturally-aspirated TBI or EFI with 100 to 120 horsepower isn't the same beast as a force-inducted direct-injected I4 with more than 250 horsepower.
 
2021-04-14 4:47:18 PM  
Doesn't driving style impact the longevity of a turbo? Good luck getting any value out of a used car even if you babied it if its a model people tend to drive like maniacs.
 
2021-04-14 4:58:37 PM  
Yes. No.

I stopped driving my beloved Audi Quattro for one reason: they killed the 3.0L six-cylinder in favour of that nervous, whiny 2.2T. Well okay, two reasons - that and the ridiculous, constant repair bills.
 
2021-04-14 5:24:12 PM  

TWX: It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales of failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.


Yep.  I have one (2020 Renegade...wife's vehicle).  I had the non-turbocharged version until it was totaled by some dummy on the freeway and the difference in "pep" is phenomenal.  But it is no V6 for sure.

I have little doubt that thing will need work on the turbocharger before 100k miles.  But I own two Chrysler vehicles so I'm used to the amount of early failure shiat Chrysler knowingly puts on their vehicles.

/Wrangler JKL in the shop at this very moment for a bad axle seal....BOAT!
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2021-04-14 5:35:57 PM  
straight 4-cylinders with the same horsepower tend to develop more torque
 
2021-04-14 5:51:33 PM  

TWX: It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales fo failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.

Thirty years ago, the naturally-aspirated four cylinder was typically a more reliable engine than the V6 (particularly from Japanese automakers) because of its lower total overall output.  If you wanted particularly a Japanese pickup truck to last for 200,000 miles, you went with the I4, not the V6.  But a naturally-aspirated carbureted or even naturally-aspirated TBI or EFI with 100 to 120 horsepower isn't the same beast as a force-inducted direct-injected I4 with more than 250 horsepower.


turbo charged engines operate under higher pressures so the engines don't last as long.  plus you get the added benefit of repairing a turbo that craps out.
$$

the Stealership kinda' likes it though.
 
2021-04-14 5:59:07 PM  
We have a few forces in auto manufacturing that are in conflict.  The pursuit of lower emissions and the pursuit of greater safety are most directly in conflict where crash requirements in ways that make cars larger and heavier in general when otherwise you'd want to get lighter.  There's also the market wanting larger vehicles while not sacrificing performance. The strange way the US has the footprint issue for CAFE incentivizes larger vehicles.

My personal preference is for naturally aspirated engines, although I will say the one boosted (supercharger) vehicle I had never had any issues with the supercharger or really the engine itself for the 13 years and 140K miles I owned it.
 
2021-04-14 6:06:32 PM  

TWX: Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder


Had the same reservation before switching to a 2.0L turbo.

Then I realized I was previously masochistic enough to old a chain of old, overboosted-fast, bought-cheap, beat-on Audis with 100-200k miles.  Yeah, they needed work, all the time.  Except the turbos, and the long-block.  And, for that matter, I had a turbodiesel pickup that never needed anything and I sold for more than I paid with 300,000mi... on its original turbo.

And tech has come a long way since those old beasts.

Just sayin'.  There's a lot of FUD around "OMG TURBO!" that may be based on early, crummy implementation or poor design, but maybe not so much any more.

~250hp, 30-40mpg, clean (for an ICE) emissions, and "yeah, maybe change the oil every 5k if you don't trust the manufacturer's recommendation for 10k intervals" is pretty spectacular.
 
2021-04-14 6:08:21 PM  
The correct answer is a 4-cylinder PHEV with an electric motor to give you the extra get up and go when you need it.
 
2021-04-14 6:14:40 PM  

SFSailor: TWX: Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder

Had the same reservation before switching to a 2.0L turbo.

Then I realized I was previously masochistic enough to old a chain of old, overboosted-fast, bought-cheap, beat-on Audis with 100-200k miles.  Yeah, they needed work, all the time.  Except the turbos, and the long-block.  And, for that matter, I had a turbodiesel pickup that never needed anything and I sold for more than I paid with 300,000mi... on its original turbo.

And tech has come a long way since those old beasts.

Just sayin'.  There's a lot of FUD around "OMG TURBO!" that may be based on early, crummy implementation or poor design, but maybe not so much any more.

~250hp, 30-40mpg, clean (for an ICE) emissions, and "yeah, maybe change the oil every 5k if you don't trust the manufacturer's recommendation for 10k intervals" is pretty spectacular.


I put 230,000 on a '85 SAAB turbo with no <engine> troubles
 
2021-04-14 6:16:13 PM  
Incremental iterative design improvements are incremental, and also designed around overall fleet and manufacturing performance as much as individual vehicle performance.

If you're claiming to be a "car person" and don't grasp that most design changes are part of a year-to-year process of making minor tweaks that gradually add up to larger improvements in overall specs over the course of design lifetimes, not any individual change in itself representing a major performance or efficiency leap... I dunno what to tell you.

... maybe consider actually learning about cars in a way that involves reading something with actual printed text, instead of just looking at the pictures in advertising posters at some point?

// And if you just flat-out don't value the stress on efficiency, control, and emission management over raw torque that characterizes the general direction of these improvements then you're objectively wrong and should go fark yourself.
 
TWX [TotalFark]
2021-04-14 6:44:32 PM  

UberDave: TWX: It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales of failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.

Yep.  I have one (2020 Renegade...wife's vehicle).  I had the non-turbocharged version until it was totaled by some dummy on the freeway and the difference in "pep" is phenomenal.  But it is no V6 for sure.

I have little doubt that thing will need work on the turbocharger before 100k miles.  But I own two Chrysler vehicles so I'm used to the amount of early failure shiat Chrysler knowingly puts on their vehicles.

/Wrangler JKL in the shop at this very moment for a bad axle seal....BOAT!


We have a '15 Renegade Trailhawk, wife's daily driver.  I'm basically watching it like a hawk for signs it's time to sell it and go to something else.  It's only the 2.4L naturally-aspirated but that doesn't mean that I trust the significant technological changes compared to the powertrains and engine control systems that I'm used to.
 
TWX [TotalFark]
2021-04-14 6:55:14 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Incremental iterative design improvements are incremental, and also designed around overall fleet and manufacturing performance as much as individual vehicle performance.

If you're claiming to be a "car person" and don't grasp that most design changes are part of a year-to-year process of making minor tweaks that gradually add up to larger improvements in overall specs over the course of design lifetimes, not any individual change in itself representing a major performance or efficiency leap... I dunno what to tell you.

... maybe consider actually learning about cars in a way that involves reading something with actual printed text, instead of just looking at the pictures in advertising posters at some point?

// And if you just flat-out don't value the stress on efficiency, control, and emission management over raw torque that characterizes the general direction of these improvements then you're objectively wrong and should go fark yourself.


And for those of us that live in the real world and end up having to contend with vehicle repairs, when engineers design and companies manufacture vehicles that are difficult and/or extremely expensive to service we tend to take a dim view of those "advancements".

I've owned and personally serviced vehicles made over essentially a 40 year range.  I can fully acknowledge that the cars from the seventies are not as objectively good as more recent models, but we seem to have peaked in the ratio of techncial advancement to serviceability of your average internal combustion powered vehicle somewhere between fifteen and twenty-five years ago depending on if one is talking about a passenger car versus a truck.
My care for the manufacturer's processes only extends so far, basically as long as the manufacturer warranties their products.
 
2021-04-14 7:00:38 PM  
The whine of some turbos is close to the pitch of my tinnitus and it seems to really bother my ears.  I've had to wear earplugs in some turbo vehicles.
 
2021-04-14 7:01:20 PM  
I currently own two turbocharged vehicles. I've probably owned a dozen over the past 35 years. I have never had the turbo itself go bad. I have upgraded the turbo(s) to more efficient and powerful units, but the turbos themselves have never failed.

In the old days we would install a "turbo-timer" that would keep the engine running for a few minutes to allow the turbo to cool down and not get coked up due to hot oil. Thanks to much better oil and watercooling, I don't think those even exist anymore.
 
2021-04-14 7:05:11 PM  
Current vehicle is a 2018 Chevy Cruze Diesel 6MT. The torque is absolutely amazing to where there is almost no wrong gear to be in. Anything from 1,500 RPM pulls strong.

It's had problems entirely unrelated to being a turbocharged engine.
 
2021-04-14 7:11:26 PM  

mrmopar5287: Current vehicle is a 2018 Chevy Cruze Diesel 6MT. The torque is absolutely amazing to where there is almost no wrong gear to be in. Anything from 1,500 RPM pulls strong.

It's had problems entirely unrelated to being a turbocharged engine.


Username DOES NOT check out.
 
2021-04-14 7:28:48 PM  

pheelix: Username DOES NOT check out.


I learned my lesson about Mopar quality. Then, I bought a Chevy that I'm currently in small claims court with GM for a defect.
 
2021-04-14 7:30:03 PM  
On my second 283 hp Grand Caravan Pentastar. Best part of the car, pretty much bulletproof with zero issues after 165K. Also have a 4.0L i6 in my Jeep YJ. Super easy to work on and pre OBD2. Also also have a 235 CI 1948 Chevrolet i6 with a whopping 90 hp. Even easier to work on and only 27 wires in the entire car, none of them go to a computer. No turbos in the driveway.
 
2021-04-14 7:30:14 PM  

UberDave: TWX: It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales of failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.

Yep.  I have one (2020 Renegade...wife's vehicle).  I had the non-turbocharged version until it was totaled by some dummy on the freeway and the difference in "pep" is phenomenal.  But it is no V6 for sure.

I have little doubt that thing will need work on the turbocharger before 100k miles.  But I own two Chrysler vehicles so I'm used to the amount of early failure shiat Chrysler knowingly puts on their vehicles.

/Wrangler JKL in the shop at this very moment for a bad axle seal....BOAT!


My Chrysler has 188,000+ miles on its 3.2 liter V6, Mind you its in a 2004 Crossfire that is a dressed up 2003 Mercedes SLK.
 
2021-04-14 7:32:57 PM  

mrmopar5287: pheelix: Username DOES NOT check out.

I learned my lesson about Mopar quality. Then, I bought a Chevy that I'm currently in small claims court with GM for a defect.


You should buy a 2014 Ford Focus with the Dual Clutch trans.
 
2021-04-14 7:44:55 PM  

TWX: It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales fo failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.

Thirty years ago, the naturally-aspirated four cylinder was typically a more reliable engine than the V6 (particularly from Japanese automakers) because of its lower total overall output.  If you wanted particularly a Japanese pickup truck to last for 200,000 miles, you went with the I4, not the V6.  But a naturally-aspirated carbureted or even naturally-aspirated TBI or EFI with 100 to 120 horsepower isn't the same beast as a force-inducted direct-injected I4 with more than 250 horsepower.


Also, I live in an area that gets pretty cold in the winter. I would rather not deal with engine heaters in a daily driver.
 
2021-04-14 7:49:14 PM  

Madaynun: You should buy a 2014 Ford Focus with the Dual Clutch trans.


Hah, oh HELL NO. Co-worker's partner had one of those. Hard pass.
 
2021-04-14 7:50:09 PM  
I quite like a straight 6 with a turbo.

*runs*
 
2021-04-14 7:53:14 PM  
We own two Volvo XC90s.

One is a 2016 with a supercharged and turbocharged 4 cyl.

The other is a 2008 v8

They make very similar performance numbers (at different revs of course)

The new 4 cyl is objectively better. The v8 is my baby
 
2021-04-14 7:56:52 PM  

TWX: Jim_Callahan: Incremental iterative design improvements are incremental, and also designed around overall fleet and manufacturing performance as much as individual vehicle performance.

If you're claiming to be a "car person" and don't grasp that most design changes are part of a year-to-year process of making minor tweaks that gradually add up to larger improvements in overall specs over the course of design lifetimes, not any individual change in itself representing a major performance or efficiency leap... I dunno what to tell you.

... maybe consider actually learning about cars in a way that involves reading something with actual printed text, instead of just looking at the pictures in advertising posters at some point?

// And if you just flat-out don't value the stress on efficiency, control, and emission management over raw torque that characterizes the general direction of these improvements then you're objectively wrong and should go fark yourself.

And for those of us that live in the real world and end up having to contend with vehicle repairs, when engineers design and companies manufacture vehicles that are difficult and/or extremely expensive to service we tend to take a dim view of those "advancements".

I've owned and personally serviced vehicles made over essentially a 40 year range.  I can fully acknowledge that the cars from the seventies are not as objectively good as more recent models, but we seem to have peaked in the ratio of techncial advancement to serviceability of your average internal combustion powered vehicle somewhere between fifteen and twenty-five years ago depending on if one is talking about a passenger car versus a truck.
My care for the manufacturer's processes only extends so far, basically as long as the manufacturer warranties their products.


Don't get me started. Modern vehicles have a dashboard paneling system that is nearly impossible to take apart with out training and specialist tools.

My Camry (great commuter) has a loose connection just to the left of center under the part of the dash that is nearly flat just under the windshield. Even with blown up schematics, I can't figure out how to take the dash apart with out ruining parts as I go. My regular mechanic won't touch it because of the complications I just mentioned. The dealer wants 5k to take apart the dash, determine the problem, and put it back together. They offered no estimate for the actual fix itself.

I guess I'll just keep doing the same kludge every day, forever. When the AC/ Heat fan doesn't work, I just pound on the dash until the fan works again.
 
2021-04-14 8:30:11 PM  
Many years ago, I owned a Grand National. Turbocharged 3.8L V6.
Insanely fast and pretty decent fuel mileage too. I miss that car.
 
2021-04-14 8:51:47 PM  
I have a few hundred thousand miles across several turbo-charged sports cars.

All of this fear-mongering is insane.
 
2021-04-14 8:55:17 PM  

Madaynun: mrmopar5287: pheelix: Username DOES NOT check out.

I learned my lesson about Mopar quality. Then, I bought a Chevy that I'm currently in small claims court with GM for a defect.

You should buy a 2014 Ford Focus with the Dual Clutch trans.


Didn't Ford eventually have to buy them all back?
 
2021-04-14 8:56:04 PM  

dready zim: I quite like a straight 6 with a turbo.

*runs*


2jz no shiat.
Got a 76mm on mine but the daily is a twin turbo 5.5L v8. Best of both worlds there.

Turbos are the future. Especially with e85. At least from a performance standpoint.
 
2021-04-14 8:58:48 PM  

baron von doodle: TWX: Jim_Callahan: Incremental iterative design improvements are incremental, and also designed around overall fleet and manufacturing performance as much as individual vehicle performance.

If you're claiming to be a "car person" and don't grasp that most design changes are part of a year-to-year process of making minor tweaks that gradually add up to larger improvements in overall specs over the course of design lifetimes, not any individual change in itself representing a major performance or efficiency leap... I dunno what to tell you.

... maybe consider actually learning about cars in a way that involves reading something with actual printed text, instead of just looking at the pictures in advertising posters at some point?

// And if you just flat-out don't value the stress on efficiency, control, and emission management over raw torque that characterizes the general direction of these improvements then you're objectively wrong and should go fark yourself.

And for those of us that live in the real world and end up having to contend with vehicle repairs, when engineers design and companies manufacture vehicles that are difficult and/or extremely expensive to service we tend to take a dim view of those "advancements".

I've owned and personally serviced vehicles made over essentially a 40 year range.  I can fully acknowledge that the cars from the seventies are not as objectively good as more recent models, but we seem to have peaked in the ratio of techncial advancement to serviceability of your average internal combustion powered vehicle somewhere between fifteen and twenty-five years ago depending on if one is talking about a passenger car versus a truck.
My care for the manufacturer's processes only extends so far, basically as long as the manufacturer warranties their products.

Don't get me started. Modern vehicles have a dashboard paneling system that is nearly impossible to take apart with out training and specialist tools.

My Camry (great commuter) has a loose connection just to the left of center under the part of the dash that is nearly flat just under the windshield. Even with blown up schematics, I can't figure out how to take the dash apart with out ruining parts as I go. My regular mechanic won't touch it because of the complications I just mentioned. The dealer wants 5k to take apart the dash, determine the problem, and put it back together. They offered no estimate for the actual fix itself.

I guess I'll just keep doing the same kludge every day, forever. When the AC/ Heat fan doesn't work, I just pound on the dash until the fan works again.


Have you tried a car audio installer? Those guys rips apart dashboards all the time, so they get really good at dealing with those annoying clips.
 
2021-04-14 9:00:04 PM  

Boojum2k: Many years ago, I owned a Grand National. Turbocharged 3.8L V6.
Insanely fast and pretty decent fuel mileage too. I miss that car.


Yeah but pretty much any iteration of the 3.8L was a great motor.
 
2021-04-14 9:13:20 PM  
I own a Canuckistani-Gray Market Eagle Talon TSi"-R". It does not run, and needs an impeller from a T127 turbo... for... a J-Spec Lancer Evo III engine FQ-330.

THEN... it eats Hellcats in drag/around a corner/to the ER. (Roll cage. NO firewall, A/C, sound baffling, insulation, cushioned seats, automatic transmission, muffler, power anything...)

378 AWHP, 412 lb-ft. 1950 lbs. ... uncomfortable as hell, will not lose traction on wet glass. Looks beat to shiat.

/Ate a GT-R (2007).
//Paid $675. (Had to buy/install a head gasket/turbo boot)...
///Looks MEAN... ugly as sin.
 
2021-04-14 9:34:18 PM  

Linux_Yes: TWX: It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales fo failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.

Thirty years ago, the naturally-aspirated four cylinder was typically a more reliable engine than the V6 (particularly from Japanese automakers) because of its lower total overall output.  If you wanted particularly a Japanese pickup truck to last for 200,000 miles, you went with the I4, not the V6.  But a naturally-aspirated carbureted or even naturally-aspirated TBI or EFI with 100 to 120 horsepower isn't the same beast as a force-inducted direct-injected I4 with more than 250 horsepower.

turbo charged engines operate under higher pressures so the engines don't last as long.  plus you get the added benefit of repairing a turbo that craps out.
$$

the Stealership kinda' likes it though.


When you're in boost....otherwise, it's a low powered 4 banger operating near peak efficiency at crushing speed...
 
2021-04-14 9:49:06 PM  

pheelix: Madaynun: mrmopar5287: pheelix: Username DOES NOT check out.

I learned my lesson about Mopar quality. Then, I bought a Chevy that I'm currently in small claims court with GM for a defect.

You should buy a 2014 Ford Focus with the Dual Clutch trans.

Didn't Ford eventually have to buy them all back?


my wife got in a wreck last year that totaled hers (Thank the Deity of your Choice, or not.) , but they The Ford farkus is still out there.
 
2021-04-14 9:50:36 PM  
Turbo four cylinder engines can be made to be reliable, look at the various diesel four cylinders like what Toyota puts in their small trucks (that I wish were sold here). IMHO, it comes down to how much effort the manufacturer puts into designing the engine so it can withstand the added stresses from turbocharging.
 
2021-04-14 10:30:16 PM  

Mad_Radhu: The correct answer is a 4-cylinder PHEV with an electric motor to give you the extra get up and go when you need it.


Depends on what sort of hybrid powertrain you are using.  A series hybrid where the ICE only powers a generator might be a better application of a rotary engine.  A parallel hybrid or split hybrid where the ICE can power the wheels might find a traditional inline engine better.

Mazda is going with a rotary Wankel engine in its new MX-30 series hybrid.  Operating in a more steady and controlled environment might actually give the seals a chance at a long life for once.  I'm kind of excited to see how well it works.
 
2021-04-14 10:41:47 PM  

Jedekai: I own a Canuckistani-Gray Market Eagle Talon TSi"-R". It does not run, and needs an impeller from a T127 turbo... for... a J-Spec Lancer Evo III engine FQ-330.

THEN... it eats Hellcats in drag/around a corner/to the ER. (Roll cage. NO firewall, A/C, sound baffling, insulation, cushioned seats, automatic transmission, muffler, power anything...)

378 AWHP, 412 lb-ft. 1950 lbs. ... uncomfortable as hell, will not lose traction on wet glass. Looks beat to shiat.

/Ate a GT-R (2007).
//Paid $675. (Had to buy/install a head gasket/turbo boot)...
///Looks MEAN... ugly as sin.


Pictures or GTFO
 
2021-04-14 10:44:40 PM  

damndirtyape: dready zim: I quite like a straight 6 with a turbo.

*runs*

2jz no shiat.
Got a 76mm on mine but the daily is a twin turbo 5.5L v8. Best of both worlds there.

Turbos are the future. Especially with e85. At least from a performance standpoint.


I've been tossing around the idea of adding a turbo kit to my 2JZ.  The reviews for kits from CX Racing seem to be consistently good.  Same with XS Power.
 
2021-04-14 11:58:26 PM  

Madaynun: mrmopar5287: pheelix: Username DOES NOT check out.

I learned my lesson about Mopar quality. Then, I bought a Chevy that I'm currently in small claims court with GM for a defect.

You should buy a 2014 Ford Focus with the Dual Clutch trans.


I have one, about to pass 100k.  First gear issue has largely faded away.
 
2021-04-15 2:38:08 AM  

mrmopar5287: Current vehicle is a 2018 Chevy Cruze Diesel 6MT. The torque is absolutely amazing to where there is almost no wrong gear to be in. Anything from 1,500 RPM pulls strong.

It's had problems entirely unrelated to being a turbocharged engine.


Yay, diesels!

This is what you want if you want reliability and ease of use but don't want the range drawbacks of electric.

I have now owned seven diesels, mixture of turbo and non-turbo, medium trucks and passenger cars, only one of them had less than 300,000KM on them. One had over 500,000.

Right now I have a 1.6L turbo diesel i30 with 348,000KM.

My only failures so far is the EGR heat exchanger on a 4M50-T and it ran fine blanked off until we could get a replacement, just smokey when cold, and the intercooler hose on the i30 split so it drove like a non-turbo as it only got ambient pressure.

All of the manual diesels you can pretty much just drop it into whatever gear and it will go. It may not go well in the higher ones from 0, but it still does it.
 
2021-04-15 3:00:41 AM  

TWX: It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales fo failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.

Thirty years ago, the naturally-aspirated four cylinder was typically a more reliable engine than the V6 (particularly from Japanese automakers) because of its lower total overall output.  If you wanted particularly a Japanese pickup truck to last for 200,000 miles, you went with the I4, not the V6.  But a naturally-aspirated carbureted or even naturally-aspirated TBI or EFI with 100 to 120 horsepower isn't the same beast as a force-inducted direct-injected I4 with more than 250 horsepower.


I think its more a question of how much you are relying on your turbocharged engine being on boost.

Look at the reliability of the 2L vs 3L Nissan turbo motors in essentially the same car. The 3L motors go for ever.

However this can be offset by gearbox technology. I'm always amazed by how often my wife's VW is off boost with its 7-Speed DSG.
 
2021-04-15 3:09:45 AM  

Linux_Yes: TWX: It's not simply about power and fuel economy, it's also about longevity and repair costs.

Right now I don't feel comfortable with a forced-induction four cylinder chosen over the V6 because there's generally good information on the longevity of the V6, versus tales fo failed turbochargers for the four cylinder.

Thirty years ago, the naturally-aspirated four cylinder was typically a more reliable engine than the V6 (particularly from Japanese automakers) because of its lower total overall output.  If you wanted particularly a Japanese pickup truck to last for 200,000 miles, you went with the I4, not the V6.  But a naturally-aspirated carbureted or even naturally-aspirated TBI or EFI with 100 to 120 horsepower isn't the same beast as a force-inducted direct-injected I4 with more than 250 horsepower.

turbo charged engines operate under higher pressures so the engines don't last as long.  plus you get the added benefit of repairing a turbo that craps out.
$$

the Stealership kinda' likes it though.


That not exactly borne out with real world experience tho.

I've just got over 500,000K's in my mid 80's GM car.

I think its more a question of the car maker matching the engine load, to the vehicle mass, gearing and ambient environment rather than anything to do with the inherent technology.

I'll also argue the point about what causes more warranty issues: Stupid (Insert some comment that will get me banned) balance shafts that most V6's have verses swapping out a turbocharger.

I'd make a nasty comment about linux being used to drive a low level system, and how its not intended for that, but I'll refrain...
 
2021-04-15 3:12:17 AM  

dready zim: I quite like a straight 6 with a turbo.

*runs*


I have a RB30DET in my day to day car.

General Motors LW5 FTW! :-)
 
2021-04-15 3:13:49 AM  

damndirtyape: dready zim: I quite like a straight 6 with a turbo.

*runs*

2jz no shiat.
Got a 76mm on mine but the daily is a twin turbo 5.5L v8. Best of both worlds there.

Turbos are the future. Especially with e85. At least from a performance standpoint.


no RB love? What about a Barra?
 
2021-04-15 3:31:59 AM  

Dinjiin: damndirtyape: dready zim: I quite like a straight 6 with a turbo.

*runs*

2jz no shiat.
Got a 76mm on mine but the daily is a twin turbo 5.5L v8. Best of both worlds there.

Turbos are the future. Especially with e85. At least from a performance standpoint.

I've been tossing around the idea of adding a turbo kit to my 2JZ.  The reviews for kits from CX Racing seem to be consistently good.  Same with XS Power.


What do you drive?
 
2021-04-15 3:39:55 AM  
I **love** my inline six cylinder turno diesel....

Cummins 6CTA8.3
504 cu in (8.3 L)
turbocharged
240 hp at 2100 rpm
745 lbf·ft torque at 1,500 rpm.

1990 BMY M923A2 5 ton
0-60 eventually.
3mpg
Cool factor off the charts

/yes, my penis is an innie

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-15 4:56:48 AM  
I got a little 4-banger.

With 16 valves and a dual vortex style supercharger.

It is peppy. I'm not certain I would say it's better than a V6, but it's lightweight and compact. I get better HP and less MPH than my girlfriend's large V6. And my car is half the size.

All I am trying to say is that I am content.
 
2021-04-15 6:09:47 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Doesn't driving style impact the longevity of a turbo? Good luck getting any value out of a used car even if you babied it if its a model people tend to drive like maniacs.


This is true for the first 10 year or so. After, if you maintain your car well and keep it stock, or return it to stock, eventually  a clean stock version will command a decent premium by people nostalgic for the first cheap car they ruined with cheap mods as a teenager.
 
2021-04-15 6:17:02 AM  

Linux_Yes: turbo charged engines operate under higher pressures so the engines don't last as long.


That's why you get a turbo diesel. Sure, my 3.2 Merc only makes 200hp, but it holds its own against my mates 4.2 petrol jag that makes twice the hp because it makes the same torque (380ft/lb) but weighs less, and as we all know torque is low speed acceleration. Sure it loses out over 120mph, but it gets to the same top speed, and when do you go over 120mph?

I also get twice the MPG compared to his car, and mine is never in the shop unlike his.

Also, his has yet to get to 100K while mine is nearly at 200K.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.