That was exactly my point. Thus quotes.
What a strange post. If you want to explain why 4 cyl turbos are bad, then by all means. Please do.
There are bajillions of them on the road from all manner of manufacturers.
My own personal “anecdote” is my '06 SAAB 2.0T with over 240K on it. Still loves to vroom.
But by all means, @nofyfb_180405, please elaborate. And, I guess, give some “statistics” that will show that they’re problematic?
1 Like
What’s here to explain?!? Turbo - by its nature - causes high stress on engine components. It doesn’t mean it will drop dead immediately but if it lasts x miles with turbo, it would last 1,5x or 2x without it. Obviously. Saab is a better quality machine than, let’s say, ford so it doesn’t lose valves and rings on a regular basis but nothing can replace raw volume in the long run. It’s a matter or preference but I never understood the 0-60 obsession. In the matter of fact, the slowest things on our windy rural roads are corvettes and mustangs…
Brilliant analysis. Thank you.
3 Likes
The turbo engine is built to handle the stress, they don’t just slap on a turbo, as you know.
3 Likes
Actually, some do. Or at least did, and I have no reason to believe that something has changed.
Clearly, he doesn’t know. He’s guessing. 
7 Likes
Yep, they just go to Jegs and order a few thousand turbo kits…
4 Likes
I’ll go with ‘did’. I had a 79 Mercury Capri with the 2.3 liter turbo. Needed a cam at about 100K, and blew the turbo seals at about 120K I think.
I am pretty sure Ford learned their mistake. My Capri was a plumbers nightmare under the hood. New cars like the Mustang have more power, get better gas mileage and are more reliable.
It’s a free country so you have the right to trust your hard-earned money to ford, fiat/chrysler, and suchlike while I have the right not to. There is a disclaimer in all investment agreements “prior performance does not guarantee future performance”. If US corp philosophy and modus operandi has changed, it has not changed to the better so that disclaimer would not apply - garbage for decades guarantees garbage in the future.
Complexity of modern vehicles has increased dramatically, and I have no reason to believe that quality and dependability have increased accordingly. I saw a youtube clip the other day that showed a ford with a little defect - water leaked into the rear light. Result: $6,500+ repair bill. Not my cup of tea. Thank you but no.
Some may argue that every manufacturer has occasional hiccups which is true but not every manufacturer carefully maintains its screw ups for decades until the entire model is scrapped. Example: ford’s 3.8 engine head gaskets. To be fair, it’s not just ford. Subaru head gaskets belong to the same category. And I am not even talking about chrysler’s A604/42LE transmission. I can extend the list indefinitely…
Camshaft and cam follower failures were common on n/a 2.3 liter Ford engines, not just turbocharged engines.
That engine was discontinued 20 years ago.
2 Likes
I was coming here to say the same thing. My college roommate had one, clicking away. I went to adjust the valves, found out the followers each had a cam-shaped gouge worn in them. Nothing to be done except replace, which he couldn’t afford.
No turbo involved.
I did not know that. But it was not too difficult to replace myself.
I owned that car for 14 years and I was so dissatisfied with Ford that I replaced it with another Ford I owned for 18 years. /s
Which Subaru engines (and years) tended toward head gasket failure?
And which have overcome that problem, compared to the past?
I don’t remember exact years but my rough estimate is 2000-2015. Interesting that turbos were not affected, only naturally aspirated so it’s not that Subaru did not know how to do it right, it just did not care. Thus effectively eliminated me from its list of potential customers.
My experience with turbos goes back to the 80’s & 90’s when manufacturers apparently were still slapping them on very minimally modified engines and synthetic oil wasn’t commonly available so “cokeing” the turbo bearings, blown gaskets and overheating were common and replacement of the turbo and/or engine at 50,000 miles wasn’t uncommon.
But it’s been 30 years, these problem have been addressed and there is the benefit of improved mileage.
So I see no problem with the current turbos but because I’m driving less and enjoy the low end torque of a V-6, that’s my preference
.
1 Like
I don’t think it was because synthetic wasn’t commonly available, it was. Mobil 1 since 1974, Amsoil since ‘72 and I’m sure others were around by the 80’s. It was because it was considerably more expensive so a lot of people just plain cheaped out.
1 Like
Yeah, Price was certainly different!
Back then a Dealership oil change was typically every 12,000 miles and still available at $29.95 but on my turbo it was every 5,000 miles or risk “coking” the turbo, Mobil seemed to be the only synthetic available and the cost of the oil change was $129.95.
Seeing the bill the first time my reaction was, “Is this in dollars or lira?!”. 
I’m throwing the B.S. Card on that. No dealership or manufacturer I know of had a 12,000 oil change interval then or now. At least not in the U.S. But as we here know you are a cheap S.O.B . Probably one of the people that cheaped out.
4 Likes
If this is the 416 HP 2 liter turbo, here is a little rundown on it
It develops more horse power per cubic inch than a Dodge Challenger 170.