# Chrysler Reliability **URL:** \ **Category:** Buying/Selling\ **Tags:** selling, chrysler\ **Created:** [October 4, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956 "2010-10-04T20:47:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![hondas2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6de8d8/32.png) [@hondas2000](https://community.cartalk.com/u/hondas2000)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/1 "2010-10-04T20:47:31Z")
How reliable the 1986 Chrysler NewYorker 2.2 turbos? ---
**Author:** ![tardis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f0a364/32.png) [@tardis](https://community.cartalk.com/u/tardis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/2 "2010-10-04T21:11:56Z")
“Chrysler” and “Reliability” are a contradiction in terms, especially a turbo from the 80’s. ---
**Author:** ![jtsanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jtsanders](https://community.cartalk.com/u/jtsanders)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/3 "2010-10-04T22:05:21Z")
No 1986 car is reliable enough to use as a daily driver unless you have no choice. If you are thinking about buying one, it has to be in excellent running order and less than $500. ---
**Author:** ![oblivion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ab097/32.png) [@oblivion](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oblivion)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/4 "2010-10-04T23:13:02Z")
You might be better off asking someone on the Allpar forum or somewhere more specific to the brand. Despite the prejudice of others, I have around 260K on my 1994 LHS and it’s been by far the most reliable car I’ve ever owned. I would (and probably will) purchase another Mopar. I will admit that there are definitely Chrysler vehicles to be avoided though. ---
**Author:** ![ok4450](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ok4450](https://community.cartalk.com/u/ok4450)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/5 "2010-10-05T00:44:10Z")
How reliable is any 25 year old car going to be. The badge is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Goldwing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@Goldwing](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Goldwing)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/6 "2010-10-05T02:06:47Z")
I think the 2.2 engines were pretty darn good, but I doubt the turbo was as reliable. ---
**Author:** ![ok4450](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ok4450](https://community.cartalk.com/u/ok4450)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/7 "2010-10-05T02:16:24Z")
Most turbochargers are usually killed; they seldom die a natural death. I think Chrysler turbochargers are made by Garrett, who also provides them for many other makes and models of cars. ---
**Author:** ![oblivion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ab097/32.png) [@oblivion](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oblivion)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/8 "2010-10-05T02:43:27Z")
Turbos may do a little better these days than in the 80s too, because of synthetic oils being more widely available and oils in general being much better. Plus materials engineering constantly improves as well. ---
**Author:** ![andrew\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@andrew\_j](https://community.cartalk.com/u/andrew_j)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/9 "2010-10-06T01:05:52Z")
Turbo’s are very reliable these days due to computer control, significantly better cooling design especially even when engine is off, and intercooling. Beyond the oil being better the engines are far superior now and more gentle on oil due to better design. Back in the 1980’s they were emerging at best. Add 25 years and it is not a great recipe for reliability. ---
**Author:** ![oblivion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ab097/32.png) [@oblivion](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oblivion)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 10:10am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/10 "2010-10-06T10:10:10Z")
Although ironically, turbochargers were invented around the turn of the century I think. ---
**Author:** ![the\_same\_mountainbike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@the\_same\_mountainbike](https://community.cartalk.com/u/the_same_mountainbike)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/11 "2010-10-06T18:49:44Z")
Apparently they were first used on aircraft engines in WWI, auto engines sometime later. > **[Turbocharger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger)** > > A turbocharger, or colloquially turbo, is a turbine-driven forced induction device that increases an internal combustion engine's efficiency and power output by forcing extra air into the combustion chamber. This improvement over a naturally aspirated engine's power output is due to the fact that the compressor can force more air—and proportionately more fuel—into the combustion chamber than atmospheric pressure (and for that matter, ram air intakes) alone. Turbochargers were originally known as ... ---
**Author:** ![ok4450](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ok4450](https://community.cartalk.com/u/ok4450)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/chrysler-reliability/55956/12 "2010-10-06T18:53:35Z")
The only bad turbochargers I’ve ever seen were done in by oil coking or sludging; hardly the fault of the turbocharger. I’ve yet to see one that just failed on its own.