But if a turbo engine is damaged by “flogging” then doesn’t that mean the turbo (or the engine) is poorly designed? I’m taking “flogging” to mean driving at high speeds and high accelerations.
I had a Mazda 626 GT turbo. What a pain. Problem after problem. No turbos for me.
Got rid of our 2001 VW 1.8T a few months ago after buying it new. Mostly, the wife drove it, but I took full care of it. Every 5K (per the manual) oil changes, transaxle at 80K, traded in for a new Camry at 145K. When I drove it, I beat the h-e-double-toothpicks out of it. When we traded it in, it wasn’t for the drivetrain - that was still rock solid. It was the interior falling apart (and the fading paint!) the wife couldn’t handle. She still wishes we still had it. Chipped since the word go, that thing was pushing 230HP (that’s what the dyno said, anyway), in a car we can play catch with.
There was one instance where it lost what seemed like a lot of oil years ago - and that started my membership here - but it was only for a couple oil changes. 5000 miles can take a long time. After being berated for using the wrong oil (I used 5W-30, and kept using it, per the manual and dealer), and dealing with the loss between those changes it stopped using it. It’s very possible I did something wrong under the hood, but someone far smarter than me will have to tell me what it was.
15 years ago, Honda had a 2 liter engine that made 240 horsepower without using any form of forced induction. It was a relatively simple engine, compared to Ford’s 1 liter turbo engine that makes 123 horsepower. Both engines make 120hp per liter. The newer engine has to have many peripheral components.
I’m sure that Honda engine needed a strong crankshaft and connecting rods to withstand all that inertia at 9000 rpm, just like a turbo needs strengthening to withstand higher gas pressure. Even if turbo is reliable, I prefer Honda’s approach. Simpler is better
@BillRussell in normal driving a turbocharger puts out very little or no boost. It’s only when the pedal is nailed a bit firmly that boost really starts to kick in.
In the case of the Subaru transfer car I mentioned, the Subaru of America employee who ferried that one 425 miles apparently had his foot planted on the floor most of the way. Staying in high boost that much will get the turbocharger glowing from heat.
That’s also why the hood on that car was oxidized and had to be repainted.
To me anyway, the entire car was suspect and how much of the car history and repaint was made known to the buyer of that car I have no idea. I suspect that the customer knew nothing of the problem and would also suspect that at some point they were going to have issues with it.
I had to change the turbocharger under warranty and it took me 4 hours of air chisel, torch, and cursing to get it done. Everything on it was practically welded together from heat. The oil in the turbo feed/return lines was the texture of frozen tar so one has to wonder about oil galleys in the engine block, etc.
Not a car I would personally want to own knowing what I did.
ok4450: But driving with a heavy foot, while not normal, surely is a possible scenario that should be possible without extensive damage. If the turbo can’t be designed to handle that, perhaps due to budgetary constraints, they surely the designers could have put in automatic shutoffs or other controls to shut off the turbo to prevent overheating. At least a dash light.
Certainly a non-turbo engine can handle driving with a heavy foot without damage.
The sound of a Honda 4 at 9000 rpm is sweet music to some, but not what the mainstream consumer wants.
Exactly. These turbo engines have lots of torque at low rpms, that’s what most people like.
I’ll second @texases comment. Torque is what the public wants and feels. HP is what they read in reviews but don’t understand.
I have one of these 240 hp, 9000 rpm screamers in an S2000. Sweet sounds but only 153 ft-lbs of torque. It drives like the 2 liter engine it is until it gets up on the VTEC but it would struggle to push a heavy car even with the 4:11 gears in its diff. At best, it only gets 28 MPG in the 2780 lb Honda but it is PERfect for what the car is.
In contrast, the wife’s turbo 2.3 liter turbo Saab has 230 hp but has the torque (243 ft-lbs from 1900 to 4600 rpm) to push a heavy car with authority AND it shows 30 MPG in a car bigger and 800 lbs heavier.
When I think of low end torque, I think about the old Buick long stroke inline 8 cylinder engines. I’ve driven those old straight 8 Buicks. You could start off in second year instead of low with no problem. You could drop down to 5 mph and accelerate in high gear without bucking. These straight 8 Buick engines were used in the intercity Flxible Clipper buses.
In my brother’s '51 Packard straight-eight, the Ultramatic tranny in “High” uses one speed (1:1, straight through). At about 15 mph the torque converter locks up and you’re good to go.
I know that I want torque. I live in a large metropolitan area, and it isn’t often that I can wind the engine up to red line. I want torque to pull the car when I need it pulled to move through traffic effectively. I could sit behind that very slow car with 15 car lengths between him and the car in front of him if I couldn’t pull around him.
I think low end torque was necessary when we only had keep on reminiscing those narrow range 3 and 4 speed transmissions. Now that we have wide range 8 and 9 speed transmissions, as well as the 11 speed transmission patent, we can allow high speed engines to get up to its power range when necessary and the transmission allows the engine to stay there even as it upshift through its closely spaced ratios. What’s the difference between getting into boost in top gear versus dropping 4 to 5 gears into a high speed engine’s power range?
Some of those high speed Honda engines were ahead of their time. They needed at least 7 speed transmissions a lot more than the modern Corvette and 911. Top gear of the 6 speed is probably too close to the rest of the gears. BTW, I don’t think it’s fair to compare the mileage of a convertible to the much cleaner shape of the Saab. The convertible is closer to those old, smaller Toyota Tacoma in terms of aerodynamics.
Everyone says they want torque, but not everyone needs torque all the time. Getting up to speed requires torque, but maintaining constant speed doesn’t need much torque.
Those old Ford Yblock V8S seemed to have pretty good low end torque,had a farmer friend who seemed to be confused by what 1st gear was for,seems He usually took off in 2nd,His Daughter in law had trouble getting the old truck to move in second,so She pulled it down in third and took off(those old y blocks could be very contrary(some wouldnt want to start the vehicle off,but once under way,you couldnt hardly stall the thing)
Engine temps, power, and pressures are considerably higher with the turbo, and this stresses the engine (no kidding). Thus, if turbos are not maintained well, if you ignore a problem for too long, or if some other mechanical glitch is starting to form, I suspect a turbo would fail before a non-turbo.
Most early generation turbo problems (like overheating after engine shutdown) have been addressed well, so used turbo cars should be OK but I would be more prone to ask for maintenance records, or to walk away if the owner looks like s/he was indifferent about the car.
I owned an '87 turbodiesel Mercedes 190 with 225,000 miles for 10 years. This was an early generation turbo but I had no engine problems. Our mechanic, with a Mercedes shop, was unaware of turbo-specific problems. Fuel mileage suffered compared with its (much) slower diesel cousins.
Even though the EPA tests show better mileage with a smaller turbo engine, real-life experiences (including the EPA’s own consumer website and independent magazines) seem to indicate otherwise. And most turbos use premium gas.
@insightful–Like the South, the straight eight engine will rise again. The Buick Dynaflow automatic didn’t have the lockup feature on the torque converter. When the car started out in drive, the Buick depended on the torque multiplication by the torque converter to get underway when the car was in “drive”. You had to put the selector in " low" for really fast starts. Butck sold a,lot of cars to people who wanted the smoothness of the straight eight/Dynaflow combination.
From 1936 to 1948 Buick straight eight engines were GM’s most powerful eight cylinder engines, beating Cadillac V8 engines by at least 15 hp.
@"oldtimer 11. In the 1936 to 1948 time period, the Cadillac engine was a flathead V8, while the Buick straight 8 was an overhead valve engine. The OHV arrangement helped the Buick engines breathe better.
I understand the attraction of those relative to the time period high torque engines. The torque converters engaged at a low RPM, the engines pulled well at 1000 RPM’s and the left front fender would lift 4 inches when pulling away from a stop making one feel like a captain of a small vessel, especially when turning corners.
Let’s compare yesterdays Buick with today’s.
The 320 CID straight 8 engine in the 1948 Roadmaster had a horsepower rating of
144@ 3600 RPM. Torque; 276 lb-ft @ 2000 RPM.
The 2015 Buick Regal 2.0 liter Turbo; 259 horsepower @ 5300 RPM,
torque 295 lb-ft @ 2500-4000 RPM.
More power with 40% the displacement of the old engine and half the fuel consumption (21 MPG city, 30 MPG highway). Get behind the wheel of a modern turbocharged engine vehicle and you’ll forget the past.
In the 48, six adults could sit in comfort in chair high seats, wearing hats if they wished. Not all things have improved.