It’s true that turbos have come a long, long way in reliability since the '60s.
A turbocharger is basically a shaft with an impeller on each end. One impeller is driven by the exhaust stream, while the other pushes air into the engine, increasing compression (NOT mechanical compression, but rather PSI).
In very early turbochargers, there were only bearings and seals between the two impellers. Since turbos spin at extremely high speeds (in excess of 200,000 rpm), are heated by the exhaust gasses, and have one side at higher pressure than the other, the bearings and seals were subjected to extreme environments. The seals would fail. In later versions, the bearings were oil-lubricated, and seal failures would allow the exhaust side to push oil into the induction-system side, causing severe oil use with all its associated maladies.
Modern systems use better materials, better lubrication, and far better separate the driven impeller from the induction end. They also use an oil that’s less subject to heat damage (synthetic oil).
I would NOT consider a '60s vintage turbo to be reliable. I DO consider modern turbos to be reliable.
But I’d prefer not to have one anyway. Simpler is better for me. Besides, I’d rather not have an engine that cooks my oil… even if synthetics are less susceptible to heat damage. However I may not have a choice anymore. CAFE and emissions mandates are forcing things on us whether we want them or not… and whether they’re any good or not.
Older turbos will hold up just fine and forever if they’re driven right and maintained right. SAAB started using turbochargers back in the 70s and I can say that I’ve never seen a turbocharger failure on one of them; and that includes the 200k+ miles SAABs that I owned.
Some turbochargers are cooled by engine coolant and that helps to prevent oil coking and so on.
A local guy has an 87 Buick GNX with a quarter of a million untouched miles on it and still on the original turbocharger.
The only turbo failures I’ve seen were ones that were murdered…
For what it’s worth, most turbos use bushings, not bearings. There are some cartridge type ball bearings available now and which help them spool up faster.
Simple fact, if it doesn’t have a turbo (and intercooler, and wastegate, and associated sensors, and a different power brake assist system), none of that will fail . A naturally aspirated engine will, in my opinion, be less costly to maintain over the long haul simply because it does not have a lot of the extra parts to fail. There’s nothing wrong with a turbocharged engine. But if you don’t have a turbo (or a wastegate, or associated sensors, or…you get the idea) you’ll never have to replace it…
And turbos themselves do fail. Even on Diesel engines in heavy equipment. Would I want to operate an excavator / material handler / semi truck without a turbo? Probably not. Would I want to operate a car/truck/suv without a turbocharger, but with a larger engine that basically replaces the turbo with a pretty slim fuel mileage penalty? Yes I would.
Simply put, I think I’d rather buy fuel than possibly replace extra parts. That’s just my opinion.
I too am inclined to prefer simplicity.
But I don’t think either of us is going to have a choice anymore. Naturally aspirated engines are rapidly disappearing from the car world in favor of a wee bit more gas mileage, or gaining acceptable performance from a smaller engine in favor of a wee bit more gas mileage for those who prefer it said that way.
A few more years and I think everything will be turbocharged engines in hybrid automobiles.
I just hope the automatic stop-start-stop-start systems don’t catch on. I’ve read of people who’ve parked their cars in their garages thinking they were OFF and they were actually still ON but the engine had stopped because the system detected that it wasn’t needed. I don’t think I’d like that.
All new (2018) f150’s have the autostop tech. So, I guess it’ll catch on whether the buying public wants it or not. Personally, I’ve spent way too much time and effort in the past trying to keep engines from dying at a redlight to accept that as a feature on a new vehicle.
I’m all for saving fuel and the environment. I’m just not into spending a dollar on repairs to save a dime in fuel. Granted, I suppose the fuel savings add up over an entire fleet of vehicles sold. I guess I don’t like the idea of possibly “taking one for the team” - footing the bill for a repair for the greater good.
Unfortunately for you the auto companies have to meet CAFE standards or pay a penalty. They use turbochargers to avoid the fine. They literally can’t afford to avoid turbochargers, superchargers, or direct injection. Most people don’t pay attention to the power plant. They want an appliance to get them from here to there. I have a 2017 Accord 4-cyl that is has direct injection, but no turbo.
One reason I’m considering used trucks. And even a 3/4 ton 6.0 gmc…but I’m not sure I want to sacrifice that much fuel economy! You’ve got to think the 6.0 is proven though. 8 lug axles, larger bearings, HD trans. Should be a reliable beast. But maybe too thirsty even for my tastes.
What irks me is the Cafe fuel mileage tricks seem to show less real world benefit. They do well in epa tests…then you get similar mileage with more complication in a real world driving scenario.
Most people are probably more concerned with the infotainment system than what’s under the hood, how long the car will last, or how much it costs initially and costs to own.
We’ve gotten mileage similar to the EPA ratings on the highway on our last six cars. I don’t remember before that. BTW, the EPA mileages are meant for car buyers to use to compare vehicles they want to buy. If you drive the circuit the EPA uses, you should get similar mileage. But they didn’t devise the test to tell you what you will get daily, just to help you buy the next car.
The comforts of a vehicle can be something that guides a purchase, seats - sound system - GPS and other things. As for being concerned how long a vehicle lasts , most of us realize that modern vehicles can last a really long time with just normal service schedules. Vehicles are a big purchase item for most families so the actual price might not actually register the payments and loan time will register for most people.
I may be wrong but I think without Café the manufactures would only have a small number of efficient vehicles in the line up.
Aside from modern day home appliances(this coming from a guy who builds a type of home appliance for a living), name something that HASN’T gotten more reliable since the 60s or 70s
No, and for the following reasons and speaking as someone who has changed a number of turbochargers since the late 70s; both under customer pay and the always ornerous warranty.
Back in the day synthetic oil wasn’t used. Even with synthetic turbo issues can develop.
Every failed turbocharger I’ve dealt with died due to oil coking. Sometimes hard driving, sometimes failure of the driver to not allow the engine to idle a few minutes after shutdown; especially after hard driving. This was a common recommendation back in the day. Few people have the patience for that. Stop, key off, out and gone.
Beginning in the middish 80s or so some manufacturers started using engine coolant to cool the turbocharger down. This helped to some degree but turbos still failed if they were hammered, the wrong oil used,running the engine oil low which raised the oil temps which made it easier to coke.
I’ve related the tale before…
A customer wanted a particular Subaru which we did not have. Corporate Subaru in San Antonio sent some flunky to deliver one to OK City; a distance of 450 miles. The guy made the trip in 6 hours and after passing through 5 major metro areas. HIs foot was clean through the floor obviously.
The turbocharger was wiped clean out and had gotten so hot that it cooked the paint on the hood in one area. This car had 500 miles in total on it and the motor oil (synthetic) was fossilized due to severe coking.
I agree.
Ford used to advertise “Quality is Job One”. Today that would be more accurately stated as “Regulatory Compliance is Job One”. That would apply to all manufacturers. It’s a sad fact of modern life.
I’m afraid you’re right. I have no opinion on that fact, it just “is”.
Long ago, in the last part of the 19th century, a man had to be mechanically astute to keep his car operating. In the early part of the 20th century, that improved… but it was still wise for a man to understand his car. Overheating and mechanical problems came will all cars. Even into the 1970’s it was wise to know something about cars. Vapor lock, fuel line freezeup, carburetor issues, routine tuneups (typically every 10,000 miles) and “lube jobs” were the norm, and numerous other issues made some car knowledge almost necessary.
But cars have become reliable to the point that most young people don’t even consider mechanical knowledge to be important. That’s a testament to the industry, driven in many ways by the Japanese manufacturers. I’ll skip the Statistical Process Control, Design For Manufacturing, and numerous other advances to manufacturing actively incorporated by the Japanese in the '50s and reluctantly and slowly accepted by the “Big Three” 30-40 years later, as that could turn into a very lengthy thread.
In addition, Unibodies have largely killed hot rodding, and that was a great and common way that lots of kids learned about automobiles. Today hot-rodding means “slamming” (or “bagging”) a unibody, putting deep-dish wheels and wide tires on the car, and mounting a “body kit” with a big wing. And maybe putting a CAI induction system on it. Actually modifying the engine and chassis are very rare now.
As far as meeting fuel mileage regs, Ford (and other domestics) probably do have to be a little more creative in order to stay compliant due to the type vehicles they sell the most volume of. Tons more relatively thirsty F150’s sold than Ford cars. Tons more Camry’s sold than Tundras. Honda doesn’t make a 1/2 ton truck, or anything with a cab on chassis design as far as I know. And the Tundra, although a great truck, is near the bottom of the 1/2 tons as far as fuel mileage. I guess the amount of small cars sold averages out Toyota’s fleet mpg numbers enough that it doesn’t matter. I’m not excusing lack of reliability in domestics vs Asian brands (if there is still a gap). But it is easier to meet a target mpg number selling mostly cars or small suv’s vs selling more 1/2 ton trucks than lighter cars.
. A naturally aspirated engine will, in my opinion, be less costly to maintain over the long haul simply because it does not have a lot of the extra parts to fail. There’s nothing wrong with a turbocharged engine. But if you don’t have a turbo (or a wastegate, or associated sensors, or…you get the idea) you’ll never have to replace it…
