Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've had turbo cars going back to 1992. I've never had an engine failure on any of them because they were turbocharged vs na, and this is also coming from someone who typically increases the horsepower by 50% or more on his cars.
I think what you'll see in the future with more turbocharged vehicles is the same thing you see today... it's not the turbo or the engine itself that lets go, but something like the cheap plastic radiator that all cars come with now will spring a leak, the car will be run without coolant and overheat, and that will be a far more likely reason why an engine fails.
There are examples of turbo cars with over 300k miles on them, still on the road today. That's enough longevity for me.
And in this case it's a nonsensical one since NA motors and turbocharged motors have such inherently different power/torque characteristics that you can't just "hypothetical" them away any more than you could "hypothetical" away the inherent differences between, say, an ICE and an electric motor. These inherent differences are so pronounced that motoring enthusiasts will often pick one or the other precisely because of those differences.
We have a flat 4 turbo and an I6 turbo (diesel) in the garage. Both with ~140K miles and going strong. I wouldn't drive anything non-turbo with the thin air we have at 10,000ft. Unless of course it was majorly overpowered (My single cylinder 300cc two stroke dirt bike (~225lb and 65hp at sea level) is a good example). That monster will lift the front wheel in first and second, just off idle even at 13,000ft ASL. When it's at high RPM (on the pipe) it will lift the front wheel in 3rd and 4th with me leaning way over the front wheel, trying to weigh it down.
So in other words, turbos are a necessary evil at altitude. But they are also really easy to mod to make more power. They suck off boost, but newer designs are supposed to be better (twin turbo, or twin scroll single turbo).
However I rather drive an big NA engine with massive power/weight (like a 600hp 2,200lb Cobra replica).
I think a lot of people don't understand the maintenance requirements of turbo engines. Many of them require 5w-40 synthetic "Euro" oil and shorter change intervals, but I don't doubt people go to the quick lube places and have them filled with the cheapest 5w-30.
i run Rotella t6 in my 03 WRX(2.0 Turbo) with 5k intervals. Hardly a "sacrifice" in maintenance terms to owning a 4cyl turbo. Im at 166k on the stock turbo(stock clutch as well) and Id jump in it and drive cross country if I had to. Ive also been running higher than stock turbo pressure since 75k, though the OpenSource tune on it is a conservative tune(went from 13.5 to 16.5).
The higher the rpm the higher the heat and friction, wear and tear, and premature wearing out of moving parts. 8cyl is best, then 6cyl, and lastly the 4cyl.
The higher the rpm the higher the heat and friction, wear and tear, and premature wearing out of moving parts. 8cyl is best, then 6cyl, and lastly the 4cyl.
That's not always the case. There are some 4cyl engines (mainly Toyota and Honda) that have outlasted many V8s. Also, with today's modern transmissions, 4cyl engines now run at a much lower rpm compared to years past.
Bottom line, Louie . . . the "Whistles and Bells" cost more to produce and maintain in the long haul.
Nothing beats a good old-fashioned basic, no frills V8 or Straight Six.
LOTS of engines beat a no frills V8 or straight six. They are more reliable, burn less fuel, pollute less, have more HP, are quieter, and need less maintenance.
If it proves itself over time, I think the new super-charged and turbo-charged engine that Volvo is utilizing in the new XC90 will be cutting-edge and the wave of the future.
I personally think it's over-complicating things. A regular turbo-6 or V8 would be a much better application.
That poor 4-cyl in the XC90 is going to huff and puff until it blows a house down.
I bet that the mpg difference between a Turbo/Super-4 XC90 and a NA V8 Chevy Tahoe is going to be pretty darn close in the real world.
My 95 Honda del Sol with the rare DOHC VTEC engine has a 8,200 redline and I rev it pretty high occasionally. I cruse regularly at 80 and its at 4, 800, it sounds like a normal car at that RPM. A american V8 crusing at 4,800 would drive you nuts and it would probably overheat promptly.
The higher the rpm the higher the heat and friction, wear and tear, and premature wearing out of moving parts. 8cyl is best, then 6cyl, and lastly the 4cyl.
Except that V8s have more moving parts to wear or break.
I've seen no evidence that an I4 can't be expected to last just as long as a V8. The longevity of each is dependent far more on design, materials and manufacturing quality than on the number of cylinders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and Id jump in it and drive cross country if I had to. Ive also been running higher than stock turbo pressure since 75k, though the OpenSource tune on it is a conservative tune(went from 13.5 to 16.5).
