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.
No, turbos go on those too. The HPFP is a whole different nightmare; those go at around 45-60k while the turbos mostly make it to 100k. But still, 100k is unacceptable to be replacing a major engine part.
That's a good point.
Some state that the turbo lasts nearly forever or life of car.
But others are not so lucky.
How does one determine which applies to your turbo?
The simple answer is: No Turbo to start with. Then no worry about a turbo.
Superchargers are so much more fun than turbos. Why do not they use supercharges more? Also why do they seem to consistently fail to beef up the head gasket and/or head bolts for turbo or supercharging?
My sons Supercoupe has about 15 pounds of boost but the same head gasket and bolts as a NA version. Sure it i s older, but many of the newer turbos/supercharged cars seem to have simlar problems.
Sure it i s older, but many of the newer turbos/supercharged cars seem to have simlar problems.
Do they really? Have any stats on that? I think on automotive forums we'd here about it a lot more if it were even slightly common that head studs and the like were going bad with any regularity.
As for why not superchargers, they have a parasitic loss as they are belt driven and require hp to drive them. Well suited for larger displacement engines, while turbos are "free" power in that the heat of the exhaust gasses drive them, so are well suited to small displacement engines, like the 1.3 liter 3 cyl in my last MINI.
Not making up any facts. Just stating an OPINION. That's all.
So opinions are more important than facts to you, eh? You'd rather be wrong and hold tight to an opinion than actually know what you're talking about. Pretty typical on this form, actually.
Superchargers are so much more fun than turbos. Why do not they use supercharges more? Also why do they seem to consistently fail to beef up the head gasket and/or head bolts for turbo or supercharging?
My sons Supercoupe has about 15 pounds of boost but the same head gasket and bolts as a NA version. Sure it i s older, but many of the newer turbos/supercharged cars seem to have simlar problems.
Because superchargers turns normal engines into extreme gas guzzlers. People don't want 12mpg CARS
I don't understand why turbo engines scare people. The newer generation of turbo engines has been in production for several years now, by nearly all manufacturers, with most of those engines logging many miles with no issues. (And those engines that did have issues were not the fault of the turbo more times than not.)
Freightliner and most other heavy trucks use inline-6's with turbos and those turbos usually last 500,000 miles or more, so that's good enough for me.
because back in the 80's & 90's turbos were notorious for problems/expensive repairs. I would never buy a turbo, at least not yet. Maybe in another 5-10 years if they prove super reliable.
Lot of German luxury cars are pulling that Turbo 4 even the damn Porsche, no thanks not paying 50-80k for a turbo four I don't care if it zero to 60 in 3 secs, I want a flat 6 or a V8 for the money.
because back in the 80's & 90's turbos were notorious for problems/expensive repairs. I would never buy a turbo, at least not yet. Maybe in another 5-10 years if they prove super reliable.
So you are basing a purchase today on engines from 20-30 years ago? Uuummm.....ok.
The turbo is now widely used in all kinds of makes and models, and has been for many years now. Of the things that have been failing the turbo has not been one of them. I just think anyone who simply says "no turbo" no matter what is being short-sighted.
I find it ironic that I'm on here defending turbo engines as 5-years ago I would have said "no turbo under any circumstance" as well. But turbos have now been used everywhere since around 2010 and for the most part all of them have held up just fine. Between my business and personal cars I now have about 15 turbo-powered vehicles, with several of them well over 100K miles now, and I've yet to replace a turbo on any of them yet.
Not only that, but the fuel mileage of those 4cyl turbo-powered company vehicles I own have saved me a lot of money in fuel over the V6 non-turbo counterparts. Even if I did have to replace a turbo or two, I am still better off because of the better fuel mileage. My business vehicles put up to 30-40K miles per year on them so that fuel savings is BIG.
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.
