Turbo engines longevity

[ykX]

So more and more manufacturers switching to turbo-four and turbo-six engines.  We got a lot of new mainstream cars, crossovers and trucks coming out with turbo engines.

Now we all know that NA four, six, and eight cylinder engines with regular oil changes can go easily 200k - 300k miles.  

What about turbo?  How long do you think they will go without some major issues? 

Edited December 6, 2017 by ykX

[G. David Felt]

Right now I say 50 to 100K miles as I am seeing more and more Turbo motors especially Audi that are smoking with burnt rings and over all suck. 

My history with early turbo's has not been good at all and I see plenty of turbo Subaru's that do not seem to last past 100K. I acknowledge that some on this forum have had long life in a turbo, especially subaru. For me, not so.

I will acknowledge that we have gotten better with creating longer life components that go into a ICE auto. Diesel has shown that turbo's can go long life, but have not seen it in regular Petro auto's yet.

[Drew Dowdell]

Turbo motors are more sensitive to being neglected.  The old Quad-4 and original ecotec weren't particularly great engines and they sounded terrible when running... but people would run them to 10,000 plus miles on conventional oil and they'd still run.

I can hear when my newer Buick is below 25% on the oil life monitor... and I try to never go below that. 

If maintained properly, Turbo motors aren't an issue.... the trouble is we Americans are lazy about doing car maintenance. 

[G. David Felt]

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

If maintained properly, Turbo motors aren't an issue.... the trouble is we Americans are lazy about doing car maintenance. 

Drew, you nailed it with this last statement. I know many who bought here in washington state the 1986 Turbo Diesel Ranger and none made it past a couple years before the engines blew and needed new motors. Many thought they could ignore the stronger built diesel motors even then and just drive them. Sadly I have yet to see any of the mid 80's Turbo Rangers survive and still driving today.

[Robert Hall]

Fascinating...I never knew about the Turbo diesel Ranger..was apparently a Mitsubishi 2.3 engine.  I knew about the Rangers with the Mazda diesel (a Mazda-Perkins engine according to Wikipedia).  

But I can't imagine discussing modern turbo engine longevity by citing examples from 30 years ago...

[G. David Felt]

6 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Fascinating...I never knew about the Turbo diesel Ranger..was apparently a Mitsubishi 2.3 engine.  I knew about the Rangers with the Mazda diesel (a Mazda-Perkins engine according to Wikipedia).  

But I can't imagine discussing modern turbo engine longevity by citing examples from 30 years ago...

Turbo's have not really changed, yes they have improved the material to deal with the heat inside the turbo and in the core engine and created better coolers, but the over all technology has not really changed from the 80's to today. As such, both Turbo and Supercharged motors have a much higher maintenance schedule than most people are used to since the Japanese introduced 100,000 mile tune ups to the world.

Due to that, I do wonder how these higher pressure engines will last and as I have stated above, I have seen more and more Modern turbo cars blowing smoke due to the rings being fried. I have to question just how long even today's new Turbo cars will last compared to NA engines.

[Drew Dowdell]

7 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

But I can't imagine discussing modern turbo engine longevity by citing examples from 30 years ago...

Quite right... turbo reliability has increased dramatically not just in 30 years, but even in the last 10-15 years.  That, coupled with the fact that most manufacturers have switched to synthetic oil as spec helps the segment.

I think, properly maintained, a non-performance turbo motor that is driven normally will last every bit as long as a non-turbo equivalent.  I just don't think americans are good at proper maintenance. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, dfelt said:

Turbo's have not really changed, yes they have improved the material to deal with the heat inside the turbo and in the core engine and created better coolers, but the over all technology has not really changed from the 80's to today. As such, both Turbo and Supercharged motors have a much higher maintenance schedule than most people are used to since the Japanese introduced 100,000 mile tune ups to the world.

Due to that, I do wonder how these higher pressure engines will last and as I have stated above, I have seen more and more Modern turbo cars blowing smoke due to the rings being fried. I have to question just how long even today's new Turbo cars will last compared to NA engines.

Almost none of that is true.   While the basic premise of how a turbo works hasn't changed, things like bearings, materials, design, flow, lowering mass (related to materials), have all improved substantially.  There are alloys available today that were unthinkable 30 years ago. 

There is nearly no difference in a turbo maintenance schedule compared to a non-turbo maintenance schedule.  The difference is that turbos are more sensitive if you go outside of that.  

Furthermore, there isn't a great deal of difference in the compression ratio of these vehicles.   The compression ratio of the GM 2.0T is 9.5:1... which is actually slightly lower than the old 3900 pushrod V6 found in the Impala of 9.8:1, and much lower than the naturally aspirated 2.5 liter's 11.3:1  (The old BMW M5 V10 ran at 12:1)

[G. David Felt]

9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Almost none of that is true.   While the basic premise of how a turbo works hasn't changed, things like bearings, materials, design, flow, lowering mass (related to materials), have all improved substantially.  There are alloys available today that were unthinkable 30 years ago. 

There is nearly no difference in a turbo maintenance schedule compared to a non-turbo maintenance schedule.  The difference is that turbos are more sensitive if you go outside of that.  

Furthermore, there isn't a great deal of difference in the compression ratio of these vehicles.   The compression ratio of the GM 2.0T is 9.5:1... which is actually slightly lower than the old 3900 pushrod V6 found in the Impala of 9.8:1, and much lower than the naturally aspirated 2.5 liter's 11.3:1  (The old BMW M5 V10 ran at 12:1)

Thank you, that is some great info I have learned today.

Even, then, I would still pass on a turbo.

[Drew Dowdell]

21 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Thank you, that is some great info I have learned today.

Even, then, I would still pass on a turbo.

I expect I will too the next time around... but not for issues of longevity. 

[ocnblu]

If I were to get myself a new F-150 I would get it with the 2.7EB.  Sure, it would not have the sound or simplicity of a 5.0, but 21 MPG real world (co-worker has a 2016 Super Cab 4X4 with it) plus 325 hp and 400 ft/lbs torque is hard to argue with.  Amazing when I consider my 1983 S-10... with 2.8 liters of displacement, made 110 hp and probably gave me.... 21 MPG.

Edited December 10, 2017 by ocnblu

[Drew Dowdell]

325/400 = 2.7T

375/470 = 3.5T