2016 Honda 1.5 Turbo's...
- Thread starter dblshock
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dblshock
I'm wondering just how durable these turbos will prove to be,
what has really changed since the 90's?..
they'll still run way hotter, coke oil, puke bearings and be an expesive replacement item.
They are cooled with coolant now as well as other refinements.
I'm wondering just how durable these turbos will prove to be,
what has really changed since the 90's?..
they'll still run way hotter, coke oil, puke bearings and be an expesive replacement item.
They are cooled with coolant now as well as other refinements.
I thought the Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo and Toyota Supra MKIV were not prone to problems if well maintained.
Anyway, one thing has changed about 90s turbos versus now. Many purely mechanical turbo wastegates have been replaced with ones partially controlled by computer. This is one reason why turbo VW engines have a practically flat torque curve.
Anyway, one thing has changed about 90s turbos versus now. Many purely mechanical turbo wastegates have been replaced with ones partially controlled by computer. This is one reason why turbo VW engines have a practically flat torque curve.
Originally Posted By: dblshock
I'm wondering just how durable these turbos will prove to be,
what has really changed since the 90's?...
The oil being used in the turbo is vastly superior, in addition to water cooling.
Modern turbos seem to be 'relatively' reliable, but my gut agrees with yours in that it's just another expensive thing to go wrong.
I'm wondering just how durable these turbos will prove to be,
what has really changed since the 90's?...
The oil being used in the turbo is vastly superior, in addition to water cooling.
Modern turbos seem to be 'relatively' reliable, but my gut agrees with yours in that it's just another expensive thing to go wrong.
The 2.3 turbo honda motor in my moms RDX is still running strong (its at about 100,000 miles...)no oil consumption between oil changes and no turbo issues. Only issue it had was the [censored] radiator line broke off spewing transmission oil and coolant and of course my mom who is not mechanically inclined drove it till it would not drive any more.
In the end it lost 4th gear and had to have the tranny rebuilt.
Motor, is top notch. Only thing I say is [censored] about it is the fuel economy.
In the end it lost 4th gear and had to have the tranny rebuilt.
Motor, is top notch. Only thing I say is [censored] about it is the fuel economy.
Last edited:
i miss my 90 ford probe GT. sold it with 480K on it and it's still driving around town. i made my own boost bleeder valve to get 9 PSI boost!!! was awesome car, then i had kids and like a dummy sold it. i changed the oil every 5K. Valvoline 5/30 dino.
I wonder if they'll run well on cheap gas, especially in summer?
I overall like my Cruze Eco with a 1.4T, except that it runs like garbage in the summer on 87. I know some other turbo engines have similar issues. 87 is the minimum recommended in the manual. It's somewhat improved with higher octane, but that raises the cost per mile in what is supposed to be an economy car.
In the future I'll be doing a lot of research on that issue.
Also, small turbos are sometimes better at gaming the EPA fuel economy tests and may not deliver in the real world.
I overall like my Cruze Eco with a 1.4T, except that it runs like garbage in the summer on 87. I know some other turbo engines have similar issues. 87 is the minimum recommended in the manual. It's somewhat improved with higher octane, but that raises the cost per mile in what is supposed to be an economy car.
In the future I'll be doing a lot of research on that issue.
Also, small turbos are sometimes better at gaming the EPA fuel economy tests and may not deliver in the real world.
My dad had a Turbo Porsche and during the 80's he could get it so hot it would glow under car. His ritual after running it was driving 20 minutes around town to cool down, then a few minutes idle with hood up. Wish they had Apexi Turbo Timers back then. He was changing oil alot. Think it too 40 or 50wt. Guess back then every guy wanted to be Tom Cruise w a porsche like on Risky Business. I think turbo cars are more reliable and durable thanks to oil coolers and synthetic oil these days. Turbo downfalls are still same; when you make more power or have more moving parts there is more to maintain AND sooner. Still love sound off Diverter/Blowoff valves.
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
I wonder if they'll run well on cheap gas, especially in summer?
I overall like my Cruze Eco with a 1.4T, except that it runs like garbage in the summer on 87. I know some other turbo engines have similar issues. 87 is the minimum recommended in the manual. It's somewhat improved with higher octane, but that raises the cost per mile in what is supposed to be an economy car.
In the future I'll be doing a lot of research on that issue.
Also, small turbos are sometimes better at gaming the EPA fuel economy tests and may not deliver in the real world.
It just depends on the engine. My Golf runs awesome on regular 85 octane fuel (Utah), even with the AC on and the summer heat. Premium shows very slight improvements. Direct injection, highly advanced ECU, and only 9.6:1 compression makes low octane no problem. Now if i get that performance tune i imagine i would be a slave to PREM.
I wonder if they'll run well on cheap gas, especially in summer?
I overall like my Cruze Eco with a 1.4T, except that it runs like garbage in the summer on 87. I know some other turbo engines have similar issues. 87 is the minimum recommended in the manual. It's somewhat improved with higher octane, but that raises the cost per mile in what is supposed to be an economy car.
In the future I'll be doing a lot of research on that issue.
Also, small turbos are sometimes better at gaming the EPA fuel economy tests and may not deliver in the real world.
It just depends on the engine. My Golf runs awesome on regular 85 octane fuel (Utah), even with the AC on and the summer heat. Premium shows very slight improvements. Direct injection, highly advanced ECU, and only 9.6:1 compression makes low octane no problem. Now if i get that performance tune i imagine i would be a slave to PREM.
Despite all the things you mention they tend to last. My drives a 05 legacy turbo wagon with 200k bought new. We have not had a single issue with the turbo. We have used conventional every 4K since brand new. Finally now it consumes about a quart every 3k miles.
Turbo engines have more parts, more parts => more chance one of those parts may failed.
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
I overall like my Cruze Eco with a 1.4T, except that it runs like garbage in the summer on 87. I know some other turbo engines have similar issues. 87 is the minimum recommended in the manual.
Not sure if you use Shell or not but maybe try it and see if you notice any difference. Especially, from a newer and busy station.
I overall like my Cruze Eco with a 1.4T, except that it runs like garbage in the summer on 87. I know some other turbo engines have similar issues. 87 is the minimum recommended in the manual.
Not sure if you use Shell or not but maybe try it and see if you notice any difference. Especially, from a newer and busy station.
Originally Posted By: stephen9666
I wonder if they'll run well on cheap gas, especially in summer?
I overall like my Cruze Eco with a 1.4T, except that it runs like garbage in the summer on 87. I know some other turbo engines have similar issues. 87 is the minimum recommended in the manual. It's somewhat improved with higher octane, but that raises the cost per mile in what is supposed to be an economy car.
In the future I'll be doing a lot of research on that issue.
Also, small turbos are sometimes better at gaming the EPA fuel economy tests and may not deliver in the real world.
Mine's been cheaper per mile to run on premium than regular. Between that and the improved warm-weather response, it's a no-brainer for me. These particular engines are well-known to run poorly on 87 in the summer, especially with the A/C going. Try running a few tanks of premium from a station with a good amount of turnover, and see if the cost per mile is the same or less.
Mine at 132k miles hasn't yet had any turbo-related issues. Then again it's had full synthetic oil changes at 7500 mile intervals since brand new.
Being a Honda, I would expect it to be just fine mechanically assuming the recommended maintenance is carried out on schedule. Doing that is key to these small, power-dense turbo engines. Skimping on maintenance is guaranteeing a larger bill down the road when that deferred maintenance catches up.
I wonder if they'll run well on cheap gas, especially in summer?
I overall like my Cruze Eco with a 1.4T, except that it runs like garbage in the summer on 87. I know some other turbo engines have similar issues. 87 is the minimum recommended in the manual. It's somewhat improved with higher octane, but that raises the cost per mile in what is supposed to be an economy car.
In the future I'll be doing a lot of research on that issue.
Also, small turbos are sometimes better at gaming the EPA fuel economy tests and may not deliver in the real world.
Mine's been cheaper per mile to run on premium than regular. Between that and the improved warm-weather response, it's a no-brainer for me. These particular engines are well-known to run poorly on 87 in the summer, especially with the A/C going. Try running a few tanks of premium from a station with a good amount of turnover, and see if the cost per mile is the same or less.
Mine at 132k miles hasn't yet had any turbo-related issues. Then again it's had full synthetic oil changes at 7500 mile intervals since brand new.
Being a Honda, I would expect it to be just fine mechanically assuming the recommended maintenance is carried out on schedule. Doing that is key to these small, power-dense turbo engines. Skimping on maintenance is guaranteeing a larger bill down the road when that deferred maintenance catches up.
I have experimented with higher octane in my Cruze. In my driving, paying for anything over 87 has not netted enough increase in mileage in my Cruze to overcome the cost increase.
91 costs me right around 20% more than 87 but doesn't net nearly a 20% increase in mpg, so the cost-per-mile is higher.
91 costs me right around 20% more than 87 but doesn't net nearly a 20% increase in mpg, so the cost-per-mile is higher.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
These particular engines are well-known to run poorly on 87 in the summer, especially with the A/C going.
I should also note that I'm well aware that this is a well-known issue, which is why I bought it up in this thread. It will be interesting to see if the Hondas suffer similar issues.
These particular engines are well-known to run poorly on 87 in the summer, especially with the A/C going.
I should also note that I'm well aware that this is a well-known issue, which is why I bought it up in this thread. It will be interesting to see if the Hondas suffer similar issues.
I bought a 2003 Saab 9-5 Aero new, put 206k miles on it, sold it last summer. The only engine "problem" that car's engine had was one of the PCV hoses losing it's grip, caused some condensation and an oil leak both of which went away after I figured it out and replace he hose. Zero problems with the turbo or any of it's associated parts. 206k miles of outstanding performance and good mileage.
jeff
jeff
- Status
