Turbo Durability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sticking a 2.0 liter turbo in a 4K+ lb vehicle is a trade-off. Yes, it will get better mileage when the turbo's not kicking in all the time, but a tiny engine hauling around that much mass just isn't going to last as long...plus the turbo boost puts more wear on them too...
 
GM's LTG 2.0 turbos have been improved from the earlier LHU engines, stay away from extended oil changes they will last.
cheers3.gif

https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ltg/
 
Originally Posted by grampi
Sticking a 2.0 liter turbo in a 4K+ lb vehicle is a trade-off. Yes, it will get better mileage when the turbo's not kicking in all the time, but a tiny engine hauling around that much mass just isn't going to last as long...plus the turbo boost puts more wear on them too...


They last just fine.
 
Originally Posted by Sayonara_Sonata
Yea, I hate these highfalutin' E-lectronic ignition systems.

I miss changing points every 6K whilst setting the dwell w\business card in a pinch.


I believe this is a strawman argument. It does not have to be all or nothing. We are or have reached a point of diminishing returns where we are adding substantial cost and electronic complexity with minimal improvement. How many people really need a navigation system or Apple Car Play? Just because I do not want or need these items does not mean I want to drive a Model T. I would argue that many technologies designed to improve safety actually do not, especially for older drivers. Any distractions, even momentary ones, can cause a deadly accident.
 
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by grampi
Sticking a 2.0 liter turbo in a 4K+ lb vehicle is a trade-off. Yes, it will get better mileage when the turbo's not kicking in all the time, but a tiny engine hauling around that much mass just isn't going to last as long...plus the turbo boost puts more wear on them too...


They last just fine.



"Just fine" is a relative term. "Just fine" means something completely different to someone who keeps their vehicles for 100K or less, as opposed to someone like me who might put 400K on a vehicle...
 
Originally Posted by Dave9
Originally Posted by maxdustington
The BITOG dilemma: I want a new car with all of the stuff I like about new cars (modern looks, interior and amenities) but none of the stuff I don't like about new cars (mechanical sophistication). If you want a simple car, buy an old one.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I've seen many of these threads, because anachronistic old codgers want a new car but don't trust turbos or DI.


I don't think you are understanding the concerns of many of us.

I don't care about modern looks (all the same, cross-training shoe meets transformer).

I don't care about newer interior. Ergonomics are gone and now we have faux-metal painted plastic that looks like **** as it wears.

I don't care about amenities. I don't need more cupholders, a warning there is a weight (child) left in the rear seat, self parking, lane assist, or a big touchscreen serving as light in my face while driving at night. I don't need a digital dash that costs $1500+ to replace, 30-way adjustments on my seat or for it to remember them all. I don't need my tailgate to open very slowly from sensing my leg, or my vehicle to start without a key in the ignition. I don't need it to shut down cylinders, or turn off when I stop. I have known how and when to shut a car off for a very long time.

I don't consider the engine changes to be mechanical sophistication. They would not have happened but for emissions mandates and fines so it is just another cost passed onto the consumer both at time of purchase and all along unless the owner drives a very high # of miles. It should specifically be these high mileage drivers that are penalized, not everyone else. It is mechanical inferiority to make something less fit for its purpose to do the same job. It is the Great Lie, that everyone cares about fuel economy yet vehicle size keeps creeping larger and people gravitate towards full sized trucks and SUVs.

Buying an old car does not address the primary concern which is longevity without repairs, and repairs that are less than the book value of the vehicle so it isn't effectively totalled out. It helps that repairs are often less expensive but no-repair is always cheaper than any-repair. Why opt to pay more for something that does not provide anything (subjectively) important in return? Why risk letting anyone touch your vehicle and screw up and gouge you on the bill? Many of us do ALL our own repairs, but lack the proprietary information to fix much of the newer tech.

A competent driver does not need additional "help" from their vehicle and shouldn't be burdened with it. Navigation and hands free calling are nice but given a constant power supply, a phone could do that without the vehicle.

The cost to do a very basic thing (travel by your own means) is increasing faster than inflation. That is not progress.



Could not have stated it any better.
 
Just because you don't agree with others doesn't make it 'wrong'... my car is fairly modern, has a coolant cooled turbo, but I still let it idle 1-2 mins after any driving. Might not make any real world difference due to the build quality, synthetic oil used, etc., but I do it anyway for that added bit of possible protection.
 
Originally Posted by CKN
Originally Posted by Donald
With a turbo pulling into a rest stop on highway you need to idle for a few minutes before turning engine off. That helps cool down turbo & engine.



This is so wrong........it's not 2010 anymore...did you comment on the car wash thread too?

There were several pages on that one of guys not knowing what they were talking about.


Just because you don't agree with others doesn't make it 'wrong'... my car is fairly modern, has a coolant cooled turbo, but I still let it idle 1-2 mins after any driving. Might not make any real world difference due to the build quality, synthetic oil used, etc., but I do it anyway for that added bit of possible protection.

No clue on the car wash thread, but again just because we don't all agree on the same things doesn't make anything wrong or right. Too many people in this world think there's just ONE way to do something properly when there is always more than one way to skin a cat.
 
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by grampi
Sticking a 2.0 liter turbo in a 4K+ lb vehicle is a trade-off. Yes, it will get better mileage when the turbo's not kicking in all the time, but a tiny engine hauling around that much mass just isn't going to last as long...plus the turbo boost puts more wear on them too...


They last just fine.



"Just fine" is a relative term. "Just fine" means something completely different to someone who keeps their vehicles for 100K or less, as opposed to someone like me who might put 400K on a vehicle...

When you start talking about 400K miles, you REALLY pare down your options.

CX9's are doing fine out to 200K miles or so, not many with the turbo engine have been around long enough to rack up more than that. I have yet to read of a single Mazda SkyActiv-G turbo failure, though. None. Nada. Can you google me one up, to prove your point? If you can't find it broken on Google, it likely don't break too often...
 
Drive the same vehicle for 400k miles?
I'd just cut to the chase and jump off a very tall building.
 
Originally Posted by MCompact
Drive the same vehicle for 400k miles?
I'd just cut to the chase and jump off a very tall building.

What is your recommendation then? Buy a vehicle with 100-200k on the clock and drive that until bored, then buy something else? By keeping it well used that should get the depreciation rate down low, so as to keep a handle on TCO.
 
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by MCompact
Drive the same vehicle for 400k miles?
I'd just cut to the chase and jump off a very tall building.

What is your recommendation then? Buy a vehicle with 100-200k on the clock and drive that until bored, then buy something else? By keeping it well used that should get the depreciation rate down low, so as to keep a handle on TCO.

Some people care more about having the latest and greatest/variety than they do retiring early or with more money or whatever.
 
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by MCompact
Drive the same vehicle for 400k miles?
I'd just cut to the chase and jump off a very tall building.

What is your recommendation then? Buy a vehicle with 100-200k on the clock and drive that until bored, then buy something else? By keeping it well used that should get the depreciation rate down low, so as to keep a handle on TCO.

Some people care more about having the latest and greatest/variety than they do retiring early or with more money or whatever.

IIRC MCompact has... money. I may be remembering wrong threads but I think he's been a judge and has sold cars, and I get the impression that he isn't living on food stamps. Not trying to insult anyone, not trying to read too much into it, but I don't think he's living paycheck to paycheck. I think he's one who could legitimately buy a car every 3-5 years and it won't impact his net value. Thus our usual BITOG "run to eleventy billion miles so as to save 11 cents" doesn't apply. And I'm not trying to steer it towards it.

I suspect MCompact doesn't drive 30-50k per year either, thus, having several vehicles he keeps miles relatively low on each. I'm curious what he thinks for those who have a lower amount of vehicles yet drive far more. His comments may well have been tongue in cheek, or just his opinion and thus only applying to himself, but these days, on this site, it takes nothing to be offended. Just having an opinion makes one wrong these days.
 
Originally Posted by supton
I suspect MCompact doesn't drive 30-50k per year either, thus, having several vehicles he keeps miles relatively low on each. I'm curious what he thinks for those who have a lower amount of vehicles yet drive far more. His comments may well have been tongue in cheek, or just his opinion and thus only applying to himself, but these days, on this site, it takes nothing to be offended. Just having an opinion makes one wrong these days.


To each his own; I kept my 2004 X3 to nearly 200k miles and my Mazdaspeed 3 for 158k miles. I've had my Club Sport since new and my Wrangler since 2002. My Clubman is my commuter and has 121k on it. Cars are my hobby; to me the worst sin a car can commit is to be boring. And I really like my 51k mile M235; I bought it four years ago and it's been both reliable and fun- but I admit to being tempted by a CPO M2 as well as a new Stinger GTS.

If you aren't an enthusiast and you want to drive a car as long as possible before buying something else, have at it. All I'm saying is I could never do it.
 
Fair enough. I've long realized that I'm not an enthusiast and that I'm only interested in appliances. If I had money to burn, sure, but right now in life it's not money well spent for me. Stop and go with low TCO.
 
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by MCompact
Drive the same vehicle for 400k miles?
I'd just cut to the chase and jump off a very tall building.

What is your recommendation then? Buy a vehicle with 100-200k on the clock and drive that until bored, then buy something else? By keeping it well used that should get the depreciation rate down low, so as to keep a handle on TCO.

Some people care more about having the latest and greatest/variety than they do retiring early or with more money or whatever.

IIRC MCompact has... money. I may be remembering wrong threads but I think he's been a judge and has sold cars, and I get the impression that he isn't living on food stamps. Not trying to insult anyone, not trying to read too much into it, but I don't think he's living paycheck to paycheck. I think he's one who could legitimately buy a car every 3-5 years and it won't impact his net value. Thus our usual BITOG "run to eleventy billion miles so as to save 11 cents" doesn't apply. And I'm not trying to steer it towards it.

I suspect MCompact doesn't drive 30-50k per year either, thus, having several vehicles he keeps miles relatively low on each. I'm curious what he thinks for those who have a lower amount of vehicles yet drive far more. His comments may well have been tongue in cheek, or just his opinion and thus only applying to himself, but these days, on this site, it takes nothing to be offended. Just having an opinion makes one wrong these days.

That's fine, but more money is more money. Some people buy cars, others buy other stuff. I used to be all about sports cars. Now, class 3 firearms and retiring by 50 more or less are my focus.

This means a fun, be-all vehicle that I trust to carry me with minimal headache for at least several hundred thousand miles, or 8 years.
 
Originally Posted by Ws6

That's fine, but more money is more money. Some people buy cars, others buy other stuff. I used to be all about sports cars. Now, class 3 firearms and retiring by 50 more or less are my focus.

This means a fun, be-all vehicle that I trust to carry me with minimal headache for at least several hundred thousand miles, or 8 years.


And I'm just now hitting this point. I am so over car payments and have at most 5 more years to go.

But if I come across a lifted Miata, I'm all over it.
 
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by Ws6

That's fine, but more money is more money. Some people buy cars, others buy other stuff. I used to be all about sports cars. Now, class 3 firearms and retiring by 50 more or less are my focus.

This means a fun, be-all vehicle that I trust to carry me with minimal headache for at least several hundred thousand miles, or 8 years.


And I'm just now hitting this point. I am so over car payments and have at most 5 more years to go.

But if I come across a lifted Miata, I'm all over it.

Moving to a location that would trash a sports car was a big part of it, lol!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top