Turbo Durability?
- Thread starter tc1446
- Start date
- Status
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Why did Ford need to produce both the 2.7L and 3.5L ecoboost's ? Could they not stick with one and make it better.
I owned the 3.5L and I have friends with both … the 2.7L really surprised me
I owned the 3.5L and I have friends with both … the 2.7L really surprised me
Originally Posted by E365
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
Isn't changing a turbo really not that difficult on a lot of cars?
Correct. And on the rare occasion one does fail, they're usually not even that expensive. Each turbo on a 2.7 Ford EcoBoost is UNDER $400, straight from the dealer.
The turbo on my 1.0 EcoBoost is under $400 too.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/12/full-18579-39812-922f92dd_c749_4e91_b3fa_95084ac89a22.jpeg "[Linked Image]")
Replacement takes a lot of time. A turbo will have oil and coolant in and out, exhaust, intake and pressurized air plumbing, its a lot to handle. Ford turbo prices are quite low too. Outside of domestic super high volume, 800-1200 a unit can be expected. I did the turbo on my sportwagen (upgraded to GTI IS20, it didn't fail) and it took me about 12 hours start to finish, skilled professionals can probably do it in 3-4 hours, i believe the shop wanted 6 hours labor to change it for me.
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
Isn't changing a turbo really not that difficult on a lot of cars?
Correct. And on the rare occasion one does fail, they're usually not even that expensive. Each turbo on a 2.7 Ford EcoBoost is UNDER $400, straight from the dealer.
The turbo on my 1.0 EcoBoost is under $400 too.
Replacement takes a lot of time. A turbo will have oil and coolant in and out, exhaust, intake and pressurized air plumbing, its a lot to handle. Ford turbo prices are quite low too. Outside of domestic super high volume, 800-1200 a unit can be expected. I did the turbo on my sportwagen (upgraded to GTI IS20, it didn't fail) and it took me about 12 hours start to finish, skilled professionals can probably do it in 3-4 hours, i believe the shop wanted 6 hours labor to change it for me.
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
Isn't changing a turbo really not that difficult on a lot of cars?
It really depends on the car. The CT9A chassis with the evos were super easy because the turbo was straight up in front and plenty of room. The Evo X sucked though if you weren't dropping the engine because those turbos were in the back. A lot of the bolts require you to be a contortionist and have those wobble extensions.
I recall the BMW techs dropping the entire subframe to change out the turbos in the N54 engines too. (Probably because they had the tools/space to do so.)
The 1.0L ecoboost from Ford looks pretty easy - it's right up front.
Isn't changing a turbo really not that difficult on a lot of cars?
It really depends on the car. The CT9A chassis with the evos were super easy because the turbo was straight up in front and plenty of room. The Evo X sucked though if you weren't dropping the engine because those turbos were in the back. A lot of the bolts require you to be a contortionist and have those wobble extensions.
I recall the BMW techs dropping the entire subframe to change out the turbos in the N54 engines too. (Probably because they had the tools/space to do so.)
The 1.0L ecoboost from Ford looks pretty easy - it's right up front.
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by MCompact
Turbos are a "relatively new" technology? My first turbocharged cars were a 1984 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and a 1991 Volvo 740 Turbo. I've owned three more since then and only replaced one turbo- on my 2007 Mazdaspeed 3; under warranty pursuant to a TSB caused by a batch of turbos with defective seals.
Thanks to turbocharging and DI I'm able to own a car that returns over 26 mpg in daily use yet runs the quarter in the high twelves.
As I like to say, THESE are the good old days.
You believe this site is bad regarding embracing what is? Start a discussion on any AT with more than 4 forward gears.
THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^IS A GREAT COMMENT!!
Originally Posted by MCompact
Turbos are a "relatively new" technology? My first turbocharged cars were a 1984 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and a 1991 Volvo 740 Turbo. I've owned three more since then and only replaced one turbo- on my 2007 Mazdaspeed 3; under warranty pursuant to a TSB caused by a batch of turbos with defective seals.
Thanks to turbocharging and DI I'm able to own a car that returns over 26 mpg in daily use yet runs the quarter in the high twelves.
As I like to say, THESE are the good old days.
You believe this site is bad regarding embracing what is? Start a discussion on any AT with more than 4 forward gears.
THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^IS A GREAT COMMENT!!
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.
Modern turbo engine designs keep coolant and sometimes oil flow by convection on shutdown.
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.
Modern turbo engine designs keep coolant and sometimes oil flow by convection on shutdown.
Originally Posted by madRiver
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.
Modern turbo engine designs keep coolant and sometimes oil flow by convection on shutdown.
This is true, and turbo cars i've had in the past and currently have pumps that circulate coolant through the turbo after shutdown. But even still in the manual for my GTI it states to idle the car for a short time before shutdown after hard runs.
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.
Modern turbo engine designs keep coolant and sometimes oil flow by convection on shutdown.
This is true, and turbo cars i've had in the past and currently have pumps that circulate coolant through the turbo after shutdown. But even still in the manual for my GTI it states to idle the car for a short time before shutdown after hard runs.
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
Isn't changing a turbo really not that difficult on a lot of cars?
Maybe, on my car it would not be a fun job... It's located on the firewall side of a transverse engine and integrated with the exhaust manifold. List price for the part is around $1200, I think.
Any job that involves exhaust bolts can turn into a headache real quick.
Isn't changing a turbo really not that difficult on a lot of cars?
Maybe, on my car it would not be a fun job... It's located on the firewall side of a transverse engine and integrated with the exhaust manifold. List price for the part is around $1200, I think.
Any job that involves exhaust bolts can turn into a headache real quick.
I've had a few factory turbo cars and it just depends. I pulled factoryBorg Warner the turbo from my 2007 VW GTI at 120k miles to upgrade to a larger one. It had a tune for all it was worth for virtually it's whole life and oil changes were like every 10-15k miles. Had virtually no play at 120k miles and could have gone another 120k. Had 2007 BMW 335 with the twin Mitsubishi turbos (they used the same ones as the old Mitsubishi 3000 vr4 from the 90s used). These turbos were garbage. Replaced under warranty at 70k miles and the second set was still going at 200k. In general modern designed turbos will last as long as most people will keep a vehicle.
Remember diesel trucks (big and small) use turbos, work them hard (high boost) and they go 400+k miles all the time. They don't want your car turbo to last forever.. oem gas turbos are typically sized way to small for the application which makes more heat than necessary, running high boost at low rpm trying to make a 2L feel like a V8 hence they last long enough but not nearly as they could.
Remember diesel trucks (big and small) use turbos, work them hard (high boost) and they go 400+k miles all the time. They don't want your car turbo to last forever.. oem gas turbos are typically sized way to small for the application which makes more heat than necessary, running high boost at low rpm trying to make a 2L feel like a V8 hence they last long enough but not nearly as they could.
Having owned a turbo volvo (well used) and now a ford 2.7, I don't ever see going back to NA. Smaller engine, more hood space, great low rpm torque, good mpg. sign me up for another.
Though in all likelihood, the next I buy may very well be BEV.
-m
Though in all likelihood, the next I buy may very well be BEV.
-m
Turbos are not new. GM pioneered them in gasoline cars with the Olds F85 and Chevy Corvair in the early 60's.
BMW had the 2002 tii in the 70's.
Porsche had the 930 Turbo in 1976.
GM had the turbo 3.8 Buick Regal in 1978, and the turbo 301 TransAm in 1981.
I bought a 1985 Pontiac Sunbird turbo new when I graduated from college, and drove it for 14 years. I learned high performance driving in that car, doing hundreds of autocrosses and dozens of track days. It wasn't without problems, though, but the problems I think were fairly bought because of the large amount of track driving. The original turbo failed when the snap ring holding the turbine housing to the bearing housing broke, and let the turbine drag on the housing. It went through two of the original-style welded-tube exhaust manifolds by cracking at the collector welds, and I finally fixed that problem by retrofitting the cast manifold from a later-spec 2.0L engine. The original cylinder head cracked between the spark plug hole and exhaust valve seat in the center two cylinders. I attempted a fix on this problem when I installed the replacement head by opening up the water holes in the head gasket for cylinders 2 and 3. Don't know for sure if it worked because I traded the car in at 166k miles, and it was still running fine.
Chrysler had many versions of the 2.2 turbo in the Omni, Charger, Minivan, etc. Chrysler pioneered the water-cooled bearing housing because their turbo was installed on the backside of the engine. On my Pontiac, the turbo was on the front side, right behind the radiator cooling fan.
Ford had the Mustang SVO and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe in the mid-80's with the strong and simple Lima 2.3L 4-cylinder.
Many lessons were learned by the OEM's on these earlier production cars, and I consider automotive turbocharging to be mature technology. Now turbocharging is being applied to downsized engines to give them comparable performance to large naturally aspirated engines in full-size cars and trucks.
BMW had the 2002 tii in the 70's.
Porsche had the 930 Turbo in 1976.
GM had the turbo 3.8 Buick Regal in 1978, and the turbo 301 TransAm in 1981.
I bought a 1985 Pontiac Sunbird turbo new when I graduated from college, and drove it for 14 years. I learned high performance driving in that car, doing hundreds of autocrosses and dozens of track days. It wasn't without problems, though, but the problems I think were fairly bought because of the large amount of track driving. The original turbo failed when the snap ring holding the turbine housing to the bearing housing broke, and let the turbine drag on the housing. It went through two of the original-style welded-tube exhaust manifolds by cracking at the collector welds, and I finally fixed that problem by retrofitting the cast manifold from a later-spec 2.0L engine. The original cylinder head cracked between the spark plug hole and exhaust valve seat in the center two cylinders. I attempted a fix on this problem when I installed the replacement head by opening up the water holes in the head gasket for cylinders 2 and 3. Don't know for sure if it worked because I traded the car in at 166k miles, and it was still running fine.
Chrysler had many versions of the 2.2 turbo in the Omni, Charger, Minivan, etc. Chrysler pioneered the water-cooled bearing housing because their turbo was installed on the backside of the engine. On my Pontiac, the turbo was on the front side, right behind the radiator cooling fan.
Ford had the Mustang SVO and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe in the mid-80's with the strong and simple Lima 2.3L 4-cylinder.
Many lessons were learned by the OEM's on these earlier production cars, and I consider automotive turbocharging to be mature technology. Now turbocharging is being applied to downsized engines to give them comparable performance to large naturally aspirated engines in full-size cars and trucks.
Toyota still makes the Corolla in a manual transmission, so that is gonna be as reliable as you can get. Might be hard to come by.
I can relate with the OP's sentiment. Technologies are overwhelming plenty of us out here, especially when it comes to auto features we don't need, don't want, and never would've signed up for if we knew in advance the headache/expense they'd eventually produce. Plenty of folks just desire something that works well without so many bells and whistles, while not being forced to wade through a sea of rusted-out clunkers in trying to find a gem among the used car rubble. There are some technologies I definitely can appreciate (for example, the rear-view camera proved helpful), but others (like turbo on a GDI engine) are completely unappealing.
Dave9 said
"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."
Describes my feelings exactly. Still loving my 20+ yo Avalon XLS Platinum Edition. Just turned over 149k miles. Doesn't burn a drop of oil or leave a drop of any fluid on my garage floor.
"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."
Describes my feelings exactly. Still loving my 20+ yo Avalon XLS Platinum Edition. Just turned over 149k miles. Doesn't burn a drop of oil or leave a drop of any fluid on my garage floor.
Count me as one of the not so enamoured with all new tech. If you are young you dont know any better if you are old you should or your wealthy. I get it though, that $1500 dollar gps in the dash sure looks cooler than my $120 gps on the windshield until they break. Then I get a new updated one, anybody that has to pay for the upgrade or replacement just has a dead screen with there phone tacked to the vent. I see the appeal to the high gas mileage, I drive a Fiesta S model with manual trans and manual crank windows for the 42 mpg avg I get but I also see my 5.7 Ram truck getting 14 mpg pulling a trailer when the Ecoboost in constant turbo mode screaming drops to 11 or 12. I always felt and still do that Turbos have there place but its not to replace displacement.
Originally Posted by samven
Count me as one of the not so enamoured with all new tech. If you are young you dont know any better if you are old you should or your wealthy. I get it though, that $1500 dollar gps in the dash sure looks cooler than my $120 gps on the windshield until they break. Then I get a new updated one, anybody that has to pay for the upgrade or replacement just has a dead screen with there phone tacked to the vent. I see the appeal to the high gas mileage, I drive a Fiesta S model with manual trans and manual crank windows for the 42 mpg avg I get but I also see my 5.7 Ram truck getting 14 mpg pulling a trailer when the Ecoboost in constant turbo mode screaming drops to 11 or 12. I always felt and still do that Turbos have there place but its not to replace displacement.
I replaced a Jeep Grand Cherokee w/HEMI, with a CX5 with turbo. It has been a great move so far. Near identical acceleration, 10mpg more across the board. Also, you will never convince me that a gasoline engine > a turbodiesel for towing.
Count me as one of the not so enamoured with all new tech. If you are young you dont know any better if you are old you should or your wealthy. I get it though, that $1500 dollar gps in the dash sure looks cooler than my $120 gps on the windshield until they break. Then I get a new updated one, anybody that has to pay for the upgrade or replacement just has a dead screen with there phone tacked to the vent. I see the appeal to the high gas mileage, I drive a Fiesta S model with manual trans and manual crank windows for the 42 mpg avg I get but I also see my 5.7 Ram truck getting 14 mpg pulling a trailer when the Ecoboost in constant turbo mode screaming drops to 11 or 12. I always felt and still do that Turbos have there place but its not to replace displacement.
I replaced a Jeep Grand Cherokee w/HEMI, with a CX5 with turbo. It has been a great move so far. Near identical acceleration, 10mpg more across the board. Also, you will never convince me that a gasoline engine > a turbodiesel for towing.
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 miss changing points every 6K whilst setting the dwell w\business card in a pinch.
- Status
Similar threads
