It's always dangerous to assume you are knowledgable, I just pass on the things I learn (often from mistakes and others more knowledgable than myself) but I am acutely aware that there is so much more out there to learn.
There is not such thing as a Turbocharged engine without an ecu.....besides 2 carbed Turbo cars in the 60s....l the chevy covair monza and the Oldsmobile jetfire .....and were garbage.....anything built after that in the 80s were fuel injected with an electronicly controlled wastegate controlled by an ecu....like the grand national 3.8 turbo or the dodge lancer 2.2 turbofor example.....the best improvement to making Turbo motors reliable is INTERCOOLERS and forged internals that can handle higher heat
@@vollkerball1 lol just requires regular oil changes at 3000 miles and your fine.....going 5k or even 10k miles is insane....I have a 2017 Ford Fusion Sport 2.7 V6 Twin Turbo AWD......bought new and have 88k miles.....have not had one issue.....change oil every 3k religiously.....also warming up your motor to operational temp is key before putting any stress on the motor.....and letting it idle for 30 seconds before shutting off if you have been driving 70mph on the interstate on a road trip and stop for gas......do those 3 simple things.....and your golden
Can someone ACTUALLY explain how a tubo engine is more efficient? Sure you can use smaller cylinders, but you are also pushing more air, and presumably more fuel into it, so how is it more efficient that just using larger cylinders?.
It's about the torque, even though in essence you are indeed putting more air than a small engine can get naturally, the way you do it by forcing (on OEM cars) air means more torque at lower RPM. So even though you put more air, you use less throttle and less gear changes.
Turbo is not taking up more fuel ,it is just making the process of combustion with the given amount of fuel more efficient and powerful by bringing in pressurized air......
Both the above explanations are wrong to some degree. Quite simply a NA 4.0L engine might produce 300hp. When you're traveling at highway speeds you might only need 50hp to maintain your speed but you still need fuel to turn the big engine (inefficient). Take a 2.0L turbo and it might also make 300hp so when you need the power it will, with a little response delay, provide the same acceleration as the 4.0L engine, but at highway cruising speeds, when you only need a fraction of the 300hp, the turbo will not be working and the 2.0L is sipping fuel compared to the bigger engine. Turbo is basically there for power on demand but with how hybridization is going, I think a lot of new cars will swap turbos for electric motors on the drivetrain to meet the needs for those times you need quicker acceleration.
You are wrong about your prediction. Toyota is preparing a 1.5L turbo and 2.0L turbo for hybridization. I would rather have a turbo than a hybrid with an unrefined transmission, which they all have. Cylinder deactivation can to some degree reduce the fuel consumption at low load but regulation has pushed manufactures so much that 1.5L turbo 4 cylinders and 1.0L turbo 3-cylinders now have cylinder deactivation as well.
Now I know why so many old school cars blew up / had owners overly fussy about things. I went N/A Honda route after research and stayed that way for 18+ years. No engine issues ever Now I trust they’ve made the Turbo engines well enough as you said in the vid. Still allow warmup & cooldown as I’ve always done and use vents to allow heat out of the engine especially on hot days She’s a hot gyal 😂
Turbos are less reliable, but what really that mean? Since being less reliable can be a big or a small figure.. Turbo engines if well built are just a little less reliable.
The answer to the question... is another question. Are NA more reliable? Are they simple and built well? Than most likely. But comparing a poorly made NA engine with a good Turbo engine can also lead to confusion. In summary. Yes NA engines are more reliable, as long as they're compared to a Turbo engine that is built similarly. The reason is that turbos create higher pressure and use more oil than NA engines. So just the fact that you need to change oil more often means higher maintenance which is literally definition of a less reliable car.
When driving in hilly country and passing TURBOS are great, nice too know you have that extra punch. Getting the same horsepower out of a 1lt turbo charged engine as to a 2lt no turbo has it´s advantages but the down side is longivitey, turbos put a lot of stress on those small engins.
Except 1.0L turbo engines can't match a modern naturally aspirated 2.0L engine. The highest 1.0L turbo power outputs I've seen were 130 PS while Toyota's 2.0L engine makes 175 PS and it is less stressed while doing so. Downsizing has it's limits and it's sad that European fuel economy regulation has pushed engines into being suboptimal.
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566my 2.4 L turbocharged Subaru almost never gets into boost under normal driving conditions. I have to push it to get it into boost.
I had a 2019 Mustang GT and I actually prefer my new WRX over it. The WRX is just a great year-round driver and I find it more Engaging than my Mustang.
One advantage of a turbocharged engine over a naturally aspirated one has to do with air density. Air density varies from day to day based on atmospheric pressure, altitude and temperature. So a naturally aspirated engine will lose power as altitude or temperatutre increase. No so, a turbo. It can compensate for that. It will put out its rated horsepower at higher altitudes and temperatures.
I only ever had one turbocharged gasoline powered car, and it was a Volvo. The engine was dead reliable, but the rest of the car ... not so much. It wasn't exactly the car's fault since the previous owner neglected it.
Diesel works off of compression, so turbos are great. Diesel parts are larger and can handle the pressure and heat, which are all components that help add to the combustion. Gas/Petrol engines are just adding anothe point of failure. When your ELECTRIC oil pump fails, have fun with that mess. Oddly, no one wants to talk superchargers for more consistant power loads. Edit:Corrected Diesel spelling... lesson: Coffee before typing lol
Petrol engines really benefit from being turbocharged. Our 1.2 TSI is on 147k miles and the only thing it has needed relating to the turbo is the actuator. It has 4 cylinders and only produces about 85 bhp so isn't really strained either but still produces the same torque as our 1.4 turbo diesel.
![5 Things That Kill Turbo Engines ⚠️ [WARNING]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YeG5-oWehcY/mqdefault.jpg)
![5 Things That Kill Turbo Engines ⚠️ [WARNING]](/img/tr.png)
absolute gem for those people who want to know about their own turbo charged car.
Very true. I'm glad I found this channel as the knowledge is so dense yet easy to understand.
Man you're so knowledgeable thanks for sharing champ! 🏆
It's always dangerous to assume you are knowledgable, I just pass on the things I learn (often from mistakes and others more knowledgable than myself) but I am acutely aware that there is so much more out there to learn.
@@torquecars well said, you can always learn something new
Is the 2.7 Chevy Colorado a reliable engine?? I really need to know
The biggest step forward in engine reliability for turbo charged engines is use of an ECU for engine management and their respective sensors.
There is not such thing as a Turbocharged engine without an ecu.....besides 2 carbed Turbo cars in the 60s....l the chevy covair monza and the Oldsmobile jetfire .....and were garbage.....anything built after that in the 80s were fuel injected with an electronicly controlled wastegate controlled by an ecu....like the grand national 3.8 turbo or the dodge lancer 2.2 turbofor example.....the best improvement to making Turbo motors reliable is INTERCOOLERS and forged internals that can handle higher heat
Turbo just involves a level of complexity that most people don´t need.
@@vollkerball1 lol just requires regular oil changes at 3000 miles and your fine.....going 5k or even 10k miles is insane....I have a 2017 Ford Fusion Sport 2.7 V6 Twin Turbo AWD......bought new and have 88k miles.....have not had one issue.....change oil every 3k religiously.....also warming up your motor to operational temp is key before putting any stress on the motor.....and letting it idle for 30 seconds before shutting off if you have been driving 70mph on the interstate on a road trip and stop for gas......do those 3 simple things.....and your golden
True, and for what? So a small to mid sized SUV can have over 200 horse power? Completely unnecessary. 150 hp is enough for 99% of general public.
But a level of performance that most people want.
@@100nakpvp2says you.
@@Keith-e5f Perhaps, but i feel in this case the needs trump the wants
Great vid!
Great vid, Have you ever talked about Hondas 3.5L v6 engines, the J series, j35y1
Can someone ACTUALLY explain how a tubo engine is more efficient? Sure you can use smaller cylinders, but you are also pushing more air, and presumably more fuel into it, so how is it more efficient that just using larger cylinders?.
It's about the torque, even though in essence you are indeed putting more air than a small engine can get naturally, the way you do it by forcing (on OEM cars) air means more torque at lower RPM. So even though you put more air, you use less throttle and less gear changes.
Turbo is not taking up more fuel ,it is just making the process of combustion with the given amount of fuel more efficient and powerful by bringing in pressurized air......
Both the above explanations are wrong to some degree. Quite simply a NA 4.0L engine might produce 300hp. When you're traveling at highway speeds you might only need 50hp to maintain your speed but you still need fuel to turn the big engine (inefficient). Take a 2.0L turbo and it might also make 300hp so when you need the power it will, with a little response delay, provide the same acceleration as the 4.0L engine, but at highway cruising speeds, when you only need a fraction of the 300hp, the turbo will not be working and the 2.0L is sipping fuel compared to the bigger engine.
Turbo is basically there for power on demand but with how hybridization is going, I think a lot of new cars will swap turbos for electric motors on the drivetrain to meet the needs for those times you need quicker acceleration.
You are wrong about your prediction. Toyota is preparing a 1.5L turbo and 2.0L turbo for hybridization. I would rather have a turbo than a hybrid with an unrefined transmission, which they all have. Cylinder deactivation can to some degree reduce the fuel consumption at low load but regulation has pushed manufactures so much that 1.5L turbo 4 cylinders and 1.0L turbo 3-cylinders now have cylinder deactivation as well.
Nice vid.
Now I know why so many old school cars blew up / had owners overly fussy about things.
I went N/A Honda route after research and stayed that way for 18+ years. No engine issues ever
Now I trust they’ve made the Turbo engines well enough as you said in the vid. Still allow warmup & cooldown as I’ve always done and use vents to allow heat out of the engine especially on hot days
She’s a hot gyal 😂
Vents? What vents? The L15 1.5L turbo from Honda is bad actually. The K24 2.0L turbo is amazing.
@ - K20C1
Open your heating vents and it lets out the engines heat
Turbos are less reliable, but what really that mean?
Since being less reliable can be a big or a small figure.. Turbo engines if well built are just a little less reliable.
i think the mitsubishi never had an issue on their turbo engines, maybe oil changes and cleaning will help on turbos
The answer to the question... is another question. Are NA more reliable? Are they simple and built well? Than most likely. But comparing a poorly made NA engine with a good Turbo engine can also lead to confusion.
In summary. Yes NA engines are more reliable, as long as they're compared to a Turbo engine that is built similarly. The reason is that turbos create higher pressure and use more oil than NA engines. So just the fact that you need to change oil more often means higher maintenance which is literally definition of a less reliable car.
You make an interesting point my friend, thanks for your input.
When driving in hilly country and passing TURBOS are great, nice too know you have that extra punch. Getting the same horsepower out of a 1lt turbo charged engine as to a 2lt no turbo has it´s advantages but the down side is longivitey, turbos put a lot of stress on those small engins.
Except 1.0L turbo engines can't match a modern naturally aspirated 2.0L engine. The highest 1.0L turbo power outputs I've seen were 130 PS while Toyota's 2.0L engine makes 175 PS and it is less stressed while doing so. Downsizing has it's limits and it's sad that European fuel economy regulation has pushed engines into being suboptimal.
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566 Totaly agree. The Tree Huggers have ruined the car industry.
Probably why Subaru went to a 2.4 l in the WRX. Under normal driving conditions mine doesn't even get into boost.
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566my 2.4 L turbocharged Subaru almost never gets into boost under normal driving conditions. I have to push it to get it into boost.
I'd love to daily a 5.0 Mustang but it sadly has a wet belt now, oh and I can't afford it lol.
I had a 2019 Mustang GT and I actually prefer my new WRX over it. The WRX is just a great year-round driver and I find it more Engaging than my Mustang.
One advantage of a turbocharged engine over a naturally aspirated one has to do with air density. Air density varies from day to day based on atmospheric pressure, altitude and temperature. So a naturally aspirated engine will lose power as altitude or temperatutre increase. No so, a turbo. It can compensate for that. It will put out its rated horsepower at higher altitudes and temperatures.
Naturally aspirated engines are designed to adjust for altitude.
I've had more water pumps, alternators, and fuel pumps fail than turbos.
Doesnt make it more fun when the turbo then also fails.
@@martinsv9183 : not much fun when any part or accessory fails.
I only ever had one turbocharged gasoline powered car, and it was a Volvo. The engine was dead reliable, but the rest of the car ... not so much. It wasn't exactly the car's fault since the previous owner neglected it.
Diesel works off of compression, so turbos are great. Diesel parts are larger and can handle the pressure and heat, which are all components that help add to the combustion.
Gas/Petrol engines are just adding anothe point of failure. When your ELECTRIC oil pump fails, have fun with that mess.
Oddly, no one wants to talk superchargers for more consistant power loads.
Edit:Corrected Diesel spelling... lesson: Coffee before typing lol
Petrol engines really benefit from being turbocharged. Our 1.2 TSI is on 147k miles and the only thing it has needed relating to the turbo is the actuator. It has 4 cylinders and only produces about 85 bhp so isn't really strained either but still produces the same torque as our 1.4 turbo diesel.
@@Xenon777_ how much of an increase is the maintenance?
@@turtlewax3849 None really. It gets the same service as any other car we have had.
@@Xenon777_ It costs more either through service plan or without.
@@turtlewax3849 Our vehicles are serviced every 10k miles to the manufacturers specifications.
All engine is not reliable if u keep on full throttle it
Turbo are not dies, they been murdered...
If you will take care of it, it will last forever.
I think I'll just buy a type of engine that is more tolerant of abuse.
If I had a nickel for every video on TH-cam asking whether turbocharged vehicles are reliable or not, I could afford a Porsche all-wheel drive.
I would not touch a turbo charged with a 10 foot pole... take my advice and stay away. Naturallty aspirated is the way to go.
If your engine needs a turbo, it wasn't built right
Tell that to a Porsche 911 Turbo owner.