200,000 miles is in fact rare, only 1% of vehicles reach it

[IndyIan]

That's the thing, I don't believe it's very common. Many people trade in their clunkers instead of junking them.

Not up in the rust belt, about half the cars we've had went from the road, to field car duty, to the wreckers. Usually from terminal rust.
The other half were sold privately. I guess I've never actually traded a car in, now that I think about it, it always seems its worth just driving it for a couple more years than get a tiny trade in value for it?
I do see lots of "$1000" rust bucket cars that people can't trade in and try to sell privately for more than scrap value, but I think most of those go the wreckers or someone buys them for parts at near scrap value.

 

[SteveG4]

My 2006 4WD 4-door Silverado is at 202K miles, and is just broken in. Really.

It's been a great Alaskan truck that receives preventive maintenance.

 

[billt460]

.........It's not about "turbo bad". It's about turbo bad compared to enough displacement design for longest term use.......

That is true. But it also encompasses the type of drivers turbos generally attract. Not all, but many turbo powered vehicles are purchased by younger people. And most are driven hard. If not what's the point? They are a performance based option on many cars.

The turbo is somewhat worthless if you're not drawing boost from it. And to feel it's full effect, your foot has to be firmly planted. As a general rule engines driven at max power output will wear out faster than those that are driven more gently. And turbo powered engines are generally driven at max power more than normally aspirated engines.

So when this hard, high performance driving is factored into the equation, generally speaking the life of the engine isn't going to be as long. Again, this isn't always the case. But with turbos it seems to be more often than not. The exception of course are diesels.

 

[97prizm]

Yeah Americans are waaaaay to disposal happy when it comes to vehicles. On my way home yesterday a semi carrying a load of crushed cars was in front. I could make out a Dodge emblem. I don't think anything on that trailer was older than an early 2000s model. Very unacceptable in my book.

 

[billt460]

Yeah Americans are waaaaay to disposal happy when it comes to vehicles. On my way home yesterday a semi carrying a load of crushed cars was in front. I could make out a Dodge emblem. I don't think anything on that trailer was older than an early 2000s model. Very unacceptable in my book.

The majority are infatuated with, "newness".

 

[TiGeo]

I don't call not wanting to drive 20 years cars "infatuated wtih newness". The only car I had past 200K was a '00 Jetta we bought new in '99. 14 years/220K. It was falling apart inside. No interest in driving it past that but sure, mechanically ran great.

 

[TiGeo]

That is true. But it also encompasses the type of drivers turbos generally attract. Not all, but many turbo powered vehicles are purchased by younger people. And most are driven hard. If not what's the point? They are a performance based option on many cars.

The turbo is somewhat worthless if you're not drawing boost from it. And to feel it's full effect, your foot has to be firmly planted. As a general rule engines driven at max power output will wear out faster than those that are driven more gently. And turbo powered engines are generally driven at max power more than normally aspirated engines.

So when this hard, high performance driving is factored into the equation, generally speaking the life of the engine isn't going to be as long. Again, this isn't always the case. But with turbos it seems to be more often than not. The exception of course are diesels.

Not really so much anymore - many many vehicles have turbos now including my parent's Lincoln. Small turbos don't require foot to the floor to enjoy the torque you get. To me, the turbo itself is the weak point.

 

[billt460]

Not really so much anymore - many many vehicles have turbos now including my parent's Lincoln. Small turbos don't require foot to the floor to enjoy the torque you get. To me, the turbo itself is the weak point.

I think the turbos today are far better than the ones that were offered in the 80's. Many are water cooled, and have much better bearings, as well as the ability to retain oiling after they're shut down.

A lot of those 80's turbocharged cars had the boost set so the engine would barely lived past the warranty. Today if they're given reasonable care, they'll last longer. But I would settle for a larger displacement engine over a turbo, given the choice.

 

[CKN]

What is so hard to understand that turbos have great reliability and will not cause issues for years?

This "turbo bad" thing is another Internet talking point that is nonsensical.

 

[IndyIan]

What is so hard to understand that turbos have great reliability and will not cause issues for years?

This "turbo bad" thing is another Internet talking point that is nonsensical.

Tractor(both road and farm) turbo's, sure they go for 1000's of hours, being maintained more consistently probably helps them too.
Car that have odd oil specs with 3+ owners at 180k miles and no set of maintenance records.... Probably not the best bet for them to go another 100k...

 

[CKN]

Tractor(both road and farm) turbo's, sure they go for 1000's of hours, being maintained more consistently probably helps them too.
Car that have odd oil specs with 3+ owners at 180k miles and no set of maintenance records.... Probably not the best bet for them to go another 100k...

There are a few Volvos out there with 200,000 miles with turbos. Every motor will have less life not being maintained than one that is. Turbo or not.

 

[ecotourist]

I think the turbos today are far better than the ones that were offered in the 80's. Many are water cooled, and have much better bearings, as well as the ability to retain oiling after they're shut down.

A lot of those 80's turbocharged cars had the boost set so the engine would barely lived past the warranty. Today if they're given reasonable care, they'll last longer. But I would settle for a larger displacement engine over a turbo, given the choice.

The turbo on my '86 Volvo 740 Turbo was only oil cooled. [The '87s and later were also water cooled.] I bought the car new and the turbo was still doing fine when I sold the car 18 1/2 years later with 285,000 kms. I sold it to friends (it was still a good car!) and they drove it for 5 more years without any problems.

What did I do:

• changed the oil every 6 months
• after a really cold start drove it so that the water temp was off the pin before the boost gauge (about 3 or 4 blocks and with a really good thermostat)
• drove quietly for the last couple of blocks so the turbo had a chance to cool down before a shut down
• when driving at speed on the highway (where the turbo would have been glowing orange) and pulling off the road to fuel up, let the car idle for a few minutes to let the turbo cool down.

 

[hrv]

The past three Hondas I owned had over 300000 miles on them when they got traded in...the last was 386000 on a 07 Honda Accord SE....

 

[IndyIan]

There are a few Volvos out there with 200,000 miles with turbos. Every motor will have less life not being maintained than one that is. Turbo or not.

True, but many(most?) of NA motors are pretty resilient to the odd forgotten oil change or any type of oil being put in. There's no LSPI in NA motors for example. I am sure some(most?) of the older volvo turbo engines are quite long lived and simple tough power units.
Also NA motors tend to weather mechanical failures a bit better too, some minor overheating or lean or rich running should have less chance for major problems with bigger low hp/L NA motor.
Kind of the more extreme example is a dedicated track car, more than a few super charged or turbo miata's have been LS swapped after a season or two, just to get a simpler source of power, and the older miata engines were designed for turbo's, with oil sprayed pistons.

 

[javacontour]

True, but many(most?) of NA motors are pretty resilient to the odd forgotten oil change or any type of oil being put in. There's no LSPI in NA motors for example. I am sure some(most?) of the older volvo turbo engines are quite long lived and simple tough power units.
Also NA motors tend to weather mechanical failures a bit better too, some minor overheating or lean or rich running should have less chance for major problems with bigger low hp/L NA motor.
Kind of the more extreme example is a dedicated track car, more than a few super charged or turbo miata's have been LS swapped after a season or two, just to get a simpler source of power, and the older miata engines were designed for turbo's, with oil sprayed pistons.

You have more margin with a NA engine in MOST cases.
It's not that turbo engines are bad. It's just that they are a bit less forgiving. A bit more complexity and more ways for things to go wrong.

 

[IndyIan]

You have more margin with a NA engine in MOST cases.
It's not that turbo engines are bad. It's just that they are a bit less forgiving. A bit more complexity and more ways for things to go wrong.

Yep, there are a few less 4 digit repair bills possible on an NA car. Not a big deal when the car is worth something, but at 200k, usually people just want the car to work with the least fuss possible.

 

[michaelluscher]

eyes Project xB @285k
eyes DD Camry @191k

Reassures self with lack of car payment

 

[dbias]

The 2012 Ford Transit connect will pass over to 200k sometime today possibly.

 

[Al]

I am guessing Subaru's are way higher. Not bc they are any better. In fact Subaru's before say 2011 had HG issues that ment 100% of folks going beyond 200K miles replaced them. They like their ve hiclles and put in the $$$ to keep them. My old 2008 had many thousands of $$$ into it but at 275K its still on the road.