Modern Turbo Engine Reliability and Durability

My Volvo turbo engine ('86 Volvo 740 Turbo) lasted for the whole time I owned it, from new to 18 1/2 years and 285,000 km. Both the engine and turbo were still fine. And the turbo in '86 was only oil cooled.

Changed the oil every 3 months, feathered the throttle until the temp gauge was at least off the cold pin, and let the turbo cool down after a high speed drive. The turbo glowed orange after a high speed drive in the mountains so a bit of cooling off before shutdown seemed like a good idea.

It took out the overdrive though, at something like 200,000 km. It had a 4 speed manual with an electric overdrive.
 
Modern engines with forced induction have so much more torque at very low revs that they are designed to cope, with beefed up crank bearings. While there are some exceptions I haven't the slightest concern that the bottom end in my car is going to wear out because it has forced induction. Nether am I much concerned about turbo's or in my case the supercharger. Unreliability in modern engines is mostly in the top end with single row cam chains and complex variable valve timing, both of which are independent of and unaffected by forced induction.

In my view the positives that forced induction brings in terms of torque and fuel economy, far out way any concerns about the reliability of the turbo. Frankly there is precious little choice but to have a turbo engine these days.

Now if you were to ask about what direct injection brings to party, I would say it's almost all negatives because it adds complexity to not much purpose. GDI is much more of a concern than forced induction.
 
I own/owned the following turbocharged vehicles:

1984 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe
1991 740 Turbo
2007 Mazdaspeed 3
2014 M235i
2015 X1 xDrive28i
2020 C43
2021 Sahara 4xe

I owned the Turbo Coupe to around 150,000 miles with no issues. I ran the Mazda to 158,000 miles; it received a new turbo at 20,000 miles pursuant to a TSB. Other than that, absolutely no mechanical issues- and it was DI as well.
I like turbo motors; the C43 runs the quarter in 12.6 seconds and averages around 24 mpg. If it runs to 100,000 miles with no major issues I will be more than happy. By 100,000 miles I’m usually ready for something newer and faster (my Club Sport excepted).
 
I’ve had 3 turbo cars. 2 VWs which went over 250ths miles before getting rid of them. I now have Equinox with 1.5t love the car. There are a few cars in Malibu form with turbos over 150ths and a couple over 250ths. Good oil and coolant is the key.
 
They have been using turbos in Europe for 50 plus years.

On my travels there I didn't see any vehicles broken down on the side of the road.
 
Turbos themselves are reliable, but it's usually all the supporting things (plastic intercooler and coolant pipes, direct injection vs. direct and port injection, etc) that you must do research on to see whether or not the vehicle you are looking at has weaknesses there.
 
I don't think there have been major issues with turbochargers. A few of my friends have older Subarus that have 200k miles on the original engine/turbo and still happily rev the engine to the moon with little problem.

It's all about the maintenance. Take care of the equipment and generally it will take care of you.
 
My 87 Buick GN with the oil cooled turbo 3.8 had never had a problem when I sold it at 99,000 miles. I used Rotella T4 15/40 in it. Anyone remember the early sixties air cooled flat six turbo Corvair? 😲
 
I had a ton of "poo" 80's turbo Dodges. I have ran a few of them to over 250,000 miles with no turbo problems. Head gasket stuff yes. That was not the turbo's fault.
The Malibu is over 105,000 now. No issues. 2.0 LTG GM turbo. Use no oil, does not have fuel dilution. It has been a really good car.
 
I'm curious what the BITOG community's experience with modern turbo engines is. Are they durable and reliable? Can they last 200K miles or more without major repairs or maintenance (other than oil and coolant changes)? To me, it's hard to visualize turbo engines lasting as long as NA engines. But maybe your experiences will prove that wrong! Turbochargers can spin at 100,000 rpm or more, and I saw a video on YouTube (hey, that alone means everything in it MUST be true, right?! ok, sarc off) in which a guy recommended that a car with a turbo engine be warmed up for a minute or so after startup before driving off and also be allowed to idle for a minute or more before being shut down. Apparently this is to prevent or at least reduce oil "coking" and leaving harmful deposits in the turbocharger. It appears that manufacturers are moving to these types of engines in part to meet the increasingly onerous fuel economy regulations the government is imposing and to provide more engine power from a smaller displacement engine.

All the vehicles we own currently have NA engines, and I've never owned a vehicle with a turbocharger in the past - so I have no experience with turbos. So I'm curious what your long term experiences and thoughts are with turbo engines. One thing for sure is that the number of newer car models with NA engines is steadily decreasing, so many of us in the future may be forced into buying turbo engined vehicles whether we want them or not.

About 3 years ago or so my mom purchased a late model used compact SUV to replace her 2007 Honda CR-V (which my son is now driving). I steered her away from later model CR-V's primarily because they use turbo engines. So she got a 2018 Mazda CX-5 instead, which has a NA 2.5L Skyactiv engine. It is direct injected, which has its own problems and risks, but that's a whole other discussion! But at least it doesn't have a turbocharger spinning at 100K rpm or more.
Turbos themselves are generally reliable it's the parts attached to it which can cause issues (Charge pipe/connectors, Oil/Coolant hoses, wastegates) once the miles pile on these pieces may need tending. Thankfully with the proliferation of turbo engines the oils used today are up to the task.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top