small motors and a turbo = short life?

Joined
Apr 6, 2021
Messages
42
I am in need of a new car as I have reached 295k trouble free miles it seems like most car brands selling sedans use small 1.5L motors with a turbo there are a few that don't but that limits my options. I watch a mechanic on youtube and he claims that any gas car/truck with a small motor and a turbo will never last as long as a larger motor with no turbo as the smaller motor has to work that much harder.


Just wondering your thoughts as i have been very lucky with my 2010 toyota.
 
I wonder how long the newer generation of turbos will last.. I remember the 90s, then never lasted that long.. 60k miles and those turbos needed to be replaced..
 
I don't think so. I mean different animal but I ran a ton of Mid 80s to early 90s Turbo Mopar to well over 200,000 miles. They required repairs. A head gasket here or there and various other items but most of the hard parts never gave me issue.

My Malibu is a 2.0 LTG turbo. Closing in at 93,000 miles and it has been really good, one broken exhaust manifold bolt is the only issue I have had. Doesn't seem common either. I see no reason I can't get 200,000 out of this thing.
 
Last edited:
100% false information. Euro have been using small displacement engines with turbo for decades with few issues.
hmm I guess the american manufacturers could've taken notes from the Euro's well at least on the turbo lifespan.. In the late 80s to 90s I saw many turbos (american made) go bye bye.. they never reached 100k. Maybe my sampling is too small but that was something I saw a lot of with friends who had turbocharged cars (Factory)
 
I have owned many Honda Civics all non turbo engines however I have heard lots of horror stories about the 1.5 turbo in the 2016 and newer Civics and CRV's as well as Honda Accords. I would go with the non-turbo if you really want an engine to last a long time. It' not worth the risk for a little better mpg and a couple more horsepower. I do believe they are getting better however IMO it is not worth the risk.
 
I have owned many Honda Civics all non turbo engines however I have heard lots of horror stories about the 1.5 turbo in the 2016 and newer Civics and CRV's as well as Honda Accords. I would go with the non-turbo if you really want an engine to last a long time. It' not worth the risk for a little better mpg and a couple more horsepower. I do believe they are getting better however IMO it is not worth the risk.

Horror stories like premature failures? Would be interested in seeing specifics.
 
The Ford F150s with the turbo motors seem to do ok. When looking at the Ford f150. com I know when a turbo motor lets go under boost it is dramatic. But then a new engine is a new engine.
 
Turbo easily tops the non-turbo... AFTER IT SPOOLS UP

Some of us find all turbo engines annoying, except those with a hybrid torque push to cover up the lag
 
Horror stories like premature failures? Would be interested in seeing specifics.
All you have to do is google HONDA 1.5 ENGINE PROBLEMS......you will find lots of information regarding fuel dilution and oil levels being 1 quart over because the fuel is unburned and gets in the crankcase. You do not find the same problems with the Honda 1.8 or Honda 2.0 engines.
 
Seems like we are all eating :poop: sandwiches with many (not all) of these small displacement turbos. To me seems more a result of hitting a price point (IMO to add more tech) than we are of hitting an engineering benchmark of 200k trouble-free even with solid maintenance.

My small displacement turbo experience is limited but the one I was tooling around in was a higher end and just as I didn't enjoy the harshness of the 4cyl turbo I felt the remainder of the drivetrain was just not tuned for the engine. Fail on drivetrain IMO. Seems to be less refinement for engines and ore focus on the tech.

Ford's F150 turbos were mentioned (3.5 & 2.7) but they did take a few years of refinement and that is what happens when you're committed...and selling 750k units a year is a commitment. That is not the case for a lot of manufacturers.
 
I wonder how long the newer generation of turbos will last.. I remember the 90s, then never lasted that long.. 60k miles and those turbos needed to be replaced.
The turbo in my '86 Volvo 740 Turbo was still fine at 285,000 Km (178,000 miles). And '86 was the last year Volvo turbos were oil cooled only. The '87s and newer also had water cooling.

I changed the oil a lot, never spooled it up when cold (until the temp gauge was at least off the pin), and let it wind down for a few minutes after driving hard.
 
I got 230k miles out of my 1.0L, 3cyl focus before the factory timing belt broke (my fault, I should have gotten that changed.) I'd still be driving it. I have had no problems otherwise that weren't of my own doing. I wouldn't have any issues with a turbo'd engine as long as the design of the engine doesn't have any inherent weaknesses.
 
Last edited:
I watch a mechanic on youtube
That might have been the first mistake...

Lots of turbos have hit high miles. Lots failed due to negligence, but, lots of NA cars failed also due to the same negligence.

To me, the turbo is just one piece of the puzzle. It by itself is no less reliable than the rest of whatever the OEM might have gotten right--or wrong. DI's that require walnut blasting, "lifetime" ATF, timing chains that don't last, the list goes on--and the list is very engine family specific I should add. What one maker does right, another could be doing wrong. Using data from one can be tough to take to another Worse: what was true yesterday might not be true tomorrow. An OEM can fix a bad design: of course, an OEM can screw up a good design, trying to "improve it"...
 
Back
Top