Turbo vs Naturally Aspirated Engine

[fisher83]

I would imagine that another big factor is how the vehicle is being driven. Some may have a tendency to push their turbocharged car a little harder, modify or tune it, etc. which may factor greatly into longevity. The only turbo experience I have is with my current F-150 but in the other forums I'm in it seems to be the guys with aftermarket tunes and other modifications that have the most problems.

 

[930.engineering]

True, that's why I'm not a fan of aftermarket tunes.

 

[MCompact]

Note: I have experience with a major manufacturer's turbocharged engine development team (in a past life).

1) Turbocharged engines are not less reliable, they are often more reliable. Despite the conventional wisdom that says otherwise.
2) Turbocharged engines have lower rod bearing loads than high revving engines. The inertia of high RPM, TDC loads rod bearings far higher than 15 or 20 pounds boost.
3) Combustion in a properly tuned turbocharged engine can take longer, therefore peak connecting rod loads may not be significantly higher than when NA. A longer push on the piston, so to speak.
4) Turbocharged engines happily create adequate torque at lower RPM's than a comparable normally aspirated engine, and therefore, many components experience lower wear. Cams/followers/valves/bearings/chains etc.
5) Turbocharged engines always have more robust internals and better piston rings. As they must be capable of operation with higher pressures and temperatures (better heat transfer is required). The common ultra thin, "low tension" rings that fail so early are not used on turbo engines.

You keep forgetting- on BITOG third-hand internet hearsay ALWAYS trounces actual experience with a particular technology or vehicle.

 

[MCompact]

My mildly tuned 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 was running great at 158k miles great when I traded for a faster turbocharged car back in 2016; UOAs backed up the motor's condition.

 

[mightymousetech]

My 135i was tuned within the first 3 months of ownership, 8 years later still running perfect, and I use all the power often.

 

[AJW001]

It's a different driving experience. Turbo engines are a lot of fun but there is something to be said for the smoothness of a powerful N/A engine. With less complexity the N/A engines have fewer failure points but are for the most part still pretty reliable.

This one. It's a totally different driving experience. I had a 2002 RSX Type-S with the 7800 RPM redline K20A2 2.0L iVTEC. It developed 200HP at 7200 RPM and 142 lbs/ft at 5800 RPM. That was enough power in those days when cars were simpler and way lighter. To get to the power band the car sure made you work for it. You'd have to downshift 3 gears and kick up the revs to at least 5000 rpm then the car would feel alive. With a light flywheel, that car tested your skill with the stick at those high rpms. But it rewarded your efforts with the unmistakable VTEC sound and a car that begged to be revved even higher.

Just like in the era of natural 3.0 L V10 Formula 1 racing.

My 2013 Focus ST with the 2.0L Ecoboost was more usable, I guess. But I sure miss that iVTEC.

 

[Jetronic]

True, that's why I'm not a fan of aftermarket tunes.

I'm finding myself more interested in the other stuff aftermarket tunes offer, rather than the power increase. Things like how high/low temperatures are handled, torque limiters in lower gears, driveability and last but not least, pedal response.