- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Long-term reliability of turbo cars/trucks?
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:31 pm
Anyone afraid to buy a turbo car or truck? It seem's like a lot of car manufacturers are moving towards smaller displacement engines with turbos now. Seems like just more stuff to break or go wrong.
I'm interested in the F-150 3.5L ecoboost.
I'm interested in the F-150 3.5L ecoboost.
22
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:34 pm to lsu xman
You made a typo I see
F250 6.7L
F250 6.7L
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:42 pm to lsu xman
Didn't bother me from purchasing one last year but there's still plenty of people with fear or worry about them lasting longer than N/A motors.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:43 pm to lsu xman
No. Modern turbocharged engines are very reliable.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:43 pm to lsu xman
quote:
I'm interested in the F-150 3.5L ecoboost.
go to F 150 forums. I read enough that concerned me that I decided to go with the 5.0. But, that's just me. You might not think there are enough issues with them. I'm waiting on them to mature more before I consider that.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:50 pm to lsu xman
It's not a question of IF but WHEN the turbos fail and need to be rebuilt or replaced. In addition to turbos there are other associated parts, coolers, wastegates, etc that also can fail vs a N.A. engine. While they offer greater efficiency and power, there is also more $$$ and maintenance.
This post was edited on 2/12/17 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:56 pm to lsu xman
Factory turbo charged engines are a lot different from some 16 year old dropping a turbo in an old Honda civic.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 2:57 pm to lsu xman
I certainly wouldn't over the 5.0.
It's a more complicated system and more moving parts, thus more to go wrong. Now I am sure there are people out there with 75k on their truck and say they "have no problems". However, I bet that number gets dramatically less when the mileage gets over 100k or more.
Ford sure hasn't improved reliability in their turbo diesels over the years.
A lot of this new technology in search of 1-2 mpg has not increased reliability. Direct Injection is another great new technology, ask people who have to get their heads removed to have the valves cleaned under 100k miles for a few grand. Honda's VCM technology in their V6 is a continuing disaster. It's a bummer to have to get new rings in a car that is barely paid for.
It's a more complicated system and more moving parts, thus more to go wrong. Now I am sure there are people out there with 75k on their truck and say they "have no problems". However, I bet that number gets dramatically less when the mileage gets over 100k or more.
Ford sure hasn't improved reliability in their turbo diesels over the years.
A lot of this new technology in search of 1-2 mpg has not increased reliability. Direct Injection is another great new technology, ask people who have to get their heads removed to have the valves cleaned under 100k miles for a few grand. Honda's VCM technology in their V6 is a continuing disaster. It's a bummer to have to get new rings in a car that is barely paid for.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:19 pm to lsu xman
I have the 3.5 Ecoboost on a F-150 4x4 and it's a great engine, very reliable. However, I get HORRIBLE gas milage.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:29 pm to lsu xman
quote:
I'm interested in the F-150 3.5L ecoboost.
I'd go with the 5.0L V8. There are some issues with the ecoboost...many of them complained about on this forum.
quote:
t seem's like a lot of car manufacturers are moving towards smaller displacement engines with turbos now.
They have to meet CAFE regs. Consumers are not demanding more complicated, less reliable, more expensive engines for marginally better fuel economy. Regulatory pressure is driving these changes.
Get the V8 if you want an F150.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:30 pm to AndyCBR
I got a lot more than 1-2 MPG when I turboed my 97 Land Cruiser. Went from 212 hp and 13 MPG to 550 hp and 20 MPG.
Edit: added bigger exhaust as well. Motors want to breathe.
Edit: added bigger exhaust as well. Motors want to breathe.
This post was edited on 2/12/17 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:31 pm to Restomod
quote:
It's not a question of IF but WHEN the turbos fail and need to be rebuilt or replaced
Is this not true for every engine?
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:33 pm to lsu xman
quote:
Seems like just more stuff to break or go wrong.
Seems like you already know why you should get the V8 instead of the turbo V6.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:36 pm to Sparkplug#1
quote:
Went from 212 hp and 13 MPG to 550 hp and 20 MPG
No. It didn't.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:39 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Is this not true for every engine?
The turbos will typically fail before the engine. If it's modded for more power(which many do) , the life expectancy is further reduced.
Engine rebuilds are typically more expensive than N. A. engines because they are "beefed up" to handle the boost.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:45 pm to lsu xman
I have the 3.5 f150. It's fun as hell to drive for a full size truck.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:45 pm to lsu xman
I bought my 3.5 ecoboost on recs from a few buddies. I was debating Ford vs Tundra and I made the decision to buy a Ford solely on the engine. My 2013 F150 now has 128k miles with zero problems. I change the oil every 5k. So my situation may be an anomaly but I would not hesitate to buy another.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 3:51 pm to JohnnyT
I have a 2012 F-150 3.5 Eco Boost with 167,000 miles drive it hard pull trailers and boats regularly. If you looking for better mileage it isn't any better then the 2008 F-150 I had but it pulls way better. I would gladly buy another one and will soon hopefully. Like someone previously posted this isn't some aftermarket system this is tested and done right before released to the public.
Posted on 2/12/17 at 4:07 pm to No Colors
quote:
No. It didn't
Do some homework, buddy. It's standard knowledge with anyone that has Safari turboed their 80 series.
This post was edited on 2/12/17 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 2/12/17 at 4:10 pm to jag211
77k on a ecoboost. 7k dollars in repairs that Ford said tough shite. Just my reality. I could have completely replaced the 5.0 for that much.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News