Today's Turbos Dependable ?
 

When I researched my last car purchase, a VW, I was lead to believe the turbos of the 2000-2010 era were not dependable long term. If you bought one with 100,000 miles or more you had better plan on the expense of replacing the turbo. Is that true today? Or have advances been made. The replacement expense seems to always negate the gas savings of a turbo. Today's N/A cars seems to go to 250,000 easily. My neighbor had 250,000 on her 2004 N/A Honda Odyssey when she sold it.

Ford claims their ecoboost fours are reliable, but I personally have avoided "huffer" engines, either blower or turbo. Why are the car makers going turbo? To comply with CAFE mandates. It's true...don't use the boost, and these little 4 bangers deliver great mileage. Use the boost, and you can almost keep up with a normally aspirated V-8 while enjoying roughly the same mileage as the V-8.

I have zero experience with "huffer" engines because of the thinking I expressed above. I could very well be wrong, but won't be buying a boosted engine car to find out.

Diesels use turbos and they are reliable. My X5 seems to have an aux oil pump which helps cool the turbos after engine shutdown.

Maybe it depends on the brand?

But I don’t trust the current BMW turbo engines to go very long. Way too stressed, 2 liter boosted engines pulling 3600-4000+ lb. vehicles.

In the last Roundel (BMW CCA mag), one of the columnists wrote about a long trip that he had just done in his 5 series. Which he seems to like.

As part of the article, he mentioned the work the car had has in its 150,000 mile life.

One thing, nonchalantly mentioned, is that it’s on its FOURTH set of twin turbos.

It feels to me like these small displacement turbo engines are the last gasp of the internal combustion engine, which are being legislated and politicised out of existence. Makers are focusing on electric now. For the gas engines, just slap on turbos, crank up the boost and get them through the end of the warranty period.

I just ordered a new Ford T350 van with the ecoboost 3.5L. I'm amazed they get 310 hp. and 400 lb. ft. of torque out of 3.5L, but you can't get a larger displacement engine. Seems to me a small displacement engine with one or two turbos putting out that kind of power wouldn't be anything that would last a long time. But I'm old school and maybe the current technology if up to it longevity wise.

Guess it'll be up to you to give us a long term report...many of us here seem to be mistrustful. It does seem to me that boost puts more strain on the internals and the valve train. But what do I know? I'm no engineer or pro mechanic...

We had a 2004 Vdub Jetta and that little turbo engine was trouble-free for the 100k miles we owned it.

I have a 2014 f150 3.5 ecoboost with 75K on it. It has had the drivers side turbo replaced on it already and I get a low boost CEL from time to time.

After a bad experience with a ~2007 Subaru XT (big turbo - drank oil and eventually tried to digest the turbo guts through the engine) we got back on the horse and have a '13 Hyundai Santa Fe 2.0 turbo. It's pretty quick for a toaster, and about as exciting. Doesn't really consume much oil but does throw a big puff when you really get on it. I'm replacing the PCV valve today - we'll see if that fixes it.

Sure you can build a high-stress-but-forever engine but it costs you. At grocery-getter price points I'm pessimistic.

I agree about the strain and would have felt better with at least 5L. I'll be giving up my 7.3L PSD. That engine is under stressed and might last forever, especially since I've not used it for anything heavy more than maybe four times.

I have owned many turbocharged cars in the past 20+ years. I have never had to replace a turbo on a single one of them.

My 1996 Saab 900SE turbo went over 150K miles with no turbo issues. The only reasons I got rid of it was because Saab was going out of business and I was concerned about future service & parts.

My current daily driver is a M-B W204 (C-class) coupe with a 4 cylinder turbo. Over 75K miles and so far no issues.

I believe it definitely depends on the brand, and even more so on the service it receives. In my experience and opinion, turbos need more frequent oil changes and I also believe it is better to use synthetic oil in turbocharged engines due to the better resistance to thermal breakdown synthetic oil allegedly has over conventional oil.

1993 Passat TDI 430,000 KM. No trouble with the turbo.
2006 Jetta TDI 320,000 KM . No trouble with the turbo.
2016 Golf TSi coming up to 100,000 km. I'll keep you posted.

Best
Les

The new Volvos are 2L 4 cylinder with 320 HP. They are both turbocharged and supercharged.

FWIW, my 930 has 120K miles on its original motor, turbo, and transmission.

The one thing I do know, is you CAN'T TURBO A 914!

Same. I would suggest that the turbo is way down on the list of common issues with modern cars.

My old Jetta (2001) went 400,00 miles on the original turbo. Later VW's were less reliable, closer tot he 2010 years.

My Ford Focus 1.8 turbo diesel had turbo trouble; at 249000 miles, so I am not conolaining
Of course I didn't gun the engine ever until it was fully warmed up, and I always waited 30 seconds before shutting the engine down.

Did anyone mention these new fangled auto cut off features that are starving the turbos on strained small displacement engines of oil at every stop light?

No?

Then where's my curmudgeon cookie for the day? I earned it. Gimmee MY cookie! NOW!~

water cooled turbo's live much longer then the old style oil cooled

I think a auto/off motor should run oil thru the turbo after shut off
better ones also run water to prevent over heating/oil coking

The 944 turbos have the dual oil/water cooled setup with the auxiliary water pump to keep water circulating through the turbo after shutoff. It never gave me trouble, although I did have to go through the auxiliary water pump system and replace the pump at some point. Also, it has a secondary t-stat I think.

My 2005 volvo xc70 was oil cooled only. It never gave me trouble either, but is it a low pressure setup. I do not think the newer volvo engine platform is dual cooled (I could be wrong). Every car salesmen I talk to has no clue if the car they are selling has a water cooled feature.

I will say, on the new buick regal tour x wagon I was looking at, the turbo was at least on the front end of the engine compartment, in a very accessible place. I need to see if it has water lines going to it next time I check.

You got that right! :D

The op is asking about the turbo itself, not the engine. They are consumable components. While oem or garrett grade stuff is super expensive still, the market is flooded with aftermarket solutions, and most folks are having good enough luck with them.

Any turbo, even water/oil, is only as good as the treatment it gets. Low/no boost for the last few minutes before shutdown, long life.

I wouldn't worry too much about the autostop, as the vehicle usually restarts before anything as a chance to really cook.

No issues so far
 

2007 911 turbo with over 50k miles and 2016 Macan Turbo with over 70k miles and no issues, and the start/stop function hasn't seemed to create any issues so far.

It depends on the motor and the turbo. For example; an early Saab 9-5 turbo 2.3l engine came with either a Garret or a Mitsubishi turbo.....the Garrets were problematic whereas the TD04 seemed to last forever.....the engine lasted a long time regardless of the turbo.

I have and still own an 05 VW GTI with the 1.8 L AWP engine bought new. It currently has 161,000+ miles on it with stock turbo, a Revo Stage 1 tune, bigger intercooler and turboback exhaust as well as other minor mods. Car still has original turbo with 11k mile oil changes. Recent dyno showed 189 HP and 240 lbft torque at the wheels. Other than normal maintenance and 1 timing belt change, no other issues.