bobk@labjss.UUCP (bobk) (08/28/85)
I recently read a technical correspondance letter in Road and Track which
discussed the longevity of turbos (I DO mean the ones on engines :-) ).
The essence of the story was that a Volvo owner (turbo sedan) noticed
blue smoke from the exhaust at 40,000 miles, went to the dealer, who
slapped him with a $750 bill for a new turbo.
Road and Track asked a Volvo rep what the deal was here and the answer is...
Turbos should be EXPECTED to wear out at about 40-60,000 miles. The
bearing is under tremendous stress, hundreds of thousands of RPMs and
over 1000 degrees and will wear out.
The questions are:
1. Have owners of turbo cars on the net logged enough miles to have
their turbos replaced? when did it happen?
2. Anybody gone past 50,000 miles yet?
The Volvo rep goes on to say that the carmakers should, but have not,
made this (almost certain) repair known to potential buyers.
3. Were you made aware that the turbo would fail (even under 2,000 mile
oil changes) ?
I ask these questions because it's new car buying time in the Kunz
houshold and turbos are a potential candidate.
I await your responses...
Bob Kunz
{hplabs!hp-pcd, uw-beaver!fluke}!hplsla!bobkjosie@poseidon.UUCP (Jack Gross) (08/28/85)
>I recently read a technical correspondance letter in Road and Track which >discussed the longevity of turbos (I DO mean the ones on engines :-) ). > >The essence of the story was that a Volvo owner (turbo sedan) noticed >blue smoke from the exhaust at 40,000 miles, went to the dealer, who >slapped him with a $750 bill for a new turbo. > >Road and Track asked a Volvo rep what the deal was here and the answer is... >Turbos should be EXPECTED to wear out at about 40-60,000 miles. The >bearing is under tremendous stress, hundreds of thousands of RPMs and >over 1000 degrees and will wear out. > >The questions are: > >1. Have owners of turbo cars on the net logged enough miles to have > their turbos replaced? when did it happen? > >2. Anybody gone past 50,000 miles yet? > >The Volvo rep goes on to say that the carmakers should, but have not, >made this (almost certain) repair known to potential buyers. > >3. Were you made aware that the turbo would fail (even under 2,000 mile > oil changes) ? > > >I ask these questions because it's new car buying time in the Kunz >houshold and turbos are a potential candidate. > >I await your responses... > >Bob Kunz >{hplabs!hp-pcd, uw-beaver!fluke}!hplsla!bobk Your questions are legimate, but there a little off. If you are interested in the longevity of a turbo, dont ask about Volvos. First of all who says that Volvos represent the state of the art in automobile technology ? And even if they do you should not base your opinions about a device on one manufacturers product. In my opinion Volvos are over rated junk. I don't have statistical date to back me up, but a quick glance at most Volvos from the 70's are rusted out on the front fenders and some on the rear quarter panel as well. I have also been left in a cloud of smoke from many a non-turbo Volvo leaving a trail of burnt oil in it's path. For the life of me I don't know what makes them a status symbol. GM also claims that turbos are not the answer to performance in the future. Could it be because they have not had much success with them ? Mercedes turbo-diesels don't seem to have any problems while GM can't even build a plain jane diesel that will last very long. I have not heard of Chrysler having problems with turbos, could it be because they have people working for them that know what they are doing. Water cooling is one way to keep the turbo cool and others are now following Chryslers lead to mass produce cars with water cooled turbos. I don't feel that a turbo is for just anyone. It does need more TLC then a conventionally aspirated engine, but don't knock all of them for the failings of some of them ! Jack Gross
saltiel@cdstar.UUCP (Jack Saltiel) (08/29/85)
In article <4700007@labjss.UUCP>, bobk@labjss.UUCP (bobk) writes: > I recently read a technical correspondance letter in Road and Track which > discussed the longevity of turbos (I DO mean the ones on engines :-) ). > > 1. Have owners of turbo cars on the net logged enough miles to have > their turbos replaced? when did it happen? > > 2. Anybody gone past 50,000 miles yet? > > 3. Were you made aware that the turbo would fail (even under 2,000 mile > oil changes) ? First of all, the guy got taken. The turbo is considered by the EPA to be an integral emmission control element in the engine's exhaust system. As such, the US Government mandates that all manufacturer's warrant them for 5 years or 50000 miles. Some dealers have been known to charge for them because the owners are not well enough informed to speak up. ( I know a fellow who went through 3 turbos on a SAAB before 50000 miles, but that's another story altogether.) I have owned various turbo powered cars and continue to own them. There is absolutely no reason to expect turbos to *need* replacement at 40000 miles, regardless of maintenance. Generally, a well maintained turbo will last more than twice that, however, it is very easy to reduce the life of a turbocharger. ( More about that later.) My last SAAB turbo had 60K miles on it when I sold it and the turbo was as fresh and strong as the day it was new. If the bearings are wearing, or the turbine blades are melting, you loose engine responsiveness very quickly, as well as eventually generating blue smoke. I did replace a turbo, a few years back, on a 1980 924 turbo Porsche. However, Porsche acknowledged that they had a bad design on the impeller shaft seal, which was subsequently fixed in the 1981 design. They placed a 1981 turbo in, and I had no further problems. Of course the care never saw 20000 miles in my care. However, the current owner has not had to replace the turbo, and he's got about 50000 accumulated miles on the motor. I have run a 924 GT Turbo Carrera (a limited production race car, in street form) for about 50000 miles. Now here is a car that was designed to push its components to the limits. The turbo is absolutlely trouble free for me. (I replaced a blown head gasket, and many other things, as a consequence of my racing, but the turbo is just dandy.) The car was built late in 1980. Proper operation and maintenance is the key. Operation: Two points here. First let the *oil* warm up before you mash the gas. If the oil ain't warm, it won't flow, and the turbo impeller won't be lubricated right. Second, When the engine has been running at high revs, don't shut the motor off without allowing it to cool down some. If you shut it off after running it at 5OOO RPM for a couple of minutes, the turbo keeps spinning. But with the motor stopped, the oil pump stops and no oil gets to the impeller shaft. It burns up! This is *very* important. Maintenance: Simple. Lots of oil changes. 600F heat in the turbo, wears oil down pretty quick. SAAB says 5000 between oil changes, as opposed to 7500 for non-turbo cars. I double this and do it every 2500 miles. It's cheap! With regards to the Volvo dealer comments. When I bought my last SAAB, a 1985 Turbo, the dealer spent a lot of time providing "new owner orientation" for me. (More than I've ever received for any car I've ever purchased.) He spent a lot of time talking about the warm up/cool down considerations. When I asked why, he said, "we've had to replace a number of turbos that were blown due to owner misuse.(They determine this by finding melted turbine blades when they brake them down.) Saab has been good about this in the past, but we are not obligated to replace turbos under warranty if owner misuse was the cause of the premature failure." I'm sure Volvo has seen a lot also, and their 40000 mile scare is probably designed to lower people's expectations, so that when it goes at 60k or 50k or 40k, for whatever reason, they don't have a bird (and will pay their service bill!) Turbos provide a way to get extra power economically. But they must be treated somewhat differently than a Chevy V8, which will normally run forever, if you add a quart of Cheapo oil every time the oil light comes on! Whew... -- Jack Saltiel Cambridge Digital Systems {wjh12,talcott}!cdstar!saltiel "Nailed retreads to my feet and prayed for better weather."
bobp@petfe.UUCP (Bob Philhower) (08/29/85)
<<>> I purchased an '84 Mitsubishi Cordia Turbo in May 1984. Everything was fine until I brought it in for 15,000 mile service in January. When I got the car back, I found that the bearing was damaged (step on the gas and it sounds like a 747 taking off). The turbo was replaced under warranty (would've been >$800), but the dealer offered no explanation except "these things happen". The car has 30,000 miles now with no problems. An interesting note is that all Mitsubishi turbos in '85 are water-cooled; in '84 they were not. Turbocharged engines *do* require more care on the part of the owner, including frequent oil changes, gradual warm up and (especially) shut-down, etc. They tend to make a car more flexible in terms of driving style (power only when you need it, efficiency when you want it, blah, blah, blah). To be honest, though, I wanted a turbocharged engine because I like the feel of the "power vs. rpm" curve of these engines. Dan Masi
bobk@labjss.UUCP (bobk) (08/30/85)
> If you are interested in the longevity of a turbo, dont ask > about Volvos. First of all who says that Volvos represent the state of > the art in automobile technology ? And even if they do you should not > base your opinions about a device on one manufacturers product. > I didn't intend to imply that Volvos were the only sample point, just the only one I've heard of at all. My posting is to find out just what the current situation is on turbos in general. > For the life of me I don't know what makes them (Volvos) a status symbol. They are the next cars yuppies buy (after BMWs) when they (ughh!) start a family! :-) > ... Mercedes turbo-diesels don't seem to have any problems while > GM can't even build a plain jane diesel that will last very long. I've heard this (many friends' personal experiences) about GM diesels, although none that I'm aware of have turbos. The only one, other than Mercedes, is a Nisson turbo diesel truck (is this true?). I have come across plenty of Mercedes diesels (turbo or non-turbo) that have exhaust smoke enough to make the rear end look black. Maybe this is lack of maintenance on the owners part. Mercedes cars are not exactly cheap to keep. > I have not heard of Chrysler having problems with turbos, could > it be because they have people working for them that know what they > are doing. Water cooling is one way to keep the turbo cool and others > are now following Chryslers lead to mass produce cars with water cooled > turbos. I wonder if Chrysler's experience with Mitsubishi turbos have made them go the water cooling route. I have seen a Mits Starion ESI (intercooled) since my original posting and did notice the water cooled turbo. They also have a low mass (8 oz. -- is that mass unit slugs? so it's 1/2 slug?) turbo impeller, and so claim that turbo lag is non-existant in their design. > I don't feel that a turbo is for just anyone. It does need > more TLC then a conventionally aspirated engine, but don't knock > all of them for the failings of some of them ! > > Jack Gross I agree, the 3,000 mile oil change interval (most mfgrs) and careful start-up and shut-down require a serious car enthusiast. I do do all my own maintenance and repairs so this is a non-problem for me. I'm interested in good (no, outstanding) performance from my next car, and wonder if a turbo will cut it. bob kunz hplsla!bobk PS: one mail response I've gotten indicated that turbos on airplane engines are a serious problem. But haven't turbos been on WW II planes with no problems? (my father-in-law WW II pilot says so)
review@drutx.UUCP (MillhamBD) (08/30/85)
Chrysler does not recommend a "cool down" period for their turbos. The water cooling keep the turbo running at 300F, and the water still flows through the turbo for a while AFTER the engine is shut down. Recommended oil change is 7500 miles, with the turbo. (I change every 2000 miles) -------------------------------------------- Brian Millham AT & T Information Systems Denver, Co. ...!inhp4!drutx!review
mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing) (09/02/85)
In article <1275@poseidon.UUCP> josie@poseidon.UUCP (Jack Gross) writes: > If you are interested in the longevity of a turbo, dont ask >about Volvos. First of all who says that Volvos represent the state of >the art in automobile technology ? And even if they do you should not >base your opinions about a device on one manufacturers product. > >Mercedes turbo-diesels don't seem to have any problems while >GM can't even build a plain jane diesel that will last very long. > > I don't feel that a turbo is for just anyone. It does need >more TLC then a conventionally aspirated engine, but don't knock >all of them for the failings of some of them ! > Comparing gasoline-engine turbos to diesel-engine turbos just isn't fair. Diesel engines run much much cooler. At least on big trucks, if they're just idling, the exhaust manifold gets warm, but is still cool enough to touch with your hand. Try that on a gas-burner! They get hotter when they're pushed, of course, but still are alot cooler. Thus, any turbine running off the exhaust gasses is also going to be cooler. Mark F. Flynn Department of Physics Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130 ihnp4!wuphys!mff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark." P. Floyd
kitten@hao.UUCP (09/11/85)
> > I purchased an '84 Mitsubishi Cordia Turbo in May 1984. Everything > was fine until I brought it in for 15,000 mile service in January. > When I got the car back, I found that the bearing was damaged (step > on the gas and it sounds like a 747 taking off). The turbo was > replaced under warranty (would've been >$800), but the dealer offered > no explanation except "these things happen". Funny that this happened when you got the car back. When the rod bearing on my engine went out, they repaired it, and then said it was done, but I needed a new starter. Seems when you put in a new bearing, it's hard to start before break-in (new metal). THEY burned up the starter, instead of hand-cranking it. On top of that, they refused a rebuilt I brought in, saying it wouldn't "mesh". Needless to say, I was stuck buying their starter. Even though your work was done under warranty, I would be wary of that dealer. Ask what was done at the 15K service, and ask a third party about it. > The car has 30,000 miles now with no problems. An interesting note > is that all Mitsubishi turbos in '85 are water-cooled; in '84 they > were not. As I am planning to get my first new car, a Turbo Lancer or LeBaron GTS, I am curious to know two things: 1) Do these models have the water- cooled turbo (as does their Japanese partners) and 2) Does anyone have any experience (especially longish term) with water-cooled turbos? > Turbocharged engines *do* require more care on the part of the owner, > including frequent oil changes, gradual warm up and (especially) > shut-down, etc. They tend to make a car more flexible in terms of > driving style (power only when you need it, efficiency when you > want it, blah, blah, blah). To be honest, though, I wanted a > turbocharged engine because I like the feel of the "power vs. rpm" > curve of these engines. Just what I'm looking for...but after reading some of these articles, I'm not sure. Answers to the water-cool turbo question would be *quite* helpful. Thanx in advance. {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!kitten CSNET: kitten@NCAR ARPA: kitten%ncar@CSNET-RELAY