Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days

[TooMany2cvs]

Red 4 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

If only turbos had been used on commercial vehicles, doing very high mileages, for decades. Then, perhaps, this myth would have been put to bed by now...

Yeah. Good comparison.

A Scania is a very different animal to a Subaru.

So perhaps the delicacy is through engineering quality and level of tune - and, of course, usage style - rather than something inherent in turbocharging?

I mean, it's not as if turbocharged Saabs were reliable for several hundred thousand miles back in the 1980s...

[kambites]

Red 4 said:

The general concensus has always been that turbos/ turbocharged cars are not as reliable as normally aspirated cars.

Just because it's the general consensus doesn't mean that it's true. There's certainly significant statistical evidence that modern cars continue to get more and more reliable in mechanical terms so a typical (turbocharged) engine today is more reliable than a typical (naturally aspirated) engine of ten years ago. I don't know how something like an Ecoboost compares to something like a Skyactive.

There have been individual examples of unreliable turbocharged engines, but then there's been individual examples of unreliable naturally aspirated ones too.

Edited by kambites on Monday 22 January 11:59

[TobyLerone]

Assuming everything else is equal - something with 2 parts has twice as many points of failure than 1 part.

Turbos and superchargers are extra bits. Not inherently unreliable, but they add to the complexity, and present more, and unique failure modes over NA.

[Ares]

Red 4 said:

Ares said:

Not quite sure how old you are, but when I was a kid, cars needed servicing and fresh oil even 6-10,000 miles and went wrong so often, people did their own mechanics. Nowadays, cars go for 20,000 miles between oil changes, 35,000 miles between full services and if a car goes wrong in its first 5yrs its a surprise such is how unusual it is.

I'm old enough to have enjoyed the mechanical marvel that was the Ford Pinto engine (on twin 40s).

20,000 miles is too long between oil changes regardless of what manufacturers say.
I just couldn't live with myself if I did that - especially if it was a turbocharged car.

I don't understand why people are comparing these new 1.0 3 pot turbo engines to cars from the 70s/80s/90s.
The comparison should be made to normally aspirated modern engines.

No it shouldn't. The comparison should be (and the argument was) what powers the average family car now.

[Rawwr]

TobyLerone said:

Assuming everything else is equal - something with 2 parts has twice as many points of failure than 1 part.

Turbos and superchargers are extra bits. Not inherently unreliable, but they add to the complexity, and present more, and unique failure modes over NA.

I propose we get rid of camshafts to increase reliability.

[Mr2Mike]

Red 4 said:

You're lucky.

The general concensus has always been that turbos/ turbocharged cars are not as reliable as normally aspirated cars.

Yes it used to be, many years back. You need to drag yourself out of the last century.

Rawwr said:

I propose we get rid of camshafts to increase reliability.

Agreed, two stroke is the way to go. Wartburgs and Trabants for everyone

Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 22 January 12:12

[TobyLerone]

Rawwr said:

TobyLerone said:

Assuming everything else is equal - something with 2 parts has twice as many points of failure than 1 part.

Turbos and superchargers are extra bits. Not inherently unreliable, but they add to the complexity, and present more, and unique failure modes over NA.

I propose we get rid of camshafts to increase reliability.

And how do you propose to control the valves?

[Rawwr]

TobyLerone said:

And how do you propose to control the valves?

We don't. We're getting rid of the valves, too. Streamlining.

[kambites]

TobyLerone said:

And how do you propose to control the valves?

Who needs poppet valves, lets go back to two-strokes.

[Rawwr]

In fact, I've just finished the render of my new engine design. It's 100% reliable with 0% chance of failure:

[Red 4]

Mr2Mike said:

Red 4 said:

You're lucky.

The general concensus has always been that turbos/ turbocharged cars are not as reliable as normally aspirated cars.

Yes it used to be, many years back. You need to drag yourself out of the last century.

Rawwr said:

I propose we get rid of camshafts to increase reliability.

Agreed, two stroke is the way to go. Wartburgs and Trabants for everyone

Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 22 January 12:12

I am very current, thanks.

I've even got a smart tv, one of these new fangled mobile phone thingies and a wireless printer that works by witchcraft (I think). Next on my list is a wireless doorbell.

Anyhoo .....

What would you rather have ?

Mazda 3 petrol engine - 2.0 N/A 4 cylinder 120 BHP.

Ford Mondeo petrol engine - 1.0 turbo 3 cylinder 125 BHP.

Forget build quality, etc - just the dynamics/ probable reliability due to design/ etc. etc.etc.

[Rich Boy Spanner]

kambites said:

TheAngryDog said:

volvos60s60 said:

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but no matter how you slice it, there ain't no substitute for cubes.....

Yep, certainly old fashioned. As a fellow V8 owner (onto my 3rd, though first supercharged one) your no substitute for cubes is very out dated

For someone who treats cars as much as a hobby as a means of transport, that's not a bad thing though.

Small capacity boosted engines are, as far as I can see, simply better for those who treat their cars solely as a means of getting from A to B. The problem is that there's so few people who treat cars any other way that any other sort of engine is becoming non-viable to develop for the European market.

It's a shame really. From my own experience and that of friends, people no longer care about cars because they find driving such a miserable experience. Personally I spend most time in traffic, stationary or otherwise very busy, and on knackered potholed roads where looking out of the windscreen is like watching a movie of 'the world's worst drivers'. I've had a Skoda Octavia 2.0TDi for 3 years/58,000 miles (company car) and have no idea how fast it can accelerate or corner, because there is never any opportunity to do so. I've gone from driving for the hell of it, to avoiding driving at all and that reflects in choice of cars as I am not willing to pump any significant money into one.
As for small boosted engines, it depends... Once had a VW Polo with the 1.4TDi and that was great. I have also had a small (not sure specifically which) petrol turbo in a Skoda Rapid courtesy car and it was awful, had two states, either no power off boost, or frantic on it and a wafer thin transition between them. Very difficult to drive smoothly, I'm sure you'd learn too over time if you were stuck with it of course.

[TooMany2cvs]

Rich Boy Spanner said:

It's a shame really. From my own experience and that of friends, people no longer care about cars because they find driving such a miserable experience. Personally I spend most time in traffic, stationary or otherwise very busy, and on knackered potholed roads where looking out of the windscreen is like watching a movie of 'the world's worst drivers'. I've had a Skoda Octavia 2.0TDi for 3 years/58,000 miles (company car) and have no idea how fast it can accelerate or corner, because there is never any opportunity to do so. I've gone from driving for the hell of it, to avoiding driving at all and that reflects in choice of cars as I am not willing to pump any significant money into one.

Yet your profile says you live in Manchester, within easy reach of plenty of wonderful very-low-traffic roads.

[TobyLerone]

Rawwr said:

In fact, I've just finished the render of my new engine design. It's 100% reliable with 0% chance of failure:

So how does it produce power, and then how do you get that power to propel you with an acceleration you can very precisely control?

[TooMany2cvs]

TobyLerone said:

Rawwr said:

In fact, I've just finished the render of my new engine design. It's 100% reliable with 0% chance of failure:

So how does it produce power, and then how do you get that power to propel you with an acceleration you can very precisely control?

"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

[gavsdavs]

Car-Matt said:

I think something like the new fiesta ST engine, ie a blown low capacity triple is way way more characterful than a 2.0 in-line 4 or n/a v6 etc

The fact it’s probably twice as clean and more reliable and economical with more torque is just a bonus

I suspect you haven't been in many n/a v6's then. Though 'character' is *very* subjective, i'd say a turbocharged three has less than half the 'character' of an n/a V6.

[ecsrobin]

TobyLerone said:

Rawwr said:

In fact, I've just finished the render of my new engine design. It's 100% reliable with 0% chance of failure:

So how does it produce power, and then how do you get that power to propel you with an acceleration you can very precisely control?

The question you should be asking is how do you limit the amount of moving parts on a vehicle past the engine, the wheels are surely the biggest point of failure with this newly designed engine?

[AppleJuice]

classicyanktanks said:

imagine if you spent a medium amount of tweaks? be faster than a speeding bullet

No match for a 335d though (remapped)... I hear they can rip a hole in time such is their performance.

[Red 4]

TooMany2cvs said:

"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

wankel.

Derived from the crash at Roswell in 1947.

True that.

Edited by Red 4 on Monday 22 January 16:30

[M1C]

I'm on both sides. But probably more towards the downsizing thing.

There's something great about zooming about in our 107 with the 3pot engine vrooming away.

BUT!

I did also one briefly have a Jeeeaaaaaagggggg S Type 3.0 auto...and the feeling of burbling along with a big bit of engine just in the backround in 'reserve' was very nice. Quite wasteful....but nice!