Should I consider a Turbo for my next car?

[copyright1997reloaded]

I have a first year eco boost that is 7 years on the road with 95k miles. No engine issues whatsoever, at least thus far. About 1 in every 6 miles or so is spent towing a 3500 pound trailer or hauling a heavy load. Power is there in spades. The truck (F150) also does not lose power at high elevations. Fully loaded with the trailer and no sweat over Wolf Creek Pass.

I have a 2015 version of the same truck. The Ecoboost is a BEAST.

One thing I should've added is that I live on the back side of a mountain. 99% of the time when I leave my house I climb 600' in 2 miles. Anytime I drive off the mountain, on the return I climb over 2000' in about 6 miles, most of it in 3 miles. So the turbo will probably be running for longer than it would for most people pulling out onto roads and merging onto interstates. Of course when I go downhill it will be off, as well as at steady speeds on flats (I assume). I just don't want to have to baby a 4 cyl crossover (like the Subaru Ascent, which is larger than the Forester or Outback) up a hill to save the engine. I don't know how much of a factor that is.

I bought the turbo version of my truck (vs the naturally aspirated V8) precisely because of its better torque for hills.

Here's a test of the 2018 version:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=f150+ecob...v136-5a_&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=_z4isefQedA

and an older test:

One thing about the Eco Boost: You can have 'eco' or your can have 'boost', but not both at the same time. In the 1st video they got something like 4 MPG when pulling the (heavy) trailer up the Colorado mountain. In my personal experience, with 33K miles on my 2015 F150, I have a lifetime to date mileage of 20.5 MPG on this vehicle. That is: with my 5,000# plus truck, plus weight in the back in winter plus use of snow tires, plus occasionally hauling a full loads of wood, plus occasionally pulling my L series Kubota on a 20' trailer truck. All of this on mostly regular 87 octane gas. (I do put 91 Ethanol free in it sometimes, especially if I am going to be towing - higher octane gas is recommended if you are going to tow heavy).

 

[youbet]

One thing I should've added is that I live on the back side of a mountain. 99% of the time when I leave my house I climb 600' in 2 miles. Anytime I drive off the mountain, on the return I climb over 2000' in about 6 miles, most of it in 3 miles. So the turbo will probably be running for longer than it would for most people pulling out onto roads and merging onto interstates. Of course when I go downhill it will be off, as well as at steady speeds on flats (I assume). I just don't want to have to baby a 4 cyl crossover (like the Subaru Ascent, which is larger than the Forester or Outback) up a hill to save the engine. I don't know how much of a factor that is.

This has been a great thread!

I'm also looking at the Subaru Ascent. My 1999 F150 has been stellar as a RV tow vehicle and fishing trip gear hauler for many years. It's a standard cab, short bed, small block V8 with 5 speed manual transmission model. Reliability has been superb. In 19 years, the only pita service it has needed was getting new spark plugs at 100k miles. Otherwise, oil changes, fluid changes, new brakes, new tires, new filters and drive on!

We're looking to replace it sometime in the next couple of years with a vehicle more friendly as a daily driver here in an urban area and want the new vehicle to double as our RV tow vehicle as well. I'd estimate 80% highway towing and 20% urban driving. I've been doing a deep dive into the Ascent's towing capabilities and how to order one to get the max 5k lb tow rating (plenty for our little camper) and have it be plug and play jout of the factory as far as trailer harness wiring, hitch, etc.

But I've now noticed the Ascent is only available with the 4 cyl turbo engine and initially this is concerning me. It looks like the HP would be fine, my concern is strictly reliability, serviceability and longevity.

Generally, comments on smaller displacement, TC engines replacing larger displacement non-TC engines have been positive in this thread. But I'm still wondering, for a vehicle which will be used to tow extensively and which will often be in remote (no Subaru dealers nearby!) areas, would I be better off going with a vehicle with a larger displacement, non-TC set-up?

 

[JoeWras]

One thing I should've added is that I live on the back side of a mountain. 99% of the time when I leave my house I climb 600' in 2 miles. Anytime I drive off the mountain, on the return I climb over 2000' in about 6 miles, most of it in 3 miles. So the turbo will probably be running for longer than it would for most people pulling out onto roads and merging onto interstates. Of course when I go downhill it will be off, as well as at steady speeds on flats (I assume). I just don't want to have to baby a 4 cyl crossover (like the Subaru Ascent, which is larger than the Forester or Outback) up a hill to save the engine. I don't know how much of a factor that is.

Conundrum for the Subbie. If I lived in such a place, I'd want AWD, and Subaru does it well. We don't get much snow in the Peidmont, but when we do, I forget I have AWD. I'm like: "What's everyone's problem here?" Oh yeah, forgot about the AWD.

I'm not ready for a new car, but I am wondering about turbos, so I am following this thread.

 

[Texas Proud]

One thing that I will point out to all the people who say they do not have any problems with their turbo is that it is specific kind of driving that causes the most problems...


IOW, it is using the turbo a lot and then turning off the car... so if you are heavy footed and get that turbo spinning up often it can be going over 100,000 RPM (FWIR).... and it is also hot... and it keeps spinning...


So, no new oil to cool it off as it spins down means that there is excess wear on the turbo which can lead to oil leaks...




Did a quick look... saw one site that said RPM of turbo can be 60K to 270K....

 

[youbet]

One thing that I will point out to all the people who say they do not have any problems with their turbo is that it is specific kind of driving that causes the most problems...

Yes. That's what prompted the question in my post just above.

What about for my circumstances where the vehicle will normally either be towing or doing stop-and-go urban driving? Likely won't see many miles just cruisin' the highways........

I've found a forum which specifically speaks to the Ascent as a tow vehicle. Most of the discussion is about how to order it, what towing features it includes, etc. Because the Ascent is new, no discussion concerning reliability, longevity, serviceability, etc., of the TC 4 cyl engine when used frequently to tow.

 

[Ronstar]

I have an F150 6 cylinder ecoboost that is turbocharged and it gets about 5mpg more than my previous 8 cylinder f150. I don’t notice any difference in power. I would say yes - consider a turbo.

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

One thing that I will point out to all the people who say they do not have any problems with their turbo is that it is specific kind of driving that causes the most problems...


IOW, it is using the turbo a lot and then turning off the car... so if you are heavy footed and get that turbo spinning up often it can be going over 100,000 RPM (FWIR).... and it is also hot... and it keeps spinning...


So, no new oil to cool it off as it spins down means that there is excess wear on the turbo which can lead to oil leaks...




Did a quick look... saw one site that said RPM of turbo can be 60K to 270K....

This might be vehicle specific. I have no special instructions for my truck in terms of needing to let it 'cool down'. It uses both oil and coolant to cool the turbos. About all I've noticed is that when I pull into a spot and shut the truck off, the radiator fan (and thus the coolant system) might run for a minute (or two) if the engine had been working hard. As was said once in a debate (sort of), this isn't the 80's calling. (Using synth-blend or synthetic oil also helps.)

The following is a single data point, but interesting none the less:

https://jalopnik.com/heres-how-a-ford-f-150-ecoboost-held-up-after-200-000-m-1790602670

 

[ncbill]

Yes. That's what prompted the question in my post just above.

What about for my circumstances where the vehicle will normally either be towing or doing stop-and-go urban driving? Likely won't see many miles just cruisin' the highways........

I've found a forum which specifically speaks to the Ascent as a tow vehicle. Most of the discussion is about how to order it, what towing features it includes, etc. Because the Ascent is new, no discussion concerning reliability, longevity, serviceability, etc., of the TC 4 cyl engine when used frequently to tow.

Might want to buy the OEM extended warranty, at least the lower-priced version that covers the powertrain:

https://www.planetsubaru.com/added-security-extended-warranty.htm

 

[Masquernom]

They have done a lot of work to reduce turbo lag. Here's one way, twin scroll turbos;

A twin-scroll turbo effectively brings together twin-turbocharging into one neat package. Using two inlets for the exhaust gases instead of the conventional single inlet, this form of turbo is designed to operate at small and high exhaust gas flow rates, reducing the effects of turbo lag.
The first inlet to the turbocharger is designed for lower engine speeds where exhaust gas flow rate is low and is therefore small in diameter. This will maximise pressure on the impeller blades where most conventional turbos would be struggling to spool. The second inlet is consequently larger in size to deal with a high flow rate of exhaust gases.

Modern turbo chargers are as reliable as any other auto component.


If you want to worry about engines, consider the Audi engine sludge problems, the Honda 1.5 Liter gas leak into oil problems, etc....


Turbos are the least of my worries on modern cars.

 

[RunningBum]

They have done a lot of work to reduce turbo lag. Here's one way, twin scroll turbos;

...

Lag is the least of my worries about turbos.

Modern turbo chargers are as reliable as any other auto component.

If you want to worry about engines, consider the Audi engine sludge problems, the Honda 1.5 Liter gas leak into oil problems, etc....

Turbos are the least of my worries on modern cars.

Hmm, those two examples happen to be turbos. Not an important factor, or were they trying to squeeze too much out of a small engine? That's part of my concern. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, the problems with turbos themselves are a thing of the past, but car makers might be relying too much on turbo to make a very small engine work on a not very small car.

 

[REWahoo]

RB, it's clear you have lingering concerns about the reliability of turbocharged engines, so why not play it safe and avoid them? Any time you have the opportunity to avoid a worry, take it.

 

[Tetto]

Lag is the least of my worries about turbos.



Hmm, those two examples happen to be turbos. Not an important factor, or were they trying to squeeze too much out of a small engine? That's part of my concern. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, the problems with turbos themselves are a thing of the past, but car makers might be relying too much on turbo to make a very small engine work on a not very small car.

You’re exactly correct. When you try to substitute displacement, it never ends well long term (there’s no replacement for displacement). Especially with the manufacturers squeezing as much efficiency out of the engines as they can. Ring tension decrease, twin chargers, higher compression ratios, higher rpm limits...all of these can decrease the life of an engine drastically, even when “designed” for it. Most folks bury their foot on the right pedal and as a result, the vehicle sees maximum conditions almost all the time.

 

[RunningBum]

RB, it's clear you have lingering concerns about the reliability of turbocharged engines, so why not play it safe and avoid them? Any time you have the opportunity to avoid a worry, take it.

Just gathering opinions to see if my concerns are unfounded. In the past, avoiding them was pretty easy, as almost every model seemed to have non-turbo options. I'm starting to see a trend where some only have turbos though. The Ascent is the first I've been faced with what might be my top choice offered only with turbo.

The posts here have been generally reassuring, though if I suddenly had to replace my Forester tomorrow due to a crash, it'd probably be another Forester. If it were due to a severe mechanical issue, I might be avoiding Subaru in general.

 

[REWahoo]

The posts here have been generally reassuring,...

One more data point to support that reassurance. Consumer Reports tracks 17 "trouble spots" when they do their annual reliability survey. Turbocharger issues fall under the "Engine, Major" category which over the past eight years has consistently been the least trouble prone of the 17, averaging less than 1%. Compare that to the most problematic, "In-car Electronics", which is at 3%.

Of course you can always get a lemon.

EDIT: With the growing number of turbocharged engines you'd expect reliability issues to show up in those year over year numbers if there was a problem. That hasn't happened, at least not over the last 8 years.

 

[ERD50]

OP may want to watch out for Direct Injection also. It is newer, so less data and less proven over time, but there have been problems - fuel dilution on the Honda (there is a thread on that - engine also has turbo, maybe a combination problem as mentioned earlier), and crud on intake valves (the gas/detergents/additives no longer touch the intake valve with DI).

Some Direct Injection engines also have a port injector to address the issue.

-ERD50

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

OP may want to watch out for Direct Injection also. It is newer, so less data and less proven over time, but there have been problems - fuel dilution on the Honda (there is a thread on that - engine also has turbo, maybe a combination problem as mentioned earlier), and crud on intake valves (the gas/detergents/additives no longer touch the intake valve with DI).

Some Direct Injection engines also have a port injector to address the issue.

-ERD50

Before reading to the end, I was going to post this same thing.

Turbo's are here in increasing numbers because they represent a way to get increased fuel economy (at least for testing purposes w/o a lot of boost) while still satisfying our desire for 'oomph'.

I was very hesitant when first researching truck choices in 2015, and was naturally inclined to go old school and get the V-8 (like I have in my 94 Camaro and in my previous Chevy Silverado). However, after spending many hours reading about it I went w/the Eco-boost (at an additional cost OVER the V-8) because of its torque profile and secondarily better gas mileage and what seemed like [knock on wood] reasonable experiences of others.]

 

[eytonxav]

If properly designed and tuned, I see no problem with turbo or bi-turbo powered engines. DI has pros/cons, but I would really like to see more manufacturers combine it with port injection, as coking on the valves will eventually require maintenance to restore performance after high miles. GM's new LT5 engine is supercharged and comes with DI/port injection.

 

[Aerides]

My last Acura had a turbo+4 cyl engine like mentioned in the OP. This was for the smaller SUV, the RDX. I put well over 140k miles on it in 10 years, never any issues w/engine (woulda kept the car but the paint didn't hold up). I liked the pickup from the turbo, never felt any lag as described.

 

[Z3Dreamer]

2018 or 2019 Honda Civic Si Coupe (not the sedan and not just the plain old Civic) in Modern Steel Metallic. It only comes with manual transmission and a 4 cylinder turbo-charged engine. Saw one in town a few months ago. It is one of the sexier cars on the road. Cost is mid-$20s.

There is a faster version in the R series, but it is $37,000.

Of course, I still own my 2003 Subaru Legacy and 2002 BMW Z3.

 

[KrissK]

I generally buy relatively inexpensive cars and I've never been interested in a lot of "bells and whistles." With that being said - TURBO IS FUN...and it would be hard to do without. I've had ZERO mechanical issues with my last 2 vehicles - both turbo charged.

 

[kite_rider]

I think turbo technology mated with a smaller displacement engine is here to stay; at least until we go all electric. My current car - a 2018 GMC Terrain - has a 1.6L Turbo Diesel. That's a tiny engine by historic standards, but it powers this crossover well enough for my tastes while getting great fuel efficiency. The base engine is a 1.5L Turbo charged gasoline engine that also seems ridiculously small for this car, but it seems to work OK for many.

Regarding Subaru, I was loyal customer buying a long line of their cars until I bought a 2007 Outback XT (Turbo Charged 2.4L boxer style 4 cylinder engine). The reliability has been great (with all of the turbo cars I've owned) and my mom is still driving this Outback XT and loves it. My gripe with the turbo is the fuel economy. This Subaru was the least fuel efficient of all the Outbacks I'd owned, even my previous 3.6L 6 cylinder Outback.

So if you have a heavy foot (like I guess I do) the turbo is fun, but it will cost you.

 

[zippy2020]

I don't know why but where I live there is a greater premium for premium than most other areas according to Gasbuddy. Right now there is approx. a 85 cent difference. When gas prices where higher a few years ago the difference was over a dollar. Let's say you keep you car for 100,000 miles and get 25mpg. That 4,000 gallons at a cost of around $4000 extra for premium fuel. That's a lot for me. As you acknowledged, my budget is 1/3 or less of most people on here so that $4000 is a bigger deal to me than most but is not small for anyone IMO.

Holy cow, that is a BIG difference. Out here in Northern CA the difference is exactly 20 cents!

 

[zippy2020]

We bought a 2017 Ford Edge Sport with the 2.7-liter twin-turbo V-6 (rated at 315 hp). I, too, was nervous about buying a turbo and did as much research as I could - it helps that this engine is also used on the F150 and other models.

Interestingly, one reviewer on another site was a Ford mechanic who said the Ecoboost twin-turbo engine for the trucks and SUVs is designed for heavy use. He said when they see problems arise it's for the "little old ladies who only drive on Sundays to church"; e.g., the SUV gets driven 10 min down the road and then back, but never gets a long trip anywhere.

That kind of short-trip/little usage can mess up any car, but he said for a twin-turbo engine it's particularly hard. He recommended using the "high stress" maintenance schedule for cars that get driven less than 6K/yr.

We're retired, so we only put about 11K/yr on the Edge Sport. But we use it for our driving trips, which we take 8-9x/yr. I have a "lead foot" and our previous cars just did not have enough oomph for my taste. We live in a hilly area and ALL our freeway entrances are 90-degree right turns which then go uphill to merge.

The Edge Sport has both regular 6-speed auto and Sport shifting. Sport sucks the gas down but the all-important Fun Factor is totally worth it, LOL.

Using regular is a 10% hit on power. Since I bought the Sport model for its power, and premium isn't a big differential here (aaronc879's post was jaw-dropping!), I don't have any problem using premium.