GM’s new turbocharged I-4 “truck motor”

[Aspencreek]

Originally Posted by ol guy

I hate to be the one spending my money on these automakers experiments .
Just how many different engines have been put in vehicles over the past 10 years . Its crazy. Too much doo dads and plumbing on these new tucks , Simple is good some times.
The time a guy buys a first Gen turbo 4 cylinder it will have been tweaked twice in 3 years and then kick out of the way for a new engine design

You think like I do. All these changes every year to fix a problem that should have been erased before it hit the market. Too many of these vehicles are raced to production it seems, not enough real world testing, working out the blips, and way to much cutting corners on stuff that matters. I find it interesting that every year Ford, GM, and for it's part Ram have to make wholesale changes while Toyota and Nissan have the same engine and drivetrain for years, only making tweaks to them to make them better. Is it OLD technology, yes, but so what, the new engines have these new problems that certainly do not make it a better vehicle. And then we get the, well GM and Ford outsell Toyota and Nissan, again.....so what, all that tells me is that those Ford and GM fanboys have never took the time to look, sit in or even test drive one. And Toyota and Nissan sells as many as they want too. Reliability of these vehicles should be the top priority, not a race to beat each others towing and MPG numbers (and those are a joke too, pulling something with that ecoboost or even using the boost portion gets you worse mileage than the V8. Again, so what if it can pull the Queen Mary but only get 12-14mpg doing it).

[DW]

Originally Posted by Fozzbear

These toy sized engines in these trucks may put out the horsepower but the big question is the durability and the cost to maintain them as compared to the larger displacement non boosted engines with the comparable amount of miles. I'm pretty confident that they will be significantly more expensive to maintain and after 100,000 miles of heavier use they will be getting tired compared to there counterparts with larger displacement engines. Don't try to say that the fuel economy will offset the difference because the math does not support that argument either.

That’s old school thinking. That thinking will cause one to expect engine failures at the stress points such as the crank, bearings, pistons, etc. Now that there is a 10 million laboratory of EcoBoosts on the road, and many others, running for a decade and racking up big miles, there doesn’t seem to be a trend. I argue that the most finicky part of modern engines, turbo or not, are the multi valve, overhead cams and the associated complexity and hardware required. This isn’t a turbo issue. The turbos themselves are holding up well particularly as they became water cooled. The internal pressures of a gas turbocharged engine are a fraction of that of a modern diesel which are renown for longevity. The valve carbon buildup concern is completely gone with a combination of valve timing strategy, but more importantly, added port injection to direct injection. I read the forums and don’t see it. If you have a more accurate source of reliability data lay it on us. By the way, the last 4 vehicles I bought are turbocharged so I practice what I preach.

[Aspencreek]

Originally Posted by DW

That’s old school thinking. That thinking will cause one to expect engine failures at the stress points such as the crank, bearings, pistons, etc. Now that there is a 10 million laboratory of EcoBoosts on the road, and many others, running for a decade and racking up big miles, there doesn’t seem to be a trend. I argue that the most finicky part of modern engines, turbo or not, are the multi valve, overhead cams and the associated complexity and hardware required. This isn’t a turbo issue. The turbos themselves are holding up well particularly as they became water cooled. The internal pressures of a gas turbocharged engine are a fraction of that of a modern diesel which are renown for longevity. The valve carbon buildup concern is completely gone with a combination of valve timing strategy, but more importantly, added port injection to direct injection. I read the forums and don’t see it. If you have a more accurate source of reliability data lay it on us. By the way, the last 4 vehicles I bought are turbocharged so I practice what I preach.

Old school thinking isn't necessarily wrong thinking! You can read the forums all you want, remember each person in there has an agenda one way or another depending on the forum. During my search for a vehicle over the last year, one thing has been discovered and not because I was looking for it. Every dealership I have stopped at (over 30) and looked at vehicles have told me the same thing, everyone has had to replace or should have replaced the timing chain assembly on each of the Ecoboosts they have taken in trade if over 80,000 miles. My mechanic at a local shop told me they do at least 1 a week, even on the ones where the "fix" was done. In the greater scheme of things that may not be scientific, but for me, it's enough of a problem that doesn't seem to be going away. But you are right, it's not the turbo causing the problem, but they are really thirsty little devils.

[Custom Eyes]

Originally Posted by Aspencreek

Old school thinking isn't necessarily wrong thinking! You can read the forums all you want, remember each person in there has an agenda one way or another depending on the forum. During my search for a vehicle over the last year, one thing has been discovered and not because I was looking for it. Every dealership I have stopped at (over 30) and looked at vehicles have told me the same thing, everyone has had to replace or should have replaced the timing chain assembly on each of the Ecoboosts they have taken in trade if over 80,000 miles. My mechanic at a local shop told me they do at least 1 a week, even on the ones where the "fix" was done. In the greater scheme of things that may not be scientific, but for me, it's enough of a problem that doesn't seem to be going away. But you are right, it's not the turbo causing the problem, but they are really thirsty little devils.

The bad thing about the timing chain issue is that it can do enough damage that the engine needs replaced in some cases. From what I've read, it is a turbo issue combined with people not adhering to oil change intervals. Turbos are brutal on lubricants and wear them out quickly. Evidently, the timing chain is very susceptible to wear if not lubed properly. You'd think that the issue would have been solved though if that was the case, which lends me to believe those engines operating so often in the upper torque band is stressing the chains also, along with most other components.

[jburns]

Originally Posted by Aspencreek

You think like I do. All these changes every year to fix a problem that should have been erased before it hit the market. Too many of these vehicles are raced to production it seems, not enough real world testing, working out the blips, and way to much cutting corners on stuff that matters. I find it interesting that every year Ford, GM, and for it's part Ram have to make wholesale changes while Toyota and Nissan have the same engine and drivetrain for years, only making tweaks to them to make them better. Is it OLD technology, yes, but so what, the new engines have these new problems that certainly do not make it a better vehicle. And then we get the, well GM and Ford outsell Toyota and Nissan, again.....so what, all that tells me is that those Ford and GM fanboys have never took the time to look, sit in or even test drive one. And Toyota and Nissan sells as many as they want too. Reliability of these vehicles should be the top priority, not a race to beat each others towing and MPG numbers (and those are a joke too, pulling something with that ecoboost or even using the boost portion gets you worse mileage than the V8. Again, so what if it can pull the Queen Mary but only get 12-14mpg doing it).

Agree with some of this for sure. Way to many engine configurations coming out, overall production does seem rushed at times and feel quality is suffering as a result. I think this may eventually catch up to manufacturers like Ford. I bought new last year and did look around, Toyota ended up 3rd on my list because it's just too outdated. A crew cab tundra with 4x4 is going to get 13-17 all the time, the ecoboost gets 20 unless pulling my boat or trailer and then it's back to what my old v8 did anyways. Inside cab of tundra is also outdated compared to Ford and Ram, smaller stuff that on paper may not seem like a big deal when you go back and look you're still paying premium dollar so might as well have the smaller luxuries. By the way I thought Ram had nicer interior and better ride over Ford. Cant speak to Nissan as I didn't test drive or go look at any.
In regards to the GM turbo 4 cylinder in a full size pick up, I haven't read up on it but if the previous poster is correct in it having lower power numbers and worse mpg compared to the v8 Im not understanding who this is going to win over.

[DW]

The timing chain on the Ecoboost has been redesigned because they had a higher incidence of timing chain problems. How many engines had a quirk in the initial design that was subsequently corrected? Granted, there is basis to delay purchase of new products until the bugs are worked out.

I have two Ecoboost engines. I am amazed by the performance AND fuel economy. You won’t enjoy fuel economy if towing a heavy load at 80mph, though.

My two turbocharged vehicles happen to be ecoboost largely because Ford dominates that niche and I want turbos! If you want performance and economy it’s practically the only option. I am disappointed with the Chevy turbo 4 in that regard.

[yarcraft91]

Originally Posted by Fozzbear

These toy sized engines in these trucks may put out the horsepower but the big question is the durability and the cost to maintain them as compared to the larger displacement non boosted engines with the comparable amount of miles. I'm pretty confident that they will be significantly more expensive to maintain and after 100,000 miles of heavier use they will be getting tired compared to there counterparts with larger displacement engines. Don't try to say that the fuel economy will offset the difference because the math does not support that argument either.

Put big enough bearings in a 4 cylinder engine and it will run forever. It's not the number of cylinders, it's how the engine was designed.

[fishin10]

Just another gimmick by GM. They all ready offer the tried and true 4.3L V6, the 2.7 IMO offers nothing except "Look at Me I have a Turbo" by the driver. The 4.3 offers up to 7700lbs of towing vs 6800lbs by the 2.7. I'm looking to purchase a new P/U this coming spring and turbo I4 or turbo V6 trucks are not even in consideration.

[Fozzbear]

Originally Posted by DW

That’s old school thinking. That thinking will cause one to expect engine failures at the stress points such as the crank, bearings, pistons, etc. Now that there is a 10 million laboratory of EcoBoosts on the road, and many others, running for a decade and racking up big miles, there doesn’t seem to be a trend. I argue that the most finicky part of modern engines, turbo or not, are the multi valve, overhead cams and the associated complexity and hardware required. This isn’t a turbo issue. The turbos themselves are holding up well particularly as they became water cooled. The internal pressures of a gas turbocharged engine are a fraction of that of a modern diesel which are renown for longevity. The valve carbon buildup concern is completely gone with a combination of valve timing strategy, but more importantly, added port injection to direct injection. I read the forums and don’t see it. If you have a more accurate source of reliability data lay it on us. By the way, the last 4 vehicles I bought are turbocharged so I practice what I preach.

I'm assuming you turn your cars over every few years before you have issues or they are not worked harder than used as a grocery getter. I have not purchased 4 different vehicles total in the last 20 yrs. I'm not just saying the turbo's go to **** but they contribute to a whole host of other issues do to additional stress, heat etc... There is no way that these 2. something boosted engines are going to work and run with the big dogs for 200K+ miles without costing a small fortune in maintenance and repairs by comparison.

[RMBin303]

Sounds like there are a LOT of people on here that have never spent much time behind the wheel of a modern turbo gasoline engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk