4 ms·

Why do boomers think turbochargers are some kind of conspiracy? When I was younger my dad's friends thought my Mitsubishi Eclipse was spearheading an invasion

Why do boomers think turbochargers are some kind of conspiracy? When I was younger my dad's friends thought my Mitsubishi Eclipse was spearheading an invasion of crypto-imperial Japan, and now the "New World Order" is trying to take away their gigantic, heavy ass cast-iron engines? A turbo six Charger would still be fast enough to kill you and several bystanders. If it's superior handling and gas mileage upset you, you could always weld a couple of boat anchors to the front bumper. :)

flatiron 5y ago
In my experience they break a lot. Like a lot a lot.
- tyingq 5y ago
  It depends. The Mitsubishi 4G63T mentioned by the parent was pretty solid. Even most of the aftermarket turbos sold for it were reliable too. I've had good experiences with Volvo turbos too.
  - wcunning 5y ago
    A lot of it is how the cooling and lubrication is set up. Many turbos use engine oil lubrication and cool the bearings the same way, which can easily degrade oil additive quality prematurely, since that bearing is heated by 1000*F exhaust gases and running around 200k RPMs. Change your oil early (~5k miles, earlier than most manufacturer recommendations) and use full synthetic and they should last. Oh, and don’t run right up to the redline constantly…
  - post_from_work 5y ago
    Yeah, certain turbo powerplants are AMAZINGLY durable. The 4G63T, 1JZ-GTE, and 2JZ-GTE are all standouts: stout, overbuilt, iron-block Japanese engines. For lighter aluminum-block turbo engines, I'm a fan of the 4B11T (in my daily driver, an Evo X) and the BMW B58 (with continued development, I think it will become the greatest inline-6 of our time, this generation's 2JZ).
phamilton 5y ago
I've got a 2019 Ford Ranger with a 2.3 liter turbo 4 cylinder. 27 mpg on the highway, 0-60mph in under 6s (with a tune and premium gas), and tows 7500lbs. It's remarkable, but there's so much skepticism. Everyone else in its class is a V6 that puts out less hp, less torque, and worse gas mileage.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  That V6 is a lot cheaper up front, has a 0% chance of needing a $1500 turbo thrown at it in the mid 100k mile range and probably gets better fuel economy if you drive it with the skinny pedal on the floor all the time. You're not the target customer. People who only buy single cab 2wd trucks in white and a half dozen at a time are.
  - klipklop 5y ago
    Agreed. I have owned turbo cars and have added turbo's to cars that didn't come with them. They reduce reliability and greatly increase complexity. A bonus is higher cylinder pressure and more heat. Changes to EGT's can effect the emissions as well. IMO turbo cars are very dirty "under boost". Often turbo cars are tuned rich (more fuel) to prevent detonation. They can have great emissions just cruising around, but the second you build boost....not so much. I ran methanol/water injection to help keep things cool which was a nice solution, but not for the average person. From my research this would improve the emissions as well. I was able to run more timing advance and slightly leaner fuel ratio as a bonus. Getting a turbo rebuilt is a pain. As a 30-something boomer I avoid turbo engines if there is a large displacement option. Can you build a gas 4cyl turbo car that can hit 200,000 miles? Certainly. Can you do it at the same cost as a non-turbo v6 that can go 400,000 miles? Nope.
    - bri3d 5y ago
      > IMO turbo cars are very dirty "under boost". Often turbo cars are tuned rich (more fuel) to prevent detonation. They can have great emissions just cruising around, but the second you build boost....not so much. Most modern turbocharged cars run direct injection and high metal loading catalysts and target lambda=1 even under boost, which causes tuners' brains to melt upon seeing the factory tune. Detonation is controlled by less aggressive timing and various direct injection strategies, while high EGTs and NOx are addressed by the high precious metal loading in the cat. After an extended amount of time in full load these cars will eventually enter catalyst or turbine protection and start dropping lambda, but this is uncommon amongst daily driving conditions (even under boost). The rest is true, I agree - there is no practical way that a part which spins at 180,000rpm and pressurizes the intake manifold (introducing a ton of complexity to the PCV system, engine packaging, and everything else along the way) is going to be as reliable as a naturally aspirated engine at the same cost. But, if this comes with enough advantages to make the cost expenditure worth it, they can be made reliable.
tyingq 5y ago
>Why do boomers think turbochargers are some kind of conspiracy? Boomers grew up seeing Japan besting US cars and the subsequent job losses, etc. All following the 70's gas shortages, and so on. It probably felt like a conspiracy.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Tell me you've got no experience with 70s and 80s compact cars without telling me you've got no experience with 70s and 80s compact cars. There's a reason imports had a tin can reputation to overcome. The fuel crisis gave the Japanese brands a foot in the door. Detroit had to take languishing compact car platforms that were only available with poverty spec trims feature sets (because the target buyer was someone who's #1 priority was low cost) and bring them up to snuff with the features and comfort the average buyer wanted. Japan had those products ready to go. They weren't "beating" anything until the mid to late 80s. The boomers didn't grow up seeing Japanese cars out-compete. That didn't happen until they themselves were well into adulthood and bought a bunch of Japanese commuter cars in the late 80s and 90s. The 80s decline of Detroit was just the collective bargaining and corporate management hens coming home to roost right at the same time that environmental law was really hitting US industry hard.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    I could argue statistics, but what matters if we're talking about why people think it's a conspiracy is the perception. I was there, and that was the perception. I'm also not sure why Japan having what consumers wanted and the US car makers not having it doesn't count as "besting". GM's market share dropped faster after 1980, but it had already dropped 10% between 1964 and the early 70's. That's not nothing.
- mulmen 5y ago
  Domestic manufacturers did a really bad job rolling out turbos. Oldsmobile tried it in like 1962 with the Jetfire. Was a pretty sophisticated setup, an adaptation of aircraft technology from the previous decade, on brand for the makers of the "Rocket". Unfortunately ethanol injection was too much for US consumers to keep up with and meltdowns of the aluminum blocks was common. Most of the fleet had the turbos removed.

flatiron 5y ago

In my experience they break a lot. Like a lot a lot.

tyingq 5y ago
It depends. The Mitsubishi 4G63T mentioned by the parent was pretty solid. Even most of the aftermarket turbos sold for it were reliable too. I've had good experiences with Volvo turbos too.
- wcunning 5y ago
  A lot of it is how the cooling and lubrication is set up. Many turbos use engine oil lubrication and cool the bearings the same way, which can easily degrade oil additive quality prematurely, since that bearing is heated by 1000*F exhaust gases and running around 200k RPMs. Change your oil early (~5k miles, earlier than most manufacturer recommendations) and use full synthetic and they should last. Oh, and don’t run right up to the redline constantly…
- post_from_work 5y ago
  Yeah, certain turbo powerplants are AMAZINGLY durable. The 4G63T, 1JZ-GTE, and 2JZ-GTE are all standouts: stout, overbuilt, iron-block Japanese engines. For lighter aluminum-block turbo engines, I'm a fan of the 4B11T (in my daily driver, an Evo X) and the BMW B58 (with continued development, I think it will become the greatest inline-6 of our time, this generation's 2JZ).

phamilton 5y ago

I've got a 2019 Ford Ranger with a 2.3 liter turbo 4 cylinder. 27 mpg on the highway, 0-60mph in under 6s (with a tune and premium gas), and tows 7500lbs. It's remarkable, but there's so much skepticism. Everyone else in its class is a V6 that puts out less hp, less torque, and worse gas mileage.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
That V6 is a lot cheaper up front, has a 0% chance of needing a $1500 turbo thrown at it in the mid 100k mile range and probably gets better fuel economy if you drive it with the skinny pedal on the floor all the time. You're not the target customer. People who only buy single cab 2wd trucks in white and a half dozen at a time are.
- klipklop 5y ago
  Agreed. I have owned turbo cars and have added turbo's to cars that didn't come with them. They reduce reliability and greatly increase complexity. A bonus is higher cylinder pressure and more heat. Changes to EGT's can effect the emissions as well. IMO turbo cars are very dirty "under boost". Often turbo cars are tuned rich (more fuel) to prevent detonation. They can have great emissions just cruising around, but the second you build boost....not so much. I ran methanol/water injection to help keep things cool which was a nice solution, but not for the average person. From my research this would improve the emissions as well. I was able to run more timing advance and slightly leaner fuel ratio as a bonus. Getting a turbo rebuilt is a pain. As a 30-something boomer I avoid turbo engines if there is a large displacement option. Can you build a gas 4cyl turbo car that can hit 200,000 miles? Certainly. Can you do it at the same cost as a non-turbo v6 that can go 400,000 miles? Nope.
  - bri3d 5y ago
    > IMO turbo cars are very dirty "under boost". Often turbo cars are tuned rich (more fuel) to prevent detonation. They can have great emissions just cruising around, but the second you build boost....not so much. Most modern turbocharged cars run direct injection and high metal loading catalysts and target lambda=1 even under boost, which causes tuners' brains to melt upon seeing the factory tune. Detonation is controlled by less aggressive timing and various direct injection strategies, while high EGTs and NOx are addressed by the high precious metal loading in the cat. After an extended amount of time in full load these cars will eventually enter catalyst or turbine protection and start dropping lambda, but this is uncommon amongst daily driving conditions (even under boost). The rest is true, I agree - there is no practical way that a part which spins at 180,000rpm and pressurizes the intake manifold (introducing a ton of complexity to the PCV system, engine packaging, and everything else along the way) is going to be as reliable as a naturally aspirated engine at the same cost. But, if this comes with enough advantages to make the cost expenditure worth it, they can be made reliable.

tyingq 5y ago

>Why do boomers think turbochargers are some kind of conspiracy? Boomers grew up seeing Japan besting US cars and the subsequent job losses, etc. All following the 70's gas shortages, and so on. It probably felt like a conspiracy.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Tell me you've got no experience with 70s and 80s compact cars without telling me you've got no experience with 70s and 80s compact cars. There's a reason imports had a tin can reputation to overcome. The fuel crisis gave the Japanese brands a foot in the door. Detroit had to take languishing compact car platforms that were only available with poverty spec trims feature sets (because the target buyer was someone who's #1 priority was low cost) and bring them up to snuff with the features and comfort the average buyer wanted. Japan had those products ready to go. They weren't "beating" anything until the mid to late 80s. The boomers didn't grow up seeing Japanese cars out-compete. That didn't happen until they themselves were well into adulthood and bought a bunch of Japanese commuter cars in the late 80s and 90s. The 80s decline of Detroit was just the collective bargaining and corporate management hens coming home to roost right at the same time that environmental law was really hitting US industry hard.
- tyingq 5y ago
  I could argue statistics, but what matters if we're talking about why people think it's a conspiracy is the perception. I was there, and that was the perception. I'm also not sure why Japan having what consumers wanted and the US car makers not having it doesn't count as "besting". GM's market share dropped faster after 1980, but it had already dropped 10% between 1964 and the early 70's. That's not nothing.
mulmen 5y ago
Domestic manufacturers did a really bad job rolling out turbos. Oldsmobile tried it in like 1962 with the Jetfire. Was a pretty sophisticated setup, an adaptation of aircraft technology from the previous decade, on brand for the makers of the "Rocket". Unfortunately ethanol injection was too much for US consumers to keep up with and meltdowns of the aluminum blocks was common. Most of the fleet had the turbos removed.