New tech vs old tech

M

Moneywaster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2012
Messages
148
Reaction score
11
I know more time is possibly needed for real life experience. But all these new extra small turbo engines. Are they going to be just as reliable and be able to give the same mileage as older normally aspirated engines?
If we can take for instance a 3 Potter 1000cc turbo engine vs an old 2.0 4 Potter that gave the same power. Can the new engine last just as long and be just as trouble free after reaching high mileages?
For new cars there are no issues, but what about the secondhand market, where people who just started to work and are just getting a normal non proffesional salary. They must look at older cars that have done in excess of 200k. I myself started to work directly after matric. I never experienced engine, gearbox or any other major problems despite having to buy old cars with high mileages on them.
My first car was a Alfa. Those old Alfas weren't reliable at all. I constantly has to fix this and that, but at least no major expensive things went wrong.
If I could start all over again in say 10 years from now, I will have to basically buy a 900-1200 cc turbo engine. Will our kids or grandchildren be any worse off or will the new tech lawnmower sized turbo engines be just fine after a long time?
Yes, I know, most people go to study to get a bigger salary from the start, but just as many, or more, will enter the job market with just matric.
 
its a bit of a conundrum really, older NA cars these days are dodgy built up cars mostly so you cant find good ones anymore, the new small turbo motors in my opinion will last long enough to carry a youngster through the early stages of their career or university as they should last up to about 150k km before major failures occur like turbo failure.

the short awnser.

-yes the new small turbo motors work under higher stress levels
-no they wont do the milage of a decent lets say japanese 2.0 port injection motor
-yes they are practical for up and coming

solution if you dont trust them? buy one of these 1.5 or 1.6 NA powered decent cars that hyundai, toyota, honda and kia offer brand new
 
With the current prices for used cars, you are better off buying new.

Most people will advise differently, however, they don't take into account the following:
1. Capital cost of the Kms driven already (on the used car)
2. Warranty
3. Service/ maintenance plan
 
Firstly they aren’t that “new” any more and it’s been a good few years with plenty of examples hitting higher mileage by now.

Secondly the great evil turbo was never really all that evil or costly.

If it does go, which is quite rare in actual fact it’s not really the deal breaking repair cost people thing it is.

Even less so on these modern small turbo engines.
 
I will make it avoid anything small engined and turbocharged in the entry level market as long as we still have good N.A. cars available. Just not interested in adding anything expensive to complicate things like a turbo.New entrants in the used car market can still find good cars, I like the new 1.5l in the Ford Figo, great reviews as well. VW, Honda and Toyota still have a good N.A. engines available in the cars.

I love the way things are at the moment, those who prefer old fashioned and proven reIiability are still catered for, those who prefer the new tech are also covered.
 
I'm part of the old school type in that I believe that the N/A engines are a better bet for durability and for hard driving.
Firstly the smaller turbo motors were developed to meet the emission legislation in first world countries. I don't think that they were installed because they were 'better' or used less fuel. Nor do I think that it's a matter of natural progression. Forced induction has been around for ages.
Secondly, I'm convinced that they are more finicky. Many OEMs have not made turbo models available in SA because of the quality of our fuel. This issue was debated in a thread about the new Ford Fiesta ST and Suzuki has made this same reservation.
Thirdly, in a recent Car mag there was an article about which cars needed 95 octane instead of 93 octane. The finding was that turbo engines should drink 95 while N/A motors would be quite content to imbibe 93 octane. That results in quite a saving on running costs.
Finally, N/A motors must be cheaper to manufacture - Obviously - no turbo and all the other adds to make the turbo produce. Therefore turbo motors must cost a lot more to repair should things go wrong and the fact that more things can go pear shaped.
 
thechamp said:
I love the way things are at the moment, those who prefer old fashioned and proven reIiability are still catered for, those who prefer the new tech are also covered.
Click to expand...
This is a good statement. As things are now, it's great. You have choices. But in a few years all manufacturers might go this route. Even Honda started with a 1.5T in their CRV.
 
Are there perhaps any stats for the following scenario?
Volvo S40 2.4i
Volvo S40 T5.
This is the same engine, one without a turbo and one with.
What is the average lifespan between the two? Do the normally aspirated one normally reach a higher mileage before needing major attention?
If not, then I suppose we need not worry about the latest tech small turbo engines.
 
My thoughts are that manufacturers care about the longevity of the vehicle during the warranty / motor plan period as that impacts their pocket. So if a smaller engine lasts just as long in the warranty period that's cool, they could care less thereafter. Just my 5c.
 
Moneywaster said:
Are there perhaps any stats for the following scenario?
Volvo S40 2.4i
Volvo S40 T5.
This is the same engine, one without a turbo and one with.
What is the average lifespan between the two? Do the normally aspirated one normally reach a higher mileage before needing major attention?
If not, then I suppose we need not worry about the latest tech small turbo engines.
Click to expand...
They different engines.
The T5 is a 2.5 turbo engine, my mom's is sitting at 186000km no problems as yet.
 
Moneywaster said:
I thought they are the same 5-potter. Well, then I am now educated:)
Click to expand...
They both 5 cylinders but one is 2.4 N/A and the T5 is 2.5 Turbo

The 2.5 was also used In the Ford Focus ST (2nd Gen) and Ford Kuga(1st Gen)
 
Last edited:
Sumen said:
They both 5 cylinders but one is 2.4 N/A and the T5 is 2.5 Turbo

The 2.5 was also used In the Ford Focus ST (2nd Gen) and Ford Kuga(1st Gen)
Click to expand...
So it is not the same engine with the same bore and stroke etc?
I know if they turbo it there will be changes like lower compression, but is it not essentially the same engine?
 
I used to be anti turbo back in the day. My E46 320i ran NA when I upgraded to the Golf 7 GTI I was amazed, I then changed to a Ford Fieta 1.0T due to travelling and now I can safely say I wouldn't settle for a car that doesn't have a Turbo esp up here at altitude. We also need to understand that Turbo Technologies has advanced from back in the days (1980s). With there being more turbo cars on the road the supply and demand for parts should have changed from about 10 years ago.
 
Sumen said:
They different engines.
The T5 is a 2.5 turbo engine, my mom's is sitting at 186000km no problems as yet.
Click to expand...
Had to replace my T5 turbo at around the same mileage. If you start seeing white smoke at around 4000rpm, get the turbo reconditioned.
 
smkungfu said:
Had to replace my T5 turbo at around the same mileage. If you start seeing white smoke at around 4000rpm, get the turbo reconditioned.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up, at least if it does go the parts warranty will cover the cost of a new turbo.
 
thechamp said:
They are both five cylinder engine, one is turbocharged and has 0.6 extra in capacity than the other. I don't know about the bore and stroke but I would assume they are different.
Click to expand...
Yes I had a look, seems the stroke is more in the turbo engine. About 100cc diff in capacity.
 
stroller said:
I'm part of the old school type in that I believe that the N/A engines are a better bet for durability and for hard driving.
Firstly the smaller turbo motors were developed to meet the emission legislation in first world countries. I don't think that they were installed because they were 'better' or used less fuel. Nor do I think that it's a matter of natural progression. Forced induction has been around for ages.
Click to expand...

It has indeed been around for decades now so it's no longer new tech.

But I do think there is a strong correlation between fuel used and power output gained. Without looking at stats my perception has been that you get more power for less fuel used, or you get the same power and use even less fuel than alternative cars.

Take something like the Up! N/A vs 1.0T models where you get a significant increase in power without a massive negative in fuel economy.

People will often say the N/A car is lighter on fuel by comparing capacities but they quickly forget there is a massive change in power output when compares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X