Let's see so far with the "Eco-Bust" complaints: faulty fuel injection harnesses, intercooler causing condensation in the intake making the trucks go into limp mode & now the shake-rattle & role lawsuit...had doubts about turbocharging the Pi$$ out of a little 3.5 V6 achieving any longevity in a full size pickup...no thanks!
Im not sure how many actually know the history of Turbo Charging.
The first Turbo Charger was patented in 1905 and from the 20's through WWII was used extensively and very succesfully to boost performance on aircraft engines.
The first automobile passenger car use was 1962 with the Oldsmobile Jetfire option on the 1962-1963 F85/Cutlass 215 CI V8 and the 1962-1964 Corvair Monza Spyder flat 6 engine.
As far as technology the basic turbo has been in use for a long time and has proven reliability, its the hybrid versions that have issues, variable geometry turbos have proven to be the most problematic versions, while they work well at maintaining a constant backpressure through the engines rpms a reliable mechanism for vane geometry has been hard to develop.
Yes remember that Corvair Turbo very well.
Buddy of mine had one-and he-stupidly-let me drive it
I/we would intentionally toss it around the corners-shell and gravel roads streets-just to get the tail to hang out
like I was some kind of racer.
Not as if it was tough to get it to come around-and back then-there wre little ditches on both sides of all the streets
wouldn't flipped that sucker and killed our stupid selves!!
Fun little car-dangerous-and its fan belt-would COME OFF- not break- but come off- and being air cooled-it would heat up really fast!!
I think i may have used the wrong words, in design turbos are good but normally the execution ends up with low qaulity bearings and seals and poor tolerances so most production turbos lack longevity with is why i do not like them.
The factory turbo craze from the late 1970's- mid 80's soured folks on turbos.
They were supposed to give big engine performance-small engine mpg
but they actually gave at best-good 4 cyl performance-with V-6 economy.
and they BROKE- cooked/coked THE OIL did in their expensive turbos.
Ford and Dodge put them in cars-4 cal-on pitiful Mustang I remember-and a "Shelby" something or other Dodge(150 hp I think)-GM of course used them less-and in the 6's as performance boosters-can't remember any GM turbo 4's.
This time turbos will work better-GM uses them PLENTY in their 1.4 cal to get decent performance-great mpg
Pretty sure the Cruze 1.4 turbo with a 6 speed MT is rated 42 mpg hy-pretty good!!
They won't have the reliability problems they had 30 years ago
Now the dual turbo 3.5 V-6 seems awfully complicated-looked great for a while-but now that GM has beaten its MPG- with a primitive 5.3 pushrod V-8 it doesn't look quite as good.
I expect Ford will respond-and beat the 5.3 MPG wise-"somehow"
Never would have guessed the 5.3 could get 23 mpg EPA HY in a pickup-never.
The 23 mpg means actual 25 mpg trips at 65 mph.Minivan MPG from 5-8 years ago from a blocky V-8 1/2 ton-amazing.
My primitive 98 Suburban gets 21 mpg hy on long-3000 mile trips-but that is at 62-63 mph or less
I do like those new cruze eco's and they have good power for such a small engine. They should put a light on the dash to tell you when to shut the engine off so the turbo can cool off at idle like you are supposed to.
Originally Posted by phoebeisis
The Grand National and/or GNX seemed like a pretty viable combination of V6 and turbo charger that GM put together...I want to remember it was quicker than the Corvette of the same time period. A girl I worked for back in college had four of GNs, and a mint GNX (as in less than 20 miles on the clock, and #5 in production of only 2000 cars IIRC); the one was a street/strip drag car and was ignorant for a V6.
Again, a lot of the "failures" of turbo chargers stems from incorrect/poor oil being used. Turbos require a turbo approved oil, or the life expectancy of the turbo is greatly impacted.
As for the issues the current EcoBoosts are having, that goes for any and all manufacturers that try something different...they all have bugs that need worked out in the beginning. I doubt there is a single car made that didn't have some sort of issues that needed sorted out.
That Buicck Grand National must have been some sort of RINGER car
Because it was only rated at 250-290 hp-but it ran much much faster than that.
At least that is my memory of claimed hp
Hey she had 4- and you didn't marry her??
Originally Posted by phoebeisis
She was already spoken for...