I’m considering replacing my rust-free old shopping trolley next year when it hits twenty because an assortment of scheduled costs all piling in together will probably make it uneconomic to keep it going for another year.
Snag, this was a reasonably big old lazy NA petrol engine and almost anything modern in a comparable size car will have a turbo on something only half or three quarters the capacity. And finding a non-turbo replacement will most likely only give me another old car probably in worse condition than the one I’m passing on.
I expect with me getting older it will be the last new car I buy and it will have to last me out. Also bear in mind I’m not bothered by fuel economy since we do not do a high annual mileage, but we do travel around the country quite a lot and make an awful lot of short ten minute daily journeys (hence no diesel).
I read the horror stories about overheating bearings and burnt lube oil, especially with petrol exhausts gasses being up to 50% hotter than diesel (1200 vs 800), but also see that most manufacturers are expecting their petrol turbos with their clever cooling systems to last in excess of 150,000 miles in normal carefree use. Maybe longer if treated with due consideration.
So why the post? On this forum there are a significant number of unbiased and technically gifted people with practical experience of turbos as standard equipment on normal cars, both petrol and diesel, and also as enhancements on our lovely little MX5s.
And the question. Do I have to consider anything specific regarding long term reliability when choosing a new turbo car such as perhaps the BMW 120i or the 1.5 EcoBoost Mondeo (two possibilities from many, but definite maybes for 2016 because SWMBO likes the colour ranges…)
I will be interested to hear what others think about the way modern engines are evolving.
personally, never mind the engine, whatever the scheduled costs piling up buying new is never going to be the cheaper option. And for long term reliability and low cost motoring I personally can’t believe the techno filled cars now on the market are going to last. So can you buy a car now, any car, and expect it to last 20 years? I suspect the answer is no, a car’s not for life it’s just for the period the finance runs for these days!
Of course with a new car you do get all the benefits of warranty, usually greater comfort, greater economy, lower tax and emissions, and lots of gadgets to stop you crashing…
The essential issue with turbos is the speed they spin at and the oil supply. The bad thing to do is turn the engine off having just been smashing down the road getting everything very hot. Try not to pile down the road, onto the drive and just switch off. If you do work the car hard, let it idle a bit first. However all said and done, turbo seals are only expected to last around 100K miles so these things are expected to be replaced or rebuilt. Keep the oil clean and there should be no unforeseen problems.
Twenty or so years ago I would have agreed with you, having always owned carefully bought second hand cars. However I also kept a log of all their costs from purchase to scrap/sell, in diaries even before the days of spreadsheets. The first brand new car I bought, the 1.4SE petrol Astra, worked out at a total lifetime cost of 19p/mile at 45mpg for 20K miles/year, and the Vectra significantly more at 41p/mile for 6K miles/year. But if I adjust for currency devaluation both of these bought new cars have been the cheapest I have owned having kept them from showroom to eventual scrap. Both have been totally reliable with no costs other than the usual consumables, annual service, tax, and insurance. The first breakdown on the Astra was also its last.
I have been so impressed by how well both new cars lasted, neither with any rust or engine failure. They were so much more reliable and durable than all the previous heaps I had nursed through their remaining few years before the red rot of age finally claimed them. Modern materials in the engines have gone a long way towards achieving this, and both the Vauxhalls were galvanised and fully under-sealed and (supposedly) wax-injected at the factory. And we did not abuse them.
But several of the very biggest car manufacturers recently seem to be applying a lot of ‘economies’ in their design and manufacture. For a trivial example only one rear fog light and one weedy reversing light, the bare legal minimum. But more seriously, how many make a point of advertising their cars being galvanised now? And look at what happened to Mercedes during the Chrysler alliance fiasco, cost cutting went a step too far with owners of rusty cars only three years old needing to claim on the thirty year body warranty.
Which is why I am beginning my first search in two decades for a ‘New’ all weather medium sized family car a year before I need to spend any money. We expect to use it for ten or fifteen years and then surrender our driving licenses to dementia or the grave. And these days with arthritic joints I don’t want the hassle of fixing it nor the uncertainty of buying something with unknown history, hence a new car is the only current option.
(We had always wanted an MGB or an E-type, or an Elan, or a VX220, or… an MX5, but only recently have our circumstances changed enough for us to be able to enjoy a two seater - while we still can!)
Thanks Nick, that is good common sense, and most people would like to stick with this. But often when in a hurry it is not possible. And some drivers just don’t bother because the car just doesn’t matter to them.
Apparently some of the newest turbos have continued lubrication/cooling after the engine is switched off (how?), also some are water cooled. But that is only what I have read on the net. And real world experience is far more worthwhile than hearsay.
I’m still thinking about what to buy next August, and I found this item on the BBC website today which mentions rise of the various types of turbo and some the fuel injection options for petrol cars.
Beside my Mk.4 I run a Honda Jazz - no don’t laugh - had it from new, Jan 2010. It’s non-turbo 1.4l engine, well built and equipped, loads of room and considering it only does short journeys - 10 round trip - reasonable mpg - 49mpg. It’s serviced regularly and I’ve never had even a hint of a problem with it. And it’s Swindon built.
So don’t just consider turbo, there are some very good non-turbo cars around.
KIA is worth consideration with their 7 year warranty, & they are obviously confident of the longevity as they are going down the smaller turbo motor route as well.
my wife has a little Picanto shopping trolley (no turbo) with all the whistles & gadgets you could want for. good quality finish etc.
a pal has the Cee’d which has all the gadgets plus it’s quite quick too.
I can vouch for Skoda reliability, they don’t come top of the Driver Power Survey for nothing.
I have had 2 diesel Superbs, last one sold to buy the MX5, and my wife 2 Octavias and my son has a Fabia. Our latest Octavia is a 1.4TSI and I am really impressed with the performance of this engine, short runs 40+mpg and 50mpg motorway cruising.
I too was concerned with Turbo reliability but having discussed with my expert colleagues at Napier they assure me that with regular oil changes, 10,000 miles or 12 months max and using a quality synthetic oil then there should be no problems. They also stressed the importance of letting the engine come back to a steady idle before turning off, definitely do not blip the throttle before turning off.
Had a Nissan Note 1.4SE petrol non turbo for over 10 years and apart from normal service consumables and one rear wheel bearing it survived our family abuse with the same showroom shine when it was finally part-exed for a new Pulsar 1.2 turbo.
Have to admit it’s great on the motorway, but around town I find the lack of low down torque REALLY frustrating. When the engine is off-boost it is flat as a f**t and a couple of times I’ve been caught out in nearly dangerous situations when the engine just won’t respond to the throttle! So whatever you consider - take a LONG test drive and once you get over the fun of the turbo boost, try driving it “normally” off-boost and see what you think
That said, we get 45-50 mpg and Mrs Toolman loves the car. I can’t vouch for its longevity due to me now thrashing the bejesus out of it to get it moving but time will tell.
I much preferred the more linear delivery of my 1.8 MK2 and felt much safer driving that.
Also, the 12 year old Micra on the drive is still putting up with an occasional thrashing and during our 11 years of ownership has NEVER let us down or cost us any money apart from routine servicing. Oh, and still no rust even though it has spent its entire life outside.
A friend has recently given her immaculate K10 Micra to her granddaughter to take to Uni. That car is older than its new owner! And it is rust free and reliable. But it is also pretty gutless and ideal as a cheap runabout for an impoverished student. However the Micra size is much too small for us!
I rather like the Jazz mentioned above, and friend had one for a while with the rubberband (or so it seemed) transmission - weird how the engine note fell as the car went faster. But he soon swapped it for one with the more conventional transmission, and he has stuck with this type, as has also my brother-in-law. However, being realistic, while it is a fraction small, next year we might well end up with a family balloon this size.
My initial experience (2002) of turbo diesels was ‘aaarrrggghhh, never again’ after faulting two new (5,000 and 8,000 miles) Peugeot 406 HDI estate cars from the pool fleet at work because they had absolutely no go, almost no brakes, and unbelievably heavy (power) steering, only to be told ‘that’s normal, nothing wrong, they’re all like that’. And the 406 had been voted as a ‘Car of the Year’ (by who?). I’d never been convinced by these “journalist votes” before, and since then have always cynically dismissed them as a con won by the manufacturer with the biggest slush fund.
But in more recent years I’ve hired a variety of smaller turbo cars while on holiday in France and they were all fine, both diesel and petrol, with no apparent turbo lag, nor any other problems. So my mind (as usual) is wide open.
If you haven’t tried one, go for a test drive in a Ford with the three-cylinder 1-litre EcoBoost turbo petrol engine; absolute hoot and good fuel economy if driven sensibly.
I hired a 1 litre Corsa D 3 cylinder a couple of years ago for a day trip to the West Country, and apart from the chrome V on the dash reflecting in the windscreen I was impressed by how well it went. The 280 mile round trip went well after I found some black cloth to cover the awful dash. It was a surprisingly smooth and willing engine. But a Corsa is just too small to be our family runabout.
My first ever drive in a 3cyl was in a DKW Junior back in 1963 in Africa. I was reconditioning the side-valves and head on my Mother’s 1951 Morris Minor and borrowed the neighbours almost new DKW to go the five miles into town get some extra bits we had not foreseen the need of. Only 7 moving parts in that DKW engine, 3 pots, three con-rods and the crankshaft. Do three sets of points count as moving parts? You knew where it had been, as shown by the trail of two-stroke smoke. It was also vibration free, and had a lot more go than the old Minor ever did.
By far the best 3 cyl vehicle I ever drove was a friend’s almost new Trident T150V, just a couple of days before he packed it in a container to go to NZ with the rest of his household goods. Only half an hour, but the memory of that delight still burns bright.