|
|
09-10-2008, 03:19 PM | #45 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-10-2008, 03:54 PM | #46 |
Major General
1118
Rep 8,017
Posts |
This might interest you but I know a few years back Topgear did their own JD Power type exercise and on one occasion the Imperza came top. Now that is a turbo charged car that proved to be the most reliable that year.
Also something that needs to be considered if you are to use the JDP data is that turbo and FI powered cars in general will be more likely to be tuned, causing additional stress and possible failure. I still believe that when designed with the power that the manufacturer intended the turbo engine is just as reliable as any N/A engine. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-10-2008, 07:52 PM | #47 | ||
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
We will continue to disagree. Again not that they can't be made so, just that through history they have not been. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
09-10-2008, 08:12 PM | #48 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
I'm coming up a little short when trying to compile a list of factory stock forced induction grenades. Help me out. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-10-2008, 10:42 PM | #49 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-11-2008, 01:02 AM | #50 |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
All we both will likely provide are anectdotes not evidence, which I already admitted would be the case. You can name turbo cars all day and make claims about their robustness, you may be right, you may be wrong. Without evidence we are both engaging in a lot of speculation. However, my speculation has a basis in basic principals of engineering and reliability. Just to appease you with some anecdotal evidence though I heard many stories about blown turbos in the Third gen RX-7. That was a Wankel, but I am not talking about a blown engine, but a blown turbo. One in particular was my good buddies girl, she lost her turbo with less than 100k miles, might have even been closer to 60k. Both he and her knew of similiar losses at similar mileages. Other anecdotal reliability evidence can be found online about Mitsubishi, Renault, Toyota, Ford, etc. Much of that evidence seems focused around 80-early 90 vehicles and I don't doubt for a moment that turbo reliability has improved substantially since then.
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-11-2008, 02:06 AM | #51 |
Major General
1118
Rep 8,017
Posts |
swamp,
Subaru have continually been in the top ten for reliability for as many years as I can remember, likewise Honda who are renowned for making high-revving engines. Of course you can name more N/A engines cars that are reliable, mainly because there is more produced in the world but if you look at the JDP rating you will see certain brands are continually high, regardless of what type of engine is their preferred choice, it's their engineering skills which come into play. BMW are renowned for N/A engines, VAG for turbo-diesels, Mercedes for large capacity, Honda for small capacity high revving, etc, etc. Each have their own philosophy on how to get the desired results but it's your own personal opinion which you feel is the right way about it. All I know is that VAG turbo diesel and petrol engines are as reliable as any non-turbo engines. My TTMk1 225hp which produced 125hp/ltr has covered 180,000 miles without any major repairs, and the reason I know this is I happened to see the car the other day and got the talking to the new owner, third one in the books. As Bruce has already said it all down to how the engine is designed that determines it's reliability, push the boundaries by it high revving or increasing the boost pressure and you will reduce any engine's reliability......FACT. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|