Dodge Caliber Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi Guys and Gals,

Wondering if anyone can comment on the turbos to be used in the SRT 4's. It is the first thing that comes to my mind as "just something else to go wrong". No insult intended....I really dont know alot about them...even tho I was a auto mechanic twenty years ago. I know technology has come along way in 20 yrs, but way back then , when Ford had the Supercoupes, they were a real pain and quite often had mechanical failure.

Thanks,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
I think turbochargers have come a long way in recent times. While I do agree that the turbocharger does add a certain degree of complexity (and therefore more chance for part failure), I don't think the initial ownership period (the first 5 or 6 years) will involve a failure with the turbocharger unless you really abuse your car.

If you're worried about the long-term value of your car, I think an early-run SRT4 will probably have a hard time holding its value in the secondary market simply because the average consumer of secondhand cars will tend to have less value for a well-kept turbocharged vehicle as compared to a well-kept "normal" car (so a fully loaded Caliber w/out turbo will probably hold its value better than an SRT4 that is optioned so its price is similar to the fullly loaded version).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
That makes no sense....depreciating faster because it simply has a turbo? :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
caliber4whoosh said:
That makes no sense....depreciating faster because it simply has a turbo? :confused:
I have never seen any evidence that is true. I mean, most car owners wouldn't know a turbo from a supercharger, let alone devalue a car based on it. The Neon SRT-4 depreciates fast because it is a Neon with quirky styling, a more limited market interested in it, and a bad reputation among the common public - not because it is turbo charged.

To the origional poster, your concern after those crappy Fords was quite valid. I think your opinion about turbocharged cars may have been different if at the time you had worked on something like a Dodge Omni GLH Turbo instead. There are still many of those old 80's turbo dodges still puttering around with minimal engine work because they were engineered to withstand it. Today however, a factory turbocharged car is very reliable. An engine that is properly engineered for a turbo is as reliable as any normal passenger car. Almost every manufacturer, especially in Europe, have turned to small turbocharged engines for a number of reasons. For one, it is easier to cram in alot of power into a relatively small package. Another reason is that todays computer controlled turbocharged engines do not impact fuel economy as much as they used to.

The bottom line is that turbocharging an engine, just like any critical piece of a car, needs proper engineering and installation if it is to be reliable in the long term. Thus, most of the turbo engine failures I have heard about lately are not factory built kits, but are due to people slapping on aftermarket turbo kits to an engine and transmission not properly prepared for the extra stress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
caliber4whoosh said:
That makes no sense....depreciating faster because it simply has a turbo? :confused:
Shorter life expectancy for the engine..it's been run under more extreme conditions..even if you're a featherfoot. And drivetrain. Overall, MTBF is lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Most, if not all, vehicles that come from the factory turbocharged have been tested extensiveley and the engine as a unit has been modified. Manufacturers do not simply slap on a turbocharger and call it a day. They test, test, and retest the combinations durability and longevity before putting in on the market.

The engine may be running under more "extreme" conditions, as you put it, but it can handle it, because the internals etc. are part of the design process, not merely an afterthought like front license plates.

Therefore, it would be ignorant to say that just because a vehicle makes use of a turbocharger, that it has a short life expectancy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
caliber4whoosh said:
Therefore, it would be ignorant to say that just because a vehicle makes use of a turbocharger, that it has a short life expectancy.
Not ignorant at all...based on the US auto industry over many years, it's all proven fact, not opinion. Blown engines have shorter shelf lives. It's ignorant to have blind faith that US auto design really cares about quality and longevity of their product, and not the quick buck. In reality...due to budget, and wanting to make a quick buck...most of the bigger manufacturers really barely engineer much more into an engine. Dodge certainly doesn't have the reputation of doing this..nor do they for having long lasting 4 cyl engines in the first place. A quick glimpse and memories of their laughable 2.2 during the late 70's/early 80's can show this..N/A ones generally fully consumed themselves at 75K...the ones with hairdryers on them (early Shelby models)...had an even shorter life. Now granted they realized they can't do it themselves this time around, and went outside for help on this "World" engine. But part of that team, Mitsubishi, doesn't have a reputation for long lasting engines either. So far, the only parts I have faith in for long lasting performance is the tranny...which they thankfully went to Europe for (CVT = Mercedes, the 6 spd in the SRT Getrag = well known in Germany...BMW uses them also..one of the best feeling manually trannies ever...having spent many years driving Ford of German Capris, and quite a few BMWs throughout my years...I love them). Compare average life expectancy of US cars versus European cars...US engines are generally considered fully consumed around 100k miles, whereas some Euro engines...that's barely the halfway point for them.

Ford didn't prove much better during those years, with the SVO Mustangs and T-Birds...the 2.3 hemi didn't take too well to the hairdryer.

Dodge is starting out with an economy engine...it's designed with minimal cost of manu, and minimal weight. They're not going with some all new solid cast iron block for the blown version...she only has cast iron sleeves.

Add to that..the human factor. How many people really know how to squeeze the most life out of a turbo? Not many..they treat them like N/A cars, when in reality there are a few extra things that should be done...well, "should" if you care about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Exactly right, normally a Turbo Engine shouldn't depreciate the value of the car. But 9 out of 10 people are going to abuse thier turbo. Who is going to install a turbo timer? I doubt many people will, and that's pretty important so you don't have any caking in your turbo. Also, it's a sports car, people will be driving fast, and abusing the engine, which doesn't bode well for the value. I wouldn't buy a used SRT-4 if it hd more than 20,000 miles on it, because I don't know how that guy drove that car for those 20k miles.

Bottom line... take care of your turbo and your car will be fine, a friend of mine has a '94 Toyota Supra, twin turbo, and it still runs like it's brand new. I work with a guy with an old 280 Z and it runs fine.

Have fun, but also remember to take care of that thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
YeOldeStonecat said:
Add to that..the human factor. How many people really know how to squeeze the most life out of a turbo? Not many..they treat them like N/A cars, when in reality there are a few extra things that should be done...well, "should" if you care about it.
So, Im curious. How does one squeeze the most life out of a turbo?

and, what are the few extra things that should be done
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
Renegade said:
So, Im curious. How does one squeeze the most life out of a turbo?

and, what are the few extra things that should be done
After boosting any decent amount, allow the turbo time to run enough oil through it to cool sufficently 2-5 minutes. Be it driving gently for the last bit of your drive home, idling the time away in the driveway, or getting an oil pump that will circulate oil through the turbo for a few minutes after you turn off the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Serantos said:
I doubt many people will, and that's pretty important so you don't have any caking in your turbo.
It's actually called "Coking" because the oil turns into a white powder which in turn becomes an abrasive to any part it comes in contact with.

As for turbo timers, there was talk of them being a factory option back on the old thunderchickens but ford was worried about theft and personal inury from the car running after the keys were removed. I guess they thought someone was going to pull the keys out, say to themselves, "the keys are in my hand so it should be safe to stick my arm into the fan even though it's still spinning." I think now though the way the car is set up with the CAN-Bus, there should be no reason to have one come from the factory without one. It could be set to only activate if the turbo is above a predetermined temp and hw it was ran before shut-down. if hte hood opens it shuts off all that crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Amandyke said:
I like how you brought up ONE 2.2 litre engine from the 1970's as a equal comparison to ALL dodge motors.

If anything is laughable, it's that. HA HA
It's just a prime example. I don't know your age, or how long you've been into cars in a truely spirited frame of mind...but yes I can apply that thought process to most US made engines throughout the early 70's into the late 80's.

Sorry...I've been spoiled by European engines..I learned how to drive on a rare Alfa Romeo Sprint Veloce at the ripe young age of 12. My teeth were further cut on BMW's and various English roadsters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
YeOldeStonecat said:
It's just a prime example. I don't know your age, or how long you've been into cars in a truely spirited frame of mind...but yes I can apply that thought process to most US made engines throughout the early 70's into the late 80's.

Sorry...I've been spoiled by European engines..I learned how to drive on a rare Alfa Romeo Sprint Veloce at the ripe young age of 12. My teeth were further cut on BMW's and various English roadsters.
Ok, apparently you've missed the point of my mocking. You brought up 30 year old engine technology to say that MODERN DAY engine technology sucks.

Think about that for a second.

30 years.

Innovation Invention Improvement

That engine is no long in production.

That engine probobly was not the blueprint for any modern designs.

Think about it some more.

Smack yourself around some for me for making an idiotic comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
if you let the turbo cool down, easist done with a turbo timer, a turbo can last well over 100k miles of a hard life. i have a 91 eclipse gsx and at 114k miles the turbo seals finally went after many many miles at 20psi. take care of it and it will take care of you. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
YeOldeStonecat said:
It's ignorant to have blind faith that US auto design really cares about quality and longevity of their product, and not the quick buck.
You seem to have that same blind faith in european cars. Basicly, you seem very biased. BMW's have had their problems, as well as most all euro manufacturers. The british roadsters you speak of, how were the electrical systems? any leaks?

YeOldeStonecat said:
Now granted they realized they can't do it themselves this time around, and went outside for help on this "World" engine.
Not so much that they "can't" do it, but that they didn't "have" to do it themselves. They can make that "quick buck" even faster because of it.

please read this article about the engineering that went into the current SRT-4 motor.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/projectcars/0310scc_dodge_neon_srt_4/index.html

Also why did BMW turn to Chrysler to source the engine for the new MINI? After all the 1.6 liter in that car is essentially a reconfigured Neon motor, and it was good enough for your coveted BMW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
BluestedSRT said:
Also why did BMW turn to Chrysler to source the engine for the new MINI? After all the 1.6 liter in that car is essentially a reconfigured Neon motor, and it was good enough for your coveted BMW.
That's on both sides of the pond...that engine was a joint project, under Daimler-Chrysler..and is made in Brazil. So...Dodge also reached out for it. And even though the Mini is under the BMW umbrella..it's really not engineered from them...it's more under the Rover arm. There's less than zero relation of this engine from BMW's legendary silky sixes.

It does zero good attemping to compare any personality of Euro engines versus the average US engine. Ricer enthusiasts don't appreciate these areas. Back to the original intent of this post, I'll remain steadfast in my point. Here's another illustration.
Take 1,000 cars..500 of them N/A, 500 of them blown. Sprinkle them amongst average drivers for a few years. See which ones have the longest service lives....which ones make it closer to 200k miles. I'm willing to bet a few pints if Guinness the majority of surviving cars, in good health, are N/A units.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
YeOldeStonecat said:
That's on both sides of the pond...that engine was a joint project, under Daimler-Chrysler..and is made in Brazil. So...Dodge also reached out for it. And even though the Mini is under the BMW umbrella..it's really not engineered from them...it's more under the Rover arm. There's less than zero relation of this engine from BMW's legendary silky sixes.

It does zero good attemping to compare any personality of Euro engines versus the average US engine. Ricer enthusiasts don't appreciate these areas. Back to the original intent of this post, I'll remain steadfast in my point. Here's another illustration.
Take 1,000 cars..500 of them N/A, 500 of them blown. Sprinkle them amongst average drivers for a few years. See which ones have the longest service lives....which ones make it closer to 200k miles. I'm willing to bet a few pints if Guinness the majority of surviving cars, in good health, are N/A units.
stone cat i think that is pure speculation....and you need to have some proof....you must consider the turbo's used in the SEMI world. they last for thousands upon thousands of miles....and so do the engines. yes i know they are diesel and built like tanks but to say that the turbo engines are not as healthy..not true..i invite you to do a tear down on my eclipse...119k turbo charged miles and 0 i mean 0 ring groove. runs great! 12.9 in the 1/4 last at the track.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
boostdog said:
stone cat i think that is pure speculation....and you need to have some proof....you must consider the turbo's used in the SEMI world. they last for thousands upon thousands of miles....and so do the engines. yes i know they are diesel and built like tanks but to say that the turbo engines are not as healthy..not true..i invite you to do a tear down on my eclipse...119k turbo charged miles and 0 i mean 0 ring groove. runs great! 12.9 in the 1/4 last at the track.

I could spend an hour on Google and post links here..but I don't think the average mindset here would even click them..and they'd still be debated.

Turbos on semi's...much different. Rigs have very VERY heavy duty engines. For one...diesels are designed from the get-go...to deal with higher compression. Next...semi's are designed with life expectancy of engines several times higher than your average car. To sum them up...they are designed to work under heavy load conditions for the majority of their life.

And your quote above.. "take care of it and it will take care of you." I state the "average person"..you've shown yourself you give your car some car, noting the cool down period, etc. That puts you above average in my book, and your car in better condition than average, I'd say.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top