I wouldn't own a diesel without a turbocharger. It is a simple device, and more reliable than the engine. What seems to be troublesome for a few people are a couple of control items.Turbo is completely non-essential. It's a cranky, troublesome, overly-expensive system that suffers frequent breakdown and requires costly repairs on an all-to-frequent basis.
If you lived in europe you could go with this option. It's called SDI.Better question: Why not go without forced induction altogether since both are dodgy component systems that fail frequently and are weak links in the overall powertrain system.
I think that in the future foil bearings might be implemented for vehicle turbochargers, completely eliminating the need for oil lubrication.Some of the turbo problems, according to my neighbor who's a product development engineer for Garrett, is that after VW gave Garrett the specs for the turbo they wanted and Garrett designed it, VW specified a lower viscosity oil for the engine to reduce parasitic loses and the lower viscosity oil REDUCED the longevity of the turbo - putting more stress on the shaft and bearings.
And by this Bob, you mean regular and timely oil changes?Some of the turbo problems, according to my neighbor who's a product development engineer for Garrett, is that after VW gave Garrett the specs for the turbo they wanted and Garrett designed it, VW specified a lower viscosity oil for the engine to reduce parasitic loses and the lower viscosity oil REDUCED the longevity of the turbo - putting more stress on the shaft and bearings.
Its still a nice piece of work and it holds up well if properly maintained.
Yes, a turbo essentially turns your engine into a "variable displacement" engine. At 15 psi of boost, you are burning the fuel of a 3.8 liter engine at zero boost.Whether in a gas or a diesel car, turbos do one main thing: squeeze more power out of the same displacement. If you want comparable performance out of a normally-aspirated engine, you have to bump up displacement. That means reduced fuel economy and heavier engine.
I've had no problems -- and better not, at 40 k kms. However, let me ask you a question, g b. Would you be satisfied if your motor only lasted 170,000?What problems have you had with your turbo, Muggins? The example that you quote IS a 170,000 mile car. I think that turbo may have lived a long and fruitful life.
Well, I drive 12,000 miles a year, so I guess I'd be happy with 170,000 miles. How long must an engine and all its peripherals last to be considered 'durable'? Not trying to be difficult, but what's reasonable life expectancy for an economy car?Would you be satisfied if your motor only lasted 170,000?