Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site poseidon.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!ariel!mtunf!mtunh!mtuxo!pegasus!phoenix!poseidon!josie
From: josie@poseidon.UUCP (Jack Gross)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: The longevity of turbos (again)
Message-ID: <1275@poseidon.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 11:57:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: poseidon.1275
Posted: Wed Aug 28 11:57:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 10:39:20 EDT
References: <4700007@labjss.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 71


>I recently read a technical correspondance letter in Road and Track which
>discussed the longevity of turbos (I DO mean the ones on engines :-) ).
>
>The essence of the story was that a Volvo owner (turbo sedan) noticed
>blue smoke from the exhaust at 40,000 miles, went to the dealer, who 
>slapped him with a $750 bill for a new turbo.
>
>Road and Track asked a Volvo rep what the deal was here and the answer is...
>Turbos should be EXPECTED to wear out at about 40-60,000 miles.  The 
>bearing is under tremendous stress, hundreds of thousands of RPMs and
>over 1000 degrees and will wear out.
>
>The questions are:
>
>1. Have owners of turbo cars on the net logged enough miles to have
>   their turbos replaced? when did it happen?
>
>2. Anybody gone past 50,000 miles yet?
>
>The Volvo rep goes on to say that the carmakers should, but have not,
>made this (almost certain) repair known to potential buyers.
>
>3. Were you made aware that the turbo would fail (even under 2,000 mile
>   oil changes) ?
>
>
>I ask these questions because it's new car buying time in the Kunz 
>houshold and turbos are a potential candidate.
>
>I await your responses...
>
>Bob Kunz
>{hplabs!hp-pcd, uw-beaver!fluke}!hplsla!bobk


	Your questions are legimate, but there a little off.

	If you are interested in the longevity of a turbo, dont ask
about Volvos. First of all who says that Volvos represent the state of
the art in automobile technology ? And even if they do you should not
base your opinions about a device on one manufacturers product.

	In my opinion Volvos are over rated junk. I don't have 
statistical date to back me up, but a quick glance at most Volvos 
from the 70's are rusted  out on the front fenders and some on the
rear quarter panel as well. I have also been left in a cloud of smoke 
from many a non-turbo Volvo leaving a trail of burnt oil in it's path.
For the life of me I don't know what makes them a status symbol.

	GM also claims that turbos are not the answer to performance 
in the future. Could it be because they have not had much success with
them ? Mercedes turbo-diesels don't seem to have any problems while
GM can't even build a plain jane diesel that will last very long.

	I have not heard of Chrysler having problems with turbos, could
it be because they have people working for them that know what they
are doing. Water cooling is one way to keep the turbo cool and others
are now following Chryslers lead to mass produce cars with water cooled
turbos.

	I don't feel that a turbo is for just anyone. It does need 
more TLC then a conventionally aspirated engine, but don't knock
all of them for the failings of some of them !





				Jack Gross