Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site labjss.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tikal!hplsla!labjss!bobk
From: bobk@labjss.UUCP (bobk)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: The longevity of turbos (again)
Message-ID: <4700008@labjss.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 17:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: labjss.4700008
Posted: Thu Aug 29 17:10:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:34:30 EDT
References: <4700007@labjss.UUCP>
Lines: 58
Nf-ID: #R:labjss:4700007:labjss:4700008:000:2607
Nf-From: labjss!bobk    Aug 29 14:10:00 1985


> 	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.
> 

I didn't intend to imply that Volvos were the only sample point, just
the only one I've heard of at all.  My posting is to find out just
what the current situation is on turbos in general.

> For the life of me I don't know what makes them (Volvos) a status symbol.

They are the next cars yuppies buy (after BMWs) when they (ughh!) start 
a family!  :-)

> ... 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've heard this (many friends' personal experiences) about GM diesels,
although none that I'm aware of have turbos.  The only one, other than
Mercedes, is a Nisson turbo diesel truck (is this true?).  I have come
across plenty of Mercedes diesels (turbo or non-turbo) that have exhaust
smoke enough to make the rear end look black.  Maybe this is lack of
maintenance on the owners part.  Mercedes cars are not exactly cheap
to keep.

> 	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 wonder if Chrysler's experience with Mitsubishi turbos have made them 
go the water cooling route.  I have seen a Mits Starion ESI (intercooled)
since my original posting and did notice the water cooled turbo.  They
also have a low mass (8 oz. -- is that mass unit slugs? so it's 1/2 slug?)
turbo impeller, and so claim that turbo lag is non-existant in their
design.

> 	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

I agree, the 3,000 mile oil change interval (most mfgrs) and careful
start-up and shut-down require a serious car enthusiast. I do do all
my own maintenance and repairs so this is a non-problem for me.  I'm
interested in good (no, outstanding) performance from my next car, and
wonder if a turbo will cut it.

bob kunz
hplsla!bobk

PS: one mail response I've gotten indicated that turbos on airplane
    engines are a serious problem.  But haven't turbos been on WW II
    planes with no problems?  (my father-in-law WW II pilot says so)