Andre, the next person you should interview is a mechanic who has to work on all these engines that the engineers claim are perfect. Bet you’ll get a far different perspective
The problem isn't necessarily the engine, but all the plastic crap under the hood which inevitably gets brittle and breaks.Everything is designed to a price point. And creates hundreds of different paths to failure.
Yeah, its called planned obsolescence. All parts have a life span. When you insert the plastic radiator fans and other stuff that was metal, etc. it shortens the wear and tear. The customer is left bent over with increased repair cost and frequency (model/make dependent)
True, that stuff wears out especially when it's getting hot and cold over and over. Cheap stamped metal doesn't last that long either though depending on how its used and some of the plastic bits can be pretty dang long-lasting depending on formulation.
Yeah..designed obsolescence is difficult. The part has to last only a specific amount of time. That's a tough calculation because of all the material choices and stress points. But, I remember being in "Designed to Fail" a 200-level course in college where we had to go through all of the calculations to show exactly when a part would fail. Then, we used to get into arguments on the job with the people who just wanted to make the best part they could with no cost consequences...
Find a factory tech that has recently retired or changed professions or maybe an independant shop tech so they won't be biased. Mind you a lot of this tech is relatively new.
Would you expect engineers to say "naw turbos aren't that good " ?😅 They're all going to be positive about their products. They might last until the end of the warranty. 😅 there no money in them to design an engine that last for 150K + miles. My thoughts are simple is better when it comes to engines.
Once the warranty ends get an aftermarket with a dedicated oil cooler for it. Same goes for Cylinder deactivation, disable it then after engine warranty is over remove all that crap and put in non dod/afm valvetrain parts.
@@elche1976 you won't hear complain about lack of power. I think GM should have upgraded the 3.6 , it has plenty of power for the Colorado. It also gets pretty good mpg.
@herbwheeler4470 agree that upgrading the 3.6l would have been ideal. But those I know who have it al tell me it was a dog of en engine. Sluggish and felt like something was lacking. But it's the govt forcing makers to go to these engines with regulations. In the name of this garbage climate crap and epa ratings.
@@herbwheeler4470what? The 3.6 is pathetic. In the Colorado, 18mpg and needs to constantly operate in the lower gears and higher rpm range. It was adequate for a sedan. But used almost as much fuel in the Commodore as the V8. It’s a pathetic engine. They did the best upgrade they could. Get rid of it completely and replace it with that 2.7 I-4 turbo.
@@hestongraves3274 but the 2.3 ecoboost in the mustangs has been known to be a paperweight at under a 100k at this point... so really what happened there? i get the 2.7 is a v6 and and the 2.3 is an i4 but still....
@@SPAMPANMAN I’ve got 160k on my 2.7. 15% dirt roads. Haven’t had a single issue yet. 🤷♂️. Not sure about the 2.3, but the 2.7 is built pretty sturdy. Uses same material block as the power stroke
I agree he wasn't confidence inspiring but feel he was being more honest than using marketing speeches like the GM guy. It's a fact that all turbo engines have higher cylinder pressures. GM used a clean sheet design but has been having a lot of 2.7 engine failures.
The problem is that engineers also claimed cylinder deactivation wouldn't harm the engine which has been disproven and it is still used for vehicles today. Engineers are not concerned with reliability, they aim to minimize warranty work.
Engineers also expect customers to maintain their vehicles properly. Regular oil changes,(not 10K miles) filter changes and also driving their cars proper long distances so that carbon and water gets burned/boiled off. Not just 10 minutes and shut the car off.
@@davestvwatching2408 there is no proper maintenance for poor design. Your regular oil changes will have no effect on the carbon build up due to cylinder deactivation. My Ford had a water pump running off the engine timing chain, usually it is off the serpentine belt. That pump started leaking coolant into the oil and seized the engine. Again, there is no regular maintenance to prevent that but would have been a simple fix is now an engine replacement.
@@sastrinidis A lot of cars have either timing chain or timing belt driven water pumps. I have a 90s Honda with a timing belt water pump. Moving the water pump into the block casting allows for a smaller engine. Improves safety because you can design front end structure around the smaller engine. It's the true reason why inline 4s are the current choice. Carbon build up is helped by the driving distances vs stop and go. Why did the water pump start leaking coolant? Coolant is a maintenance issue often forgotten or ignored, admittedly the manufacturer marketing departments loved to push 100K changes but it probably should be 30K.
@@davestvwatching2408 there was an attempted class action lawsuit against Ford for that specific engine (3.5L V6), it failed on me at about 75k miles, so not a very high mileage car. I have since switched to Toyotas and have not had the same headaches I had with previous vehicles (Dodge transmission failed 3 times within 150k miles).
My brother is a mechanic at a Chevrolet dealer in New Jersey. He told me that they have a high amount of 2.7 turbo and 2.0 turbo repairs pertaining to broken timing guides. Around 60-100,000 miles.
I am all for turbo engines, owned a couple myself. But a turbo engine, will never be more reliable than an naturally asperated engine. Even with the same quality engineering, for all parts, turbo engines just introduce more problems and things that can go wrong...and more maintenance needed. Electric engines and hybrids are different, because it's mainly just the battery in that configuration.
@@glow4417turbos are not complicated at all. Also a 4 cylinder turbo has less moving parts to go wrong than a V6. A turbocharged engine adds a compressor/turbo, oil lubrication, intake plumbing, and engine calibration for boost. I put a turbocharger on a non turbo engine before and it is as simple as an exhaust header removal. It lasted a long long time given it wasnt built for it. A engine built for turbo applications are reinforced for boost and will be just as reliable if not more.
@@glow4417thank you for telling the truth on this matter. I think turbos need a dedicated oil pump and oil cooler to not destroy the bearings. They have them for engines, transmissions, power steering pumps, why not for turbos and super chargers?
I've never seen a single mechanical issue with the 2.7L turbo , the 2.0L LTG in some of the older iterations could have piston issues. Never seen any timing chain issues with them.
In all of automotive history, has an engineer working for an automaker and in charge of developing an engine, EVER said their engine sucks? That's how newsworthy this is...
Andre was pretty amazed by the Ford engineer's discussion of piston cooling nozzles. Those have been standard features on heavy duty diesels since the 1970's. It has been interesting to see how gasoline engine internals have been migrating to looking like heavy duty diesels for about the last 10 years. Keystoned small ends of connecting rods, piston cooling nozzles, gallery-cooled pistons, and steel piston ring carriers were all pioneered on diesels at least 30-40 years ago.
The GM and Toyota guys were passionate about their craft and the Ford guy seemed like he was scrolling through tiktok videos while mumbling talking points he's repeated over the years.
Imagine if there was a tax credit for making long lasting vehicles like there is for hybrids. Consumerism would drop and it would be way more "green" than using turbos to get 2 less mpg and blowing through all these engines.
Consumerism is already dropping because lots of people have realized it's not a great idea to be saving a hundred / month on gas when you're paying 5X that much for the car mortgage, the full coverage insurance, and higher maintenance costs.
Andrey, I wish you would try to pin those engineers down on exactly what they consider the life of the truck. Are they designed to last 100,000 miles or a million miles. Do they design their trucks to last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or more? Many non turbo engines without cylinder deactivation will last 250,000 miles with no issues. How will the new turbo engines compare to that?
I think the life of truck would be the average life we have come to expect so far for prior model years. They don't expect the turbos to go out before the V6 engine would
They would lose there jobs if they told the real truth. But it's not there fault, there are people above them that control things. If it was all up to the engineer, they would be proud to build something that would be rock solid and put there name on it. I could be wrong but that's my two cents.
@@Dublin777 Probably true but honestly, for all the complaining we do, the engines of new cars are pretty damn reliable. I'm usually more concerned by things like electronics going bad making all the internals a pain to deal with. Touch screens wear out or get wet. But the engines themselves, unless there was a big mistake in manufacturing (which happens often enough) will last 300k in general with maintenance.
40 years old and bought my first vehicle with a 2.7L V6 turbo. The lag and quiet engine aren’t my favorite, but it’s punchy once it gets going. We’ll see how it goes. Thanks for all the hard work Andrey.
Agreed...too bad no one was making turbo trucks in say 2011. If so, we would be able to see how they faired over time. Ohhh....wait...the 2011 F150 had an available 3.5L twin turbo Ecoboost...doggone! Still making it...#1 selling truck in the US with the best towing capability of any 1/2 ton...I'd say it works...especially at elevation.
I don't care what anybody tells me I believe the 2.4 L turbo motor from Toyota's going to have a hard time reaching 250k like the V6 did with ease with just regular maintenance with 10K mile 🛢️ change intervals, which I do 5K personally!
In other countries they use Toyota d4s diesel engines and reach 300 to 500k with no problem. I think it may have to do with gasoline direct /port injection engines may not be as powerful in the long term. We will see with time.
Probably not 10k oil changes, but definately 5k. I get they are doing 10k oil changes for lower enviromental impact but I personally think its worse to damage these engines and rebuild them.
@@jooroth18 I agree with you they even tell you not to change your oil when you first get your vehicle for 10,000 MI that's absolutely crazy when I purchase my new Toyota I did the first oil change at 545 miles 2nd at 2500 did not need it then but I got peace of mind for like $45 bucks. Look up "300,000 mile 3rd gen Tacoma" there's a guy with a manual transmission who's driven the hell out of that truck pulling a trailer & he just did regular maintenance, in that video you see the truck is still running fine when it got closer to 400k he's having some issues... But the truck treated him so good he has a 2nd brand 🆕 one ready to go when that truck finally dies! & he's still on the factory clutch!!
I find that most engines [all my engines have been diesel for the last 35 years] take about 15,000 miles before they reach peak performance and fuel economy. They continue to improve from new to around that mileage and that has been very consistent for about 15 or more vehicles from a Fiat Panda to Range Rover to Land Cruiser100 to Audi Q7 to Ranger pickup truck and many more. It’s not just the engine that runs in of course, the whole transmission does also and the more complex the transmission and axles, the greater the potential for initial friction and improvement in service.
I have a 🆕 Tacoma TRD 4x4 off-road a little over 5,000 mi & I've already changed my front differential rear differential & put in amsoil that made a huge difference in the clunkiness & smoothness getting ready to change my transfer case + I've already changed the 🛢️ 3X so far! According to Toyota I'm not even supposed to have my 1st 🛢️ change yet Toyota wants you to wait 10,000 mi on one 🛢️ change... no thank you! If you plan on keeping your vehicle you should change out all your fluids after a couple thousand miles to get the metal out & put in a full synthetic fluid so u know what's in there! I maybe go over the top than some people but I've driven like a maniac my whole life & never blown a motor 😊
@@honda116969 Did you actually run this vehicle in sympathetically? It sounds like you totally abuse it with no regard to your bank account. Oil changes will not save your transfer case or differentials as these are the most tolerant of extended oil change intervals of all major components on your vehicle. Shock and overloads is what kills these. Do yourself a favour and stop driving like a maniac.
@@deckan315 I use the OEM filter & I like it Toyota's because it's the paper cartridge so you can easily inspect it & for engine oil I'll use Mobil 1, Pennzoil or Castro whatever is 0w-20 full synthetic... I think Pennzoil is better because I watch "project farm" & it almost tied with amsoil! All the engine oils are very similar each one just has a little bit different additive 📦... Let's say u?
Yup the breakin time. Just like people who say their vehicle has 150000 mi on it, tell me when they are at 250000+ at 75,000 the engines aren't really even broken in yet lol. (2007 LR4 4.8 (Gen 3.5LS) here, just do my fluid and filter changes, Its currently at 182,000
As I was listening to him talk, I couldn't help but think I was hearing a shady used car salesman. I would have asked him instead, why haven't you followed Ford and Toyota's lead with dual fuel injection? That system, while more expensive, works really good in both brands for keeping the intake valves clean? TFL needs at least one more host who is a LOT more technically knowledgeable that can keep these manufacturers feet to the fire when they are trying to justify their obvious cost cutting designs!
Yes, #1 Good Response, Yes DauL inj. Best ALL Around, ... Watch Them Switch , i`~ALready Seen a Carbon BuiLd uP Vid@2000Hrs@ Gm4 CyLinder So Ya iT's Gonna Be a ProbLem By 75-k. ProbabLy.
Are naturally aspirated engines more reliable than turbo? Naturally Aspirated Vs. Turbocharged: Engine Battles » Oponeo ... This is because naturally aspirated engines last longer and are more reliable than their supercharged counterparts. Forced air engines work harder as they use higher compression and run hotter combustion chambers.
Like any engine, it should be engineered to handle the stock outputs of power. It's when you start modifying adding power or underengineer a component when you get problems. Take for example Honda V6 transmissions in the 2000s were trash because they were underbuilt for the V6. Turbo engines are engineered to handle more pressure like iron blocks, closed decks or iron linings in the cylinders and better cooling. A normal NA engine wont have any of those benefits and even then are not fullproof. Its all in the engineering.
Of course the Toyota guy is going to say how great the 2.4 turbo is. All the test are phenomenal and so on. It's still not tried and tested by customer yet. I'm sure there will be issues for at least 2 or 3 years. Even the 3.5 V6 took two or three years to get bugs worked out. Before I purchase, I want to watch a couple years and see how it turns out. Until then, I'll keep my Tacoma 3.5 V6 tried and tested.
The GM engineer describes their new pcv system in the 2.7 and describes how it addresses carbon buildup. Ok, but have they proven their system in actual usage? Have 2.7 engines (with 60-80k miles and that have used Dexos exclusively) avoided carbon build-up?
I used to be a Honda Master Tech, now I’m a Porsche tech. I understand why they need to put in a belt for the oil pump as most new vehicles especially turbocharged vehicles helps the oil continue to run when the engine turns “auto on/off) at a stop light feature to help with fuel economy. Yes, tech will know if there is a known problems if the same make and model comes in for the same issue over and over. They may not know of how many cars are sold to fix ratio, but we do see how many of the same make and models does come in for the same issue. Manufacturers will open recalls if the problem becomes a known problem. It also falls on the tech to actually document correctly to help the manufacturers understand what and why a component failure occurs. Hope this helps
Andre, great job with this interview. When you asked about afm/dfm, his pause in his answer tells me he lied and knows those systems are the weak point. But he needs his job and can't say anything negative. Ask him same question after he retires, and he will tell you the truth
Why I bought a new pro4x frontier. V6. Hydraulic heavy steering that I prefer. Hard toggle switches for a lot of stuff they stay toggled like the heated seats. Great looking too.
My ‘86 toyota FACTORY TURBO 4runner had 348,000 and still running strong when I sold it. So I really depends on who makes the turbo. If toyota or denso make it’s gold, if it’s mitsubishi or hitachi probably not great. If it’s GM, ford, audi, benz, bmw, dodge, vw, volvo well good luck long term with that.
Kevin from GM always gives the kind of in depth details I’m wanting to know about an engine. That’s what made it easy for me to purchase my 2.7 Silverado. Thank you, Kevin. Ford’s rep just kept repeating generalized jargon for every question. Also, thank you Andre and TFL team for all the in depth information and enjoyment you’ve provided over the years.
You can always tell the difference between someone with an engineering background and someone with a marketing background; GM chose their rep wisely :)
FWUW, I've been happy with the 2.7 Nano engine in the 2017 Ford F-150 I've owned for the last two years. No issues from 1003,000 miles to 138,000 so far. Some occasional smoking on a cold start due to the driver's-side turbo oil line, but no issues with performance yet to expedite a repair.
The ford spokesman is right, my 2.7 is a rocket ship! It’s been an awesome engine. 160k miles, with probably 15% being dirt as a farmer. I’m interested to see how it performs in the ranger
I love the 2.7 in my F150. I have the first year and was very unsure about it due to its displacement and it being new at the time until I test drove it side by side with the 5litre. Very surprised and liked how stout it appeared to be built. Like a miniature gas powerstroke. I always wondered why it wasn’t an option on the ranger but now that it is can’t wait to see how it does in that!
Highly recommend watching Pickup Truck + SUV's interview with Mike Sweers (title is Toyota's Tundra, 4Runner, Sequoia, Tacoma Chief, Interview from Japan). At 30 minutes plus you'll get a (seemingly) honest engineering perspective on the compromises between small displacement turbo, emissions and regulations. The reality is small displacement turbo is a compromise for regulatory demands to reduce emissions. This is not an improvement in reliability or engine performance. Engines are now being designed to suit regulatory demands and less so to suit the type of vehicle its being built for That being said, environmental responsibility is important but this is not the way to do it i think.
First, I would like to say what a great idea to interview these guys. Gm was very informative. Ford, however, was not good and seemed he didn't know very much. Toyota was just so so. But it was all mostly informative in one way another.
Over engineered PCV system - the oil passage will plug up once the oil gets little bit dirty, a small spring inside? Really? Springs tire, wear out, break. Can you imagine the repair cost to replace that tiny spring that probably cost less than a dollar? The labor to take the engine apart will cost you hundreds of $$$ to replace a tiny spring!! Plus, the valve disengage system is a terrible idea - uneven heat which will cause more dramatic wear and tear which means the engine will not last. Why don’t they talk about how easy or difficult its going to be replace certain parts? …and the list goes on and on. In addition, GM is not well known for using durable quality steel materials or quality control…poorly put together, etc. I would not touch these engines or any GM truck with a 10 ft pole at this stage. Can they talk about or describe the torture test they put this engine through? …deprive it of oil, run it with dirty oil, time of continuous running, purposely introduce malfunctions of certain components, etc….because subjecting the engine to extreme failures is the only way to improve the engine and make it really reliable. Video graphics looks great on the screen but it doesn’t show or explain anything about durability and longevity.
My work has a 2020 XLT Ranger with the Turbo4. Very basic quad cab and it's driven by several people hard! It's my week to drive it on-call and it has 22,500 miles with absolutely no issues. I own a Tremor and the mileage is only about 3 - 4mi/Gal less than the average of this Ranger. So, for a much more comfortable truck I like my full size f150. The Turbo on the Ranger makes it move very well though and gives it a real tow capability.
Any system is dependent on the components functioning together . If one component fails the system fails. Sometimes it can be one o-ring in the critical location that kills the entire engine . So more components equals likely hood of more problems .
It's generally true but I've never really been disappointed by GM engineers, believe it or not. They design fine vehicles, the failures come in the manufacturing stage. So yes, more components is more to mess up in manufacturing but it's totally possible to build complex vehicles it just requires higher quality standards.
The main source of oil onto the valves will still be the turbo, it’s inherent that some will come through directly onto the valves. I agree that DeXos oil is critical for coking reduction as well as primarily to reduce timing chain wear due to soot from oil combustion in the chamber.
Thanks Andre. Nice set of interviews. No huge surprises. Turbo gas engines and hybrids are coming whether we like it or not. It will be interesting to see which engines are more reliable than others. Keep up the good work and testing on TFL.
Wait, so in our system the customer determines the market and the voter determines the government. Tell me again why I should have to buy something I don’t want? I don’t accept this argument.
@@Jarediusnot always. Depends on the specific engine. Ford and Hyundai have built shifty naturally aspirated engines. Ford has also built some great naturally aspirated and turbocharged engines. You have to use your brain and avoid making blanket statements.
Recommend a video with some of the folks who have torn down these turbo truck motors and have found a bunch of problems. For me, I am not buying a gas truck with a turbo motor. Diesel, fine, like a 7.3 L PowerStroke. I want a truck motor to go 300,000 miles with no issues other than regular maintenance. IMHO, a turbo gas truck motor is not going to get anywhere near that kind of life.
Just time will tell us if any of those engines are reliable and will last long. Off course engineers will talk wonders about their creations. Imagine what would happen with the engineer if he/she said something real about their engine that isn’t good. I believe cars and trucks today are more fragile and problems prone than previous generations, simply because the excessive use of sensors. Not mention the complexity added to maintaining those vehicles.
I appreciate the engineer's perspective and agree with below about including a mechanic's perspective. In addition - would recommend getting feedback from customer's who reportedly have had many issues with the new Tundra. I would have loved to ask the engineer about how well reliability is measured against complicating systems (everything is electrical/computer-module dependent etc), and if it wasn't for emissions and other constraints - would he still pursue the same design and system development. Might he consider lessening some of the complication? Good interview and appreciate what the entire TFL team brings to the forum! Of note - i got rid of my 2021 F150 Lariat and bought a 2023 4Runner ORP, and to date - incredibly impressive what Toyota did with this 40 year old design/machine. I was worn out with recalls, computer reprogramming and other mechanical issues in that 14th gen Ford. It though reminds me how less is more (simple and not complicated).
Thanks for all of your work on bringing information to us. I have been watching since 2022 and wanting to purchase a new mid-sized truck. I currently have a reliable 2015 Jeep JKUR, so I am willing to wait a little longer. My concern is from an engineering and physics standpoint: Turbos will work an engine harder. I have a hard time understanding how you can have an engine last longer, especially with these smaller liter engines. I understand they want to get better gas mileage and emissions. I am OK with a little less mpg if the engine lasts. I could not buy a Chevy, GM or Ford because of their poorer quality and the dealer service seems less responsive. While I will be interested to see the new Toyota's reliability, I do believe that Toyota is easier to trust to address issues. I kinda want a 2024 Tacoma hybrid with the current engine (V6). Maybe upgrade the transmission. Love the changes to the body. I am seriously looking at the Nissan Frontier Pro4X with the V6.
@@St.Irenaeus you also get the benefit of it Being largely based off the old platform so there’s inherent reliability there. Additionally, midsize trucks cooled it on the towing numbers race and Nissan is right there with everyone in a true midsize truck with reliability naked in from years of production.
Turbo chargers themselves are not inherently the issue. The issue is relying on a turbo to produce the HP the engine should do on its own. Taking a bigger N/A engine like 5.3 or 5.0 or even smaller like 4.0 and putting a turbo on it to assist the power plant works fine. The problem is when you use a small engine like 1.3 liter 2.7 liter and throwing a high pressure turbo on it to make usable power, because the engine will be strained over it’s much shorter life span than a larger engine or a Naturally aspirated engine. Then you have to watch the heat as most of the factory turbos are oil cooled and not water cooled. Turbo engines also need to keep running at idle before the engine turns off to keep the oil from burning on the impeller bearings. Also you have to change the oil at much shorter intervals that most drivers do not do and also need a good synthetic every oil change. Because of these issues that most people do not know to do the used market is very hit or miss due to not knowing how the previous owner treated the vehicle. You have much more issues throughout the vehicle like the Hp fuel pump timing etc etc. using a small turbo engine on a small car like a Honda civic works but using it in a truck not so good
Ford should be embarrassed to have this "engineer " on their payroll. Then again, they kept him employed after the abortion that is the first generation ecoboost, apparently Fords durability "standards" are exceptionaly low.
I had an opportunity to buy a '23 Sierra Elevation with the 2.7L Turbo but I decided to go with the 5.3L V8 instead...not regretting my decision, especially when it comes to fuel mileage.
Agree 100%. I have a '22 Elevation with the 5.3 and get just over 20 mpg hwy when I'm not in too big of a hurry. I could've gotten an SLE with the 2.7 and saved $5000 but I know I'll get that $5000 back (well, most of it anyway) when I eventually sell my truck. I typically abhor all caps, but when I go to sell my truck I'm going to write "with a NATURALLY ASPIRATED 5.3L V-8." I'll probably also add, "with no DFM." I paid too much for the truck because of the pandemic, and its value has taken a nose dive, but I'm confident it'll hold most of its current value over the next few years thanks in part to its engine. Love it.
I’m old enough to have lived through the first wave of the turbo fad in the mid-80’s. It did not end well. This second wave won’t be much better. Yes, technology has advanced 40 years, but you can’t change physics. Tiny turbo 4’s are going to get pounded on in truck applications and you are simply not going to see space shuttle miles out of these drivetrains. I just bought a new Nissan Frontier w it’s naturally aspirated V6 for this very reason.
Watching a mechanic's review, he made it perfectly clear that if you want a turbocharged truck as a long-term vehicle, you will more than likely have to replace the turbo at some point. Basically, it's not even possible to make a turbo engine as reliable as a naturally aspirated engine. However, like most of you all, I do believe Toyota will be the one to figure SOMETHING out in regards to turbo reliability that their competitors will not. Maybe not with these first couple of years of production but 3-5 years down the line. They're just one of the kings of reliability. Still, it just doesn't seem possible to make them as reliable as natural engines
I added a catch can to my 2 L turbo. ( 11 years old so far). The engine has a built in oil separator. The can gets very little oil in it, but does catch what looks like rusty water. Better in the can than on the valves. For Toyota usiing NiMH batteries. Its an established tech. They don't burn like lithium. I remember reading that they are better in cold weather.
This is such a load of (insert expiative here). Go to any Ford dealership and ask the techs "Whats the most reliable engine in a Ford truck right now" and the majority will say "its the naturally aspirated Coyote." These engineers are trying to cut costs, and get trucks to the warranty period. They are also incentivized to have a major repair outside of warranty so customer trades the truck in for a new one to avoid paying cash for the huge repair.
so these were great informative interviews but i feel like the grievances that we have about all these systems weren’t directly asked or directly answered
I have a 2023 Tundra which I love, but somehow I don't think the Toyota serviceability checklist said "it's ok to have to separate the engine bay from the rest of the truck to access/repair the turbos."
Thanks for all the info about the engines. I just got my 2023 canyon Denali . It’s only been a week & I hear a rattle when I have the sun shade open on my sunroof . It’s driving me nuts .. I don’t know what to do . If you take it to a dealer , they will keep the truck for couple days & will not find the problem. ( it’s coming from past experience)
File that lemon lawsuit, I’m sure the rattle is dangerous. Yea and don’t take the truck into the dealership, they might be able to fix it, it’s always better to complain about it🙄
They essentially added a built in "no maintenance" catch can system on the L3B 2.7L Turbo. My problem with that is you're just putting that fuel diluted oil back into the oil system. Fuel dilution is the #1 cause of oil breakdown. A catch can you have to empty helps get that out of the system. With these crazy high mileage oil change intervals, for long term engine health I'd still be running a catch can that needs to be emptied.
I will never buy anything with Turbos, with my experience they cost me more in ownership than a V8 . Domestic Brands Mount Turbos 1/8 " inch from Engine Block. Without Heat Sheild, & or Turbo Blanket. If you never knew Turbos get to be 1,875 degrees F. I had an Eco-Tragic Ford 2 engines with in 60,000 miles. Manufactures Warranty only Pays for 1 month of a Rental, and for if the engine is replaced once the 2nd time the Rental is not paid for each time it took 2 full months to to get the car back. Imagine $93 / Day that incudes Rentals insurance nt my insurance it would be up to $2790 for 30 days, and if it is 2 months looking over $5,580 that's more than 5 monthly payments on my current car payment 2022 Roush Mustang with the Manual... will never buy Automatic Paddle Shifters
Thank you for telling the truth on forced induction engines. Its why I have my 2007 Silverado Classic (GMT800, not GMT900) with a 4.8 LR4 (Gen 3.5 LS) engine, simple and durable and smokes the tires on my extended cab truck. Currently at 182,000 miles.
@shadowopsairman1583 Awesome, yeah, Turbos are worse than Superchargers. I had had a 2004 Lotus Elise N/A. It had the original coolant, too. Drove it hard for 12 years and would have cost me over $30k to get it somewhat running and looking nice. Though, the body flexed and might have fallen apart. I buy the EcoTragic and 7.5 years later I am in a real nice V8 and get the same as the EcoTragic in mpg just 2 mpg less. Insurance is higher though, I am buying a 2022 Roush Mustang, which is 4 times more than the EcoTragic, with twice the monthly payments and 2 years less.... I got the Vip Ford Pass for 8 years I don't have to pay for anything, fluids, Calipers Pads, Rotors, Windshield. I just have to pay for Tires. Tires are $500 each
There are also issues from coolant leaking into cylinders because the engines run hotter. They try to add more coolant channels, which introduces weak spots. These weak spots are susceptible to failure from the higher cylinder pressure and heat.
I've been in the automotive repair industry for 30 years now. The bottom line is a cylinder turbo engine is not going to have the longevity or reliability as a naturally aspirated V6 engine. Period. Turbos get extremely hot and with moving parts they will eventually fail. That is just the nature of the beast.
@@itsallminor6133 Been going Nissan since age 15. 58 now. Getting ready to rebuild front end on 423,000 mile hardbody for the first time. What will I find?
As an owner of a 22RET Toyota pickup I love this truck but it having 360,000 + mile im wanting it as a play around truck and my biggest grip with all the old tacomas etc was the rear breaks that finnaly got fixed I did the for 8.8 rear disc swap from a F9rd explorer on my 1990 pickup and it was a game changer for my 2wd but im stoked for the new Tacoma hybrid and im looking at the TRD Sport when they hit the lot next year
The simpler the better these GM 4 banger turbos have too many parts that can fail and cause issues, this engine will never make 200k miles without major problems !!!
The only question I would like to know is, given the technology to test vehicles, the 100 years of automotive history, and the use of modern testing abilities, how is it even possible that cars have problems?
Exactly.. Hundred years later still learning to make a engine? I don't think so. I actually am pretty sure they could make a near perfect engine *if they wanted too*
I had a new ford ranger slt 4x4 2022 for 6 months before a drunk totaled it. I felt like it moved around quite nicely with its little turbo. I got 31.5 mpg on the interstate with it and that made me smile. For around town and runs for animal feed, taking garbage to recycle center and making lowes run as a property manager and landlord, it was a nice vehicle. I really liked the radio and GPS interface, it was clean and easy to use. I missed all wheel drive on a day to day basis and there were no Rangers to be had, or they were 15k over msrp so I bought a Santa Cruz to replace it.
Great high tech, very impressive. And I will never buy a 4-cylinder truck, nor a non-diesel turbo truck. Sorry. Guess I'm old and like trucks that last.
I have a Colorado as a rental because the hurricane smashed my 2019 ridgeline. I was spoiled with the ridgeline. The only thing I like about the Colorado is the engine and brakes. Too small, feels cramped and rides a lot rougher then the Ridgeline. I was disappointed cause I was thinking of replacing the lost ridgeline with the Colorado but it just solidified I am staying with the ridgeline.
Toyota could have introduced these forced induction turbo engines on their new models while maintaining a v8 and v6 tried and true option. They could have placed a pricing 25:11 premium on v6 and v8 options and to encourage adoption of the new engines. Why they did not do this is beyond my comprehension. I am now in the market for a new minivan and a new pickup. I will not do the hybrid and I will not do the turbo v6 tundra.
Still doesn't change the fact that every time Andre hammers it, the words "Challenger, go with throttle up" run through my mind. Pretty sure those Thikol engineers did a lot of testing too. 😆
Folks need to realize with complexity comes increased maintenance & cost. For example my take trash/recycling to township drop-off pickup is a 2007 F150 with 180K miles. Still has the original shock absorbers on rear, original spring shackles & bushings (both springs replaced 1X). What will cost be to keep a truck with coil rear suspension running good for that many miles ? Many more wear points to deal with !
@@daveallen7767 what? replacement coil springs are literally $100 each. From Eibach, not chinesium. A single shock tower location to worry about. Leaf springs are cheap and reliable but so are coils.
They all say it’s for emission reasons. I doubt Toyota would have switched out the v6 otherwise. It was a great engine and the blowback wouldn’t have been worth it. I’m sure the new engine is great but I still want to wait before making my decision on it. If I had to bet I still doubt it has the longevity has the outgoing v6. It may have a little more torque but is it worth it. For maybe shortened life and higher repair bills
I work avionics and with electrical issues just like anything else you can get a bad component evey now and then. Very unfortunate and frustrating when the part cost a $100K
The fact that they aren't offering turbo-petrols on Heavy duty pickup trucks which are used more for work purposes should tell you that OEMs themselves don't trust turbo motors as much as they want buyers to.
Except most HD trucks used for heavy hauling have turbo diesel engines. I believe most commercial trucks are also running turbo diesel motors. Turbos have been around a long time, just not in mass use for mainstream private vehicles.
@@DosCylindros Outside of the US small turbo diesel engines in passenger cars are very common - Europe, Africa etc. Small gas turbos have also been in passenger cars for a long time.
Chevy Guy - "Let me show you this video." Ford Guy - "We spray oil to cool pistons and it goes around the bottom of the piston and it's really cool. Oh and It goes fast." Toyota Guy - "We have three phases of testing and we upped the standards 1.6534 times the SUV application. We increased durability, power, and efficiency an average of 1.4689 times over the previous generation."
Yeah , let’s ask the engineers of the product if it’s any good. Hmm, kinda sounds suspiciously like what happened over the last two years or so with something you put in your arm. It’s totally “Safe and effective”. Get back to being a car manufacturer instead of a tech manufacturer.
Wow, the Ford guy was unprepared, the GM guy put on an very detailed informative conversation? The Toyota guy was also well prepared to answer all the questions?
Of these three engines, my money is on Toyota actually making a long lasting, durable, performant turbo engine with minimal major mechanical issues or recalls.
Their quality has gone down, I had to do vvt gears on a 2010 corolla last year. No engine repairs on my 2007 LR4 4.8 other than oil and filter changes.
We'll see today's toyota is not the same as the toyota from the 90's and this will be their first foray into turbo assisted trucks (let's include last year's tundra).
Go ask my 3 buddies about the AFM on the 5.3L V8. Get a Range Tech and disable that system. Fouled plugs, collapsed lifters, bent push rods, and coked up oil rings. It would be great engines if they got rid of the AFM.
I have a question about the cylinder deactivation. Why can’t they do cylinder deactivation while idling, seems like the best time to do so. Low load and some people idle for long periods of time.
At idle, just turn off the engine. Auto start/shutdown is more reliable and smoother than cylinder deactivation. Although more wear on the starter, I would rather replace a starter motor, than rebuild an engine.
Most people don't realize that combustion engines have not changed that much the past 15 - 20 years. The main reason there are more turbo engines produced today is increased gas mileage. The main downfall, other than larger engines room for displacement obviously, is that they will likely need to be swapped out around 100,000 miles.
Toyota has been using Turbo Diesel engines in every market around the world except the US for the last 20-30 years with excellent reliability results. This new engine is a Petrol Turbo but I would expect the same testing and quality standards being used for this engine.
I remember back in 1987 when they came out with the 4 Cylinder Turbo Diesel 4×4 truck- could that truck pull up hill with a trailer! Wish we could get that diesel Turbo here again!
I wouldn’t be opposed to the mass adoption of turbocharged engines if I believed it was caused by actual free market forces. But I don’t think it is. I think the only reason we’re seeing so many turbo powertrains in vehicles that have traditionally had big, rumbling, naturally aspirated engines is entirely due to government regulation and lobbying from environmental groups. I think most consumers - particularly truck enthusiasts- prefer naturally aspirated engines, and would prefer simplicity and reliability over the couple of mpgs they save. Sure, these new engines are no doubt well researched and well built, but they’re not what consumers actually want. They’re what the government wants.
Andre, the next person you should interview is a mechanic who has to work on all these engines that the engineers claim are perfect. Bet you’ll get a far different perspective
100% agree!
Yeah they’d tell you don’t get a turbo diesel too.
Every tech should "like" this comment
😂😅🤣
I have a 2016 chevy Cruze limited with a turbo engine. I purposely bought a 2022 highlander because it still had a v6
Why? Talk to the accountants and insurance companies, they're the ones who know the actual costs of repairs.
The problem isn't necessarily the engine, but all the plastic crap under the hood which inevitably gets brittle and breaks.Everything is designed to a price point. And creates hundreds of different paths to failure.
Yeah, its called planned obsolescence. All parts have a life span. When you insert the plastic radiator fans and other stuff that was metal, etc. it shortens the wear and tear.
The customer is left bent over with increased repair cost and frequency (model/make dependent)
True, that stuff wears out especially when it's getting hot and cold over and over. Cheap stamped metal doesn't last that long either though depending on how its used and some of the plastic bits can be pretty dang long-lasting depending on formulation.
Yeah..designed obsolescence is difficult. The part has to last only a specific amount of time. That's a tough calculation because of all the material choices and stress points. But, I remember being in "Designed to Fail" a 200-level course in college where we had to go through all of the calculations to show exactly when a part would fail. Then, we used to get into arguments on the job with the people who just wanted to make the best part they could with no cost consequences...
Plastic parts are what kills BMW's.
That is also true for non-turbos. Aluminum would be a far better choice than plastic.
Cant wait till we get some interviews with mechanics.
That's a good idea.
@@TFLtalktalk with car care nut and car wizard!
That’s where reality hits. See what fails and how often.
Find a factory tech that has recently retired or changed professions or maybe an independant shop tech so they won't be biased. Mind you a lot of this tech is relatively new.
cause No mechanic has any sort of bias…..🙄
Would you expect engineers to say "naw turbos aren't that good " ?😅
They're all going to be positive about their products. They might last until the end of the warranty. 😅 there no money in them to design an engine that last for 150K + miles.
My thoughts are simple is better when it comes to engines.
True. But then you're complaining about lack of power when you want simple.
Once the warranty ends get an aftermarket with a dedicated oil cooler for it. Same goes for Cylinder deactivation, disable it then after engine warranty is over remove all that crap and put in non dod/afm valvetrain parts.
@@elche1976 you won't hear complain about lack of power. I think GM should have upgraded the 3.6 , it has plenty of power for the Colorado. It also gets pretty good mpg.
@herbwheeler4470 agree that upgrading the 3.6l would have been ideal. But those I know who have it al tell me it was a dog of en engine. Sluggish and felt like something was lacking. But it's the govt forcing makers to go to these engines with regulations. In the name of this garbage climate crap and epa ratings.
@@herbwheeler4470what? The 3.6 is pathetic. In the Colorado, 18mpg and needs to constantly operate in the lower gears and higher rpm range. It was adequate for a sedan. But used almost as much fuel in the Commodore as the V8. It’s a pathetic engine. They did the best upgrade they could. Get rid of it completely and replace it with that 2.7 I-4 turbo.
I am a Ford guy but I was underwhelmed by the responses of the Ford engineer. Thanks for the video!
Same. I wanted to hear more explanations. All I know is my 2.7 ecoboost has been an excellent engine
@@hestongraves3274 but the 2.3 ecoboost in the mustangs has been known to be a paperweight at under a 100k at this point... so really what happened there? i get the 2.7 is a v6 and and the 2.3 is an i4 but still....
@@SPAMPANMAN I’ve got 160k on my 2.7. 15% dirt roads. Haven’t had a single issue yet. 🤷♂️. Not sure about the 2.3, but the 2.7 is built pretty sturdy. Uses same material block as the power stroke
He was vague most of the time, repeating himself. I’m with you as I expected more “bite” from him.
I agree he wasn't confidence inspiring but feel he was being more honest than using marketing speeches like the GM guy. It's a fact that all turbo engines have higher cylinder pressures. GM used a clean sheet design but has been having a lot of 2.7 engine failures.
The problem is that engineers also claimed cylinder deactivation wouldn't harm the engine which has been disproven and it is still used for vehicles today. Engineers are not concerned with reliability, they aim to minimize warranty work.
Engineers also expect customers to maintain their vehicles properly. Regular oil changes,(not 10K miles) filter changes and also driving their cars proper long distances so that carbon and water gets burned/boiled off. Not just 10 minutes and shut the car off.
@@davestvwatching2408 there is no proper maintenance for poor design. Your regular oil changes will have no effect on the carbon build up due to cylinder deactivation. My Ford had a water pump running off the engine timing chain, usually it is off the serpentine belt. That pump started leaking coolant into the oil and seized the engine. Again, there is no regular maintenance to prevent that but would have been a simple fix is now an engine replacement.
@@sastrinidis A lot of cars have either timing chain or timing belt driven water pumps. I have a 90s Honda with a timing belt water pump. Moving the water pump into the block casting allows for a smaller engine. Improves safety because you can design front end structure around the smaller engine. It's the true reason why inline 4s are the current choice. Carbon build up is helped by the driving distances vs stop and go. Why did the water pump start leaking coolant? Coolant is a maintenance issue often forgotten or ignored, admittedly the manufacturer marketing departments loved to push 100K changes but it probably should be 30K.
@@davestvwatching2408 there was an attempted class action lawsuit against Ford for that specific engine (3.5L V6), it failed on me at about 75k miles, so not a very high mileage car. I have since switched to Toyotas and have not had the same headaches I had with previous vehicles (Dodge transmission failed 3 times within 150k miles).
@sastrinidis dodge and ford look 😂
My brother is a mechanic at a Chevrolet dealer in New Jersey. He told me that they have a high amount of 2.7 turbo and 2.0 turbo repairs pertaining to broken timing guides. Around 60-100,000 miles.
Thank you for the feedback.
I am all for turbo engines, owned a couple myself. But a turbo engine, will never be more reliable than an naturally asperated engine. Even with the same quality engineering, for all parts, turbo engines just introduce more problems and things that can go wrong...and more maintenance needed. Electric engines and hybrids are different, because it's mainly just the battery in that configuration.
@@glow4417turbos are not complicated at all. Also a 4 cylinder turbo has less moving parts to go wrong than a V6. A turbocharged engine adds a compressor/turbo, oil lubrication, intake plumbing, and engine calibration for boost. I put a turbocharger on a non turbo engine before and it is as simple as an exhaust header removal. It lasted a long long time given it wasnt built for it. A engine built for turbo applications are reinforced for boost and will be just as reliable if not more.
@@glow4417thank you for telling the truth on this matter. I think turbos need a dedicated oil pump and oil cooler to not destroy the bearings. They have them for engines, transmissions, power steering pumps, why not for turbos and super chargers?
I've never seen a single mechanical issue with the 2.7L turbo , the 2.0L LTG in some of the older iterations could have piston issues. Never seen any timing chain issues with them.
In all of automotive history, has an engineer working for an automaker and in charge of developing an engine, EVER said their engine sucks? That's how newsworthy this is...
Andre was pretty amazed by the Ford engineer's discussion of piston cooling nozzles. Those have been standard features on heavy duty diesels since the 1970's. It has been interesting to see how gasoline engine internals have been migrating to looking like heavy duty diesels for about the last 10 years. Keystoned small ends of connecting rods, piston cooling nozzles, gallery-cooled pistons, and steel piston ring carriers were all pioneered on diesels at least 30-40 years ago.
The GM and Toyota guys were passionate about their craft and the Ford guy seemed like he was scrolling through tiktok videos while mumbling talking points he's repeated over the years.
GM has been killing it lately. You can tell they've hired well
Ford was a snooze fest
Of course they are passionate! They gotta sell it while Ford (better/worse) has years of turbo experience. Rome fell, so is this the start for Toyota?
@@BarcelonaBlitzer you do realize Toyota and other OEMs have been turbocharging for decades, right?
@@CACressidanot in American pickup trucks they havent
I couldn’t help but notice not one of the engineers said they went the 4cyl turbo direction for ‘increased reliability’.
Unqualified government bureaucrats > increased reliability. This formula also benefits the OEMs. None of this is for the benefit of the consumer.
@@Jarediusturbos are better at higher elevation though
that's because the driver was emissions standards. What use is increased reliability if our own lifespan is being reduced because of higher emissions?
@@Justmejbful catalytic converters pretty much took care of that
@@iskdude9922 so we shouldn't continue to reduce emissions further for our own benefit?
Imagine if there was a tax credit for making long lasting vehicles like there is for hybrids. Consumerism would drop and it would be way more "green" than using turbos to get 2 less mpg and blowing through all these engines.
Wouldn't that just be less expensive anyhow? Why would there need to be a tax credit?
Consumerism is already dropping because lots of people have realized it's not a great idea to be saving a hundred / month on gas when you're paying 5X that much for the car mortgage, the full coverage insurance, and higher maintenance costs.
These turbo-hybrids are better suited as rental cars on vacation rather than purchasing for long-term dependability.
Andrey, I wish you would try to pin those engineers down on exactly what they consider the life of the truck. Are they designed to last 100,000 miles or a million miles. Do they design their trucks to last 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or more? Many non turbo engines without cylinder deactivation will last 250,000 miles with no issues. How will the new turbo engines compare to that?
Solution of cylinder deactivation, turn it off, once warranty is out do the valvetrain upgrade and run it as a standard engine.
I think the life of truck would be the average life we have come to expect so far for prior model years. They don't expect the turbos to go out before the V6 engine would
They would lose there jobs if they told the real truth. But it's not there fault, there are people above them that control things. If it was all up to the engineer, they would be proud to build something that would be rock solid and put there name on it. I could be wrong but that's my two cents.
@@Dublin777 Probably true but honestly, for all the complaining we do, the engines of new cars are pretty damn reliable. I'm usually more concerned by things like electronics going bad making all the internals a pain to deal with. Touch screens wear out or get wet. But the engines themselves, unless there was a big mistake in manufacturing (which happens often enough) will last 300k in general with maintenance.
I WANT A MILLION MILES ON MY ENGINE AND TURBO CANT DO THAT PERIOD.
40 years old and bought my first vehicle with a 2.7L V6 turbo. The lag and quiet engine aren’t my favorite, but it’s punchy once it gets going. We’ll see how it goes. Thanks for all the hard work Andrey.
Thank you for watching and listening.
And no better than a v8 lol
Shoulda gone with pushrod displacement my guy
It’s “punchy” enuf to be faster than the 5.0 off the line and onward
@@shadowopsairman1583 and the v8 is no better than a v10, see how it works?
The judgement on turbos in trucks will be made 15 years from now, not today.
Hopefully we will do another podcast about this in 15 years!
Turbocharged engines have been around for decades
More like 5 years
Agreed...too bad no one was making turbo trucks in say 2011. If so, we would be able to see how they faired over time. Ohhh....wait...the 2011 F150 had an available 3.5L twin turbo Ecoboost...doggone! Still making it...#1 selling truck in the US with the best towing capability of any 1/2 ton...I'd say it works...especially at elevation.
@@beexiong2995yes they have but not in the numbers we have been seeing in the last 10 years.
I don't care what anybody tells me I believe the 2.4 L turbo motor from Toyota's going to have a hard time reaching 250k like the V6 did with ease with just regular maintenance with 10K mile 🛢️ change intervals, which I do 5K personally!
In other countries they use Toyota d4s diesel engines and reach 300 to 500k with no problem.
I think it may have to do with gasoline direct /port injection engines may not be as powerful in the long term. We will see with time.
Probably not 10k oil changes, but definately 5k. I get they are doing 10k oil changes for lower enviromental impact but I personally think its worse to damage these engines and rebuild them.
@@jooroth18 I agree with you they even tell you not to change your oil when you first get your vehicle for 10,000 MI that's absolutely crazy when I purchase my new Toyota I did the first oil change at 545 miles 2nd at 2500 did not need it then but I got peace of mind for like $45 bucks. Look up "300,000 mile 3rd gen Tacoma" there's a guy with a manual transmission who's driven the hell out of that truck pulling a trailer & he just did regular maintenance, in that video you see the truck is still running fine when it got closer to 400k he's having some issues... But the truck treated him so good he has a 2nd brand 🆕 one ready to go when that truck finally dies! & he's still on the factory clutch!!
I find that most engines [all my engines have been diesel for the last 35 years] take about 15,000 miles before they reach peak performance and fuel economy. They continue to improve from new to around that mileage and that has been very consistent for about 15 or more vehicles from a Fiat Panda to Range Rover to Land Cruiser100 to Audi Q7 to Ranger pickup truck and many more. It’s not just the engine that runs in of course, the whole transmission does also and the more complex the transmission and axles, the greater the potential for initial friction and improvement in service.
I have a 🆕 Tacoma TRD 4x4 off-road a little over 5,000 mi & I've already changed my front differential rear differential & put in amsoil that made a huge difference in the clunkiness & smoothness getting ready to change my transfer case + I've already changed the 🛢️ 3X so far! According to Toyota I'm not even supposed to have my 1st 🛢️ change yet Toyota wants you to wait 10,000 mi on one 🛢️ change... no thank you! If you plan on keeping your vehicle you should change out all your fluids after a couple thousand miles to get the metal out & put in a full synthetic fluid so u know what's in there! I maybe go over the top than some people but I've driven like a maniac my whole life & never blown a motor 😊
@@honda116969
Did you actually run this vehicle in sympathetically? It sounds like you totally abuse it with no regard to your bank account. Oil changes will not save your transfer case or differentials as these are the most tolerant of extended oil change intervals of all major components on your vehicle. Shock and overloads is what kills these. Do yourself a favour and stop driving like a maniac.
@@honda116969what kind of oil and filter for your Tacoma?
@@deckan315 I use the OEM filter & I like it Toyota's because it's the paper cartridge so you can easily inspect it & for engine oil I'll use Mobil 1, Pennzoil or Castro whatever is 0w-20 full synthetic... I think Pennzoil is better because I watch "project farm" & it almost tied with amsoil! All the engine oils are very similar each one just has a little bit different additive 📦... Let's say u?
Yup the breakin time. Just like people who say their vehicle has 150000 mi on it, tell me when they are at 250000+ at 75,000 the engines aren't really even broken in yet lol. (2007 LR4 4.8 (Gen 3.5LS) here, just do my fluid and filter changes, Its currently at 182,000
As I was listening to him talk, I couldn't help but think I was hearing a shady used car salesman. I would have asked him instead, why haven't you followed Ford and Toyota's lead with dual fuel injection? That system, while more expensive, works really good in both brands for keeping the intake valves clean? TFL needs at least one more host who is a LOT more technically knowledgeable that can keep these manufacturers feet to the fire when they are trying to justify their obvious cost cutting designs!
Yes, #1 Good Response, Yes DauL inj. Best ALL Around, ... Watch Them Switch , i`~ALready Seen a Carbon BuiLd uP Vid@2000Hrs@ Gm4 CyLinder So Ya iT's Gonna Be a ProbLem By 75-k. ProbabLy.
Are naturally aspirated engines more reliable than turbo?
Naturally Aspirated Vs. Turbocharged: Engine Battles » Oponeo ...
This is because naturally aspirated engines last longer and are more reliable than their supercharged counterparts. Forced air engines work harder as they use higher compression and run hotter combustion chambers.
Like any engine, it should be engineered to handle the stock outputs of power. It's when you start modifying adding power or underengineer a component when you get problems. Take for example Honda V6 transmissions in the 2000s were trash because they were underbuilt for the V6. Turbo engines are engineered to handle more pressure like iron blocks, closed decks or iron linings in the cylinders and better cooling. A normal NA engine wont have any of those benefits and even then are not fullproof. Its all in the engineering.
This has been common knowledge for decades, but we live in a world full of gaslighting.
Of course the Toyota guy is going to say how great the 2.4 turbo is. All the test are phenomenal and so on. It's still not tried and tested by customer yet. I'm sure there will be issues for at least 2 or 3 years. Even the 3.5 V6 took two or three years to get bugs worked out. Before I purchase, I want to watch a couple years and see how it turns out. Until then, I'll keep my Tacoma 3.5 V6 tried and tested.
What i did. Bought a 2023.
I’m with y’all on this , bought a 23 as well !!
@@Troystoy safe bet 😁
The GM engineer describes their new pcv system in the 2.7 and describes how it addresses carbon buildup. Ok, but have they proven their system in actual usage? Have 2.7 engines (with 60-80k miles and that have used Dexos exclusively) avoided carbon build-up?
It’s all theoretical.
Yes,the turbo will blow it right off,typical GM answer.
I used to be a Honda Master Tech, now I’m a Porsche tech. I understand why they need to put in a belt for the oil pump as most new vehicles especially turbocharged vehicles helps the oil continue to run when the engine turns “auto on/off) at a stop light feature to help with fuel economy. Yes, tech will know if there is a known problems if the same make and model comes in for the same issue over and over. They may not know of how many cars are sold to fix ratio, but we do see how many of the same make and models does come in for the same issue. Manufacturers will open recalls if the problem becomes a known problem. It also falls on the tech to actually document correctly to help the manufacturers understand what and why a component failure occurs. Hope this helps
The belt for oil pump on the Ford and GM engines are crank driven and replace where a chain would be used historically.
Andre, great job with this interview. When you asked about afm/dfm, his pause in his answer tells me he lied and knows those systems are the weak point. But he needs his job and can't say anything negative. Ask him same question after he retires, and he will tell you the truth
This is the very reason I got the new Nissan Frontier. 300HP naturally aspirated.
Isn't it the same price as a Tacoma?
I got one too, gas plenty of power and decent mpg
@@chrisx5127 my Pro4x was at least $5k cheaper than a comparable trd pro
@@sweethands4328 Yeah true. But Pro4x is out of my range.
Why I bought a new pro4x frontier. V6. Hydraulic heavy steering that I prefer. Hard toggle switches for a lot of stuff they stay toggled like the heated seats. Great looking too.
Same here
My ‘86 toyota FACTORY TURBO 4runner had 348,000 and still running strong when I sold it. So I really depends on who makes the turbo. If toyota or denso make it’s gold, if it’s mitsubishi or hitachi probably not great. If it’s GM, ford, audi, benz, bmw, dodge, vw, volvo well good luck long term with that.
Kevin from GM always gives the kind of in depth details I’m wanting to know about an engine. That’s what made it easy for me to purchase my 2.7 Silverado. Thank you, Kevin. Ford’s rep just kept repeating generalized jargon for every question.
Also, thank you Andre and TFL team for all the in depth information and enjoyment you’ve provided over the years.
Ford guy was so uninspiring , Kevin for an engineere is cool dude
If anything the LV1 should have been Turboed (262 CID)
You can always tell the difference between someone with an engineering background and someone with a marketing background; GM chose their rep wisely :)
Did GM ditch the plastic oil pan?
@@timferguson593 is it plastic ? I guess thats what the skid plate is for
FWUW, I've been happy with the 2.7 Nano engine in the 2017 Ford F-150 I've owned for the last two years. No issues from 1003,000 miles to 138,000 so far. Some occasional smoking on a cold start due to the driver's-side turbo oil line, but no issues with performance yet to expedite a repair.
Get that turbo leak repaired, extreme temps in that area can lead to fire
Great technical in-depth content Andrey this is what I like about you guys!!
The ford spokesman is right, my 2.7 is a rocket ship! It’s been an awesome engine. 160k miles, with probably 15% being dirt as a farmer. I’m interested to see how it performs in the ranger
I love the 2.7 in my F150. I have the first year and was very unsure about it due to its displacement and it being new at the time until I test drove it side by side with the 5litre. Very surprised and liked how stout it appeared to be built. Like a miniature gas powerstroke. I always wondered why it wasn’t an option on the ranger but now that it is can’t wait to see how it does in that!
Thank you for taking the time to interview engineers from GM, Ford, and Toyota.
Highly recommend watching Pickup Truck + SUV's interview with Mike Sweers (title is Toyota's Tundra, 4Runner, Sequoia, Tacoma Chief, Interview from Japan). At 30 minutes plus you'll get a (seemingly) honest engineering perspective on the compromises between small displacement turbo, emissions and regulations. The reality is small displacement turbo is a compromise for regulatory demands to reduce emissions. This is not an improvement in reliability or engine performance. Engines are now being designed to suit regulatory demands and less so to suit the type of vehicle its being built for
That being said, environmental responsibility is important but this is not the way to do it i think.
First, I would like to say what a great idea to interview these guys. Gm was very informative. Ford, however, was not good and seemed he didn't know very much. Toyota was just so so. But it was all mostly informative in one way another.
Over engineered PCV system - the oil passage will plug up once the oil gets little bit dirty, a small spring inside? Really? Springs tire, wear out, break. Can you imagine the repair cost to replace that tiny spring that probably cost less than a dollar? The labor to take the engine apart will cost you hundreds of $$$ to replace a tiny spring!! Plus, the valve disengage system is a terrible idea - uneven heat which will cause more dramatic wear and tear which means the engine will not last. Why don’t they talk about how easy or difficult its going to be replace certain parts? …and the list goes on and on. In addition, GM is not well known for using durable quality steel materials or quality control…poorly put together, etc. I would not touch these engines or any GM truck with a 10 ft pole at this stage. Can they talk about or describe the torture test they put this engine through? …deprive it of oil, run it with dirty oil, time of continuous running, purposely introduce malfunctions of certain components, etc….because subjecting the engine to extreme failures is the only way to improve the engine and make it really reliable. Video graphics looks great on the screen but it doesn’t show or explain anything about durability and longevity.
My work has a 2020 XLT Ranger with the Turbo4. Very basic quad cab and it's driven by several people hard! It's my week to drive it on-call and it has 22,500 miles with absolutely no issues. I own a Tremor and the mileage is only about 3 - 4mi/Gal less than the average of this Ranger. So, for a much more comfortable truck I like my full size f150. The Turbo on the Ranger makes it move very well though and gives it a real tow capability.
Report back if it makes it past 250k
Any system is dependent on the components functioning together . If one component fails the system fails. Sometimes it can be one o-ring in the critical location that kills the entire engine . So more components equals likely hood of more problems .
So an electric motor is the way to go then. Or if it has to be an ICE, an inline 2 cylinder with 4 valves total (single cam).
It's generally true but I've never really been disappointed by GM engineers, believe it or not. They design fine vehicles, the failures come in the manufacturing stage. So yes, more components is more to mess up in manufacturing but it's totally possible to build complex vehicles it just requires higher quality standards.
What an awesome video! Most of my questions answered in one video. Keep up the good work gentlemen.
The main source of oil onto the valves will still be the turbo, it’s inherent that some will come through directly onto the valves.
I agree that DeXos oil is critical for coking reduction as well as primarily to reduce timing chain wear due to soot from oil combustion in the chamber.
Thanks Andre. Nice set of interviews. No huge surprises. Turbo gas engines and hybrids are coming whether we like it or not. It will be interesting to see which engines are more reliable than others. Keep up the good work and testing on TFL.
Which engines are more reliable? Non-turbo, non-hybrid, non-electric aka naturally aspirated ice engines…they are more reliable.
Wait, so in our system the customer determines the market and the voter determines the government. Tell me again why I should have to buy something I don’t want? I don’t accept this argument.
@@Jaredius interesting opinion
@@RB-rl7kv no one is making you buy anything
@@Jarediusnot always. Depends on the specific engine. Ford and Hyundai have built shifty naturally aspirated engines. Ford has also built some great naturally aspirated and turbocharged engines. You have to use your brain and avoid making blanket statements.
Recommend a video with some of the folks who have torn down these turbo truck motors and have found a bunch of problems. For me, I am not buying a gas truck with a turbo motor. Diesel, fine, like a 7.3 L PowerStroke. I want a truck motor to go 300,000 miles with no issues other than regular maintenance. IMHO, a turbo gas truck motor is not going to get anywhere near that kind of life.
Just time will tell us if any of those engines are reliable and will last long. Off course engineers will talk wonders about their creations. Imagine what would happen with the engineer if he/she said something real about their engine that isn’t good. I believe cars and trucks today are more fragile and problems prone than previous generations, simply because the excessive use of sensors. Not mention the complexity added to maintaining those vehicles.
I expect engineers to do exhaustive testing before releasing a product. Their talk is backed by empirical data.
I appreciate the engineer's perspective and agree with below about including a mechanic's perspective. In addition - would recommend getting feedback from customer's who reportedly have had many issues with the new Tundra. I would have loved to ask the engineer about how well reliability is measured against complicating systems (everything is electrical/computer-module dependent etc), and if it wasn't for emissions and other constraints - would he still pursue the same design and system development. Might he consider lessening some of the complication? Good interview and appreciate what the entire TFL team brings to the forum! Of note - i got rid of my 2021 F150 Lariat and bought a 2023 4Runner ORP, and to date - incredibly impressive what Toyota did with this 40 year old design/machine. I was worn out with recalls, computer reprogramming and other mechanical issues in that 14th gen Ford. It though reminds me how less is more (simple and not complicated).
Thanks for all of your work on bringing information to us. I have been watching since 2022 and wanting to purchase a new mid-sized truck. I currently have a reliable 2015 Jeep JKUR, so I am willing to wait a little longer. My concern is from an engineering and physics standpoint: Turbos will work an engine harder. I have a hard time understanding how you can have an engine last longer, especially with these smaller liter engines. I understand they want to get better gas mileage and emissions. I am OK with a little less mpg if the engine lasts. I could not buy a Chevy, GM or Ford because of their poorer quality and the dealer service seems less responsive. While I will be interested to see the new Toyota's reliability, I do believe that Toyota is easier to trust to address issues. I kinda want a 2024 Tacoma hybrid with the current engine (V6). Maybe upgrade the transmission. Love the changes to the body. I am seriously looking at the Nissan Frontier Pro4X with the V6.
I’m inclined that way too.
yeah im kinda hoping the nissan v6 is around in 4-5 years when I'm shopping again.
@@St.IrenaeusI bought my 20’ frontier for this reason. Old body but has the new v6 and 9 speed. Completely happy with it.
@@St.Irenaeus you also get the benefit of it
Being largely based off the old platform so there’s inherent reliability there. Additionally, midsize trucks cooled it on the towing numbers race and Nissan is right there with everyone in a true midsize truck with reliability naked in from years of production.
Turbo chargers themselves are not inherently the issue. The issue is relying on a turbo to produce the HP the engine should do on its own. Taking a bigger N/A engine like 5.3 or 5.0 or even smaller like 4.0 and putting a turbo on it to assist the power plant works fine. The problem is when you use a small engine like 1.3 liter 2.7 liter and throwing a high pressure turbo on it to make usable power, because the engine will be strained over it’s much shorter life span than a larger engine or a Naturally aspirated engine. Then you have to watch the heat as most of the factory turbos are oil cooled and not water cooled. Turbo engines also need to keep running at idle before the engine turns off to keep the oil from burning on the impeller bearings. Also you have to change the oil at much shorter intervals that most drivers do not do and also need a good synthetic every oil change. Because of these issues that most people do not know to do the used market is very hit or miss due to not knowing how the previous owner treated the vehicle. You have much more issues throughout the vehicle like the Hp fuel pump timing etc etc. using a small turbo engine on a small car like a Honda civic works but using it in a truck not so good
Ford should be embarrassed to have this "engineer " on their payroll. Then again, they kept him employed after the abortion that is the first generation ecoboost, apparently Fords durability "standards" are exceptionaly low.
Yeah, as a long time ford fan this was pretty sad.
Quick question... why no diesel in US for the midsize trucks? In Australia new Ranger/Amazon and outgoing Hilux all diesels.
Emission regulations, the EPA is stricter about diesels here than in other parts of the world
The epa are commies
I had an opportunity to buy a '23 Sierra Elevation with the 2.7L Turbo but I decided to go with the 5.3L V8 instead...not regretting my decision, especially when it comes to fuel mileage.
Agree 100%. I have a '22 Elevation with the 5.3 and get just over 20 mpg hwy when I'm not in too big of a hurry. I could've gotten an SLE with the 2.7 and saved $5000 but I know I'll get that $5000 back (well, most of it anyway) when I eventually sell my truck. I typically abhor all caps, but when I go to sell my truck I'm going to write "with a NATURALLY ASPIRATED 5.3L V-8." I'll probably also add, "with no DFM." I paid too much for the truck because of the pandemic, and its value has taken a nose dive, but I'm confident it'll hold most of its current value over the next few years thanks in part to its engine. Love it.
I’m old enough to have lived through the first wave of the turbo fad in the mid-80’s. It did not end well. This second wave won’t be much better. Yes, technology has advanced 40 years, but you can’t change physics. Tiny turbo 4’s are going to get pounded on in truck applications and you are simply not going to see space shuttle miles out of these drivetrains. I just bought a new Nissan Frontier w it’s naturally aspirated V6 for this very reason.
Good choice
Me to. One of the last more simple trucks available. And it's pretty well built actually.
Watching a mechanic's review, he made it perfectly clear that if you want a turbocharged truck as a long-term vehicle, you will more than likely have to replace the turbo at some point. Basically, it's not even possible to make a turbo engine as reliable as a naturally aspirated engine. However, like most of you all, I do believe Toyota will be the one to figure SOMETHING out in regards to turbo reliability that their competitors will not. Maybe not with these first couple of years of production but 3-5 years down the line. They're just one of the kings of reliability. Still, it just doesn't seem possible to make them as reliable as natural engines
I added a catch can to my 2 L turbo. ( 11 years old so far). The engine has a built in oil separator. The can gets very little oil in it, but does catch what looks like rusty water. Better in the can than on the valves. For Toyota usiing NiMH batteries. Its an established tech. They don't burn like lithium. I remember reading that they are better in cold weather.
One of my favorite videos from TFL, great job
Thank you for watching.
This is such a load of (insert expiative here). Go to any Ford dealership and ask the techs "Whats the most reliable engine in a Ford truck right now" and the majority will say "its the naturally aspirated Coyote." These engineers are trying to cut costs, and get trucks to the warranty period. They are also incentivized to have a major repair outside of warranty so customer trades the truck in for a new one to avoid paying cash for the huge repair.
so these were great informative interviews but i feel like the grievances that we have about all these systems weren’t directly asked or directly answered
Exactly
Because the truth isn't positive
I have a 2023 Tundra which I love, but somehow I don't think the Toyota serviceability checklist said "it's ok to have to separate the engine bay from the rest of the truck to access/repair the turbos."
Thanks for all the info about the engines.
I just got my 2023 canyon Denali . It’s only been a week & I hear a rattle when I have the sun shade open on my sunroof . It’s driving me nuts ..
I don’t know what to do .
If you take it to a dealer , they will keep the truck for couple days & will not find the problem.
( it’s coming from past experience)
I like having a sunroof, but it seems like every one of them will start rattling at some point. Yours is excessive though.
File that lemon lawsuit, I’m sure the rattle is dangerous. Yea and don’t take the truck into the dealership, they might be able to fix it, it’s always better to complain about it🙄
They essentially added a built in "no maintenance" catch can system on the L3B 2.7L Turbo. My problem with that is you're just putting that fuel diluted oil back into the oil system. Fuel dilution is the #1 cause of oil breakdown. A catch can you have to empty helps get that out of the system. With these crazy high mileage oil change intervals, for long term engine health I'd still be running a catch can that needs to be emptied.
I will never buy anything with Turbos, with my experience they cost me more in ownership than a V8 . Domestic Brands Mount Turbos 1/8 " inch from Engine Block. Without Heat Sheild, & or Turbo Blanket. If you never knew Turbos get to be
1,875 degrees F. I had an Eco-Tragic Ford 2 engines with in 60,000 miles. Manufactures Warranty only Pays for 1 month of a Rental, and for if the engine is replaced once the 2nd time the Rental is not paid for each time it took 2 full months to to get the car back. Imagine $93 / Day that incudes Rentals insurance nt my insurance it would be up to $2790 for 30 days, and if it is 2 months looking over $5,580 that's more than 5 monthly payments on my current car payment 2022 Roush Mustang with the Manual... will never buy Automatic Paddle Shifters
Thank you for telling the truth on forced induction engines. Its why I have my 2007 Silverado Classic (GMT800, not GMT900) with a 4.8 LR4 (Gen 3.5 LS) engine, simple and durable and smokes the tires on my extended cab truck. Currently at 182,000 miles.
@shadowopsairman1583 Awesome, yeah, Turbos are worse than Superchargers. I had had a 2004 Lotus Elise N/A. It had the original coolant, too. Drove it hard for 12 years and would have cost me over $30k to get it somewhat running and looking nice. Though, the body flexed and might have fallen apart.
I buy the EcoTragic and 7.5 years later I am in a real nice V8 and get the same as the EcoTragic in mpg just 2 mpg less. Insurance is higher though, I am buying a 2022 Roush Mustang, which is 4 times more than the EcoTragic, with twice the monthly payments and 2 years less.... I got the Vip Ford Pass for 8 years I don't have to pay for anything, fluids, Calipers Pads, Rotors, Windshield. I just have to pay for Tires. Tires are $500 each
His reasoning on the belt drive oil pump for the three liter duramax sucks it’s the only motor I know with a service schedule for the oil pump drive
LOL rubber is an oil based product. the rubber based belt will degrade if soaked in oil..... can't teach old dogs new tricks.
There are also issues from coolant leaking into cylinders because the engines run hotter. They try to add more coolant channels, which introduces weak spots. These weak spots are susceptible to failure from the higher cylinder pressure and heat.
Using a closed deck design fixes those issues. Problems arise when someone overboosts their stock engine past set parameters.
I've been in the automotive repair industry for 30 years now. The bottom line is a cylinder turbo engine is not going to have the longevity or reliability as a naturally aspirated V6 engine. Period. Turbos get extremely hot and with moving parts they will eventually fail. That is just the nature of the beast.
Only Nissan sticks with proven NA truck engines, then people complain that it's old-school
Go nissan
@@itsallminor6133 Been going Nissan since age 15. 58 now. Getting ready to rebuild front end on 423,000 mile hardbody for the first time. What will I find?
@@TIJoe-te9qu rust
@@itsallminor6133 not much from what I see so far. Kalifornia all its life. I better have the liquid wrench ready though.
As an owner of a 22RET Toyota pickup I love this truck but it having 360,000 + mile im wanting it as a play around truck and my biggest grip with all the old tacomas etc was the rear breaks that finnaly got fixed I did the for 8.8 rear disc swap from a F9rd explorer on my 1990 pickup and it was a game changer for my 2wd but im stoked for the new Tacoma hybrid and im looking at the TRD Sport when they hit the lot next year
The simpler the better these GM 4 banger turbos have too many parts that can fail and cause issues, this engine will never make 200k miles without major problems !!!
"Back then, you could only get about 200 horsepower..."
That is all most people NEED! Who actually needs a 405 horsepower twin turbo pickup truck??
I love these interviews you have with engineers and hearing the ins and outs of the products they sell.
The only question I would like to know is, given the technology to test vehicles, the 100 years of automotive history, and the use of modern testing abilities, how is it even possible that cars have problems?
Exactly.. Hundred years later still learning to make a engine?
I don't think so. I actually am pretty sure they could make a near perfect engine *if they wanted too*
Great job! Fantastic hearing from lead engineers on the engines powering the great 2023-2024 next gen mid-sized pickups.
I had a new ford ranger slt 4x4 2022 for 6 months before a drunk totaled it.
I felt like it moved around quite nicely with its little turbo. I got 31.5 mpg on the interstate with it and that made me smile. For around town and runs for animal feed, taking garbage to recycle center and making lowes run as a property manager and landlord, it was a nice vehicle. I really liked the radio and GPS interface, it was clean and easy to use. I missed all wheel drive on a day to day basis and there were no Rangers to be had, or they were 15k over msrp so I bought a Santa Cruz to replace it.
Great high tech, very impressive. And I will never buy a 4-cylinder truck, nor a non-diesel turbo truck. Sorry. Guess I'm old and like trucks that last.
I have a Colorado as a rental because the hurricane smashed my 2019 ridgeline. I was spoiled with the ridgeline. The only thing I like about the Colorado is the engine and brakes. Too small, feels cramped and rides a lot rougher then the Ridgeline. I was disappointed cause I was thinking of replacing the lost ridgeline with the Colorado but it just solidified I am staying with the ridgeline.
As a former machinist, I highly distrust engineers.
Lose the turbo 4 cylinder and go with a naturally aspirated inline 6. They're simpler, more durable/reliable and have good low end torque.
Im so glad I got my 22' 4 banger Tacoma dead simple. That GM engin looks like a nightmare
2007 Silverado with 4.8 LR4, simple and durable.
You have vvt which is a nightmare waiting to happen
@@shadowopsairman1583 ok boomer, idc about your POS. Im not going to respond anymore so dont @ me
Toyota could have introduced these forced induction turbo engines on their new models while maintaining a v8 and v6 tried and true option.
They could have placed a pricing 25:11 premium on v6 and v8 options and to encourage adoption of the new engines.
Why they did not do this is beyond my comprehension.
I am now in the market for a new minivan and a new pickup. I will not do the hybrid and I will not do the turbo v6 tundra.
Rather have a reliable V6
Exactly
All the manufacturers kinda danced around the durability and reliability questions
I like high displacement v8’s. Thanks. No turbo complexity needed.
Andre theres no point asking ford about reliability. They dont understand or belive in it.
The ford guy couldn’t wait for that interview to be over.
Notice Jeep didn’t get interviewed, cause they make the last dual solid axle NA v6 truck on the market.
Still doesn't change the fact that every time Andre hammers it, the words "Challenger, go with throttle up" run through my mind. Pretty sure those Thikol engineers did a lot of testing too. 😆
That had nothing to with engineering. That was negligence. The design engineers warned them and the warning were ignored.
Folks need to realize with complexity comes increased maintenance & cost. For example my take trash/recycling to township drop-off pickup is a 2007 F150 with 180K miles. Still has the original shock absorbers on rear, original spring shackles & bushings (both springs replaced 1X). What will cost be to keep a truck with coil rear suspension running good for that many miles ? Many more wear points to deal with !
@@daveallen7767 what? replacement coil springs are literally $100 each. From Eibach, not chinesium. A single shock tower location to worry about. Leaf springs are cheap and reliable but so are coils.
Literally wrong. Just Google it lol.
They all say it’s for emission reasons. I doubt Toyota would have switched out the v6 otherwise. It was a great engine and the blowback wouldn’t have been worth it. I’m sure the new engine is great but I still want to wait before making my decision on it. If I had to bet I still doubt it has the longevity has the outgoing v6. It may have a little more torque but is it worth it. For maybe shortened life and higher repair bills
I work avionics and with electrical issues just like anything else you can get a bad component evey now and then. Very unfortunate and frustrating when the part cost a $100K
You are a special kind of person to work avionics.
Great work Andre and TFL team!
The fact that they aren't offering turbo-petrols on Heavy duty pickup trucks which are used more for work purposes should tell you that OEMs themselves don't trust turbo motors as much as they want buyers to.
Give it time
It just means diesel engines work better for heavy hauling. And many diesels have a turbo
Except most HD trucks used for heavy hauling have turbo diesel engines. I believe most commercial trucks are also running turbo diesel motors. Turbos have been around a long time, just not in mass use for mainstream private vehicles.
@@DosCylindros Outside of the US small turbo diesel engines in passenger cars are very common - Europe, Africa etc. Small gas turbos have also been in passenger cars for a long time.
Chevy Guy - "Let me show you this video." Ford Guy - "We spray oil to cool pistons and it goes around the bottom of the piston and it's really cool. Oh and It goes fast." Toyota Guy - "We have three phases of testing and we upped the standards 1.6534 times the SUV application. We increased durability, power, and efficiency an average of 1.4689 times over the previous generation."
Ford has come a long way from the Capri I bought with the 2.3L Turbo back in 1979....( 190 HP )
Back in the day we did not need backup cam we turn our head and used our mlrrers
Question for GM & Chevy.....Will I actually get my 23' Colorado ZR2 before 2024?
No
That's how gM products last, don't drive them...simple...!
Great video gentlemen, it was awesome too see and hear the 3 different companies corperate strategy through these individuals
Yeah , let’s ask the engineers of the product if it’s any good. Hmm, kinda sounds suspiciously like what happened over the last two years or so with something you put in your arm. It’s totally “Safe and effective”. Get back to being a car manufacturer instead of a tech manufacturer.
240k miles on a 2015 2.7 turbo F-150, original turbos. Change the oil.
I wish he would ask what they did to fix the timing chain and phaser issues on the 3.5 V6.
Ford rather sell you a new engine
Wow, the Ford guy was unprepared, the GM guy put on an very detailed informative conversation? The Toyota guy was also well prepared to answer all the questions?
Of these three engines, my money is on Toyota actually making a long lasting, durable, performant turbo engine with minimal major mechanical issues or recalls.
Their quality has gone down, I had to do vvt gears on a 2010 corolla last year. No engine repairs on my 2007 LR4 4.8 other than oil and filter changes.
Same Here More @ Toyota Trust Than These Others, Peace ✌.
We'll see today's toyota is not the same as the toyota from the 90's and this will be their first foray into turbo assisted trucks (let's include last year's tundra).
They have made successful turbocharged engines for years in non-US markets
@@bdubb4684 Yep but their turbo diesel skills probably won't translate directly into turbo gasoline.
Go ask my 3 buddies about the AFM on the 5.3L V8. Get a Range Tech and disable that system. Fouled plugs, collapsed lifters, bent push rods, and coked up oil rings. It would be great engines if they got rid of the AFM.
I have a question about the cylinder deactivation.
Why can’t they do cylinder deactivation while idling, seems like the best time to do so. Low load and some people idle for long periods of time.
That’s a good question. Curious myself. I’d make my own educated guess that at the low RPM at idle (
At idle, just turn off the engine. Auto start/shutdown is more reliable and smoother than cylinder deactivation. Although more wear on the starter, I would rather replace a starter motor, than rebuild an engine.
Most people don't realize that combustion engines have not changed that much the past 15 - 20 years. The main reason there are more turbo engines produced today is increased gas mileage. The main downfall, other than larger engines room for displacement obviously, is that they will likely need to be swapped out around 100,000 miles.
Toyota has been using Turbo Diesel engines in every market around the world except the US for the last 20-30 years with excellent reliability results. This new engine is a Petrol Turbo but I would expect the same testing and quality standards being used for this engine.
I remember back in 1987 when they came out with the 4 Cylinder Turbo Diesel 4×4 truck- could that truck pull up hill with a trailer! Wish we could get that diesel Turbo here again!
I wouldn’t be opposed to the mass adoption of turbocharged engines if I believed it was caused by actual free market forces. But I don’t think it is. I think the only reason we’re seeing so many turbo powertrains in vehicles that have traditionally had big, rumbling, naturally aspirated engines is entirely due to government regulation and lobbying from environmental groups. I think most consumers - particularly truck enthusiasts- prefer naturally aspirated engines, and would prefer simplicity and reliability over the couple of mpgs they save. Sure, these new engines are no doubt well researched and well built, but they’re not what consumers actually want. They’re what the government wants.