Dear Scotty,
I’ve watched your channel for a while and I just want to thank you for the tips in the end. They’ve been really helpful. You are the new Click and Clack and you know who they were.
Just wanna make a comment about turbochargers.
I understand how you hate turbochargers, technically, I agree. However I would like to throw in a couple observations.
There are alot technologies in cars today that came from racing. Disc brakes. Seat belts. Fuel injection. Even some old Corvettes had mechanical fuel injection, which I can’t understand how that worked anyway. But fuel injection is well known in racing circles. You don’t see race cars equipped with turbo chargers fail.
So the question is, I’m not really upset at turbo charging per se. I’m upset at these dumb school automotive engineers that don’t know squat about Racing and how to keep the pressure that turbo charging creates inside an engine. You can engineer that.
My job presently is a career coach at a community college. I coach all the welding diesel auto and collision students and help them through their journey through their 2yr programs. I also watch and visit where they work. I cannot tell you how many times I have visited my students at dealerships and they are taking apart turbo chargers, some on two-year-old Jaguars. One student had a two year old Explorer with a turbo charged 4cyl Ford and he was pulling out the turbo charger because it had failed in 122,000 miles. Yes that was a lot of mileage for a two year old Explorer. It belonged to a company, but nevertheless that thing failed and it cost $700 for the turbo charger and over $2000 to put it in. That’s just after two years!!
I have talked with community college Automotive instructors who have worked at Lexus They were changing out the turbo chargers there also.. Lexuses were blowing out the pan seal because of the excessive pressure.
So to me, I understand what you say, but there is to me a huge disconnect between proper turbo charger, engineering, and cars that are on the road today. Just putting in a turbo charger in a car mass production daily driver car, is not proper engineering. Racing engineers understand how to seal an engine that has a turbo charger in it. They know how to do that. I don’t know these engineers are not getting to money not getting the money to properly design a turbo charge engine I don’t care what manufacturer it is I’m not sure about that but that’s why I’m writing the question is there so just wonderingif you might have any insight on that, thanks
There are alot technologies in cars today that came from racing. Disc brakes. Seat belts. Fuel injection.
Caliper disc brakes were first used in the 1902 Lanchester. Seat belts were invented for use in 19th century gliders. The first fuel injected engine was the Antoinette V8 of the early 1900s. These technologies go further back than many people realize and didn't really have much to do with racing.
Turbocharged engines can last a long time when designed properly and that was accomplished decades ago. I drive a 1997 Saab turbo with about 375K miles and it's still going strong. (Modern overly-complex, light-duty, engineered for compliance engines are a different story.)
So to me, I understand what you say, but there is to me a huge disconnect between proper turbo charger, engineering, and cars that are on the road today. Just putting in a turbo charger in a car mass production daily driver car, is not proper engineering. Racing engineers understand how to seal an engine that has a turbo charger in it. They know how to do that. I don’t know these engineers are not getting to money not getting the money to properly design a turbo charge engine
Those engineers for the most part are really doing the best they can, all things considered. EPA rules and regulations don't follow the laws of physics 99% of the time. Most lawmakers were attorneys before going into politics, not engineers. EcoBoost engines, and really all ultra-modern, run-of-the-mill turbocharged engines are a massive compromise in order to appease the lawmakers. Most have absolutely no clue about how internal combustion engines work. My 2017 Mustang V6 takes 5W-20 oil, my wife's 2017 EcoBoost takes only slightly heavier oil, 5W-30. Her Mustang is designed to only occasionally use the turbocharger. The engines are great on paper, if you drive conservatively. Most people don't drive conservatively when they know they have turbos in their cars. I have a piston from the 3.6L Pentastar V6, which takes the same oil as my wife's Mustang; I can easily squeeze in the piston rings with my hand. The EcoBoost Mustang isn't designed to constantly use its turbocharger.
Most engineers know that in order to put a turbocharger on an engine properly, the piston rings need to be a lot stiffer than in my wife's Mustang's engine. Stiff piston rings require heavier, more viscous oil which decreases gas mileage when the turbo isn't kicking in. That wastes gas, because the turbo is only really meant to accelerate the car, and spool down once the car is going at the driver's desired speed. Once it's at the desired speed and the turbo dies down, increased fluid friction noticeably decreases gas mileage. They're not meant for applications like the WWII-era P-47 Thunderbolt or P-38 Lightning, where simply cruising kicks in the turbocharger, and the turbo doesn't stop until you idle the engine. Those engines had viscous oil, because their engines were intended from the start to pretty much always use forced induction.
well of course. But consumer cars don't get the same level of attention and engineering as race cars do. (in other words, money). They're built to a price point.
Here's an interesting article about early fuel injection, particularly the 1950s Bendix "Electrojector" electronic fuel injection system and 1960s Bosch D-Jetronic injection. (The former was the first production electronic fuel injection system but unfortunately was not successful.) Racing was not involved in the development of either: