The Turbo Problem

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You may have noticed that many new vehicles – most of them, actually – come standard with a turbocharged engine. It used to be generally true that only high-performance cars came with turbocharged engines.

There was a reason for that.

And it’s reasonable to be leery about why that reason has changed.

Turbos used to be used to make an engine a high-performance engine; often, the engine was already a performance engine. The classic example is the Porsche 911’s six cylinder “boxer” engine. It was already powerful – without the turbo. Adding the turbo made it even more powerful.

A turbo does this by using exhaust gas pressure (which spins a compressor) to pressurize the incoming air charge; instead of sucking it in – this is what naturally aspirated engines do – it is forced in. The additional air (and fuel) makes for a more powerful power stroke within the engine when the mixture is lit by the spark plug.

The end result is more power.

But also more pressure – on everything inside the engine. A more forceful explosion applies more force to the pistons and rings and then to the crankshaft and bearings – and so on. If the engine is small, it will typically have smaller surfaces to absorb all of this pressure, which concentrates the pressure.

The result – almost inevitably – is a shorter-lived engine.

Porsche 911 Turbos are fantastic cars but they are not generally cars that run reliably for 150,000-plus miles. That’s the price you pay for driving a 911 Turbo. It’s kind of like the price paid by body builders who take steroids.

They get pumped – but it doesn’t last.

So why do so many family cars – even economy cars – all of a sudden have turbocharged engines? The answer is straightforward: They don’t have enough engine. The turbo is there to make up for that. And you get to pay for it – in the form of a higher buy-in price and an increased likelihood of a shorter-lived engine

You can thank the government for it.

As an example – one of many – this week I am test driving a new Mercedes-Benz GLC 300, which is a crossover SUV that weighs 4,167 pounds. If it were 2013 rather than 2023, a vehicle this heavy would have come standard with a V6 engine around 3.5 liters in size. In fact, that is exactly what came standard in the 2013 Mercedes ML350, which was very similar to the current GLC. It was a little larger – and a little heavier – but the point is it came standard with a 3.5 liter V6 that didn’t need a turbo to move its more-than-two-tons of steel, glass and plastic.

The ’23 GLC 300 does – because all it’s got to move its two-tons-plus of steel, glass and plastic is a 2.0 liter four cylinder engine, which isn’t enough engine to move that kind of weight, without an assist.

Enter the turbo. It applies pressure when the driver imparts pressure – to the  accelerator. Without the pressure – from the turbo – there would be little in the way of acceleration coming from just 2.0 liters of engine, all by itself. The turbo makes up for what’s not there anymore.

Bu why is it not there?

Especially here – in a Mercedes?

2013 ML350

The ’23 GLC 300’s 2.0 liter four makes less power (255 hp) even with the assist than the old ML 350’s V6 (302 hp). It touts higher gas mileage: 23 city, 31 highway vs. 18 city, 23 highway for the old ML.

But do people who buy $50k Mercedes-Benzes care about that difference? Probably not many. But Mercedes has to care about it – because Mercedes has to deal with the government.

The otherwise insufficient 2.0 liter four that comes in the GLC300 is turbocharged to make the power people who spend $50k-plus on a Mercedes expect. But the underlying reason the 2.0 liter four is there is because a smaller engine scores higher on government fuel economy and lower on on government “emissions” tests. The latter in air-fingers-quote marks to mock the use of the term to describe non-reactive gasses that don’t pollute (carbon dioxide) as “emissions.” Which is kind of like using the word “vaccine” to describe a drug that doesn’t immunize.

Without the turbo, 2.0 liters would be a hard sell – in a $50k car.

Or even a $30k family car, such as a car like the Honda Accord – which also used to come with a V6 for that money. It now comes standard with – wait for it! – a 2.0 liter turbocharged four. So do many others. Some come with even less, as for example the 2024 Buick Envista I reviewed about a week ago. It only has 1.2 liters (and just three cylinders) to move about 3,200 lbs.

It wouldn’t move – without a turbo.

Without the boost.

But that comes with pressure – and that comes at a cost. It’s one almost everyone who buys a new vehicle will pay because adding a turbo and the peripherals (these include a specialized exhaust system and a higher-capacity cooling system to defray the additional heat produced by the turbo) costs money. And it is much more likely buyers will pay again, down the road – when the pressure results in a failure.

You could try sending the government the bill.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Keeeeeeeeev! t shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!


  1. Shopping for a small suv in late 2016, I was dismayed by how many of them had (dreaded) turbochargers. Looking more closely, I saw that what a turbo brings to the party is very useful low end torque. Been happy with our 2017 Subaru Forester XT ever since.

  2. Based on personal experience:

    2006 BMW 328i
    3.0 l inline 6, normally aspirated
    FI, 4 valves/cyl., DOHC
    215 hp
    185 ft lb
    21 mpg
    215 hp/3 l = 71.67 hp/l

    2013 BMW 328i
    2.0 l 4 cyl, w/staged turbochargers
    (yes, two turbochargers)
    FI, 4 valves/cyl., DOHC
    240 hp
    255 ft lb
    26 mpg
    240 hp/3 l = 120 hp/l

    I don’t have exact numbers, but the 2013 had a much wider power band.
    To successfully merge into freeway traffic with the 2006, it was necessary to shift the automatic into “sport” shift pattern, whereas with the 2013 the power is always there, whenever you mash the accelerator pedal.

    Inland SoCal, 1 owner 2013 w/ ~70,000 miles, no accidents, are asking ~$17,000 today.

    • I remember testing the BMWs in 2013. I was impressed by the throttle response. I also think that BMW would design their engines to take the pressure. Not all companies do that, but that’s one thing BMW does get right. Too bad the rest of their car is a story of melted plastic.

      • >Too bad the rest of their car is a story of melted plastic.
        They started cutting corners on some items early in this century. The owner of the independent service business who kept mine running said the Minis were even worse.

  3. An excellent piece which reminds me of an important economic point here. It all boils down to a concept which just happens to mimic one of my favorite phrases, “something for nothing”. The new car owner (mistakenly) believes he is getting an adequately powered vehicle which comes with a reliably competent & powerful engine. On this they actually (mistakenly) think they are getting something for nothing (“oh gee, we’re getting a less expensive power train that can perform the same as a more powerful one, a V-8, without the cost of a V-8 – Oh goody gumdrops, were getting something for nothing by paying a lower price”). That part is their side of the equation. On the other side is the Mfr & dealer who actually are receiving something for nothing by the fact that they are marketing a car which includes an incompetent and artificially powered engine which enables them to charge & receive an artificially higher price than they ordinarily would if the market were honest. One party ripping off another yet both are delusional.

    And the beat goes on . . .and on, and on.

    “Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” – Aldous Huxley

  4. Turbos on gasoline engines in these giant cars don’t make much sense from an efficiency standpoint either, because when worked hard, they can be less efficient.

    Energy use is all about the amount of work done. When working hard, like towing or just driving a big behemoth of a car around, a little engine is going to use its turbo quite a lot. Let’s compare what a turbo does to a naturally aspirated 3.5L engine.

    The naturally aspirated engine is pulling against the throttle plate to take in air, creating manifold vacuum, and injecting the right amount of fuel. As you get on the throttle, it actually has reduced pumping losses since it doesn’t have to suck as hard.

    In a turbo engine, once you need some real torque, the turbo has to compress a lot of air, cool it, and force it into the cylinders. Compressing air takes a lot of energy, which is something the N/A engine isn’t doing. Now, turbos can be more efficient thermodynamically (Carnot cycle) which can offset some of these losses, but the efficiency gains from turbo engines come from the times during which you are not using the turbo because you have less internal mass, and you’re using a larger throttle opening for each cylinder, reducing pumping losses. When you run a turbo at high power a lot, it’s often less efficient!

    Another interesting thing – cars have vacuum powered accessories, power brakes for example. A turbo doesn’t have enough manifold vacuum to power that, so these small turbos have additional stuff like vacuum pumps, or you have electric power brakes. Nothing wrong with thise, but the choice of small turbo makes other systems necessary.

  5. I recently ordered a Ford Maverick with the 2.0 Ecoboost engine. I was hesitant to go with a turbo, but there aren’t many choices for naturally aspirated engines these days. The engine does have a forged crank and rods so will hopefully handle the turbo well. I certainly will stay on top of oil changes (full synthetic every 5k miles) and maintenance as I hope to get many years and miles of use out of it.

    • Those 2.0 ecoboosts are good engines. As far as turbos go, you should get good life out of it, and most parts don’t cost a fortune (except the turbo itself, that’s damn expensive to manufacture and emissions rules prevent going aftermarket)

      • I hope I never need it but just checked on the turbo. It’s priced in the $600 – 700 range so not too bad. That aligns with what I saw in a recent video for the 3.5 Ecoboost in an F-150.

        • If its AWD, keep an eye on that “sealed”, “no maintenance” rear differential. There is a service bulletin on those for “contaminated fluid” that causes a god awful sound when turning from a dead stop (as the rear wheels and limited slip kick in).

          Its a great little nontruck aside from that, but i decided to move on from mine after 40k and those rear diff issues. Ford’s solution was to replace the fluid, not the clutch pack nor the diff. I’m much happier in my WRX anyway. If im going to roll the dice on a boosted engine, at least let it be a fun one.

          For the record the Mav was quick too though!

  6. Those kind of autos are ok if you’re the type to trade in every five years or so. But I’m betting the majority of the readers of EPautos tend to keep their vehicles for a long time and do not have the means or good sense to put large sums of money on something that depreciates and costs much more than the actual vehicle. That being insurance and getting racked over the coals with property taxes.

  7. An engine can be designed to be durable enough to last with a turbocharger. It comes down to one thing: COST. Which the BUYER of the vehicle should be free to decide for himself, not a design feature all but MANDATED by ridiculous CAFE standards.

    What all that stems from is that FedGov has appropriated, by FIAT (and if only it were “Fix It Again, Tony) the petroleum reserves, and, by extension, shale, coal, and natural gas. In effect, “Uncle” has abrogated the mineral rights for whatever reason(s), well beyond the obvious need for a Defense-related energy reserve. Stemming from that, Uncle has abrogated the ability to ration out fuels, and more than an emergency wartime measure. His hornswoggling of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has metastasized into “Uncle can do whatever the FOOK He WANTS, separation of powers be damned. The tragedy of the invasion and subjugation of the eleven states that wanted no more of Uncle’s crap by 1861 established the extra-legal principle, as coined by the Eagles in 1976: “You can ‘check out’ anytime you like, but you can NEVER leave!”

    And be assured that, should any of us warrant that much attention, even hightailing from this once fair land won’t necessarily bring freedom from the Federal Leviathan. Not only will Uncle go to great pains to ensure that you don’t take your wealth with you, but, should you piss off the powers that be, he won’t hesitate to use military force as his “long reach”. Just ask any US citizens who’ve been taken prisoner w/o benefit of extradition or any other aspect of the legal process wherever they were; to be ensconced at one of Uncle’s “Gulags”, be it Gitmo, or Florence ADX “SuperMax”.

    • >An engine can be designed to be durable enough to last with a turbocharger.
      There you go. The overriding principle is that the engine, and in fact the entire drivetrain, must be designed as a *system* in order to avoid structural failures due to overstressed components. Two words: stress analysis. And that includes both thermal and mechanical stresses. In today’s world, we have the availability of highly sophisticated software tools which enable much more efficient designs than were possible in “ancient times.” Research “finite element analysis” or “engineering simulation” if you would like to know more about this topic.

      Ansys is one of the leading companies:
      Ansys Mechanical and Ansys Autodyn are the products likely most relevant to this discussion.

      Sure, you can, and people have, bolted a turbocharger onto an engine which was not designed to handle the added stress, but chances are good you will break something. The same principle applies whether the engine is normally aspirated, supercharged, or turbocharged. Hot rodders know this all too well, and accept breakage as part of the price to pay for taking it to the limit. “Take it out and break it” is one form of experimental stress testing. 🙂

      • Take it out and break it is in fact the only and ultimate form of experimental stress testing. All simulations are fully subject to GIGO.

        • > All simulations are fully subject to GIGO.
          Yep. 🙂
          They are simulations, not “real world” experience.
          The tape doesn’t lie. Neither does the stop watch, the voltmeter or the strain gage.

  8. Currently driving around a full-sized Wagoneer with a 3.0L V6

    If you take it easy on the gas pedal (avoiding engaging the turbo much) you save a lot on gas but it quickly becomes apparent that it is very underpowered for its size.

    Mash down on the accelerator & it will get up & go like it should…for a price.

    • Hi Publius,

      Yup; I’ve driven the Grand Cherokee with the four/mild hybrid set up. It at least has impressive range. But its mileage in real-world driving is not impressive.

      • The fuel consumption of any given land vehicle is driven mostly by inertia, then rolling and wind resistance, the first two a function of vehicle mass, the latter of it’s coefficient of drag. The powerplant has little to do with it unless the vehicle spends a great deal of time idling. This is why taxicabs used inline sixes in full-sized vehicles; they were barely adequate for freeways speeds, but had to spend a lot of time (and fuel) waiting.

        Hence why putting a “sewing machine” engine in a larger vehicle like full-sized pickups and SUVs MIGHT yield 1 mpg better in the EPA’s rigged tests, but that rather nebulous fuel economy gain won’t be realized in real-life driving conditions. Furthermore, the complexity of the turbo-charged four-banger renders it all but unfixable once the vehicle gets to be a certain age, assuming the manufacturer will even support it with parts, and won’t try to kill any third-party attempts to meet such a demand.

        A slower-turning V8 might be relatively “unsophisticated”, but I noticed Ford went back to it in their “Godzilla” engine in the larger trucks not subject to the CAFE ratings. Gee, the FREE MARKET at work, imagine that.

  9. It seems there is an emerging unstated acceptance on the part of the manufacturers that ICE automobile lifespans — expected mileage lifespans — are shortening. A new kind of planned obsolescence. And to the extent that lower “emission” goals are the supposed justification for these changes, at what point do we include the emissions cost of disposing of a vehicle prematurely? In other words, what are the additional emissions costs of creating an entirely new replacement vehicle prematurely?

  10. The first time turbocharged engines came on the scene in a big way in the 1980s, there were some key differences:

    First, they were not installed on most engines.

    Second, in many cases, the engines they were installed on were powerful enough in their own right and robust enough to handle it. I’m talking about Buick’s turbocharged 3.8 liter V6, which is a nearly indestructible engine to begin with.

    Third, cars generally didn’t last long enough for turbo issues to be a problem. They rusted out long before that point typically—even in Arizona. I’m talking about the Chrysler K platform cars that had the 2.2 turbo.

    Fourth, 1980s turbos were A LOT simpler than today’s.

    Finally, they were generally limited to higher performance models: You could get your Buick Regal without a turbo, but with the standard 3.8 liter V6. Most Buick Regals didn’t have turbos.

    I also think that car companies (and Uncle) are OK with tiny turbo engines because they fail sooner than they might otherwise have, and cost so much to fix, that people say the hell with it and buy a new car at least, or better yet, an EV…no turbo worries there, right?

    • Not sure where this recently reimagined idea that the 3.8 Buick was sturdy and reliable before the introduction of the ’88 3800. Non-turbo 3.8 engines were garbage, rod-throwers that were hard pressed to make it to 120k miles. By the early 90’s, any savvy used car shopper was wise to steer clear of a car with that engine and opt for a V8 optioned version.
      As far the the 3.8 turbo, it had insufficient head bolts that commonly led to head gasket issues.
      As Eric noted, despite the commonality of the Regal and it’s G-body cousins, they weren’t designed to necessarily be daily drivers. Or if they were used as such, the caveat of the turbo and the additional maintenance/cost was still present.

      • Flip,

        The old, 231 Buick V6 was so reliable that aircraft homebuilders often used them in their planes! If using an engine in an airplane, reliability is everything.

  11. Not only does forced induction cause longevity issues from increased cylinder pressure. The additional exhaust gas restriction from the turbine causes increased exhaust valve temperatures, which must be taken into account in engine design. This effect was a killer in air cooled engines, like the Wright R-3350 in the Lockheed Constellation with three “Power Recovery Turbines”. It appears A&P guys called them “Parts Recovery Turbines” due to the engine’s return to exhaust valve swallowing. That Porsche 911/930 felt the sting of increased EGT’s too. I can’t imagine water cooling makes the problem go away.

    A pox on all EPA idiots! Give me a Slant 6 in a Dart wagon, please!

    • The R-3350 caused all SORTS of problems in the B-29 during its development! That engine was, to put it nicely, trouble prone early on; they had fires from the magnesium overheating, etc. It wasn’t just the Connie that had problems with that engine.

  12. The problem isn’t the technology, that’s been around since the 1930s. The problem is that the edict comes down from the swamp and instead of pushing back, manufacturers turn to the engineers to design a solution that will be in compliance. I’m not privy to the conference room meetings where these problems and solutions are discussed but I have to wonder how many engineers spoke up against the demands from management/marketing? Or managers? Accountants? Or marketeers? The dealers? Did anyone? Maybe the lobbyists did at first, but then they lost that battle to the shrieking greens.

    When the first wave of requirements were met, did they all just assume that was the end of it? Did the managers hire on a bunch of people who agree with the green lobby? Did the marketeers decide they could sell the more expensive vehicle as a penance for harming Mother Gaia? Did the first engineer to point out the obvious issues with selling small turbocharged vehicles outside of a specialized application get handed his pink slip? Are they all betting that eventually manufacturing will catch up to the added expense and the price will come back down? It happened before, so of course it can happen again right?

    The whole thing reminds me of the Knights who say “ni” from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (one of the reasons I’m an asshole libertarian).

    In fact, watching the clip now it really does provide an excellent example of regulatory creep and the ridiculous premise of government in general. There’s the crusaders, just doing their thing (that God instructed them to do), when someone comes along and demands payment. Oh, but not just any payment, a task that requires a certain amount of anoying effort. Then, at the first sign of resistance from the townsfok the crusaders use the exact same strong-arm tactic used by the Knights Who Say Ni against them. And when the requirements were met, the KWSNi changed the arbitrary rules for arbitrary reasons.

    The difference between the comedy and reality is that a simple, common word will deflate the NWSNi. The regulator, sometimes, but not always. Federal drug laws are ignored. Tailpipe emissions aren’t. I guess because we, the people, continue to buy ever more expensive and complicated cars and Detroit continues to build them. If we stopy buying, maybe they’ll finally shout “Stop IT!”

    • I never got to work for the retail automakers, but I did work in Truck and Bus.

      I was in a meeting discussing the then upcoming diesel engines for 2002-06. They were advising us bus manufacturers that they would need space for catalytic converters, air pumps, and particulate filters. (DEF Diesel Fluid had not been announced yet) They talked of “selective catalytic reduction and what not. And Exhaust Gas recirculation.

      As someone who had a vague recollection of EGR, I knew that it would reduce combustion temperatures to take care of NOX and other daaaaaaangerous gaaaaaases. I was aware that the air pumps did the exact same thing. I was aware that the space in teh engine compartments would be gimped due to the giant converters and things like that.

      For me, the electrical changes (I interfaced with the rest of the bus), the changes were minimal. There wasn’t much for me to do.

      Towards the end of the meeting, I told them that I thought that it would be a lot cheaper for them to send a few lobbyists to Washington DC, buy off some congressmen and get them to relax the incoming regulations or repeal them altogether than to comply with this.

      The Caterpillar Representative said that it was his company’s policy to comply with government regulations and mandates.

      I told him that it was costly and that I believed that comapnies would be put out of business because of it as the costs of on highway diesel engines had increased from $12k to nearly 20k in 4 years. It was going to hit demand pretty hard.

      By 2008-9, Caterpillar was out of the on highway diesel engine market for good.

      I felt some satisfaction of letting them have it even at that low level, but I wonder how many jobs were lost in the aftermath of the 2000-2003 economic downturn which pretty much shut down truck sales.

  13. The EcoBoost in the Ford F150 needs the turbo looked at very closely at the 100K mark and probably should be replaced proactively as those engines are very expensive to replace.


    • For all practical purposes, to service the EcoBoost at 100K will doom the vehicle, economically. It’s called planned obsolescence.

  14. They figure the 3 and 4 bangers will last until the electrics are mandated in 2030 or sooner. Governments are now actually paying the manufacturers to change their assembly lines to electrics.
    I think its safe to say Americans won’t fight these mandates same as they haven’t pushed back on any previous mandates or too much of anything for that matter.

    Man,,, the people they’ll put out of work! The auto repair shops, parts stores, parts manufacturing and shipping. The car manufacturers themselves will be laying off big time same as all associated manufacturing due to much reduced sales of their much vaulted electrics. All the Gas Stations,,, some will be converted to charging stations with restaurants, bars and hotels close by to make your quick charge memorable and costly. It’ll be a total disaster but it will help save the planet according to our very knowledgeable and caring betters.

  15. ‘Without the turbo, 2.0 liters would be a hard sell – in a $50k car.’ — eric

    And it’s an increasingly hard sell WITH the turbo, when low-mileage vehicles from a few years ago are available with normal-sized engines.

    Evidently, Mercedes is going all neoclassical on us, with its under-endowed vehicles:

    ‘In his play The Clouds (c. 419–423 BC), ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes summed up the ideal traits of his male peers as “a gleaming chest, bright skin, broad shoulders, tiny tongue, strong buttocks, and a little prick.”

    ‘Historian Paul Chrystal has also conducted research into this ancient ideal. “The small penis was consonant with Greek ideals of male beauty,” he writes in his book In Bed with the Ancient Greeks (2016). “It was a badge of the highest culture and a paragon of civilization.”

    “Big penises were vulgar and outside the cultural norm, something sported by the barbarians of the world,” writes Chrystal.’

    Big car, tiny engine … your own Greek statue, as it were. Courtesy of the emasculating US nanny fedgov.

    You men eat your dinner, eat your pork and beans
    I eat more chicken than any man ever seen, yeah, yeah
    I’m a back door man, whoa
    The men don’t know
    But the little girls understand

    — The Doors, Back Door Man

  16. I’m curious if a supercharged engine would last longer? I’m figuring probably not but just curious. Great ideas like this are just another reason I drive old cars.

    • Hi Landru,

      Generally, superchargers apply less boost – around 6-12 pounds or so vs. what’s now routinely 20-plus pounds of peak boost for turbocharged engines. Superchargers are also simpler. But, they take a lot of power to power, and that is at cross purposes with the object of this exercise.

      • And why they are mostly gone. They need more boost for smaller and smaller engines.
        I loved my GM 3.8 supercharged engines relative. But they too only went 100K before they had to be rebuilt or replaced.
        But now I am absolutely enamored with my wifes 3.6TT in her CT4V Blackwing, it has the best throttle response I have experienced probably since my old GTO RamAir III 400. Amazing.

          • hell no………………….. the old gm 3.8 normally aspirated would, but it was old school, only the supercharger needed rebuilt/replace at 100K, well documented.
            As for my wife’s 3.6TT probably at massive pressure relative, no way they go even 200K would be my guess, maybe not even 100-150 without major repairs (turbo?, etc…)

  17. Turbocharged diesel engines are a robust enough to handle the addtional punishment of forcing pressurized air into them. I can see the practical point of a high performance car you’re going to push to the limits anyways having a turbo. Those two applications make sense the others not so much.

    These epa mpg standards that are driving these tiny engines that test at one fuel consumption rate on the test track, dyno, computer model whatever the hell they use these days. Then when put to real life driving conditions produce another set of numbers.

    I don’t imagine the trade offs of the addtional up front costs and maintenance/repair costs of a turbo’d engine would ever be a net gain even if the the imaginary mpgs were true.

  18. This is why I have to sell my Allroad (2.0T) and the primary criteria for any replacement (new/used) is 6 cylinder or better. I used to love Volvo wagons… from a distance. But check the V90 specs these days. Not only do they turbocharge that poor little 2.0 4-banger but they turbocharge the shit out of it! All the way to 295HP.

    My Allroad was 220HP fresh out of the factory but all subsequent model years of Audi 2.0Ts were boosted to 255HP (IIRC).

    And Volvo tells you that you can tow the same as most SUVs with that screamy little engine pushed to the limit. And a “whopping” 25 MPG in a brand new 2024 car. My 2014 A8 4.0T V8 gets close to that on the highway.

    Anyway, I will be getting a 6-cylinder SUV. From my estimation of my life and finances, this is my last chance. Should have it late December or early January.

  19. Some mechanical constants.
    Increase in power causes increase in breakage.
    Increase in speed causes increase in wear.
    The more complex a machine, the more likely it is to fail.
    Of course the inverse of these factors is also constant.

  20. Yeah man, I’m sick and tired of all the 2.0 turbos. I liked the ’80s Dodge ones, like in the Spirit RT, because you could fix them yourself. They were like little fun projects that didn’t cost much so you didn’t expect them to last.

    But you could start over again.

    • Hi Scooter,

      Small, turbocharged engines in small (and light) cars are fine; or rather, they’re appropriate. But putting a 2.0 liter (or smaller) engine in a 4,000-plus pound vehicle is kind of like expecting a 130 pound dude to bench press 300 pounds.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here