Opinions on towing with a turbo

[trainman]

Originally Posted by ntsqd

Exactly why I phrased my comment the way that I did, but why so confrontational?

In my experience turbo gas engines are great for getting somewhere and not so good at doing serious work. However, that could have changed and I'm open to that in spite of my ~30 years experience Ford Repair Tech friend telling me not to buy an EcoBoost if I'm going to work it hard. Just because I don't want one doesn't mean that they aren't ideal for someone else.

I watched a YouTube video on interviews with 10 Ford techs at a dealership and they were asked what engine would they buy not including the diesels and 8 out 10 picked the V8 over the V6 Turbos. Reason expensive to work on and needs proper test equipment to repair it and the cost is much more expensive. Answers my question and something to think about.

trainman

[floyd]

Originally Posted by trainman

I watched a YouTube video on interviews with 10 Ford techs at a dealership and they were asked what engine would they buy not including the diesels and 8 out 10 picked the V8 over the V6 Turbos. Reason expensive to work on and needs proper test equipment to repair it and the cost is much more expensive. Answers my question and something to think about.

trainman

I think Wikipedia makes more experts than YouTube!
If you want YouTube to form your opinion, keep looking and you will find the the video with the opinion you seek!
Of course YouTube might rival Fiberglass RV...right?

[Gompka]

I think this has turned into a pro/con turbo engine debate. I think the op has to make the decision on his own based on all the mostly facts provided here. Both engines will tow the scamp 19, both will have advantages and disadvantages.

For me the turbo engine would win because I would mostly not be towing and the money saved on gas would really add up over time and could be spent on actually camping.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Gompka

I think this has turned into a pro/con turbo engine debate. I think the op has to make the decision on his own based on all the mostly facts provided here. Both engines will tow the scamp 19, both will have advantages and disadvantages.

For me the turbo engine would win because I would mostly not be towing and the money saved on gas would really add up over time and could be spent on actually camping.

Oddly enough the Frontier would be my second choice for this application, it is a solid bargain, even if a bit archaic.

[ntsqd]

Torque is how much work an engine can do.
Horsepower is how fast it can do that work.

Look at the two extremes in ground vehicles, a Class 8 diesel truck and an F1 race car. The truck's engine makes a huge amount of torque, but in comparison very little HP. Which is why they can move massive amount of weight but the slightest hill causes them to loose speed. It can do a huge amount of work, it just can't do it very fast.

The F1 car's engine makes very little torque but a huge amount of HP. It is a good thing that those cars don't weigh very much because it's engine can't do much work, but look at how fast they can go.

(FWIW I know that I'm ignoring recent gains and trends in both examples, but the analogy still holds true.)


With any particular stance on anything, if you look long and hard enough you can eventually find something to support your position. I find it interesting that there is a UtooB video supporting my friend's recommendation, but his voice means 1000% more to me than does the video.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by ntsqd

Torque is how much work an engine can do.
Horsepower is how fast it can do that work.

Look at the two extremes in ground vehicles, a Class 8 diesel truck and an F1 race car. The truck's engine makes a huge amount of torque, but in comparison very little HP. Which is why they can move massive amount of weight but the slightest hill causes them to loose speed. It can do a huge amount of work, it just can't do it very fast.

The F1 car's engine makes very little torque but a huge amount of HP. It is a good thing that those cars don't weigh very much because it's engine can't do much work, but look at how fast they can go.

(FWIW I know that I'm ignoring recent gains and trends in both examples, but the analogy still holds true.)


With any particular stance on anything, if you look long and hard enough you can eventually find something to support your position. I find it interesting that there is a UtooB video supporting my friend's recommendation, but his voice means 1000% more to me than does the video.

You are of course , right. But it is clearly better to look long and hard enough to eventually FORM your opinion.

[redbarron55]

The Turbo 4 is a good choice with the new cooling systems and reliability of the new cars.
With almost all of the new vehicles intended for towing having to meet the SAE towing standards they are less likely to overheat and should meet the manufacturer's ratings.
My Town and Country does not have turbocharging, but my VW Passat 1.8 TSI does and I can say that the 4 cylinder trubo has plenty of torque and horsepower.
The new turbo cars are tuned more for low end torque unlike the older cars for high RPM horsepower.
Of course many feel like you need a nice 3500 3/4 ton dually to tow a 13 foot Scamp.
Overkill is nice, but expensive. My own theory is enough to be safely functional is enough.

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by ntsqd

Torque is how much work an engine can do.
Horsepower is how fast it can do that work.

Look at the two extremes in ground vehicles, a Class 8 diesel truck and an F1 race car. The truck's engine makes a huge amount of torque, but in comparison very little HP. Which is why they can move massive amount of weight but the slightest hill causes them to loose speed. It can do a huge amount of work, it just can't do it very fast.

The F1 car's engine makes very little torque but a huge amount of HP. It is a good thing that those cars don't weigh very much because it's engine can't do much work, but look at how fast they can go.

(FWIW I know that I'm ignoring recent gains and trends in both examples, but the analogy still holds true.)


With any particular stance on anything, if you look long and hard enough you can eventually find something to support your position. I find it interesting that there is a UtooB video supporting my friend's recommendation, but his voice means 1000% more to me than does the video.

Let's look at it a little closer and compare work with torque.

Torque is simply a force. We need that force, but no work can be done with only a force. Work is displacement of mass by an external force. This means it has to have movement associated with the force. In engines, this is RPM. RPM X force = horsepower.
In that equation you can see that RPM and force (torque) have equal value. Horsepower is a measure of how much work an engine can do.

High torque in slow turning diesels makes them more suitable to pull heavy loads, but it doesn't make them capable of doing more work. The reason they are more suitable for slow heavy work is that they can stand a lot of internal force, are expected to live a long life under adverse conditions, don't need as much gear reduction, are working in an environment where weight is not a big issue, have high mass and high flywheel affects to smooth them out, and they are burning diesel fuel which is a better fuel than gasoline for heavy work. Diesel fuel is better suited to low speed engines because of the injection process. It's more suitable to continuous duty engines because of it's high energy content. Truck engines don't need to rev quickly, so being very massive is not a disadvantage.

F1 engines must be very light and quick revving. Running an F1 engine all day at 500 hp pulling a big rig, would be a very poor application because it would be running at a very high RPM, have very little tolerance for overheating, would wear faster, would be harder to keep at a steady RPM and would get very poor mileage running on gasoline. The F1 car must be light and high revving to keep the engine light. They don't run continuously over years, so fuel costs are not a factor.

Remember, the transmission adapts the engine to the load. An engine with 1,000 ft lbs of torque at 2,000 RPM can be matched with an engine that has 500 ft lbs of torque at 4,000 RPM, by simply running the faster turning engine through t 2:1 gearbox and doubling the torque while halving the RPM. So, the high speed engine, through gearing, can match the low speed, high torque engine. But the low speed engine can still be better for heavy work than the high speed engine. Then look at a helicopter. It has a slow moving rotor driven by a gas turbine of, maybe 4,000 HP. The engine is suitable in that case because of it's light weight, not in spite of it.

It still boils down to getting work done over time. Work over time is horsepower. Long grades define work over time. Horsepower is what performs work over time. Torque is just one part of horsepower and is simply a force. It is a characteristic of engines. Heavy trucks work best with high torque, low speed engines, but that deosn't mean they can do more work than lighter, high speed engines. They are just better suited to heavy slow work than a high speed engine.

Without going to an extreme, I tend to want the slower and heavier engine for doing harder work and lasting longer. For towing small trailers, it's not a big deal. But I might still lean toward the V8 over the 2.0 Ecoboost. For a passenger car that is not towing, the Ecoboost sounds good, provided it has a sufficient track record of reliability. Proven reliability outweighs many other aspects of design for me.

[rdickens]

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-...sus-torque.htm

[Steve Carlson]

I have no doubt a turbo can be a good tow vehicle, now. I just wonder how good/reliable it will be 10 years from now. I tend to hold on to vehicles for a long time.

[John in Santa Cruz]

well, turbo diesel motors on big rigs go for a million miles with service. even on diesel pickups, 500k miles is not uncommon, especially for the older/simpler motors.

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

well, turbo diesel motors on big rigs go for a million miles with service. even on diesel pickups, 500k miles is not uncommon, especially for the older/simpler motors.

Absolutely true. Look at a Cummins for example. But maybe Steve was referring to gas powered Ecoboost engines.

[Steve Carlson]

Yes the big rig engines can last a very long time, but they often get rebuilt more than once during that lifespan, as do the turbos. I was referring more to the average Joe consumer who just drives it and, if we are lucky, gets the oil changed regularly. The added complexity of turbo systems seems likely to add to maintenance and repair costs over the lifespan of the vehicle. Even though engines are way more reliable than they used to be, it cannot be denied that with a turbo there is more "stuff" to go wrong, and more stress to make the stuff go wrong. That bird may not come home to roost until 150k-200k miles down the road, but on average I think it will come home.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlson

Yes the big rig engines can last a very long time, but they often get rebuilt more than once during that lifespan, as do the turbos. I was referring more to the average Joe consumer who just drives it and, if we are lucky, gets the oil changed regularly. The added complexity of turbo systems seems likely to add to maintenance and repair costs over the lifespan of the vehicle. Even though engines are way more reliable than they used to be, it cannot be denied that with a turbo there is more "stuff" to go wrong, and more stress to make the stuff go wrong. That bird may not come home to roost until 150k-200k miles down the road, but on average I think it will come home.

Of course it can be denied, simply because it ain't significantly so!

Actually an I-4 EcoBoost would have significantly fewer moving parts than a normally aspirated V6 of the same capability, and the parts on either are engineered to withstand the expected stress well enough to meet a given service life.


This reminds me of the early eighties when a few gas engines were more or less converted to Diesel service with absolutely dismal results, proving that Diesels are not inherently better just because of the fuel.


Modern EcoBoost engines are not simply normally aspirated engines with a Turbocharger bolted on...
Just as a modern light truck Diesel is not simply a converted gas engine.


Today it is not uncommon for a light truck engine to outlast the useful service life of the body/chassis into which it is placed.
Caveat... Every manufacturer has its own build philosophy.

[redbarron55]

The modern Turbo boosted engines are quite different from the older horse power boosting applications.
Today's engines, especially for trucks and SUVs, are boosted for improved low end torque and fuel mileage.
While the pressures are higher the engines are probably better designed to handle them than the older turbos which were more than added on boost to be able to advertise higher power.
Will the life of the engine be shortened? Perhaps or perhaps not.
Today's engine oils are better as are the machining etc.
Bigger engine better? Perhaps.
I always stayed away from gasoline turbo cars, while owning two VW 2.0 TDI Diesels and very happy with them, even with their higher cost of operation due to maintenance.
I now have given VW those recalled VWs back and own a VW Passat 1.8 TSI turbo (gas) and a Town and Country.
The T&C we use for the towing but we love the power and torque of The TSI which rivals the TDI for torque with more power as well.
That being said on another thread there is a question about towing with a VW Tigual 2.0 TSI which is a different thing altogether as it is old technology and is lacking the guts of the 1.8 TSI (IMHO). I would think that if it had the 2.0 TDI it would be pretty nice towing.
If you want a big tow rig, buy one, but for the small Scamps and Casitas the Fords with Turbo boost and perhaps the GM etc as well will do a good job and be economical as well.

[Raspy]

With the new gas engine strategies of variable valve timing and direct injection, the door was opened for excellent turbo performance. Diesels are a more natural candidate for turbos and have had excellent success with them for a long time. Whole different animal than gas.

One of my favorite engines is the Mercedes 300SD, 5 cylinder turbo diesel. Mine is 35 years old and the engine runs like new. They are pretty-much bomb proof and were designed to be excellent instead of just getting to the market first.

The worst example is the Olds diesel of the late '70s. It is an invalid comparison with modern design, but demonstrates the strategy manufacturers will employ to get things on the market. Another current manufacture's biggest warrantee disaster in their history was due to this rushing to market and paying the price for years. Thousands of customers were severely inconvenienced or left holding the bag.

I think the original OP question of "towing with a 4 cylinder turbo" kind of misses the better question. In the modern world of turbos, of course you can tow with it. But wether it's a good idea has a lot to do with the particular brand and track record. Time is the best arbiter when deciding if a brand and model is worthy of trust.

You can buy a brand new, first model year design and get stung. You can buy a brand that uses the public as the beta testers, and pay the price. You can buy the latest attempt to solve earlier problems and find out they still missed the mark.

Interesting too, is buying because of brand loyalty. This can be like a religion, but the comedy of it is that that reason has nothing to do with, and is not an indicator, of reliability. Or some might buy because it has four doors, a bigger bed, or they want newer styling. Engine reliability is just assumed, if even considered.

So do your homework if you want the best chance of long term reliability. Or, at least, buy a brand you have excellent reasons to trust. I don't need a new Cummins, but I keep glancing over at the Honda dealer as I go by and checking out the new Accord with the 2.0 turbo 4.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Raspy

With the new gas engine strategies of variable valve timing and direct injection, the door was opened for excellent turbo performance. Diesels are a more natural candidate for turbos and have had excellent success with them for a long time. Whole different animal than gas.

One of my favorite engines is the Mercedes 300SD, 5 cylinder turbo diesel. Mine is 35 years old and the engine runs like new. They are pretty-much bomb proof and were designed to be excellent instead of just getting to the market first.

The worst example is the Olds diesel of the late '70s. It is an invalid comparison with modern design, but demonstrates the strategy manufacturers will employ to get things on the market. Another current manufacture's biggest warrantee disaster in their history was due to this rushing to market and paying the price for years. Thousands of customers were severely inconvenienced or left holding the bag.

I think the original OP question of "towing with a 4 cylinder turbo" kind of misses the better question. In the modern world of turbos, of course you can tow with it. But wether it's a good idea has a lot to do with the particular brand and track record. Time is the best arbiter when deciding if a brand and model is worthy of trust.

You can buy a brand new, first model year design and get stung. You can buy a brand that uses the public as the beta testers, and pay the price. You can buy the latest attempt to solve earlier problems and find out they still missed the mark.

Interesting too, is buying because of brand loyalty. This can be like a religion, but the comedy of it is that that reason has nothing to do with, and is not an indicator, of reliability. Or some might buy because it has four doors, a bigger bed, or they want newer styling. Engine reliability is just assumed, if even considered.

So do your homework if you want the best chance of long term reliability. Or, at least, buy a brand you have excellent reasons to trust. I don't need a new Cummins, but I keep glancing over at the Honda dealer as I go by and checking out the new Accord with the 2.0 turbo 4.

So what happens when your homework and experience results in excellent reasons to trust brand loyalty?

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by floyd

So what happens when your homework and experience results in excellent reasons to trust brand loyalty?

Then you're golden. You have excellent reason to go ahead. My point is, blind loyalty can lead you into trouble and it is very well documented that it can. Not wanting to start a brand discussion here, but it is well documented. If research backs up your want for a certain model, excellent, you can go into it with eyes wide open.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Raspy

Then you're golden. You have excellent reason to go ahead. My point is, blind loyalty can lead you into trouble and it is very well documented that it can. Not wanting to start a brand discussion here, but it is well documented. If research backs up your want for a certain model, excellent, you can go into it with eyes wide open.

No doubt!

[Steve Carlson]

Originally Posted by floyd

Of course it can be denied, simply because it ain't significantly so!

Actually an I-4 EcoBoost would have significantly fewer moving parts than a normally aspirated V6 of the same capability, and the parts on either are engineered to withstand the expected stress well enough to meet a given service life.

You may be right, I don't truly know if my concerns are "significant" or not. Time will tell. But I have seen numerous instances of new tech claimed to be engineered for long life and turned out not to be so.

I remember when Nissan came out with the CVT for the Murano and I questioned it's long term durability on a forum. I was howled down with explanations of Nissan's extensive torture testing in development etc. I said I hope you are right, but I'm not going to be the guinea pig. Well, I won't say that CVT has been a disaster or anything, but it has had "significantly" more than it's share of problems. The real world is tougher than any torture test I have seen.

Remember the old saying "A pessimist is rarely disappointed."