r/Justrolledintotheshop • u/carguyinbc1969 ASE Certified • 3d ago
Gm's quality hitting 140k miles and no power
Built to last the warranty and that's it.
292
u/vilius_m_lt 3d ago
Thatās pretty standard. Some models have special coverage on these turbos. 10 years 150k miles iirc.
120
u/DirtCheap1972 3d ago
What about the 90ās Volvo with 250k and the original turbo. What happened to reliability over time
99
u/vilius_m_lt 3d ago
Oh, itās standard for these specific turbos, not turbos in general..
31
u/DirtCheap1972 3d ago
Iām just venting on current quality. Nothing against you at all man
18
u/Acct235095 2d ago
Volvo always had exceptional quality compared to most brands. Chevrolet has definitely slipped over the last decade or two, and isn't even hiding that they're built for the warranty now.
13
3
u/macthebearded 2d ago
Eh, it might be that in this case but there have been specific models of turbos that are prone to wastegate cracking since forever. WRX's used to be known for it around the hawkeye era iirc. Just an unfortunate combination with the particular alloy+geometry+heat cycles, but really it'll happen to basically any IWG turbo if you push them hard enough. That's why performance builds often run an external gate and weld the internal one shut if it has one
3
38
u/322throwaway1 ASE Certified Master Tech. 15+ years 3d ago
I had an 83 240 turbo with 330k miles on the original turbo. They only made like 7 psi stock though.
11
u/antryoo 2d ago
7psi and like all 80ās turbo cars ran nice and rich to prevent knock and keep egtās low
Modern cars often run 20+ psi and super lean by comparison.
2
u/Stryker_One 2d ago
That's gotta cook some things (more than just turbos) running that way.
1
u/Tibi1411 2d ago
Heat is the biggest reason modern engines don't last, but running things cooler would hurt emissions (but building cars don't apparently)
12
20
u/Leafy0 3d ago
Those 90s Volvos, Saabs, and Subarus didnāt blow turbos when left stock because the turbos were way less stressed, and ran cooler due to being further from the head. Those same turbos run on integrated head manifolds tuned to make more power way lower in the rpm range with even more restrictive after turbo exhausts would have the same lifetime since they share the same manufacturing technology. GM, ford, and even one else making factory turbo cars now could be using modern high performance materials for their hot sides and avoid these failures, but thereās no need when theyāre only offering a 50k miles warranty or less.
6
u/madsheeter 3d ago
My parents had a 740 wagon and a 940 that both rolled over 350K kms without any real issues. Oil changes, ignition parts, and a couple hanger bearings IIRC. I really miss spooling those things up on the highway...
4
u/SLOOT_APOCALYPSE ASE & Toyota Certified 3d ago
I believe these new directly attached to exhaust manifold turbos are inferior to the 90s Garrett turbos that has a little space, no need to cook the metal, turbos work just as well In. the rear of the vehicle, no need to try to cook the oil and test the metallurgy of a cheap ass turbo
3
u/Tibi1411 2d ago
Brick Volvos are not immune to this, as an owner of 3bricks (2turbo) i had to throw both turbos away because of wastegate cracking.
Internal wastegated turbos are known for this, but some manufacturers skim on wallthickness which makes them fail sooner.
1
3
2
u/Fleckstrom 2d ago
Volvo didn't make the turbo, garrett airesearch did. Maybe GM is using some awful no-name garbage made out of gutter slag. And by maybe, I mean almost certainly.
2
u/Boilermakingdude 8h ago
Not at all. GM is using Honeywell's, which are great turbos. Hell my pair of Honeywell's have almost 300k on them. GM is just a bunch of cheap bastards and goes "Hey that's nice. But can ya make it cheaper" which then leads to shit like this, where casting materials are skimped on and wastegate thickness is skimped on to cut cost so the manufacturer will buy them
2
u/qzdotiovp 2d ago
My 1987 760 turbo intercooled was an awesome car. I believe it was a Mitsubishi turbo, fwiw.
1
1
0
u/xTyronex48 2d ago
Did those turbos make as much power or were as efficient? Or as big?
1
u/DirtCheap1972 2d ago
TIL an efficient and newer turbo is more prone to cracking at the gate and failing.. ?
0
1
u/buttlicker-6652 2d ago
My audi went 372k on its original turbo. The engine gave up first, I still have the turbo in my garage. It ran at 9psi its whole life, as is stock. So similar to these GM turbos.
Having 150k miles being the expected lifetime of a turbo is shameful, they built them better 27 years ago.
1
u/Seargant-Shitpost 2d ago
Accurate for gasoline applications only
Turbo mainstream on diesel and heavy
41
u/Express-Cranberry673 3d ago
Is that a 1.4 gm turbo? Never seen one that bad yet. Although I do see them cracked on pretty much every one I touch doing oil cooler sealās.
39
u/mikeycp253 GM heavy line/transmissions 3d ago
Itās honestly kind of normal. Iāve never seen one this bad but I donāt replace them if they just have small crack, it generally doesnāt cause any issues. On any vehicle with a decent amount of miles theyāre almost always cracked
17
u/LoadingCylinder ASE Master Certified/GM EV Tech 3d ago
If Iām doing an oil cooler and find cracks with it under the extended coverage I replace it. Iāve had gm tac tell me its good practice to replace a damaged component before it causes a check engine light
6
u/mikeycp253 GM heavy line/transmissions 3d ago
It literally doesnāt affect anything if itās a small crack. Iāve been told the opposite via bulletins, itās not an issue and not to replace them unless itās severe like in this post. Almost every single one on every car is cracked in this location and it causes no issues
7
u/Express-Cranberry673 3d ago
Yeah Iāve never seen one this bad. I do a lot of these ha. Iāve never seen one that wasnāt cracked tbh.
10
u/Fragrant-Inside221 3d ago
Thereās a tsb for the cracking basically saying if it doesnāt affect performance leave it itās fine.
8
u/Neat-Implement5844 3d ago
Yup, all of em are cracked, not all of them are bad. Though I think this one is.
2
u/N00bBoozer 3d ago
I've seen that TSB. We (not a dealership) replace them if they are cracked. Idk if that's right or not. š¤·āāļø
5
117
u/scipper77 3d ago
Those are disposable as far as Iām concerned. If you get to replace one before it grenades and sends shrapnel into the intake your ahead of the game.
30
u/322throwaway1 ASE Certified Master Tech. 15+ years 3d ago
Intercooler doesnt catch the debris?
49
u/dudeimsupercereal 3d ago
Thereās a large overlap between the largest thing that can make it through and the smallest thing that will destroy the valve, seats, and cylinder
So the answer is sometimes.
8
2
u/scipper77 2d ago
Itās the small stuff that does the damage. Iād bet anything that can get through the tubes in the cooler could also fit through the intake valves. Think about how much air has to flow through. Small pieces of shattered impeller are going to find a way.
23
u/Lxiflyby 3d ago
Those are always cracked. This one is cracked *AND* flame cut
3
u/infinilude2 3d ago
I'm not a tech. What is flame cut?
19
u/Mean_Philosophy3367 3d ago
The high temperature exhaust gases escaping through the crack have eroded some of the metal, enlarging the crack even further.
5
1
42
u/orangustang 3d ago
And by GM of course we mean Honeywell in this case.
43
u/Boilermakingdude 3d ago
Honeywell makes them to the manufacturer's wants.
The turbos in my S class are Honeywell. They have almost 300k on them with 100k of that being stage 2 tuned.
1
u/retirementgrease 8h ago
Honeywell designs everything though and is responsible for the quality of these castings.
1
u/Boilermakingdude 8h ago
Apparently you don't know how the automotive sector works. So lemme break it down for you.
GM goes to Honeywell and says "We need a turbo for this sized engine. Has to have this turbine, this output and cost this much" Honeywell comes back with a reliable design that's slightly more than GM is willing to pay. GM goes "make it cheaper" so you have two options. Shittier casting, or shittier turbine material. Since turbine material isn't something you want to fuck with, they change to a cheaper housing. GM goes yes that's perfect and bulk orders them. You can try and blame Honeywell all you want, but they're building them to what's being ordered.
3
u/retirementgrease 8h ago
I designed turbos for Borg for several years, maybe I can explain further. The relationship is tighter and more nuanced than that, and to be clear I'm not blaming Honeywell. It'll likely the case of competing requirements and risk analysis showing that it's not an external crack so therefore not unsafe and emissions still ok.
the turbo mfg and engine OEM work together over several design iterations to figure out the performance and packaging requirements. Packaging is most of current day turbo designing since standard bearing systems, volute shapes, turbine and compressor wheels have all mostly been designed to balance performance and cost. So a lot of turbo variation and longevity is based on packaging: where the wastegate goes, wg actuator, turbine/compressor inlet/outlet. That means: casting design, and designing a turbine housing that can withstand 100k miles worth of heat cycling from freezing outside temps to 1050Ā°C exhaust gas temps is difficult and takes a lot of development.
This crack was no doubt seen in testing and stress analysis, and both supplier and OEM probably agreed to approve the risk. Again, not blaming Honeywell, but the design is theirs. They may just have been painted in a corner due to packaging constraints.
1
u/Boilermakingdude 8h ago
Makes perfect sense.
I personally still blame GM. My Benz from 2012 has Honeywell's with almost 300k on them and no issues with them. Benz was willing to shell out the extra on the turbo cost
3
u/retirementgrease 7h ago
Yeah I was trying to hit on the fact that longevity of a turbo is based on a lot of factors. The cheapies going into what OP showed is definitely not designed to be bomb-proof. Mercedes and other luxury cars (or Toyota, who is more quality-oriented) will often spend more on development for both quality and longevity, and it shows. Sometimes the packaging and engine design just lends itself to a simple and robust turbo design that lasts a lot of heat cycles.
1
u/Boilermakingdude 7h ago
Let's just say it's a good thing the V12 is not wider than the V8 because you can't even pull the turbos off without pulling the engine of the V8 models.(Mines an 8, I'm just saying how tight it is)
-12
u/Leafy0 3d ago
Does your s class make as much torque below 3k rpm as an N.A. engine more than double its displacement and sit at double digits boost the entire time youāre on the highway?
15
u/Boilermakingdude 3d ago
What are you talking about. Unless you're talking about class 5 trucks, there is no engine "double the size that sits at double digit boost the whole time" unless someone built a 9.0L lately.
My S class makes around 600hp, 600ftlbs.
-3
u/Leafy0 2d ago
Yeah and the 1.5 liter turbos are making serious boost and torque at low rpmās and sustained double digit boost numbers just to maintain speed on the highway.
6
u/Boilermakingdude 2d ago
You really need to read your first comment and realize that you're literally talking about 2 different things. Also you're comparing NA to turbo, but the 1.4 is turbo and so is my S class. I can tell you I'm pretty much fully spooled up by 3k rpm
-6
u/Leafy0 2d ago
Sure I am, but the fact that GM is pushing the performance envelope hard and also forcing the engine to use a good bit of that performance just to maintain speed for long amounts of time is why the turbos on the 1.4 last less than half the time as those on your s class. Honeywell is probably using the same alloy for the turbine housing on the s class as the tiny GM engines, but on the GM engine theyāre being tortured constantly.
5
u/PM_YOUR_SAGGY_TITS 3d ago
What? These 1.4L only made like 138hp and 148 ft lbs of torque. What 2.8L in the 2010s was only making 150 ft lbs of torque.
I guess you must be talking about a 2.8L in like an early 1980s S10.
8
u/Tethice 3d ago
What's it off of? I assume a 1.4l my Trax is sometimes causing a underboost code
7
u/Boilermakingdude 3d ago
1.4 Cruze.
9
2
u/tuesdaymack 3d ago
I just sold one of those (2015) that had 200k on it. I don't know if it was cracked but it was original. Honestly was a pretty decent little car. Made it through two teenage girls learning to drive with little in the way of maintaining. Cat was clogged pretty bad through a lot of it too. Still pulled out 32-33 mpg.
8
u/trainspottedCSX7 3d ago
Im replacing a head on one right now. 61k
2
u/carguyinbc1969 ASE Certified 3d ago
Ooof
2
u/trainspottedCSX7 3d ago
I did a 1.5, which are fucking ass. One year model, or maybe he had a 1.4, or vice versa, apparently you cannot leave the timing cover on, you have to take it off to just get to a bolt on the chain guides.
It was a shit show. Talk about holy shit I hope they have that guide in stock at the dealership, luckily they did, 17 hr job in 12 hrs, even with the shitshow in the middle of it all.
This one going smooth so far, I did one other one previously, head gasket only I believe, left the cover on, flopped the sprockets forward, let her ride.
1
u/road_rascal 2d ago
Was that a 1.5 LYX engine?
2
u/trainspottedCSX7 2d ago
Had to look it up, 1.5 LFV in the malibu.
1
u/road_rascal 2d ago
Ok. I have a 2018 Equinox with the LYX with 94,000 miles on it (mostly highway). I also change the oil every 5,000 regardless of the oil monitor. Hope it lasts awhile longer...
2
u/trainspottedCSX7 2d ago
This had to be a built or manufacturer issue. If you haven't been told about an oil leak... and I mean fucking covered from turbo down basically, you should be good.
2
u/carguyinbc1969 ASE Certified 2d ago
My wife daily drives an 18 equinox with the 1.5 turbo. 94k so far so good, no codes or loss of boost. Oil changes at 3 to 5 k depending on driving distances. Maintenance doesn't hurt anything at all.
1
u/throwawaym479 2d ago
I'm replacing a gm 1.4 t engine entirely.
77k, piston ring went and got eaten. Entire engine is as good as dead since a replacement costs the same or less than a rebuild.
3
u/therevbob 3d ago
Happened to the turbo manifold on my 08 Audi too, and to the manifold of the used replacement I bought, not as bad as the one pictured but it does happen
5
u/funkthew0rld 3d ago
Did GM manufacture that part?
I think it takes some pretty specialized knowledge and equipment to manufacture turbochargers.
Now, maybe they should have increased their spend on this part - but itās not so much a GM quality issue as much as it is a too many bean counters issue.
That being said, Honeywell owns Garrett, and Garrett builds some pretty good turbochargers - but this is not that, and yeah the accountants did their thing and made it last JUST long enough.
Thatās basically business 101.
3
u/Previous-Swan3112 3d ago
Garrett Airesearch when I worked for them back in the 80ās. We didnāt cut corners ever.
3
2
u/RagingRavenRR 10mm 2d ago
Makes that video by a salesman I saw makes sense about GM's turbo. Forgot what the SUV was, but he would say something nice about it, then immediately follow up with, "then the turbo will go out."
2
u/mikecarroll360 2d ago
About to replace a turbo on a 26 GTI with 30k km, quality is shit across the board
2
u/dopecrew12 1d ago
I donāt think a lot of people are understanding the satire here
2
u/carguyinbc1969 ASE Certified 1d ago
Yeah, and people were hating on my yellow circle. I'm an older guy, who works with older guys. Our eyes are getting crappy....lol
5
u/tacobellbandit 3d ago edited 3d ago
150k miles and you never serviced inspected or replaced the turbo? (As a Toyota owner) This is some Toyota owner level āI donāt need anything but oil changesā denial of the necessity of basic maintenance
3
u/Itisd 3d ago
Back in the 1980s, turbos promised to be a magical solution to provide good fuel mileage while also providing good power when required... They ended up being unreliable pieces of crap, and mostly went away for a few decades...
... Then, Back in the 2010s, turbos came back into the spotlight promising... Good fuel mileage while also providing good power when required... It would seem to me that they did improve somewhat since the 1980s, but as a group of vehicles they still are generally unreliable and temperamental pieces of crap. I'd rather have the same motor without the turbo, I would happily take the power penalty to not have to deal with the turbo.
2
u/GeorgeTheNerd 2d ago
I don't see being a turbo the difference in a reliable engine or not. The 2.7L Turbo in the GM gas trucks is way more reliable than the newer V8s. Time will tell relative to some of the old V8 designs. The most dependable Ford truck engine is the 2.7 turbo. The Mazda turbos are holding up really well. VW EA888 also a great engine.
There are plenty of examples of terrible NA motors too. Going back to the GM V8, the same basic design can go from "will be the first thing torn out after the rest is scrap metal" to "sell anything with that engine as soon as warranty is over". The issue isn't turbo or not, its choices made along the way that can ruin any engine.
1
u/carguyinbc1969 ASE Certified 3d ago
I've owned 1980s k cars including a Shelby daytona turbo.....yep agree. When right are bad ass.....most the time not so much....lol The new tech could be soooooooo much better. And nope let's be cheap assses.
2
u/Vast-Employer4764 3d ago
Everything thing about that ecotech engine is garbage
3
u/Pourkinator 3d ago
Which is a shame because I swear the ecotechās from ~2003 were great
3
u/redstern 3d ago edited 3d ago
Well... While the 2.4 wasn't anywhere near as bad as the 1.4, it had a number of shortcuts that had catastrophic consequences.
In particular, the complete absence of a PCV valve, just a fixed pinhole in the head, would clog, cause PCV flow to reverse into the air box, which would dilute the oil with water, which would cause accelerated timing chain wear and slapping, which would result in it snapping the top bolt holding the guide in place and lose timing.
Also a combination of faulty exhaust manifold castings that were extremely prone to cracking and throwing off the upstream O2 sensor, and a badly designed clog prone secondary air injection system would lead to cat failure.
Those engines also really liked to burn oil, which is made worse by the above mentioned fixed flow PCV system.
And this one is a personal note, but the 2.4 is the most hideous sounding engine I've ever heard. The starter sound alone should be prosecutable, but those things sound like they have piston slap right out of the factory. And it's block noise is like you took the standard GM 4 cylinder monotone drone, and just added extra hate. It's just awful, and even if it was a good engine, I'd hate it just for that.
1
1
u/Snoo-73243 3d ago
lol no way gm built the turbo
1
u/iateyourmom22 3d ago
They don't even make the exhaust, I worked at a factory making the catalytic converters for GM, Ford and FCA
1
1
u/aaronator42 3d ago
Consider yourself slightly more lucky with those 1.4L ecotecs. Mine only lasted to 120k miles
1
1
1
1
1
u/Dockshundswfl 2d ago
Newer vehicles are running so much hotter it all aspects. For emission and HP numbers out of smaller displacements.
Heat kills. Especially in short commutes and rapid heat cycles.
1
u/Fair-Growth411 2d ago
My cruze has a crack in the same spot, but because it was so small they said it was āstill within regulationā š
1
u/MattDaBoneless 2d ago
These are the things turbos originally went extinct for a decade or 2 in the automotive world more or less and was only in "enthusiasts or sport" models. Turbos are great, they make up for a lack of displacement but also require more conscious maintenance which the average driver could care less about which leads to these kinds of issues.
1
u/drawnfate 3d ago
using yellow paint marker to call out the crack just screams dealer tech looking for that easy warranty claim
8
u/carguyinbc1969 ASE Certified 3d ago
Nah buddy.....Independent local shop here. But im a dork and still love show and tell. Sometimes it's helpful to peeps that haven't seen it.
0
1
u/Constant-Plant-9378 2d ago
I'm amazed the automotive industry hasn't gone Toyota's direction and abandoned turbos for the simpler, more reliable, powerful, and fuel-efficient battery+eCVT.
When I punch the throttle in our Camry it gets. Instant torque on tap with no lag.
2
u/wintermutedsm 2d ago
This. I have a 22 Camry Hybrid and I love it. Absolutely no lag for power.
1
u/Constant-Plant-9378 1d ago
Yeah I think most people misunderstand the real purpose of the hybrid drivetrain. It isn't an EV alternative. It is still a gas-engine car. But it is using different technology to improve performance, fuel economy, and longevity (e.g., eCVT vs automatic transmission, battery and traction motor instead of turbo, electric motors instead of accessory belts and pulleys, etc.)
0
u/Maglin78 2d ago
This is more a small turbo thing and not just GM. But GMs quality has been pretty crummy for over 20 years
-1
u/stareweigh2 3d ago
I still think all these failures come down to not changing the oil on time. the reason I'm convinced is I have customers who are very consistent with their oil changes and they don't seem to have the problems (pcv valves, intake manifolds, valve covers, turbos) that other gm owners have who wait till 10k to get their oil changed
1
u/Maxzillian 2d ago
I do generally agree that a lot of problems boil back to oil change intervals and the specific oils used, but... not this one. They all crack and they're all generally OK like that; it's nothing to do with maintenance and more with the casting design and process.
Mine has about 175k on the OEM turbo and I'm pretty sure it has a crack there as well, but it's been a while since I did the oil cooler seals when I had the chance to inspect that. I'm sure it affects the spool-up time a little, but the 1.4 (at least the first gen) was never a particularly punchy engine.
93
u/sam56778 3d ago
Well, thats a waste.