What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Is a turbo petrol or naturally-aspirated engine better when it comes to long term reliability?
I drive about 3000 miles a year and have always owned normally-aspirated petrol engines with torque-converter gearboxes. I'm wanting to buy a replacement but seem to have little option other than a turbo engine and/or a non-torque-converter gearbox. I've looked recently at a Ford Kuga which gives me a 1.5 petrol turbo engine and a torque-converter box and a Mercedes GLA which gives me a normally-aspirated petrol engine and a 7G-DTC gearbox. Leaving aside other differences, which of these configurations is likely to be most reliable during a 12-year-or-so ownership, please?
Asked on 25 November 2018 by abenn
Answered by
Honest John
The big advantage of a petrol turbocharged engine is that the turbo shares its water cooling with the engine and, because the coolant is having to cool extremely hot exhaust gases rotating the turbo, the engine heats up much more quickly so is much more efficient on short runs from cold.
Similar questions
I currently own a 2015 Renault Kadjar 1.5 diesel. We bought the car due to its ability to carry large loads, comfort on long journeys and fuel economy. It's been brilliant. I'm now considering changing...
I'm considering a new/used Ford Fiesta Powershift but my local independent garage (very experienced and trustworthy) has warned me off the 1.0 Ecoboost engine as he has seen a number of failures. He says...
I am considering the Citroen C4 Picasso 1.2 Puretech EAT6 as a long term proposition (up to 7 years) but would be interested in your thoughts as to reliability, particularly of the transmission, having...
.jpg)
