By on July 29, 2015

2016 Honda Accord

The best-selling mid-size sedans in the United States will catch up to their competition by offering boosted fours under their hoods soon, Automotive News is reporting (via Car & Driver).

The long-running Camry will replace its six-cylinder engine with the turbo four, though the Accord is likely to use a new, smaller, boosted four pot to replace its base four-cylinder engine.

The Camry’s turbo four comes from the newly announced Lexus IS200t and NX200t, which will produce around 235 horsepower (or 241 in the IS200t) and 258 pound-feet of torque. The turbo four would likely replace the 3.5-liter V-6 option at the top of the range for Toyota, which makes 268 horsepower.

Honda’s solution is on the other end of the spectrum. Their 1.5-liter turbo four, borrowed from the new Civic, will likely replace the 2.4-liter naturally aspirated base engine that cranks 184 horsepower. The smaller engine would likely improve upon the 27 mpg city/36 mpg highway rating that the base model has now.

The force-fed Camry and Accord models would join the ranks of mid-size sedans already including smaller displacement, turbocharged engines such as the Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu and Volkswagen Passat.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

227 Comments on “Honda Accord, Toyota Camry Will Get Turbo Fours Soon...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Fail.

    • 0 avatar
      Land Ark

      As Gary Larson of Far Side cartoons would write: Trouble Brewing.

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      Right, and with that one word condemnation based on nothing at all, I’m supposed to take notice? I’ve owned three turbo cars in an unbroken string since 1990 – no problems whatsoever, and these are old-school designs.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        @wmba

        I’ve owned more than a dozen (most WELL aged) – same here *zero* turbo issues. And VERY happy with the performance/fuel economy of most of them, especially the Saabs, and I presume the BMW will be the same. They really are not rocket science, and they really do work quite well. TANSTAAFL, but a turbo can at least be a lunch you get to write off.

      • 0 avatar
        JD23

        I guess you haven’t owned an Audi: that company still has plenty of turbo-related maladies.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      I like the Honda solution better. Extend the turbo to the lower range, and leave the top intact.

      I continue to lose faith in the Camry, and realize that since about 2007, the Accord has been a much better car.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      F%!ck this turbo noise, heat, problems, illusion of mpg gains, complexity, etc.

      Let Norm “Area 51 Tune” Buick Encore Trifecta buy them all.

      I’ll stick with normally aspirated motors, thank you, even if it means never buying another new vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Norm is still around! I looked at the Forum for the first time in months after Mark’s post this morning. To my surprise, Norm was posting in there!

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        Another mere opinion cloaked in profanity. Buy what you want; don’t limit my choice.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Fortunately for you, you want what the economy planners are pushing. You’ve always had the option of buying a turbocharged car. It’s the rest of us that are getting the shaft.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            I recall you saying CJ that you didn`t like or trust (I cannot recall exactly) any company using CVTs and turbos. Seems like Honda will be using both. Maybe you will become a Mazda fan since they use neither in the 6 yet get class leading fuel economy (EPA and real world).

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            The irony is that all the economy cars are going bro high strung turbo motors, but I can’t buy a BRZ with one.

          • 0 avatar
            wmba

            @CJinSD

            Fortunately for me? I’ve had no turbo problems. Unfortunately for your mindset, for which you claim world hegemony and for whom you claim to speak en masse with zero evidence, your favorite Hondas are going turbo.

            Deal with it.

            As for the armchair automotive engineering experts here decrying the turbo in these comments, time to cash in your chips and move to another industry. You’ll be happier.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            wmba – why butt hurt? Your team is winning.

            Soon, the turbocharged 3 or 4 banger motor coupled with a CVT or 46 speed transmission will be the only choice.

            Fans of heat soaked, complex, expensive to maintain/repair, less durable motors and vehicles rejoice.

          • 0 avatar
            tedward

            Wmba

            I agree that things are being overblown here, but there is some merit to the idea that there will be a learning process for Honda and Toyota. They need to pay attention to new heat and torque load issues that n.a. motors don’t really present. These are not a huge deal, but I’m not aware of any brands pulling off the di+ turbo switch on a big volume level without some problems.

            What the detractors are missing is the actual problem faced by solely n.a. manufacturers. A massive disadvantage in usable torque vs their competitors. Go right ahead accord owners and drive a rental passat with the 1.8t and tell me the accord wouldn’t be a better drive with that power plant. In the actually used portion of the rev range turbos yield big gains. We’re talking same priced cars and the vw isn’t packing a trick transmission here. It is literally the Hondas only weak point, and I doubt they feel comfortable ignoring it.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            tedward, I hope the 1.8TSI pulls better than the 1.6EB in the Fusion, I’ll take a plain jane port injected Camry 2.5 over that mill any day of the week. And given VW’s rather unsavory reputation with turbo motors as of late (oil burning issues, DI coking) I’d gladly stick with the Accord’s NA 2.4. They underrated the power rating, there’s no way the Accord sport could sprint to 60 in 6.6 seconds with ‘just’ 185 hp.

            EDIT: looks like a Jetta with the new TSI and a 5spd manual can get to 60 in 7.3, and that’s with some very relaxed gearing. Color me impressed. Still weary of VW’s reputation though.

    • 0 avatar
      zamoti

      Dammit, he was right: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/08/fixed-abode-four-six/

  • avatar
    qfrog

    No mention of the Hyundai?

  • avatar
    MBella

    We knew this was coming. All that will be left on cars is high stung low displacement turbo motors. Reliability be damned.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Buy your Camcords soon and hang onto them.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I have a feeling they won’t be a used deal like the 2010-12 MKZ/Fusion. They’ll probably be a better deal new.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Camcords are never a deal used, you pay out the rear end regardless of mileage or condition. Makes much more sense to bite the bullet and buy new if these tickle your fancy.

          EDIT: Toyota will probably continue to offer a N/A I4 in its base model Camry but it looks like Honda went hook link and sinker so those buyers are screwed.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The last non-turbo Camcords will be an even worse used deal now.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Probably, but I expect the Camry V6 to really get pricy. Reliable and fuel efficient sedan with mad powah? Smart money will be looking at them.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            CD4 MKZ 3.7L is a better used deal.

            The Lincoln dealer I buy from has a 2013 MKZ 3.7L FWD with under 10K miles for just over $20K. They have comparable 2.0Ts for more money.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Why would anyone go for CD4 2.0T over a much better V6?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Higher fuel economy, lower price.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I went to TrueDelta for S&G and while the 2.0T in Fusion does better in real world conditions, its only about 5mpg better (and that was on a 20cty/80hwy split vs the 3.5V6 on a 67cty/33 hwy one). The 100% highway MKZ reported slightly better than the 2.0T Fusion in 20/80.

            MKZ

            2010 4dr Sedan 263-horsepower 3.5L V6
            6-speed shiftable automatic FWD flat med light 20 21 26 33 80 23.2

            2011 4dr Sedan 263-horsepower 3.5L V6
            6-speed shiftable automatic FWD flat light hvy 0 0 0 100 70 28.0

            Fusion 2.0T

            2014 4dr Sedan turbocharged 240hp 2.0L I4
            6-speed shiftable automatic FWD mtns light none 0 0 20 80 65 27.6

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I’ve actually sort of been scoping out a cushy commuter to upgrade from my noisy but competent Civic, as a reward to myself for a promotion. 1-2 year old V6 Avalons top the list, but a brand spanking new Camry XLE with the 2.5 would cost about the same ($22kish). I should really try out some Accords of different flavors (Sport 6spd, EX-L V6) but I think I want to take a break from Hondas and their road noise for a while. News of the impending turbo-doom only makes me want to upgrade all the more.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Used refreshed ILX?

          • 0 avatar
            Boxofrain

            Totally agree. Depreciation is low on Hondas, so they make a poor used buy. I have looked at roughly 1 and a half to 2 year old used Accords, the sweet spot people claim is the time to buy used. They are only a few thousand less than a new one. New finance rates are as low as .99%, whereas the lowest used rate is 4.9%. You save very little on a monthly payment.

            In fact you don’t really save anything, because although the used Accord is a little less, you get less. The tires are that much closer to needing replacement, as are the brakes. Less warranty, closer to it’s maximum mileage, and as with all used cars, no real idea what the history of the car is.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            @28 cars

            ILX is an interesting option I hadn’t considered, but being Civic based and with a “sporty” bent it is too much of the very thing I’m trying to get away from. Also a bit small trunk-wise (Civic is a paltry 12.5 cu ft). I’d like to be able to just veg out and relax on my way home from work. The Civic makes on ramps at least somewhat entertaining just with working the shifter and whatnot, but if I could have effortless thrust from a V6 whilst I sat on a heated leather throne, I could get over my love of stick shifts pretty quick I think. The rational side of my brain is telling me to look at Outbacks (2.5i Premium, maybe a 2.5i Limited) for dog hauling and long haul winter time visits to family in NY, but the prospect of a 175ish hp 4 cylinder hooked up to a CVT motivating over 3600lb just sounds like a bad time.

            I wish the Taurus wasn’t so darn space inefficient with that infuriatingly huge center console and super thick doors. They’re a good value on the used market, ride super nice and quiet, and have massive trunks. Like others have mentioned, they had a good thing going with the original Five Hundred with awesome head and legroom and a big greenhouse and ruined it in the name of vanity (not particularly good looking anyways).

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @gtemnykh

            “but if I could have effortless thrust from a V6 whilst I sat on a heated leather throne, I could get over my love of stick shifts pretty quick I think”

            CD3 Lincoln Zephyr offer this, a trunk, and is a bargain. Infiniti M also comes to mind.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Can confirm, with M! And you can have a 3.5 or 3.7, in RWD or AWD, with regular or Sport package suspension, with wood or aluminium trim.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Corey, I briefly considered the M but even in VQ35 guise the fuel economy is just a bit lower than what I’m shooting for, plus I want to stick with FWD. Maxima is another car to consider I suppose, but their interior is kind of a plastic abyss, no wood trim to break things up. I’ll have to check those Zephyr/MKZs out, looks like they used a mix of TF80 (good) and 6F35 (bad) transmissions in those.

            Redesigned (non-wbody) Impala is sort of on the list but I think I’d rather stay away from the General’s 3.6 motor with its history of stretched timing chains.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Yes, it seems economy was not a consideration when they built it, and it’s very heavy.

            I will say though, that with the 3.5 and AWD, and 90% in town 30-40mph driving, I get 18. And that’s above the rated 16/22.

            You only want FWD?! While the Church of 3800 approves, the Sect of Enthusiasm does not. Oh dear.

            Edit: Avalon?

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Corey, as a guy who DIYs damn near everything (and I farm it out to my brother when I can’t), I like to keep it simple when I can. That is a large part of why I’m sticking to premium-ish offerings based on simpler bones and avoiding AWD (I’ll make an exception for the outback). FWD makes sense to me for an all-weather commuter that would literally never be driven aggressively, just some high speed highway cruising at times. Likewise from a packaging standpoint, fwd is my jam. I hate to sound like a car enthusiast broken record, but I really do wish there were some more legit wagon offerings (ie Accord Wagon Camry wagon). Believe it or not I found myself looking at Venzas last night *shudder* I take enough long trips with dogs that it’d make a lot of sense. I’d like to relegate the 4Runner to strictly offroad/camping/canoe hauling/towing duty. It’s just kind of a chore to drive on 10 hour road trips. I’ll probably look at the new Golf Sportwagen, I bet it has enough of that premium feel baked in, but a turbocharged direct injected VAG product just sounds like a bad idea. Atleast I could avoid the DSG and simply buy the base ‘S’ model with a well geared 5 speed manual (a relaxing 2000 rpm at 70)

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Okay, that makes sense. I’m not sure I am sold on overall Subaru reliability. Seems to me like they always need bearings or CV joints or something.

            So simple, FWD, V6, and not that old. And not a Maxima. And premium.

            TL sedan (and wagon, but no V6)
            Avalon
            ES350
            I35 (old!)
            Zepher

            I’ve always felt you can’t use simple and VAG in the same sentence. They haven’t done simple since about 1993!

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I35 would be pretty darn old at this point. I’m looking at 1-4 years old ideally, or even brand new if the price is right.

            You’re right Subarus have their quirks, as long as you know what you’re getting into (ie CV boots at 8 years of age, maybe some wheel bearings, maybe even head gaskets) I’d say they are still head and shoulders above anything VAG-branded. My bigger concern with Subies are their seats, in the past I have always found them undersized and uncomfortable.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            The seats in me old Impreza wagon were indeed very flat, but that was an old cheap car from a different era.

            I think your options are limited to those five or so we have pointed out! I think I’d end up going Zeph or Avalon. I don’t like the falsely heavy steering in Acuras, and the ES is so common and mushy and expensive. And with the Avalon if you get one a couple years old you can avoid the guppy mouth, but still have some styling edge (it seems I’m describing 11-12 only). I prefer a larger car than the Zephyr, generally.

            Discrete, comfy, loaded up! Plus the logo on the front matches with your 4Runner.

            http://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/616158353/overview/

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            In a 2013 and newer MKZ, the V6 will have the 6F50 transmission. It is more durable than the 6F35. The previous MKZ V6 will have the Aisin transmission. Both are definite buys!

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            *Please note my MKZ recommendation stands for pre-2013 models only. The post-13’s with that ridiculous roof, and terrible interrupted brake lamp, and questionable build quality and finishing will never make my recommendations list.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’d skip MY13 and go to MY14 for the CD4 Zephyr, but that’s just me.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I like the more formal shape of the pre-2013 Avalons, but they hit just about the nadir of disappointing Toyota interiors, materials and design wise. I actually don’t mind the gaping maw on the 13+ Avalons, and I really like the subdued side and rear profiles. Larger trunk in the 2013+ Avalons as well, although still no folding seatbacks (grrr).

            I will certainly consider a 3.7L MKZ, I see some comparably priced to used Avalon XLEs. The older 06-12 cars have somewhat questionable looking interiors, but at the right price who knows!

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Corey-

          Don’t get the roof and make sure you find one built in March 2013 or later (or like 28 says, 2014MY). That takes care of most of the issues.

          As for the brake lights, I know you hate it and there is nothing I can do about it.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I just need medicine.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            If I lived in the great Cincinnati area, I would own a white MKZ with a blue landau roof. I would park near you at night with the lights on and brick on the brake pedal.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            When do the lambs stop screaming…

            I would just apply a rectangle logo over the light blank at the back.

            CONGRESSIONAL TOWN SEDAN EDITION

            Then we’d be good to go.

            http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–oNs8Zhvm–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/nkmxdlv0sr18oc0dpcpj.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I actually kind of want a landau’d MKZ. Because ridiculous. However, I am more than likely just going to keep my C-Max for a long while. It is far too good at being a commuter car for me to get rid of it. I got an oil change and tire rotation yesterday and the service advisor said my brakes looked like they have barely been used. I have over 40K miles. His quote was, “I’ve seen Escapes with more wear on their brakes at the first oil change.”

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Re: Landau – driving from Gallup to Albuquerque Wednesday afternoon, rolled up on an Avalon with a landau roof and chrome Toyota badges on the C pillars.

      • 0 avatar
        Volt 230

        Actually buy a couple of 90’s Camry and put one away and use the other. What’s next? CVT Oh, wait never mind!

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        “Remember those fat Camrys in 2015, those ones which had that huge 3.5? Those were the days. That was a Golden Age.”

        -Gtem’s future kid, in 2040.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Haha see my uncannily relevant post above! A 2015 Camry XLE V6 sounds pretty good right about now, but the $26k they seem to sell for is just a bit more than I’d be willing to spend on one. That same $26k could buy a lightly used Avalon Limited with a much nicer interior and heated/cooled seats!

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Lol, I have mentioned relevant things to you a couple times today. I forget the other one already.

            Oh yeah on the Nissan-Benz JV article!

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Funny enough, that $26k is rather close to what I’ll end up paying for a lightly used LS460. Yes, a few years older, but with legitimately low miles (43k) and in immaculate shape.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            dal, let me know where I can get a clean, no accident/flood, LS460 with under 50,000 miles for 28k and I’m down.

            (And I consider myself a very astute, dedicated, dog-on-a-bone shopper, whether new or used.)

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Here’s a pretty clean 2007 with 34k listed for $26k (and from a Cadillac dealer, so you could harangue them about how you’d rather have this eight-year-old Lexus than an ATS):

            http://www.dallascadillac.com/used/Lexus/2007-Lexus-LS+460-c6b62ee30a0a0002001c7a8149a09d31.htm

            (I didn’t look at that one myself because it has no Mark Levinson or Comfort Plus. For whatever odd reason *all* of the red cars I’ve seen to date have lacked the good options.)

            There are also two low-mileage cars at Lexus of Manhattan well under $28k, but “low mileage” in the Northeast means a different thing than “low mileage” everywhere else. I’m highly skeptical of Northeast cars given the salt usage and the condition of the roads.

            And there are lots of cars if you’re willing to buy from a dealer other than a big franchise dealer. My saved AutoTrader search turns up around 10 under 50k miles and under $28k.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            That’s a good asking price, especially since my experience looking at LS430s and LS460s is that they tend to retain a much higher % of their original MSRP than the Germans, especially between their 4th and 8th birthdays.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            The front shroud on that red LS is broken, and hanging down under the bumper. So it’s been beached on something, speed bump?

            Glove box looks to be broken, the alignment with the panel at the far right is wak. Wood trim not aligned either.

            Dirt/wear on leather of driver’s door panel, console lid, and side wall of console area. Given there’s wear on both sides, I think a very large human owned this.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Corey, good eye as always. The most immaculate LSes available right now seem to be over 50k miles. For instance, this one, which I seriously considered buying:

            http://www.galpinfordinc.com/inventory-details/2007/Lexus/Ls%20460/JTHBL46F775008823

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Now THAT one, is clean. Look at that – not even any wear on the seats OR wheel – at all! This was driven and maintained by a very clean, thin person with no children.

            DW, go get that black one in AZ.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      Toyota will engineer the turbo to be less reliable than their NA engines? They won’t adjust the specs to hit the same reliability metrics?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The technology has proven somewhat unreliable in its competitor’s offerings. While I expect Toyota to do better in this metric, I don’t expect them to hit the same level of rock solid reliability at least out of the gate so to speak.

        • 0 avatar
          jmo

          “The technology has proven somewhat unreliable in its competitor’s offerings.”

          Examples?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Ford won’t discuss the lawsuit, but the symptoms it cites — stalling and power loss — match complaints that Ford addressed last year in a bulletin to dealers, and by making a running change on the assembly line. That bulletin tells mechanics how to fix “Intermittent stumble and/or misfire” that is “more noticeable during humid or damp conditions” and “intermittent engine surge during moderate to light loads” in 3.5-liter V-6 EcoBoost engines.”

            “• In February, Consumer Reports found that many of today’s turbocharged engines fail to live up to their advertised promises of better fuel economy and strong performance. Ford’s Fusion with 1.6-liter EcoBoost became the chief bad example, being “among the worst” in real-world mileage among midsize sedans, including some powered by conventional, non-turbo, larger-displacement, four-cylinder engines.

            • Last year, Fusion and Escape SUVs with 1.6-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost engines were recalled several times for coolant and fuel leaks that could result in fires.”

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/

            “I brought this car in February 2014 and the car started cutting off while I was driving it in October 2014. I took it to the dealer and was told that because the check engine light was not on, they could not obtain a reading on the car. The mechanic told me that if the light comes back on for me to bring it back in because it would be under warranty until the car hits 33,000 miles. Well the car is now at 46,000 miles and the light came back on. I called the dealer and he asked me what seemed to trigger the light to come on. I explained to him that the light comes on and off when it wants to. He stated he needed to know what triggers the light to comes on so he can duplicate it to have the light comes on. In the meantime, my car is still cutting off while I’m driving.”

            “Just the other day I was driving and I couldn’t turn into the street on my way home. The steering while locked on me and I noticed the whole car just shut off. I was scared to death I was going to hit an incoming vehicle on the same lane. Luckily for me (Thank you God), no one was on the street at that time. I was scared to death and I turned the ignition and re-started the car. It did start! The vehicle still stalls.

            I will be going into the Buick dealer and they will have to check it out or I will leave it there for them to deal with… My credit due to divorce won’t even noticed another bad hit, but my life and the life of my kids who ride with me its far more important than experiencing this issue again.”

            http://www.carcomplaints.com/Buick/Regal/2011/engine/engine_stalls_shuts_off_while_driving.shtml

            “GM finally admitting there is a problem with 1.4L pistons
            #PIP5036: Possible Oil Consumption With Cracked Piston Or Pistons – (Jun 25, 2012)

            Subject:

            Possible Oil Consumption With Cracked Piston Or Pistons

            Models:

            2011 – 2013 Chevrolet Cruze, Sonic
            1.4 LUJ

            ——————————————————————————-

            The following diagnosis might be helpful if the vehicle exhibits the symptom(s) described in this PI.

            Condition/Concern:

            You may encounter a customer concern of oil consumption, blue smoke from the exhaust.

            There may be oil in the intake and turbo ducts or no oil found in the intake system.

            Verify that oil consumption is greater than 0.946 L (1 qt) in 3,200 km (2000 mi).

            Recommendation/Instructions:

            If all diagnostic have been followed without isolating the concern.

            We need to remove the pistons to inspect for a crack piston or pistons at the ring land between the number 1 and 2 ring.

            Replace the pistons as needed using the part numbers in the catalog.

            Do not replace the engine for this unless the block is damaged which is not common.

            Please follow this diagnostic or repair process thoroughly and complete each step. If the condition exhibited is resolved without completing every step, the remaining steps do not need to be performed.”

            http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/34-1-4l-turbo/7582-gm-finally-admitting-there-problem-1-4l-pistons.html

            “Re: 2.0T Bad Pistons – Roll Call & Build Dates
            i just started a list with a list of members i found that reported failures. (i posted a link to this list in the CTS section so they can add their failures and info to this list)

            of course i dont have build dates of other member cars, and mine is at dealer so i cant look

            TSB for piston failure *PI-1178

            List updated 2015-01-05 per smurfkiller

            1. smurfkiller 4700 2014 ATS ??/?? #3 replaced 2nd engine blew at 69xx miles
            2. 400hpATS 4213 2013 ATS ??/?? #3 warranty would not cover, building aftermarket 800+hp engine
            3. caleb bennett ???? 2014 ATS ??/?? #4 repaired
            4. byrce2.0t 15000 2013 ATS ??/?? #1&4 repaired
            5. shortfur7 5200 2014 ATS ??/?? #3&4 repaired
            6. soop3rn0t 6800 2014 ATS 07/13 #4 repaired
            7. calicts 9000 ???? CTS ??/?? #1 repaired
            8. romanats 20000 2013 ATS ??/?? #3 replaced
            9. ElanX 3700? 2014 ATS ??/?? ? repaired (from the other thread this looks like it was injector failed and blew a hole in the piston, maybe not the same type of failure?)
            10. Shooter2384 5k miles 2014 ATS ??/?? ? repaired
            11. chrisgarner ???? 2014 ATS ??/?? ? replaced
            12. Skenny50 6000 ???? ATS ??/?? #4 replaced
            13. DB_Outlaw 12000 ???? ATS ??/?? #1 repaired, he sold car then new owner possibly had to have engine replacement
            14. Firepower ATS 9000 2014 CTS 09/13 #1 repaired
            15. TheRival 5500 2014 ATS 02/2014 #4 replaced
            16. parker133t 17000 2013 ATS ??/?? #4 repaired
            17. pnm215 20000 2013 ATS ??/?? ? repaired
            18. SmurfettesCaddy 16000 2013 ATS ??/?? ? repaired?
            19. lemons1843 22000 2013 ATS ??/?? ? repaired?
            20. LChris24 40,000 miles 2013 ATS
            21. Dolvich 2013 ATS 6700miles #2 cyl failure pistons replaced
            22. RemaxAL 2013 ATS 27,000 miles
            23. ilovejuicysteak Ats 6700 miles
            24. Macvanglist 2013 ATS 6m
            25. FDNY-L107 2013 ATS 38k miles
            26. GoofyGoober 2013 ATS 34,5k miles #3 cyl failure pistons replaced
            27. Darren67 2014 ATS #4 cyl failure
            28. Dpelow07 24k miles #4 cyl failure
            29. Smurfkiller (loaner car) 2014 CTS 3500 miles engine replacement”

            http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-ats-performance-forum/613529-2-0t-bad-pistons-roll-call.html

            “7. Dodge Dart 1.4T
            The Dodge Dart 1.4T might be an enticing option if you’re looking for a small car, but between its transmission and engine, there’s a good chance you’ll have problems. Problems include the oxygen sensor, rough shifting, hesitation and stalling, and a faulty transmission computer. In total, the 1.4T version of the Dart’s reliability is 140% below average.”

            http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/the-10-least-reliable-new-cars-you-can-buy.html/?a=viewall

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            So, where is the breakdown vs. NA engines? It’s not like NA don’t have issues as well.

            You need to pull the list for NA as well and we can compare.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            What do you mean “the breakdown”?

            3.5 EcoBoost is the turbo version of the Ford Cyclone. The issues described in the USA Today article were unique to the EcoBoost.

            “It is a twin turbocharged, gasoline direct injected (GTDI) version of the 3.5 L.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cyclone_engine

            GM’s 2.0T has no direct 2.0 N/A equivalent, but it is part of the EcoTec engine family. 2.0T and N/A 2.5 Ecotecs were reported to have connecting rod issues

            http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/12/faulty-connecting-rod-bearing-issued-with-gm-four-cylinder-engines-wont-be-recalled/

            but breaking pistons is a 2.0T affair

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Ecotec_engine

            Fiat’s FIRE 1.4 turbo is used in the Dart. Nearly every model which has ever used it is European, I can’t make a comparison to what I don’t know about. Evidently the Dart’s other motors, the Tigershark I4s, are reworked GEMA engines, but comparing them isn’t accurate as they are two different things.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Integrated_Robotised_Engine

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The 3.5TT isn’t just a Cyclone with two turbochargers strapped on.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            28,

            I’m sure you’ll find that lots of non-turbocharged cars also have issues, and many of the issues you mentioned seemingly have nothing to do with turbos (transmission computers, fuel leaks).

            Plus, you are assuming that just because Ford has issues with their turbos, that means that Honda and Toyota will have issues. If anything, the opposite is usually the case. The Big 3 get some newish tech all wrong, but Toyota and Honda do it right.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I’m sure you’ll find that lots of non-turbocharged cars also have issues, and many of the issues you mentioned seemingly have nothing to do with turbos (transmission computers, fuel leaks).


            Maybe so, but non turbo charged cars don’t have turbo charger problems. It’s an unnecessary added complication that is easily solved by adding displacement. I’ve seen a turbo fail in a Cruze with 18k miles, a beetle with 170k, and a 6.5 diesel with 76k. The diesel is the only one I’m willing to accept as maintenance, But using a turbo on ever smaller gas engines is overkill.

          • 0 avatar
            JimC2

            “In total, the 1.4T version of the Dart’s reliability is 140% below average.”

            Ummm, whuhhh? “140% below average?” What does that even mean?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m not really sure, evidently its 40% worse than being 100% terrible.

        • 0 avatar
          DC Bruce

          You guys forget that Toyota sold a supercharged 16-valve 4-cylinder engine in the mid-90s in the Previa. I owned one for about 150,000 miles. The only mechanical failure I experienced was one of the universal joints, which failed close to the end of my ownership.
          So that, at least, can be done consistent with “legendary” Toyota reliability. I understand the difference between turbocharging and supercharging but I’m not sure that one is inherently more reliable than the other.

          FWIW, my ’02 Saab Aero, which had plenty of mechanical issues, never had a problem with the turbo or associated stuff. I had the car for 13 years and about 120 k miles. Big issues were the transmission, which seemed fragile, and leaking main oil seals. I think I also replaced the alternator and the in-tank fuel pump.

      • 0 avatar
        strafer

        Toyota earned the reliability reputation by continually improving the same drive train they’ve always used, until recently.
        So we really don’t know how current gen Toyota will do in long term reliability.
        Corolla was the most reliable car, but had been using the same engine and 4 speed tranny until the current model, which still uses the 4 speed in base model.

        • 0 avatar
          RideHeight

          Prius was something of a departure from “the same drive train they’ve always used”.

          That’s done pretty well.

          • 0 avatar
            kokomokid

            I wonder if the next Prius will have a GDI turbo. If the gas engine stays the same as the current one, the Prius will be an option for those who don’t want GDI or a turbo.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I’m not a fan of much of Toyota’s current gen product (especially when compared to their 1995 to 2005 products), but the Prius is indeed bulletproof from a powertrain standpoint.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Toyota has made turbos for years.

        The TTAC commentariat just loves to panic over everything.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          Every MR2 turbo owner I know is on their 3-4th turbo, and they are always burning oil.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I have read this website long enough to put less than zero stock into most of the anecdotes that I see here.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          LMAO.

          The world is ending…the exalted Japanese brands start going the way of the the Euro and U.S. makers.

          Before you know it, Camcords will offer attractive styling and great road manners.

          Is nothing sacred?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            You’ll still be able to get a big VQ in Nissans!

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            And it will sound like a paint mixer mixing up ball bearings while attached to the CVT.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Ugh you’re right. Just buy an Infiniti instead.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Corey, that is a very sensible thing to say.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Funny, I rented a previous-generation Maxima this past weekend for a 300-mile trip, and that’s exactly how I would describe the noise. I don’t mind the CVT at all in that type of application, and the VQ power delivery was quite nice, but the noise… just… no.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          There’s unjustified panic/concern/distress and justified panic/concern/distress…

          …which panic/concern/distress?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I’m always sensible! I know full well the solution to most problems is to apply more money.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            There is a lot of unjustified panic/concern/distress at TTAC over any change to vehicles, technical or aesthetic, that makes them less like either a GMT400 Suburban or a pre-1991 Panther in any respect.

        • 0 avatar
          tedward

          No their north American suppliers, assembly lines and dealer techs haven’t. I think the panic is ridiculous though at the same time. What isn’t said in this article is more interesting and likely to exacerbate that panic, namely that all the big fwd product lines will have two to three turbo choices in the near future. Every group will have a sub 2 liter turbo, a 2 liter and a turbo six if there even is a six. Starting now the 1 1/2 turbo is the new base motor.

          It will be satisfying and sad to see Toyota and Honda lose their reliability dominance. This change will not happen without incident, but it will increase the desirability of their cars over the long term.

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      What is this reliability challenge you speak of? My Saab is 10 years old and had zero turbo issues. Honda had no reliability issues with the RDX turbo. Not understanding your fear.

      If there’s a new engine management technology available that reliably increases my hp, mpg or both, bring it. Otherwise we’d all still have carburetors.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        Only thing Ford did wrong was the name. They should have stayed with the TwinForce development name.

        And yes…enough of this garbage internet trash anti-turbo talk above. They are just dead wrong…repeating the internet urban legend trash.
        My 2010 MKS TT has nearly 70K miles. I have never had any issues. No slow, stalled starts. Nothing.(except that dismal AWD)
        And my computer this very moment is showing an average of 23.7 MPG. This is a very good mix of city(35)hwy(65.

        I remember those years back when I heard about the TwinForce under development. I saw Ford stock in the tank and ordered my financial people to grab as much as possible.
        They did and I am still singing the praise of this move.

        Then the turbos came out and the bashing began.
        Now…EVERBODY is doing it.

        I ain’t sayin it is all good. I still miss the newest Mazda6 S without its 6 power. My 09 with 280 HP has wonderful push! I wish the newest had the 6…or at least a turbo.

  • avatar
    tedward

    I think this will be fascinating to watch. First of all Honda has the right idea even if they have let almost all their competitors beat them to it. I don’t know what Toyota is thinking replacing their low volume engine first, the sixes are already quite competitive.

    Second is reliability. I don’t think turbos are inherently unreliable, but I definitely think there is a learning curve to implementing them, and that both these brands are very far on the wrong side of that curve right now.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      “both these brands are very far on the wrong side of that curve right now.”

      I tend to think the opposite. These are companies that are extremely concerned with reliability and are often on the back edge of implementing new technologies. But once they do implement new tech, they usually find the reliable way to do it. For instance, it seems Honda’s DI hasn’t had the carbon build-up issues of competitors, and although it is very early Toyota’s 2.0T seems to be doing great.

      If there is anyone who can make turbo fours as reliable as the ubiquitous 2.4 and 2.5 fours that have powered this segment for the last decade and a half, these two makers are it.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        They might be more reliable than their competitors, but there is no way these engines will be as reliable as the naturally aspirated ones they are replacing.

  • avatar
    pbr

    Not enough info to be useful (though it will stir up the lurvers and haterz). Reserving other opinions until we see some power/torque graphs and weight deltas.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Hopefully they dont fall into the same traps as their competition. Currently the most efficient and highest performance midize entrants are the Japanese V6s. The Sonata/Fusion/Optima 2.0T get worse gas mileage and are slower. A 1.5T in the Accord is shaky as well, though I think Honda will work its magic. Would make me more comfortable if it were a less stressed 2.0

  • avatar
    dal20402

    This is such a high-volume segment that every CAFE tick matters, so this move makes a lot of sense. But I’ll miss these two V6es, which are two of the best ever to find their way into volume midsize sedans. Quick, silky, and entertaining.

    I suppose you will still be able to get the Toyota one if you’re willing to get a few extra inches of length and a few thousand extra in MSRP along with it.

    • 0 avatar
      2drsedanman

      We bought a base Avalon and love it. Great V6. Price between the Avalon and the Camry V6 were close enough for us to step up, lot more car for the money.

      Just for the hell of it, I would like to see Honda and Toyota put their V6 into a limited number of Civics and Corollas. Steel wheel versions with a 6 speed manual, just like the old street sleeper Biscaynes of yore.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        2drsedanman, I’d love to pick your brain about your Avalon, I’m going to Carmax to look at a used 2013 XLE this weekend (a former rental with 57k miles, I just want to see how these things hold up to that kind of abuse). I’m comparing lightly used XLE Avalons to new Camry XLE 4 cylinders based on price parity. I’m sure the Avalon blows the Camry out of the water on interior quality, not to mention real leather vs leatherette. But the 2015 Camries had enough revisions that address my main quibbles with the 2012-2014 cars.

        • 0 avatar
          2drsedanman

          I wanted to get rid of the 2013 Nissan Altima we had due to transmission issues. We went to the dealership to look at the Camry. The Avalons were sitting right beside them so we got to make direct comparisons. I felt there was a big difference in the seating areas upfront. Even my wife, who couldn’t care less about cars, thought the Camry was definitely a step backward after getting in the Avalon. $500 back and 0% financing didn’t hurt either.

          Really love the V6/six speed automatic. In town gas mileage is around 22-23 mpg. I’ve had it on one 300 mile round trip, mostly highway miles running 75-80 mph with AC on. Averaged 32 mpg by hand calculation. I have read some complaints on forums about the ride of the new Avalon (2013 and up) being harsh and loud. I think it rides and drives great. Only 2300 miles on it but so far I really like it. In my opinion, the V6 alone is worth the difference.

          To be honest, I am a big Toyota fan. I have had several of their vehicles over the last 25 years (Tacomas, Sienna, MR2, Corollas) and have not had any issues. Maybe I’m lucky. I’m sure others can say the same thing about different brands. Life is one big anecdotal evidenced based practice after all.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I can’t understand Honda’s move exactly but in the case of Toyota I see not CAFE reason for the change. I think Toyota sees a low take rate on Camry as a chance to upsell you an Avalon or Lex ES (which is dick). The base model Camry continues to offer the N/A I4 and even when the turbo mill comes out, it will probably also have a low take rate and thus will not damage the Camry’s rankings in CR etc.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        “I think Toyota sees a low take rate on Camry as a chance to upsell you an Avalon or Lex ES (which is dick).”

        This is why the Fusion doesn’t have the 3.7L.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Gives Lincoln dealers customers over Ford ones. I suppose in Ford’s case they still offer the Taurus for the V6 customers but well…

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            For now…

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I still am offended when I see a new Taurus. Particularly by the crease along the rear fender, cutting the gas door in half. And by the giant lines all over for the bumper covers which extend too far in all directions.

            GAH.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Corey-

            Ford gonna Ford.

            There is only so much you can do with a 17 year old platform that was adapted for Ford products 11 years ago, and then had to be made to look sleek and mean while actually being giant and safe.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Sleek and giant works, there’s no mean needed! If it were a simple design it’d be much more appealing. But then I guess it’d be too close to the Taurus/Sable variant, which was actually good looking.

            I also give Mercury respect for grafting a corporate face onto all products which a) respected the history of the waterfall grille and b) was suitably scale-able for sedans and SUVs.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            They should have continued the styling direction of the 2007-2009 Taurus.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Even a 15% take rate on the hi-po Camry means several tens of thousands of sales. That’s more than enough to matter for CAFE purposes.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “The turbo four would likely replace the 3.5-liter V-6 option at the top of the range for Toyota, which makes 268 horsepower.”

    I was just thinking this Toyota V6 puts out very similar power ratings to the original LD8 Northstar, which on paper and not practice, was pretty epic. Granted its late 80s tech vs 00s tech but still its very impressive. Onward to lesser fuel economy and reliability!

    • 0 avatar
      Sam Hell Jr

      I have many a time posited that if Toyota is the new GM, then the big Toyota four is the new 3800.

    • 0 avatar
      qfrog

      Didn’t the Northstar have head bolt threads in the block that failed? I think I remember one of my machinists telling me about this.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Indeed it did, which is why I said “on paper and not practice”. In practice they didn’t pan out well for their owners.

        Toyota’s V6 AFAIK doesn’t have any similar design flaws. Its like having your cake and eating it too.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Mmmmm 2gr… what a peach of a motor in absolutely every respect and in every application. It also comes coupled with a well tuned Aisin automatic, I think that’s an important thing to consider: a smooth and responsive transmission highlights the capability and smoothness of that engine. Even the ‘outdated’ 5spd variant in my parents’ 2009 RX350 is simply faultless, that 4000lb AWD CUV will average 25 mpg on the highway going 75 no problem.

          • 0 avatar
            EAF

            No problems with your parents 2GR in the form of sludge? I’ve serviced 2 with clogged screens & release valves but they were both obviously neglected lease returns. Low oil pressure ftw! No adverse affect post sludge cleaning.

            I know there were issues with a rubber VVT oil supply line, later upgraded to metal. Also, the old VVT gears would fail (pin) causing all sorts of marble-ish sounds at start up. I remember reading the TSBs but I have never come across the two aforementioned issues.

            The Avalon is a gorgeous car, many transportation companies around these parts use them exclusively. They seem to be the direct replacement to Lincoln’s Town Car.

          • 0 avatar
            kokomokid

            Replacing that V6 with the turbo 4 in the Camry will give people more reason to spend the extra $10-15K for an ES. Maybe that is the plan.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    This move will increase the price and value of the used ones

  • avatar
    Sam Hell Jr

    So Honda will offer a 1.5T alongside the 2.4NA? Interesting. What’s the take-rate on the (cough, cough, GUTLESS, cough) little turbo against the bigger four in the Fusion? The model I see most often by far is a 2.5 SE, but I live out in Fly-Over Country.

    Not for nothing but there are some good deals to be had on six-cylinder Accord coupes right now. Guess everybody who wanted one bought it already.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The majority of Fusion sales are 1.5T. The majority of Fusion consumer sales are 2.0T.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      No, the article says that Honda will replace the 2.4NA with the 1.5T in the Accord.

      In the Civic, the 1.5T will be offered as the higher-end engine, while the 1.8NA will be the base engine.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        I’m hopeful that, unlike TOYota (who just screwed the pooch with this one), the V6 is still going to be an Accord option.

        Haven’t seen any indication of a turdo from Honda bigger than 2.0L, which would likely crank out 230hp max. Not enough to match to the NA J35 V6, less of a deficit than the Camry will have.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Another example of “progress” that isn’t.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      That’s about the last eight or nine years.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      Why do you think this is not progress?

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Why do you think this is progress, they’re putting unnecessary technology on a smaller engine to do what a larger engine does, without the reliability of a NA engine.

        Of course selling hundreds of thousands of remanufactured turbochargers in 8 years must have Toyota and Honda licking their lips at that opportunity.

        • 0 avatar
          EAF

          The only times I’ve ever come across a blown turbo is on VAG & BMW products. BMW guys were running aftermarket tunes in all fairness, JB or Vishnu. Any other turbo I’ve touched, (Mitsu, Volvo, Nissan, Saab, Mazda, Buick, Toyota), were strictly upgrades for a more favorable compressor map.

          I know the rotary guys use the argument of less moving parts but when applied to piston engines I *think* the less parts the greater the reliability. No research to back this up, just seems logical to me. Despite the turbo system and balance shafts inherent to most 4’s the V6 carries what? 15-20% more moving parts? More seals and gaskets to fail? More sensors?

          Just opinions.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    Why is anyone surprised about this, all techs I deal with agree that the “golden era” of the Japanese cars is long gone, no matter what they do now, turbo, direct injection, CVT won’t make any difference, the age of the “cannot be killed” Japanese car is over, as long as they survive the 3 yr warranty period. everyone is happy.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      I don’t often price used cars, but when I do, looking at 2-5 year old Hondas or Toyotas just makes me think “Christ, may as well buy new”.

      As it has ever done since the ’90s.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The B&B (well some of you) have insisted this day would never come…HP per liter is the name of the game and the only way to get there is forced induction.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Since when is hp per liter a factor in US car sales?

      Interest in larger engines in this segment is low. Presumably, it will be cheaper to offer turbo and not-turbo versions of the same basic motor than it would be to offer two different motors. It isn’t just about CAFE — it’s about consumers keeping an eye on fuel economy.

      Automakers also need to protect themselves from possible future oil prices. (Personally, I doubt that they are going to climb for quite some time, but OEMs should not be in the oil speculation business.)

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      I don’t know who said it won’t come. Many of us didn’t want it too happen, but the writing has been on the wall for a while.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      HP per liter is irrelevant.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        It is very important to the whining masses that insist that anything that can’t get to 60 in under 6 seconds is a death trap because it is so slow.

        Never mind in most urban centers during commuting hours it is a miracle to get to 60 in the first place, and the moron in front of you slows down to 35 to merge onto the highway anyway.

        If you’re putting lawnmower engines under the hood with forced induction – the HP number is definitely relevant.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      HP/liter doesn’t matter, because displacement doesn’t matter. It’s ludicrous, and mostly thanks to outdated tax schemes, that displacement is such a prominent spec in the car world. HP/weight, on the other hand, very much matters, as does HP/friction loss. Turbos and fewer cylinders help with both of those.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Average slob car buyer could care less about weight of the car – they do care about the HP.

        I think people are misunderstanding what I meant when I say HP to liter matters – it matters in the arms race of who can squeeze the most HP out – because buyers want to know that number.

        Buyers may perceive a vehicle is “heavier” in feel, but the 99% of the buying public couldn’t tell you the accurate curb weight of their car with a 10% margin of error if their life depended on it.

        They can tell you number of cylinders, and if they care enough to get the turbo motor over the base I-4 (or pancake 4, or horizontally opposed 4, or) they will certainly know the HP number – or at least that it has a lot more.

        • 0 avatar
          RideHeight

          As an Average Slob Car Buyer I can assure you that we give as much thought to the niceties of that lump under the hood as we do to astrophysics.

          At most some of us are dimly aware that a car has “zip” and some kinda like it. I’m not one who requires that.

          But we all like Tall so nothing about these sedans matters much anymore, anyhow.

        • 0 avatar
          sportyaccordy

          I think you grossly overestimate the general public’s knowledge of their cars. All they care about is how easy the car is to drive, which includes the sensation of power. If a car has enough HP to scare a driver it’s enough, and most mainstreamers do.

  • avatar
    Eliyahu

    All this because turbos game the EPA tests? Great EPA ratings, and not so much in actual mileage. We should not have to wait for a class action lawsuit to get this fixed.

    Also, any word on premium fuel requirements?

  • avatar
    Polar Bear

    “The technology has matured to the point where turbocharged engines are just as reliable, durable and dependable as naturally aspirated engines,” says Richard Truett from Ford Powetrain communications. “The reason for that has to do mostly with the internal design of turbochargers. Better bearings, cooling and lubrication have solved the reliability problems that plagued turbos in the 1960s, ‘80s and ‘90s.” (Source: Autoguide)

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Consider the source. In this case its the company that bet big in turbo and was being sued for it as recently as 2013.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The 3.5EB issue wasn’t because the turbochargers were bad. The CAC was too big and too efficient at sucking air in. This led to moisture building up in the air intake tube from condensation.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      Nobody is going to deny that turbo reliability has improved, but there has not been one example of a turbo engine being as reliable as it’s naturally aspirated equivalent. That quote is nothing but marketing.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        How reliable does a car have to be? Most folks who buy new are keeping their cars for 100K miles tops. Many folks are just going lease to lease. The bulletproof golden age Toyotas were complete overkill. Hondas from the same period were much less robust and are still ticking. Plus Honda/Toyota’s whole reputation is built around their reliability. They are not going to mess that up. That is why they are so late to the party. Just like with direct injection. They let everyone else do their research and testing and then swoop in once a reliable solution is found.

        Plus this is hardly Toyota’s first turbo rodeo. Toyota owns Hino and has been making turbodiesel engines for decades. They had a lot of turbo cars in the 80s too.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Leases are only affordable because of the assumption that the car will have a strong residual value. When Toyotas and Hondas are as disposable as Audis and Fords, there won’t be any desire for leasing companies to own a bunch of three year old models.

      • 0 avatar
        jmo

        “but there has not been one example of a turbo engine being as reliable as it’s naturally aspirated equivalent”

        Can you post a link to the data or article that supports your claim?

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          jmo, your question makes little sense.

          If I spin a generator by hand, that powers an electric motor that spins a hamster wheel, it is, in fact more complicated, and therefore more prone to developing issues than if I were to spin said hamster wheel itself by hand.

          • 0 avatar
            DC Bruce

            How far do you want to take this argument? Get rid of electronic engine management systems, fuel injection, vacuum advance distributors? I used to own a VW Karmann Ghia. The engine was so simple that you could set the spark advance using two wires soldered to a small light bulb. No need for even a timing light, much less a dwell meter. The distributor used a mechanical spark advance, based solely on engine speed. No vacuum advance, which sensed the load on the engine and adjusted the advance accordingly.

            In the 1960s, turbos were bleeding edge technology in consumer (non-race car) applications. I would say by Y2K, they were not.

          • 0 avatar
            jmo

            Cars are vastly more complex than they were 30 years ago . They are also vastly more reliable. Explain that, please.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “Cars are vastly more complex than they were 30 years ago . They are also vastly more reliable. Explain that, please.”

            Apples to oranges.

            Compare the data for the cars of the latest few model years to the ones from a few years previous to them. Reliability is decreasing.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        “There has not been one example of a turbo engine being as reliable as its naturally aspirated equivalent”

        EJ25 (D/1) vs. EJ255. The N/A 25 was the Subaru engine with the notorious head gasket issues. The turbo 255, available in most of the same cars, has been pretty much bulletproof. If you want to buy a 2000s Subaru the smart money would tell you to go with one that has a turbo (or six cylinders).

        • 0 avatar
          Land Ark

          Except that 2005-2009 Legacy GT engines seem to be good for about 110-150k miles before massive failure.

          Source: 1 in 5 posts on the LGT forums of people in need of a new short block.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            People who post on the LGT forums about needing a new short block are mostly not keeping their engines stock. Of course any turbo motor is going to go boom eventually if you tune it to make 33% or 50% more power than it made from the factory.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    Honda bolts a snail onto the Accord and TTAC flips out!

    “Turbos are unreliable!”
    Realistically, how reliable do they need to be?

    “Turbos are complex! The Golden 1990s Hondas were made 20 years ago!”
    ALL CARS have become comprehensively more complex since the 1990s. Yet, they are just as reliable as they have ever been.

    PGM-FI was more complicated than carburetion. Cars without airbags and stability control are more complicated than cars without them. Etc, etc.

    There is only so much you can do with NA engines in terms of fuel efficiency. After DI, turbos are the next logical step for Honda and Toyota.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      High-20s MPG in the city, high-30s highway is more than adequate for the higher-end, lower-volume trims.

      TORQUE is fun!

      TORQUE keeps me out of trouble!

      If I have to plant my right foot, I want power NOW!! Instantly!! Not a half-second later while waiting for some hamster wheel on the undersized eco-weenie-module under my hood to spin-up — or $hit the bed!

      No Replacement For Displacement!

  • avatar
    kokomokid

    My 1989 Dodge Caravan still has the original turbo, and it runs fine. It has low miles, though, about 70K.

    • 0 avatar
      pragmatic

      I sold my 87 XR4Ti when it had 280,000 miles. While I had plenty of problems with the car, the turbo was original and the original owner replaced the head gasket at 36,000 because the cooling fan failed. Other than that engine failure (new gasket and fan was the repair) the head nor the pan was ever off. The valve cover came off twice to fix oil leaks.

  • avatar
    kokomokid

    The problem with turbos is that, while some of them return good EPA numbers, the real world mpg is underwhelming. Ford seems to be especially bad in this regard with their heavily hyped “ecoboost” GDI turbos, at least in CR’s testing, and some other real world reporting.

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    Well at least Honda and Toyota are doing it on the different end of the market. So if you want a non turbo base model get a Camry, if you want a non turbo high power model get an Accord.

    Problem solved.

  • avatar
    threeer

    Could Honda *maybe* be convinced to drop the turbo 4 into the CR-Z? I want to like that little car, really, I do…

    If they could bring an Accord with the smaller engine in a less-pricey Sport package, it might be fun. But then again, most people buying an Accord (Baruth not withstanding) aren’t in it for “Sport.” Ditto, if not more, the Camry.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I look forward to 2025, and 0.4 liter, turbocharged, CVT vehicles made of carbon-parmesan cheese bonded fibers, getting 125 mpg on the EPA loop test, and between 22 mpg and 28 mpg in the real world.

  • avatar
    carguy

    It’s not like a turbo 4 will dilute the pure driving experience of a Camry. It’s an appliance and will continue to be one.

    As for reliability argument. Toyota will continue to make reliable engines and other will struggle to match their durability no matter what the technology used.

    There are a lot of folks on this forum that remind me of my dad’s rant’s back in the 80s when was convinced that DOHC engines would never be reliable due to their complexity. The more things change the more they stay the same.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    This has been in the making for a while. A turbo 4 is an easy less expensive way for the manufacturers to meet any new efficiency standards and since the competition is already doing it then it is a no brainer. Ford has the Eco-Boost for the F-150s and the Expeditions and Navigators. Eventually it will be very hard to get a V-8 on a half ton full size pickup. These turbo engines will probably last as long as the body and the electronics on most vehicles. Eventually you will probably see more mild hybrid systems offered on vehicles as standard equipment to further increase fuel efficiency. I am less worried about the turbo engines lasting and more worried about all the advanced computers and electronics going when the vehicle gets some age on it. Diagnosing the electronics can add up to some real money.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Bummer about the loss of the V6 Camry. I’ll wait to see how the turbo performs before calling that a major bummer or a minor one. The V6 really is a nice engine.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    The only thing more senseless than a downsized turbo is the CVTs that everyone’s pulling from the agricultural companies to stick in their cars.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    The biggest tragedy is that we’re going to lose the over-used observation, “it’s slower than a V6 Accord!.”

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Bought a 2010 Highlander with 3.5 V6, 5 speed auto, AWD – the engine is so good I would seriously consider a Camry XSE V6 brand new. When the 4 cyl turbo becomes the top option I might as well buy a Fusion Titanium.

  • avatar
    Ion

    I just imagine what it’d be like if there was always an internet for the Luddites to complain. “Fuel injection? Why mah carb here done work just fine without no finicky computer to tell it what to do”.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Why is it that car enthusiast sites attract so many Luddites, in particular? I’ve always wondered about that.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      You’re confused or disingenuous to claim that carburetor motors to fuel injection is analogous to normally aspirated motors to turbocharged motors.

      Fuel injection is one of the greatest advances in ICE history, bring incredibly better efficiency and reliability to the ICE.

      The trend towards smaller displacement, turbocharged motors replacing larger displacement, normally aspirated motors advances neither criteria in real world driving (and as many of us believe, such smaller displacement, turbocharged motors are already proving to be less reliable/durable).

  • avatar
    STRATOS

    All we ever hear is horsepower and fuel economy.What about engine smoothness.V6 engines were never as smooth as straight sixes ,but were favored because of their compactness.Four cylinder engines can never be as refined as a V6 no matter how many balance shafts they have or how good the motor mounts are.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    How is a 235 hp engine an acceptable replacement for a 268 hp engine?

    Why do turbos mean LESS power, outside of the EcoBoost V6s?

    • 0 avatar
      kokomokid

      The Cadillac 2.0 turbo is 272 hp, and some other 2.0 turbos have more power than that.

      As far as a little less power replacing a little more power, maybe the new cars will be lighter. Power/weight is what counts.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      The performance of that 2.0T in the Lexus NX200 suggests it will get the Camry to 60 within a half second of the V6 time. Enthusiasts may notice that kind of difference, but few of them buy Camrys. The other buyers won’t notice it, it will be plenty quick enough.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      I feel pretty sure that turbo will be up to 250-ish hp by the time it’s in Camry duty. If they can eke out a few pounds of weight savings, it will perform the same as the V6, although it won’t sound nearly as nice in the process.

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        Plus it will have a better, broader, and flatter torque curve than the V6 (and probably more peak torque as well). Most drivers don’t flog their cars hard enough to actually experience the peak horsepower anyway; a turbo 4 with good low end torque will feel more “powerful” to most of these drivers.

        • 0 avatar
          sportyaccordy

          The torque curve will be peakier, but it will peak in a more usable region of the RPM range. Find me a modern turbo with a torque curve as flat as or a top end as strong as these:

          http://www.kandn.com/dynocharts/69-8611_dyno.pdf

          http://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj621/bcash121/photo-94.jpg

          I am OK with the turbo 4 but we are definitely losing something with the death of these V6s. I personally wish they had just turbocharged the V6s.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    There’s just not an upside for me. Not even if they’re 100% as reliable as the V6s they replace. So is there an upside for anyone?? Pike’s Peak Challenge???

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    I wonder how many of the anti-turbo brigade also want a return to normally-aspirated, indirect-injection prechamber diesels?

  • avatar

    I don’t find that to be good news. I’m not *strictly against* the turbo-fours, but none of them (especially the entire Ford EcoBoost range) seems to deliver the promised MPG, just more headache. There’s something refreshing about a naturally-aspirated V6.

    So if you want a new Accord V6 (and you don’t like the 2016 facelift, although I do), the time to buy is now. Or maybe wait another five months when they become desperate to clear out the 2015s and get yourself a Touring for $3,500 off.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      For hope regarding performance and efficiency, reference VW and BMW instead of Ford. VW’s 2.0 and 1.8 deliver a lot of performance and truly good fuel economy, and BMW’s 2.0 even more so. Hyundai’s 1.6 turbo in the Sonata Eco looks promising so far, but their 2.0 “sport” posts some truly pathetic acceleration numbers.

      If Toyota’s new 2.0T can get the heavier Lexus NX200T to 60 in 7 seconds, the lighter camry will probably be low-6s, which is better than a 2.0 Fusion.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        BMW’s 2.0T is simply an incredible engine, and would be more so in mass-market cars where its relatively poor NVH would matter less.

        The VW/Audi EA888 doesn’t achieve the same fuel economy but it’s the most smooth and drivable 2.0T out there. It’s the one that would have me missing the V6 the least.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          “BMW’s 2.0T is simply an incredible engine, and would be more so in mass-market cars where its relatively poor NVH would matter less.”

          “Incredible engine” + “relatively poor NVH” is a contradiction in my book.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            It has a dead-flat torque curve over an exceptionally wide RPM range and it achieves real-world fuel economy better than some naturally-aspirated fours in cars of similar weight. It’s an incredible engine even if it’s coarser than I expect in a “luxury” car.

            Of course, I’ve also said before (and continue to feel) that I wouldn’t buy it because of that coarseness. But then again I’m an eccentric snob who can make irrational vehicle choices because my primary transportation to work is a bus.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I’ve yet to experience an inherently smooth-at-idle as well as under wot 4 cylinder motor.

            Yes, some are/were much better than others relatively speaking (Honda & Toyota, especially in past iterations of the Camry & Accord had surprisingly smooth 4 bangers as compared to the rest of the field), but none could match the better V6s or inline 6s (let alone the best V8s such as in the Lexus LS430, where it idled so smoothly that they had to put in starter flywheel protection to keep owners from attempting to start an already running vehicle).

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I’d put the first-gen K24 from my 2004 TSX up against a lot of engines with respect to smoothness, including modern-ish DOHC V6es (hello, VQ35/37/40 and Mercedes M272/M276). It was almost as buttery as a J35 and a true pleasure to send to the 7100-rpm redline.

            Of course it can’t compete with a Toyota 3UZ. That’s one of the smoothest engines ever built. But most cars don’t have a 3UZ. Even the 3UZ’s 1UR replacement has a subtle but audible DI ticking sound.

        • 0 avatar
          derekson

          Issues matching EPA ratings in real world driving is a Ford issue, not a turbo engine issue. See all the hybrids that Ford had to downrate because they weren’t even coming CLOSE to the original EPA ratings.

          Plenty of other manufacturers make turbo engines that are actually efficient in the real world. You wouldn’t ding the Prius because Ford couldn’t get good real world fuel economy in their hybrids, would you?

  • avatar
    wmba

    All I read here from the naysayers, especially 28-cars-later who has a case of too many posts and verbal diarhoea along with it, proving exactly nothing, and also Mr Deadweight who hates Cadillacs and can reliably buy new cars at from 30 to 60 percent off, is that you have opinions.

    Opinions are not facts. Luckily. Horse owners thought them new-fangled cars would never make it, just you see!

    If any of you had posted anything in the past to make me believe you actually knew what you were talking about when it came to engine design, I might listen. But, you haven’t.

    Instead, I skimmed the comments and not a naysaying soul came up with anything of merit. Not that I expected it – I got what I expected. Mush.

    As I said, I’ve owned four turbo cars, and not even a hint of trouble from them. Over a period of more than 25 years unbroken. That’s only halfway to an objective statistical standard, but I’m comfortable. This will make you all quack even more like startled ducks – I’ve never used synthetic oil in any of them either. There’s another sacred cow torn to shreds.

    The new turbo engines take into account things the designers of the ones I’ve owned never even considered. So they should be even be more reliable than reliable. Reductio ad absurdum.

    Flagging Ford 1.6t engines with turbo problems when it was the freeze plugs in the block that caused the problem, bringing up irrelevant examples of problems by the page load solves nothing nor makes a case. Screaming profanities against turbos means nothing. It’s all just opinion, not real facts.

    The exception to the rule about turbo failures seems to be VW, but they have trouble designing window regulators and door handles these days, let alone something technical. Hell, they have trouble making even coil-springs if my friend’s 2010 TDI Sportwagon (VW Canada spelling on the decklid) is anything to go by.

    One thing all the jawing and moaning does tell me is that the car companies are going to have trouble selling turbo engines to a bunch of semi-old dyed-in-the-wool self-styled automotive enthusiast coots! No doubt there’ll still be inefficient two-valve pushrod V8 pickup trucks for sale 10 years from now for those who find it impossible to turn over the page to tomorrow and want to grumble in their cups about them new-fangled things.

    Meanwhile, get off my lawn with the bogus concern.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      Well I’m going to rush out tomorrow and buy a turbo pickup truck because you haven’t had any trouble with YOUR turbos.

      The point, which seems to be lost on you, is that auto makers are adding gimmicky features like turbos, stop-start engines, nine speed transmissions, CVTs, etc which customers are NOT clamoring for, simply to eek out an extra 1/4 MPG here and there to please a bunch of government bureaucrats. This is all meant to appeal to soccer moms and limp wrists who love to say things like, “we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil…”

  • avatar
    danio3834

    “Opinions are not facts”

    Indeed.

    Compare J.D. Power average dependability data for the cars of the latest few model years to the ones from a few years previous. Reliability is decreasing.

    As far as the internal data goes, I’ve studied it for several different OEMs and the amount of problem conditions per given vehicle population on the turbo DI engines versus comparable NA engines is notably higher. You can take my word for it in the interest of knowing the facts, or don’t. I personally don’t care either way, but your level of smugness while standing opposite of the facts doesn’t reflect well on you as someone who claims to be an expert.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Reliability is not decreasing. People are having issues using poorly designed and/or implemented infotainment systems, which for some reason surveys like that consider “reliability issues”.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Whatever helps you sleep at night. Meanwhile, everyone’s warranty accruals are up, and not just because of funky infotainment systems.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Man, your “it’s the infotainment systems dragging down the reliability index” screed is wearing thin.

        Current gen vehicles with turbochargers, CVTs (with one exception, being the Accord – thus far), direct injection (vs multiport or Toyota style multiport+direct injection system), and DSG transmissions are all knocking MECHANICAL reliability down from prior gen vehicles not having such new components.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          ****Bluetooth connectivity and voice recognition issues are the most frequently reported problems after three years of ownership, according to the J.D. Power 2015 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS)**** released today. Study findings show that technology is playing an increasingly critical role in owners’ perceptions of overall vehicle reliability…

          >> Among owners who experienced a Bluetooth pairing/connectivity problem, 55 percent say that their vehicle would not recognize their phone, and 31 percent say the phone would not automatically connect when entering their vehicle.

          >> The number of engine/transmission problems remains high. Nearly 30 percent of the reported powertrain problems are a result of ***automatic transmission hesitation and rough shifting.***

          >> ***Six of the top 10 problems are design-related as opposed to defects or malfunctions.***

          >> By vehicle category, the most frequently reported problems are related to exterior, followed by engine/transmission and audio/communication/entertainment/navigation.

          http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2015-vehicle-dependability-study
          ___________

          It should be obvious why we have more Bluetooth problems today than we did before.

          As noted, a majority of the top problems are a matter of features providing a unsatisfactory experience, not of things breaking or going wrong. When the technology works badly or the shift points are annoying, they show up as problems on the survey.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    In Southern California, 250K+ mile Toyota and Honda vehicles are common, usually running the original drivetrain. Many owners of these high mileage gems do not follow recommended service intervals. Some just add oil when needed while ignoring transmission service.

    I doubt a turboed vehicle will deliver the same service under maintenance abuse. It is well known that, in general, Detroit vehicles do not deliver Toyota/Honda reliability and durability, so Detroit can get away with turbo bling. Detroit buyers justify inferior products by wrapping themselves in the American flag.

    Toyota and Honda must deliver 250K+ vehicles that are reliable and durable under abuse. I don’t see how they can get away with turbos.

  • avatar
    319583076

    There really isn’t any debate. There are those of us who know how
    the system works and for what purpose and there are those of you who
    are remaining willfully ignorant to continue the argument.

  • avatar
    stuki

    What a bloody waste.

    Real world, the mileage differences between Hondyota NAs and Euro turbo 4s are virtually nil. Can swing either way, depending on usage. Just like the latest Chevy small block truck engines versus Ford’s ecoboost.

    The only venue where smaller turbos are noticeably better, is they allow for more tuneability, so they can be tuned for higher mileage ratings around a pre-known loop, like the one the EPA uses. Throw random, real world usage at them, and they are not meaningfully better at all. And in some scenarious, they can be made to show worse.

    But, as always in Progressivestan; simplistic, synthetic, ultimately rather pointless pseudoscientific measures, is what it takes to make well indoctrinated dronelings feel like they are, like, scientificy and, like stuff. So, choice and variety be damned, at the altar of bonehead supported uniformity and dronealicious acronyms like CAFE.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      As of today, many people can still argue than turbo engines offer very little improvements in performance over comparable naturally aspirated engines, while possibly introducing complexity and compromising long term reliability. However, one thing about turbo engines is that they’re a relatively unexplored area of engine technology. The naturally aspirated engine technology has been beaten to death, but the era of turbo engines is just beginning. 10 years ago about two or three companies were tinkering with those turbo engines seriously (VAG, Volvo, Subaru, maybe Saab). But with so many heavyweights jumping into the turbo bandwagon, I think the pace of progress will accelerate. I expect to see some of the hybrid and turbo technology used in Formula 1 and LMP1 racing to eventually make it into road cars (like electric turbos, energy recovery from exhaust, etc)

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        The problem I was alluding to, is not so much about turbo engines and technology. The added complexity does come with added tuneability, so they can be tuned very tightly to perform a specific task well. Like snailpacing around an EPA test loop. Or produce 1000hp for the duration of a drag race. Or generate enough torque down low to allow extremely tall gearing and still dig it’s way out after a minute or 2 of turbo lag… or a bunch of other things. Diesel trucks have been running turbos forever, since efficiency in a narrow rpm and load window (rpm low, load high) is the name of the game there.

        Instead, the problem is that this narrow range tuneability that allows for “better” performance on an utterly simplistic EPA loop, is being used by the usual dronelings, to effectively render all other alternatives unsaleable. A good mix of turbo gas and diesel, and NA gas; 3, 4,5 6, 8 cylinders, etc., is instead being replaced by a monoculture. Not because it is “the best” for all possible uses, but simply because dumb progressives are, as always, dumb, but thinks that clinging to childish, kinda-sorta sciency sounding metrics somehow makes them sound less so. And, in their own officially sponsored echo chamber of dumb people, it seems it just may.

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    No turbo for me. Thanks, but no thanks Toyoter.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    I hope that Honda’s turbo project in consumer space will fare better than the McHonda in the 2015 Formula 1 season (it’s been an embarrassment so far, until the Hungarian GP when Alonso suddenly took 5th place.. *progress*)

    I am sure that by now the Toyota and Honda engineers have taken apart and studied every Ford, Audi, and BMW turbo engine, and they already roughly know what are the weak points and what are the strong points of the current turbo technology, so hopefully they will learn where the others have failed.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mcs: I trust Tesla, especially their drivetrain technology, over Ford and GM. Ford and GM somehow know less about...
  • Inside Looking Out: No, that’s wrong, that cannot be true. Tesla are bunch of republican idiots from Silicon...
  • JD-Shifty: Pete Seeger, the Smithsonian Collection
  • 28-Cars-Later: I think you’re paranoid.
  • Jeff S: I will not buy a Tesla product either. As much as I don’t like GM and Ford I would trust either of them...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber