[Jarret s.]

I think I’m probably going v6 because they are just more reliable overall

[HCI2000SS]

Originally Posted by Jarret s.

I think I’m probably going v6 because they are just more reliable overall

If you're keeping it stock I really believe the V6 is the way to go

[redcoats1976]

66,000 miles on my gen 5 V6.i got it because i didnt trust the turbo over the long haul,but i keep my cars 20 years or so.the V6 is a sweet motor.

[Start The Machine]

Turbos are extremely easy to replace.

[95TA - The Beast]

Originally Posted by Start The Machine

Turbos are extremely easy to replace.

As I just replaced a turbo on my CTS, I figured I would make commentary.

Note: My replacing the turbo was for a performance upgrade, not because of a turbo failure. The turbos used in the late-model cars are EXTREMELY reliable compared to turbos from even 20 years ago. Sure, you get a bad one from manufacturing every now and then, but if an OEM is going to use it in a mass-produced consumer vehicle, as the 2.0t turbos are, you can bet they will go 150,000-200,000+ miles before becoming an issue.

Yes, the turbo is pretty darn easy to replace on these cars. I have yet to read a write-up or anything else that explains all the concerns. Those being:

- What fluids do I need to drain?
- What do I have to remove?
- What gaskets do I need?
- What fasteners do I need?
- What kind of trouble can I expect?

I will do a write-up of the entire process and make a post about it, including tips and advice to make sure things would be easier for future maintenance.

Now as an additional note, I considered a twin-turbo Lincoln MKS a few years back and after looking at over 30 used ones I would never buy a Ford 3.5l Ecoboost vehicle, not unless it was possibly brand new. Every single one burned oil, smoked on acceleration, and it was obvious the turbos (if not the rings) were going to need to be replaced by 100k miles. I could not believe the overall lack of engineering for long-term use out of that setup. You would have thought it was a turbo setup from the late 80s it was so bad.

The lowest mileage one, a 2015 with 32k miles was driven by an older couple that NEVER, not ONCE accelerated hard with the damn thing. I knew that because it was a friends parents car and they were in their 80s. It smoked on startup, with light acceleration, etc, etc... Turns out it was never broken in properly. After a switch to royal purple (for it's detergent abilities) and driving it for 500 miles, me and my friend finally broke it in properly. Some graduated hard accelerations with accompanied cool down driving and in general just made sure it was leaned on properly (no, no "hammer it until it bleeds" driving) and low and behold, ALL the issues were gone. No more smoke on startup (even after sitting for 2 weeks), no more smoke on acceleration and it was even quieter running when hot. Needless to say, my friend bought the car off his parents in short order. He still drives in today and has zero issues with it and has over 80k miles on it now.

All that proves is those engines need to be driven "right", and any abuse on either side of the equation and it becomes unreliable.

Now, I am sure some people would say the same thing about the 2.0t engine, but realistically GM and every other manufacturer that shares the Ecotec design and been pounding out that combination for many years without a cry from the general public that they are unreliable. (ok, ok, there was the piston ring debacle, but that was a non-turbo version)

Personally I can't believe they still haven't put forged pistons/rods in these setups. Seems almost criminal to put a high output turbo on a car and NOT put forged pistons and rods in it.