Engine Reliability Data 2

[Panther140]

Does anybody know of a way for a consumer to gauge the endurance life of an engine before purchasing a vehicle equipped with it? My dream is to go to a vehicle dealership and be presented with data from unbiased endurance tests on an array of vehicles and their components. I want to know how many hours an engine is designed to last at a given duty cycle as well as the standard deviation in time before they fail on endurance tests. Instead, the salesperson tells me to "check out that sweet infotainment system" and then they fumble through a brochure before trying to convince me that I should get a crossover SUV.

The way that I have currently been gauging the engine's durability is by looking at generators that are equipped with the same engine that is in the vehicle that I'm considering. If I can't find a generator with the engine that a vehicle is equipped with, then I am far less likely to consider buying it (Toyota 1MZ-FE being an example of an exception).

That method doesn't work as well when vehicles like the 3.5L ecoboost come into question. I like the idea of a v6 turbocharged half-ton, but I also know that this platform is vulnerable to higher deviations from expected endurance.

Think about how many engineers there are in the U.S. Why are companies not marketing to engineers by giving them cold-hard data?



"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[PackardV8]

Certainly not. But read the fine print on the 'lifetime' warranty- it applies only to the first registered owner. What percentage of owners of Chrysler product keep their vehicles past 60,000 miles? 70,000? 100,000?

Like the current Mopar V6s and V8s with systemic wear of rocker arms and valve seat inserts dropping. They are cheap to build, make lots of power for the unit cost, but the rebuild shops are drowning in them today. They did usually last long enough to get out of warranty/first owner, or the rebuild shops wouldn't be getting the business. And there's absolutely no maintenance the owner can do which will prevent these failures. They're designed in.

That method doesn't work as well when vehicles like the 3.5L ecoboost come into question. I like the idea of a v6 turbocharged half-ton, but I also know that this platform is vulnerable to higher deviations from expected endurance.

I admit to being skeptical a turbo 3.5 could survive the rigors of commercial pickup use, but so far, it seems to be more reliable than the old lump OHV8s it replaced. Would be of interest to read of the engine failures and what causes them.

Having said that, I regularly see owners managing to kill some part of the Dodge Ram 3500 with the Cummins. As the pickup platform evolves greater competency, gypsy truckers are putting them into over-the-mountain light-duty 5th-wheel service. That's outside the performance envelope, especially when some numbnuts also stops by "BullyDog" for a "tuner" upgrade. I saw one owner burn up the OEM clutch while proudly showing how his "tuner" would pull the grade without a downshift. The tuner produced enough torque to slip the disc while it was engaged.

jack vines

 

[drwebb]

Is it important to distinguish between 'durability' and 'reliability', or are they always closely related?

 

[Panther140]

Is it important to distinguish between 'durability' and 'reliability', or are they always closely related?

I'd consider it important to distinguish between durability and reliability in a few cases.

Reliability, to me, is measurable by the likelihood that an engine will operate over a given period of time without failing in any way that takes it out of service for any measurable length of time.

I judge durability by the length of serviceable life of an engine working at a given duty cycle in reasonably controlled conditions. It can be thought of as how closely the amplitude of the loading of the engine's major components (crankshaft, con rod, piston, block, heads) are to the fatigue limit of the parts.

If we're discerning, I want an engine that is reliable at given duty cycle for the longest amount of time. The high duty cycle makes endurance necessary, by nature.





"Formal education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." ~ Joseph Stalin

 

[leroi]

I've owned the same Volvo 142 since 1978. I don't know how many miles are on it but its a lot. I'm speaking from first-had experience in keeping cars on the road for a long time. I've always done it.

Keeping a car on the road for a long time is a winner from both a financial and environmental standpoint. The drawbacks are that engines aren't what you get tired of; its worn out driver's seats (particularly if you weigh over 200 lbs) and worn out suspensions. A good seat overhaul can cost a grand; nobody spends it. As a good working rule, suspensions wear out long before engines do nowadays but almost nobody bothers to overhaul suspensions. Even if you keep up the suspension, there will be creaks and groans and pops that develop and aggravate you. Automatic transmissions can easily cost as much as engines, and they don't last as long. Manual transmissions are generally bulletproof if you don't abuse them. Clutches' lifespans depend too much on driver ability and type of driving to generalize about. Diesels rarely make economic sense for most people as diesel maintenance and diesel parts cost too much more than gas. Most of the paint durability problems I think have been fixed, but that could change tomorrow courtesy of the EPA.

Here's the secret to keeping a car on the road for a long time: When something breaks, fix it. That Volvo wasn't a particularly good car then, much less now. But I fixed what broke. Failure to fix the small broken things always leads to either big broken things or stupid aggravation about the broken item that makes you dump the car and get another one. I recall reading a figure in the '70's that the production of a new car generated 20,000 lbs of pollution. I don't doubt it then and I am sure it is no better now--whatever breakthroughs in pollution control we've had have been overmatched by increased car weight and complexity. So every year you don't buy a new car, you are saving the production of ten tons of pollution. That's an excellent reason to keep older cars running.

And I'm selling the Volvo soon anyway. Cars are one hell of a lot better drive, every single last one of them, than that one is. Parts availability has gone to hell for the older Volvos, and I wouldn't bet on anyone's parts availability, except pickup trucks, over more than 20 years nowadays. Probably a lot less than that, and even then there is the problem of putting in 10 or 20 year old new parts that just don't last like 2 year old new parts. Particularly true for rubber and electronic parts.

Boss Kettering said that the automobile was the greatest single invention for economic waste that had ever been made. He was right and that is how you have to look at cars--economic waste. Just try and minimize it, OK? There's a lot better ways of spending money and the damned things are so hard on the environment.

 

[bosscat]

Agree with you 100% apart from the driving experience part. The car as a negative investment..... I like to get maximum value from mine.

The 5 working cars in our household have about 780,000 miles and 116 years between them. This is slightly skewed by having one very old one ('67 Triumph) and one very high miles one ('96 Audi A6 @ 300k).

The nastiest drive would be the '00 Seat Arosa, 64 asthmatic, clattery NA diesel ponies, the most boring the '06 Kia Ceed. The '96 Audi A8 is dropping to bits, but still a fine drive and properly quick even by today's standards, the A6 just keeps on trucking - the I5 TDI is very reliable, but the UK climate is taking it's toll on the underbody now. However, for a cross country run in the sun or blast around the Alps the '67 Triumph cannot be beat......

Nick