Does a little go a long way?

[Bper]

Hi All,

If it is correct that smaller sized turbo engines wear quicker than naturally aspirated engines, how does this relate to Toyota's 1.2T 8NR FTS engine and was this problem resolved at the design stage?

If this was not possible to correct the wear what can be done to slow down this issue?

Comments please.

[Hybrid21]

Hi Bob, these small turbo engines invariably work harder, some are three cylinder with a turbo to maximise their output, so will naturally wear quicker as they are working harder.

Just like us humans 😀

[Hybrid21]

Ways to slow down wear would include driving gently/sympathetically, regular servicing, etc 

[Parts-King]

Good oil, regular changes and not driving it like a loon would help lol. To be honest we have never stripped one, so nothing to worry about in my book 

[TonyHSD]

In addition to all above, a good quality fuel will also help prolong the life of your engine, and particularly the direct injection system that you have. A couple of  more progressive accelerations when going on motorways are also beneficial, nothing crazy I mean just slightly quicker than usual drive. There only been one or two complaints about high pressure pump give up but apart from these nothing really. I think these engines are probably one of the good ones with GDI . 

[jcps001]

Yes, it can go a long way:

https://www.toyotaownersclub.com/forums/topic/208106-another-high-miler-toyota-auris-ts-14d-with-almost-500k-miles/

It is true however, that smaller turbocharged engines can wear faster than bigger ones. But a well built, well engineered and well maintained one can really go a long way.

As far as the engine you're mentioning, there are a lot of threads about that engine in this forum, and so far, it checks out as a good engine.

No need to fear smaller turbocharged engines as far as reliability goes. Just make sure it is a good one, and well maintained.

Know what you buy. If you're thinking about Toyota's 1.2T, it is a good engine. Check it first, though, that is something that always needs to be done.

[Cyker]

It won't have the longevity of e.g. the 1.4 D4D, but as a small-displacement turbopetrol the 1.2T is one of the better ones out there for longevity so far. Certainly better than e.g. the Ford EcoBoom  

The only reason turbo engines wear more than NA is they are under more stress - higher cylinder pressures etc., but they tend not to need to rev as high as an NA to get the same power (NA max torque is usually high up the rev-range, but with turbos you can tune them to have peak torque much lower, which is what Toyota have done with the 8NR-FTS), so they are capable of a long life as long as they're not thrashed.

Regular quality oil changes are more important than any other kind of engine tho' as that oil has to do a lot more work, but that's a general mantra for Toyota engines - Regular oil changes = long life.

 

[furtula]

I personally don't like turbo on a small engine, but that's what they had to do to meet the EU regulations at the time.

NA is less parts, less things to wear, but kinda annoying on highways due to higher rpm.

I think it's a myth, there's a bunch of VW group small block engines with turbo, and they are fine for years now.

It all depends how you use/maintain the car, in the end.

[Cyker]

It's also about how much turbo-charging you do; If it's just light turbo-charging that doesn't require any cylinder or block reinforcement, and still works with normal petrol with no major modifications then the life can be similar to a NA.

For more serious turbo-charging, the whole engine needs to be stronger and heavier to withstand the higher pressures, high-octane fuel needs to be used, or the engine has to run rich at times to avoid detonation, and you have to deal with the huge amount of extra heat as ironically the hot petrol exhaust is really bad for the turbo which is also generating loads of heat from compressing the air charge - This all takes its toll and makes it harder to keep the engine as reliable in the long-term.

Diesel engines are an exception - Turbochargers are a match made in heaven for diesel engines as, unlike with petrol where there are many compromises, there are practically no downside: The engines are already built far stronger than petrol engines to withstand the compression ignition, so they can take the extra pressure easily, and diesel exhaust is much colder - 200-300 degrees cooler IIRC - so the turbocharger has a much easier life and isn't being baked to death constantly by the exhaust (This is why diesels can have variable geometry turbos and still stay reliable, but petrols can't without making them out of extremely expensive exotic materials). Also, diesels are immune to knock, so you don't need to run them rich or use knock-resistant fuels and have all sorts of complex ECU stuff to stop the engine detonating - Just spin the turbo as fast it wants and and add however much fuel you want!

 

[Bper]

Does my 1.2T Auris auto need super unleaded high octane fuel . The petrol cap says use unleaded only.  

[Cyker]

"Need" - No; It can use it - Most turbo engines benefit from it and can get slightly higher mpg as they don't need to run as rich - but the 1.2T is only lightly turbo-charged and was designed to run on normal fuel and is happy to do so.

That said, running a tank of V-Power through it every now and then to keep the fuel system clean wouldn't go amiss, but that's something most cars benefit from.

 

[Bper]

Cyker, 

Thanks for the advice it would seem I missed that school lesson on fuel types.

What do you mean by lightly turbo charged is that a good or bad thing.

 

[Yugguy1970]

I would imagine modern materials and manufacturing processes would produce stronger engines.

The 3 cyl 1.5 182bhp I had in my Focus was also in the Fiesta at 200bhp, and it must have been tested for longevity.

[Cyker]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

Cyker, 

Thanks for the advice it would seem I missed that school lesson on fuel types.

What do you mean by lightly turbo charged is that a good or bad thing.

Neither good or bad - When I say lightly, I'm just talking about the extra air pressure (or 'boost') the turbo charging forces into the engine.

All forced induction (super or turbo charging) is basically about forcing more air in the engine than it would normally take - e.g. a 1.5L 3-cylinder engine would suck in a maximum of 0.5L of air per cylinder on the intake stroke, but with a turbo you can force in more than that, e.g. you could force 1.0L of air-fuel mix per intake stroke, giving the 1.5L engine 3.0L engine levels of power. (It's more complicated than that but you get the idea.

The best amount of boost depends on what the car is set up for; The 1.2T 8NR-FE is setup almost like a diesel, with small amounts of boost coming on early to give it a lot of mid-range grunt, but the peak power isn't very high.

Race cars OTOH cars are normally set up for peak power, so they have massive turbos which give almost no boost and terrible power at the low rpm, but at high rpm they have huge amounts of boost.

 

1 hour ago, Yugguy1970 said:

I would imagine modern materials and manufacturing processes would produce stronger engines.

The 3 cyl 1.5 182bhp I had in my Focus was also in the Fiesta at 200bhp, and it must have been tested for longevity.

The funny thing is modern engines are often weaker than older engines!

The thing is, you're right about modern materials etc., but instead of using that knowledge to make the engine stronger, they use it to make the engine lighter. The reasoning is why waste material making the engine stronger than it needs to be? As long as it's strong enough to survive its design life, that's all that matters.

Everything is engineered for cost as the primary driver these days - That's partly why most performance enthusiasts usually modify older engines rather than newer ones.

Case in point is most engines these days are made of aluminium because the weight saving is enormous. However, older engines were made of steel - Heavier but also much much stronger; Old steel blocks are much better candidates for extreme turbocharging than modern ally engines, and are far less likely to crack under high boost pressure.

Diesel engines still tend to use a lot of steel components (Piston heads, and steel cylinder liners) as aluminium can't handle the much higher pressures diesels operate in.

[Slippy One]

I was wondering why all the new corollas are either 1.8 or 2.0L engines? 1.2 eats oil I've heard..

[Parts-King]

They are 1.8 or 2.0 because they are Hybrid units, no other reason, the 1.2 does not eat oil 

[Cyker]

3 hours ago, Slippy One said:

I was wondering why all the new corollas are either 1.8 or 2.0L engines? 1.2 eats oil I've heard..

There are other engines but Toyota are going all-in with their hybrid stuff so they don't get CO2 limit fines like other manufacturers.

The 1.2T is generally okay as long as it's looked after - Neglecting oil changes and thrashing the nuts off it all the time will make it consume oil like most engines... If it's driven properly it's so far been the more reliable of the industry's small turbo engines.

[Bper]

Hi,

Are the newer Toyota petrol engines derivatives of the older reliable engines or are they completely new designs. 

[Cyker]

The new 'Dynamic Force' ones are pretty much new designs, although obviously with what was learned from the older ones, but the old ones are evolutions.

The 1.8 in the new Corolla is a slightly tweaked 2ZR-FXE so still has a lot in common with the same engine in e.g. the Auris.

The 2.0 is the new  dynamically forcey M20A-FXE which is a new design, and bigger brother of the M15A-FXE in the Yaris (Which is in many ways the same engine with one cylinder lopped off  )

One big power advantage the new engines have is they can switch between Otto and Atkinson/Miller mode, so if you give them the beans they can act like an actual 2.0/1.5L petrol engine with all the power and torque (And fuel consumption!  ) you would expect from one.

[Big_D]

I had to floor the accelerator the other day and was amazed at how much power there actually is from the 2.0. Especially since they say the 0-60 is something like 10 or 11 seconds. I'm quite impressed with the M20A-FXE engine in my C-HR

[TonyHSD]

2 hours ago, Big_D said:

I had to floor the accelerator the other day and was amazed at how much power there actually is from the 2.0. Especially since they say the 0-60 is something like 10 or 11 seconds. I'm quite impressed with the M20A-FXE engine in my C-HR

10-11 sec is for the 1.8, the 2.0 hybrids does the sprint for 7.8 seconds .  Even the same smaller 1.8 has enough power to go but just doesn’t want you to use it all and makes you drive relaxed. Both engines are good choice 👍 

[Cyker]

I think that is the issue with the DF engines... they almost encourage you to give them the beans and it's quite addictive...

I'm probably wasting 5-10 mpg because I just can't stop myself e.g. launching it at the lights or overtaking on wide country roads...  

But it's so fun!!!  

 

 

[TonyHSD]

2 hours ago, Cyker said:

I think that is the issue with the DF engines... they almost encourage you to give them the beans and it's quite addictive...

I'm probably wasting 5-10 mpg because I just can't stop myself e.g. launching it at the lights or overtaking on wide country roads...  

But it's so fun!!!  

 

 

I would say exactly opposite with my Auris 🙂, I can’t stop driving it smooth and relaxed, exactly how I would have drive a large Mercedes’ or Lexus. , perhaps one day 🤵🏼‍♂️🚙😂

[Cyker]

I find the Mk4 very jekyll and hyde - It's perfectly happy to drive in a gentle and relaxed way, to the point I don't get wound up when I'm stuck in traffic like I did in my old cars, and even find the slow crawl quite relaxing, but then when I get to fast clear bit of road I'm like   weeeeee!  

It's just very easy to drive either way when the mood suits!

[Parts-King]

I had the pleasure of driving a Highlander last night, what a car, outstanding ride, comfort, grunt, superb