Metris passenger -turbo maintenance

Turbo Failure

We have a 2016 Metris which has 110K miles routine maintenance have always been done on schedule. We have our techs pump 91 octane. Our tech calls us stating the van would lose power at higher RPM (4K+). Took our van to a shop that specializes in German vehicles. They could not figure out what was causing the problem and referred me to a Mercedes specialist shop. They replaced a couple of sensors. Checked correct voltage on sensors, grounds, pressure on turbo, checked hoses, vacuum lines, ect. His prediction was the turbo is faulty and needs to be replaced. We took it to the dealership for a second opinion and he was right it is the turbo. We are going to replace the turbo in house with a genuine turbo (dealership quoted $8k USD) But we have another metris which is a 2017 approaching 70k and also waiting for the 2019 sprinter with the petrol engine. my concern is since all three vans have the same engine should I be worried around the 100k mile mark and expect turbo problems?
What can we do to prevent turbo failure?

I don’t think turbo failure is common... that being said:

Most M274s and the related M270 are installed in CLAs, GLAs, GLCs, C-class, and E-class sedans. And most of those are leased to people for somewhere under 40k miles. High mileage Benz owners are not extremely common in the US ; high mileage Benz owners elsewhere tend to buy diesels which are totally unrelated. The leased cars are usually then sold or re-leased CPO and are also not likely high mileage cars.

I’m not saying that the above is evidence of failure, or poor design by MB due to short term owners. I’m saying that I don’t think enough time and mileage data has been adequately assembled to make a fair assessment yet.

That being said, MB was one of the first companies to use forced induction (500k/540k, 770k) and an early pioneer with turbocharging diesels in trucks, and the first to turbocharge a passenger diesel (1978 300SD). I had a several of those 5-cylinder turbos with over 300k miles on them, so I think they should be able to competently design and set up a turbo engine.

An alternate point of view is that they obviously screwed up the fuel lines on the M274, and leaking fuel return lines is a hallmark of several benz diesels including especially the OM616/617, no example of which I owned that didn’t weep fuel (and I owned many examples). That motor is legendary for its durability, btw.

I suspect Robbs failure was contributed to partially by his tuning, btw.

Greenmanedlion said:

I don’t think turbo failure is common... that being said:

Most M274s and the related M270 are installed in CLAs, GLAs, GLCs, C-class, and E-class sedans. And most of those are leased to people for somewhere under 40k miles. High mileage Benz owners are not extremely common in the US ; high mileage Benz owners elsewhere tend to buy diesels which are totally unrelated. The leased cars are usually then sold or re-leased CPO and are also not likely high mileage cars.

I’m not saying that the above is evidence of failure, or poor design by MB due to short term owners. I’m saying that I don’t think enough time and mileage data has been adequately assembled to make a fair assessment yet.

That being said, MB was one of the first companies to use forced induction (500k/540k, 770k) and an early pioneer with turbocharging diesels in trucks, and the first to turbocharge a passenger diesel (1978 300SD). I had a several of those 5-cylinder turbos with over 300k miles on them, so I think they should be able to competently design and set up a turbo engine.

An alternate point of view is that they obviously screwed up the fuel lines on the M274, and leaking fuel return lines is a hallmark of several benz diesels including especially the OM616/617, no example of which I owned that didn’t weep fuel (and I owned many examples). That motor is legendary for its durability, btw.

I suspect Robbs failure was contributed to partially by his tuning, btw.

Click to expand...

Love Ya GML, but you're working way overtime on speculation here. Ford. That's right, plain ol' Ford is producing reliable efficient twin turbo ecoboost engines by the hundreds of thousands each year. There are no data as in zero, zip, nada, that properly designed boosted engines can't be long-lived and reliable. As I like to remind my kids on certain "modern" physics problems, the B29's that genocided the Japanese with incendiaries and nukes (whether they "had it coming" is another question) were running turbos, say 73 years ago? Not exactly new technology.

Now, I don't disagree that all things being equal, a big heavy diesel or gasser for that matter will be more durable than an undersized mill. Problem is our species can no longer afford to motivate a 5,000# vehicle to transport a 160# pound man or woman. We are energy wastrels. Who said it is OK to pay the artificially low price of Arabian crude oil to ship Cambodian shrimp to Costco in Dubuque? Subsidized energy has made for irrational decisions, like suburbs where you have to drive 60 miles to work and any American car built before about 1985.

My generation effed up by not coming up with a scarier moniker than "hole in the ozone layer" back in the 70's. "Climate change" isn't much better as it kind of sounds like a trip from Florida to somewhere humans actually want to live. The real name of what's going on is human extinction by fiery death. If you know anything about biology, you know that our big brains aside, we still eat, breed and sh*t inside a contained vessel. We will inevitably meet the same fate as yeast in a wine bottle as long as we behave like them. That is nature's plan. But we can slow it down with efficient vehicles like the Metris or all the truly awesome aluminum F series trucks with twin turbos.

I wouldn't want a Mercedes oil burner. I live near a transit line and the diesel particulates are harmful to children and other living things, if you know what I mean. And I don't want a Urea injection system to further complicate an engine that should be reserved for big rigs and ocean freighters that need the range and intense energy stores of liquid fuel.

First of all you read me wrong; I’m not assuming the M274 is unreliable or undersized; I simply consider the data available not good for educated specific speculation. The only data I have is that the vast majority of non-luxury MB power plants (read- less than 8 cylinders) have a well deserved reputation for durability... and an equally well deserved reputation for having annoying issues (e.g. leaking fuel lines).

A further truth is that while both the forced aspiration system in a B29 and a M274 are both called “turbocharging” the differences between the actual systems is night and day. A turbo is an insanely simple device at its core- a windmill driven by fast moving exhaust gasses turning a co-axial impeller which draws air into the intake.

Furthermore it is true that all things being equal a larger engine will be more durable than a smaller engine making the same power. However all things are not equal; metallurgical technologies have changed massively, computers allow for engines that will not overstrain themselves, and our ability to design and build complicated electronics that can withstand heavy use has improved markedly.

I think the aversion to a small turbo four being used to power a large van like this is a dinosaur mentality. Small turbo fours are actually less likely to suffer from certain kinds of wear, and are more powerful than their direct numbers suggest, because they have vastly lower reciprocating mass.

But to move to a more controversial area; the idea of the clean gas engine and the dirty diesel is a great news soundbite. It creates a regulatory mess to distract from more important (but much harder to solve) issues. It is also completely wrong headed.

It doesn’t matter what fossil fuel you burn- gasolene, kerosene, diesel, natural gas, or whatever. They are ALL dirty. Just in different ways- diesel produces far less CO, considerably less CO2, and more of NOx. If we wanted the ideal pollution situation for a world with ICEs only we would mandate smog fed versions of all of the above be produced in a proportion that wouldn’t excessively favor one over the other; fortunately Elon Musl has solved that particular issue going forward.

What is a pollutant? That’s the central question, which is totally misunderstood. CO2 is not an inherent pollutant; without it all the plants would die and so would our planet. All of the emissions of ICE engines exist naturally in our atmosphere... and they SHOULD. Pollutants are, in fact, any molecule or item introduced into the system in a quantity that is outside of what is normally there.

Thus if we figured out a way to extract hydrogen without using water and used it to power a fuel cell, it’s emissions of “pure water” would be pollution. Furthermore, even if we were to assure that only as much water was electrolized as was put out by a hydrogen powered car, i would still be polluting if I generated that hydrogen from a readily available water source and powered a car in the desert.

When the real answer is “too late, no real answer exists that will solve the problem in time” we like to instead confuse motion with accomplishment. The only real solution to solving transportation is to increase as much as possible the efficieny of moving people from A to B. Which generally means moving people closer together and then moving them with mass transportation.

However that’s not going to happen in these United States- or much anywhere else really- and even if it did, it is too late- and probably has been for the better part of a century, and the amount to which our personal choice of vehicle will effect how quickly that will come is too little for anything but apathy about it.