[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Thorpedo

:b onk:

Older cars are more prone to failures, as they have done more miles, were the guinea pigs for boost systems, tuning, and all the rest. Typically people who got the 2013 were more so motorsports enthusiasts (as they waited for the car) and have done things "that the car was built for." How about looking at sales numbers too? How many of each model year are out there?

Some guy named Lonewolf watches a TINY, miniscule fraction of failures on a forum, takes nothing else into account, and declares 2013s "time bombs". His only real piece of supporting evidence being that they revised the valvetrain. Newsflash, typically MANY revisions are done to new engine platoforms over the years to address "issues" that come up in a small fraction of engines to further decrease failure rates. How do I know? I worked at and ran an engine shop for years.

But nooooo, they're "time bombs" even though my car and many of my friends' 2013s run raised rev limits and do hundreds and hundreds of autocross runs and laps at the local track (both with and without boost). Wait a minute, there are probably thousands of people on this forum who do stuff like that!!!!! (You'd think a light bulb would come on above his head, but no.)

Don't get me wrong, are the failure rates for 2013's higher? Absolutely, but calling them time bombs makes you look like a complete fool to anyone who has a clue.

Many of your "points" are already known and accepted to be common knowledge. You just wasted your time typing out that
boilerplate response.

CN Takeaway: So your opinion is the only valid one? LMAO....