40 mph uphill? Other Armada or Titan TVs?

richclover wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
Not really totally true. Although a turbo MAY not keep all of it;s ability to increase power at high altitude, it will ALWAYS do better than a naturally aspirated motor. There are some variables in turbo systems on motors.... A variable vane turbo is one. The other is sizing. Many turbos control excess pressure by means of a wastegate that bleeds off excess pressure.... at altitude where there is less pressure, it will bleed off less if at all.

boggerr wrote:
Where is everyone getting the info that a turbo is the answer? A turbo diesel at higher elevations is going to lose turbo efficiency. Less air, less combustion temps = laggy turbo,

RPM’s is the answer. Run higher RPM’s on hills and watch your gauges.

I respectfully disagree. At my house elevation, 7000’ MSL, normally aspirated engines, lawn mowers to piston engine airplanes develop no more than 75% rated horsepower. That’s why I flew a turbo-powered airplane rated for 31” manifold pressure to 20,000’ and tow with a Ram Cummins Turbo Diesel ;)

Huntingdog has it right, IMHO.

I’m not disagreeing that a turbo will do better than a N/A eninge but I want the OP to understand that having a turbo is still going to feel the effects of higher elevations and downshifting is going to play a big factor on a turbo enonge.

Yes, VGT turbo and turbo sizing makes a huge difference but still need the higher RPM’s to keep those turbos spooling. As far as wastgates go, they are not opening at higher elevations cause of less air and less boost which equals to less horsepower.

So you think a turbo diesel truck or car is making the same HP at sea level vs one at higher elevation? What did that turbo plane do for RPM’s