Turbo or supercharge and NA gas engine

donn0128 wrote:
As a senior member you should know the rules by now. Mod notified

As a senior member calling out another senior member you should have the curtsey to state the rule broken.
If in this case it was a double post in the same catagory, likely an internet issue, and not a violation of forum rules. I am sure many of us have had it happen to them. If they notice it usuall delete text in one and state “double post, sometimes you just don’t notice!

Forced induction is definitely an option, but it’s akin to “dumping” $ on a diesel except, for that extra power, you may not be getting the duty cycle you want and your truck will check itslef into rehab for its drinking problem.
If you get 8 mpg towing with a 400hp gasser and bump that up significantly and then actually use the extra power you’ll take a significant mileage hit.

Spent some time around a blown Tundra 5.7. 500 some hp but only 5xx torque. It would haul the mail but it still wouldn’t outpull diesels up grades and returned abysmal mileage while trying.

donn0128 wrote:
As a senior member you should know the rules by now. Mod notified

Mod notified, mod notified, mod notified!
Wow

I know one things is for sure. I could not stand hearing my friends Harley Davidson F150's supercharger whine when he towed his boat. It was cool for about five miles, but then got annoying after that especially when going up long hills.

As a senior member, I guess I will have to turn in my certification card, because I have no idea why the OP is being called out in such a rude manner...

Yep just saw the other post, I? can’t explain why it double posted, my phone is acting weird now. Anyway keep the answers up, very curios what u guys think. I? have seen several aftermarket supercharger made for my truck and thought hmm..... anyway we have been discussing it at work and I? know that a lot of you know a lot about trucks and engines, hence the discussion . Mod please delete the offending duplicate thread. I? have no idea why that came about. Thanks.

Me Again wrote:
If Ford thought force air was good for the 6.2, they most likely would have done it by now. Ecoboost 6.2!

The importance of factory warranty is becoming more important then ever as these new trucks continue to become more and more complex. So I do not understand why anyone would modify a vehicle in a way that would allow the manufacturer to void the warranty.

I think the bigger reason would be fuel economy. Turbo will reduce fuel economy noticeably. So if you tow with a 6.0, 6.2 or 6.4 consider that mileage will drop about 25%.
We have two 4 cylinder cars, one turbo and one non turbo, on the highway non turbo gets about 30 mpg, the turbo about 20 mpg. The turbo is lighter then the non turbo.

Me Again wrote:
If Ford thought force air was good for the 6.2, they most likely would have done it by now. Ecoboost 6.2!

The importance of factory warranty is becoming more important then ever as these new trucks continue to become more and more complex. So I do not understand why anyone would modify a vehicle in a way that would allow the manufacturer to void the warranty.

I am not sure Ford can turbocharge the 6.2L. Well.... they can, but a lot of the engine would have to be redesigned. The short block is probably good, but many things above that would have to redesigned to reliably handle turbos and direct injection.

Then there is the issue of being no fuel economy benefit. The whole point of the Ecoboost engine is to downsize it to save fuel for those times you don't need all that power. Just slapping turbos to the same size engine will not help them attain the upcoming fuel economy regulations that are coming to the 10k GVWR and up trucks. I can see them using and iron block 5.0L or the 4.8L that they were reportedly working on as an Ecoobost platform for the SD though. Something like that would easily make 420+ hp and 550+ lb-ft.

Hmmmm, I guess I don't know the rules either? :h We are in a tow vehicle forum and he asked a TV question. Don, switch to decaf. :B



Anyway, I have ran both over my life so I favor no dog in this race.

They both have the pluses and minuses.

IMHO the turbo wins out over a mechanical supercharger because it's a lot more easy to adjust.

If you tow at around the same altitude either the belt drive or the turbo will do. If you go from lets say 0 to 8,000 feet the turbo wins out because the boost is easily adjustable. This is the reason the P51 had to have a 2 speed supercharger. When they were at low altitude they would run it in low boost and when they got way up in the air they would run high boost. The thing was if they forgot to put it in low speed when they got down low they could blow up their engine. :E

The bad thing about a turbo is heat. They put a TON of heat into the engine compartment. Heat is bad news for any engine when you're towing. And if you're towing in hot weather it's really bad news.

Another thing with either is detonation. Back in the day I could only run about 6 to 7 pounds of boost before I got into detonation. And this is with a 3000 LB street rod and not a TV towing WOT for minutes at a time in the mountains.

A way to get around this is a duel fuel system. I would put an E85 tank and system in the TV if I did this. This way when your on the flats you could just burn regular gas and when you're in the mountains you could burn a mix of gas and E85.

Like I said, they both have their pluses and minuses. They are both good and both bad.

Double post!