Turbo or supercharge and NA gas engine

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

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

Of all the ****, brand fighting, member arguing, etc that goes on here, this is what you choose to call out publicly? Wow. It appears nothing more than a glitch or mistake.

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

Apparently I don't know the rules either. :) What's wrong with that post?

jmckelvy wrote:

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

Apparently I don't know the rules either. :) What's wrong with that post?

You got me. On edit, it appears this is a double post thread.

And the Moderator can be privately notified if someone feels the post is out of line.

And personally for towing I think turbocharging works best since the power is needed at steady speeds after the engine is up to speed. Steady towing would seem to work best with a turbo, and no engine power lost to drive the turbo.

Mod notified for what, Just a honest question, What is wrong with my post?

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.

If it’s a double post I’m sorry, my phone is glitching this am...I? am writing it from my phone and lost Internet connection.

Double post!

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.

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.