- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
OB motorheads- will supercharging a 6.0L V8 gas engine
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:46 am
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:46 am
increase MPG if the engine is in a 3/4 ton truck? Having this debate at work with all the shade-tree mechanics. There has to be better knowledge on this board then this bunch I'm listening to!!
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:54 am to tigerinthebueche
Dumb arse question. You work with diots, including yourself.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:59 am to Bossier2323
quote:
Dumb arse question. You work with diots, including yourself
thanks for the feedback. Now do you have anything useful to add or will you just keep being an a-hole?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:02 am to tigerinthebueche
It will get 0mpg after it blows up, so no.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:03 am to tigerinthebueche
Sure if you can keep your foot out of all the extra HP.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:06 am to tigerinthebueche
Will it? no
Can it? Yes
Can it? Yes
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:21 am to tigerinthebueche
not at all, more air drawn into the motor requires more fuel in order to reach the correct air to fuel ratio. Even if you put put around a supercharger places an extra load on the motor since it is belt driven, therefore you can't escape the mpg hit even with conservative driving.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:48 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
It will get 0mpg after it blows up, so no.
A Chevy small block can handle an insane amount of boost. If he's running low boost (which a street setup would) he won't be hurting the engine at all. Honestly, the extra airflow will increase engine efficiency immensely (not necessarily fuel efficiency).
Your fuel efficiency may not increase in city driving or anything but on the highway your engine will work less hard to get the same amount of air. The difference is pretty negligible though - maybe a modest 1-2 mpg on the optimistic end.
The reason a regular engine is "naturally aspirated" is because it can only take in as much air as nature provides. A turbo or a supercharger increases the engine efficiency immensely by forcing more in than nature can provide. The wise forced-induction guru Gale Banks explains that "air density" is more important than "air flow."
Here's an interview he did with Drive on why turbos are best (superchargers are less complex and don't require altering your exhaust system though): Gale Banks on Drive
But once you get the extra power, don't expect a huge boost in MPG. It may be like a 1-2 increase on the highway but you will get much better towing ability, not to mention gobs of horsepower and torque. The Chevy small block thrives on forced induction - it wakes it up like a beast. Your foot will get much heavier.
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 9:53 am
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:53 am to tigerinthebueche
It'll decrease the MPG. Due to: parasitic drag via the belt that runs it, plus, with engines, more air = more fuel = lower MPG. This is the reason that in real world driving the Ford EcoBoost is anything but economical. Granted, with turbos, you don't have the parasitic drag issue, but you do have the more air = more fuel = lower MPG issue. If people were capable of driving it without getting "into boost" it would be more economical than a V8 because it would essentially be a 3.5L, which is more economical than a 5.0, 5.3, 6.2l due to lower displacement. But, once you spool the turbos up, the air charge per liter is denser than it is in a larger NA motor and thus so must be the fuel charge, and as such, the amount of fuel being used more or less evens out.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:57 am to bapple
quote:For sure
Your foot will get much heavier
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:58 am to AgentUtah
quote:
not at all, more air drawn into the motor requires more fuel in order to reach the correct air to fuel ratio. Even if you put put around a supercharger places an extra load on the motor since it is belt driven, therefore you can't escape the mpg hit even with conservative driving.
Correct answer.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:58 am to Cooter Davenport
Shall we delve into volumetric efficiency, heat recovery, etc
Forced induction increased efficiency across the board and will nearly always yield better fuel mileage in the real world if you keep your foot out of it. It takes X horsepower to move said vehicle 60mph and the one with forced induction will do it with less fuel, all else being equal.
Forced induction increased efficiency across the board and will nearly always yield better fuel mileage in the real world if you keep your foot out of it. It takes X horsepower to move said vehicle 60mph and the one with forced induction will do it with less fuel, all else being equal.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 10:02 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
It takes X horsepower to move said vehicle 60mph and the one with forced induction will do it with less fuel, all else being equal.
Exactly. The one with FI can also run a bit leaner. Most naturally aspirated engines already run super rich. Combine that with direct injection (which lowers combustion chamber temperatures) and you've got a winner.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 10:04 am to tigerinthebueche
i ain't touchin this one
Posted on 1/26/16 at 10:47 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Downy has it much closer to the truth. Depending on the supercharger setup, parasitic losses can be pretty small compared to the decrease in pumping losses.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 10:53 am to Cooter Davenport
I've always said that about the ecos. If you drive them like you should, you get better mpg. But no one does
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:08 am to jimbeam
thanks for all the info. I ask b/c my employer is moving towards all gas engines in the 3/4 ton company trucks. this has caused some unhappy drivers who want to stay with diesel. company believes operating costs will be lower with the gas engines.
That aside, the debate over the decision degenerated (as most debates usually do) into a pissing contest amongst the group about superchargers and fuel econlmy. thus my inquiry.
That aside, the debate over the decision degenerated (as most debates usually do) into a pissing contest amongst the group about superchargers and fuel econlmy. thus my inquiry.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:09 am to meauxjeaux2
quote:
i ain't touchin this one
dammit man, I figured you'd be the lead on this. thats why I posted it here.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:10 am to tigerinthebueche
Upfront cost and lifecycle operating costs will be lower with the gas with fuel prices as they stand today. Not debatable.
Adding super chargers wouldn't be cost effective either. You'll loose fuel mileage because people will drive them like company trucks. It costs a lot to install them. Youll break more driveline stuff. You might tear the engine up. It goes on and on
Adding super chargers wouldn't be cost effective either. You'll loose fuel mileage because people will drive them like company trucks. It costs a lot to install them. Youll break more driveline stuff. You might tear the engine up. It goes on and on
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 11:12 am
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:11 am to tigerinthebueche
6.2 is a great engine if you're talking Ford
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News