Do youi need a 570hp truck?

[the old grind]

"The Hennessy version..."

And done 'right' from the looks of it. :thumbsup:

VERY nice!

 

[BIG DOOLEY]

A turbo charger requires energy to compress air also.
It accomplishes it by choking the exhaust from the engine.

 

[Diamondpilot]

How is a supercharger not practical in a gasser truck? A truck is much heavier than a car and in a gas version motor, a supercharger would give you the grunt to get rolling and up to speed, or to merge onto the highway or race stop light to stop light. Very seldom do you get to race to 100mph or even for a 1/4 mile.

Wasn't the lightning a supercharged 5.4L? And it directly competed with chevy's big block. Gotta be something to that. Turbo technology has come ALONG ways in the past decade thats for sure. But a single turbo vs a supercharger is what I was driving at. Obviously if you have two correctly sized turbo's you can minimize their drawbacks.

I had a Lightning. It was fun but limited to 800# in the bed and 5000# towing. It was about impossible to leave the boat ramp with my 21' boat without spinning the tires. To me it was a toy, not a real usable truck

Chris

 

[buickanddeere]

A turbo charger requires energy to compress air also.
It accomplishes it by choking the exhaust from the engine.

There is enough heat and pressure in those exhaust gasses. That a properly matched turbo will make more intake manifold pressure than there is exhaust manifold pressure.

 

[BIG DOOLEY]

Someone commented earlier that superchargers consume power to operate.
I was just pointing out that turbo chargers are no different.
Heat by the way would be considered a drawback to a turbo and not a benefit to its operation.
thus the intercooler

 

[farm88]

If i had that much power in my truck I would burn the tars of it.

 

[94BULLITT]

Someone commented earlier that superchargers consume power to operate.
I was just pointing out that turbo chargers are no different.
Heat by the way would be considered a drawback to a turbo and not a benefit to its operation.
thus the intercooler

A turbo is more efficient at making power than a supercharger.

 

[crazyal]

I've had both and I like each. There's nothing like the sound of a supercharger, just like there's nothing like the power boost of a turbo (maybe the new twin turbos don't give the same kick). The super charger will cost you energy (gas) when your not working the engine since you are always turning it and making boost while the turbo makes it's power when the engine is working. Toyota use to have a supercharger option for their V6 trucks, not sure if they still do, not sure if they sold many.

 

[firemanmike69]

Someone commented earlier that superchargers consume power to operate.
I was just pointing out that turbo chargers are no different.
Heat by the way would be considered a drawback to a turbo and not a benefit to its operation.
thus the intercooler

Supercharges have charge air coolers as well

 

[linuxman51]

I was always under the impression that the supercharger was for low and mid torque where a turbo was more for topend ponies. The often quoted "supercharger uses horsepower" is hog wash IMO. How can it "use" horsepower yet make the engine produce more power than stock. Gimme a break. Just because you can actually see a belt being spun around doesn't mean its draining horsepower from the motor. Quite the opposite. IIRC a supercharger is a power adder right? The supercharger being belt driven means that it has IMMEDIATE response to the throttle. Turbo technology has come a long way since the days of yore and twin turbos now almost act like a supercharger.

I dont have any side by side comparision and its not exactly fair either but I had a super charged 6 cylinder car and a turbo charged 6 cylinder truck. For pure fun, the supercharger was hands down more playful! The instant you hit the skinny peddle, there was boost on that car. The truck always took a noticeable amount of time to spool up but when it "lit off" as long as the rpm's were kept up it was very peppy. The majority of drivers "race" stop light to stop light. Bench racers and forum racers quote peak numbers for the most part.

I think I just ranted to myself? But to answer the thread title. Who doesn't need 570hp+ for a truck? The question should be, who can afford a 570hp truck!?

The act of compressing air creates a draw on crank hp.. regardless of whether or not it's still a net gain. the charger doesn't spin itself, and the harder and faster you want to spin it (more boost, who doesn't want that) the more input power is required to achieve that goal. you also have the more static draws associated with the shafts, pulleys, tensioners, etc. So yes, they require power to make power.

Turbos do too, depending on what and where you're trying to get the performance increase.. you want snappy almost immediate torque? ok, we have the technology to make this happen, but it will cost you 'top end' power. If you're looking for 'top end' power, you're likely to have to sacrifice how fast all that torque comes in, but then also the 'input power' to get things moving faster can be lower as well.

 

[daugen]

Shelby's outrageous 575-hp Raptor - Video - Personal Finance

hmmm, strikingly similar horsepower, the race is on.

I saw a new Raptor in passing. Man that thing looks like it's on steroids, all puffed out and larger than life.
What is remarkable about it is how well it manages the on/off road compromise. Not sure the Dodge would run with it.
Ok, now what, a 650hp Power Wagon?

I hope some really interesting stuff comes out before the curtain goes down.

 

[94BULLITT]

Shelby's outrageous 575-hp Raptor - Video - Personal Finance

hmmm, strikingly similar horsepower, the race is on.

I saw a new Raptor in passing. Man that thing looks like it's on steroids, all puffed out and larger than life.
What is remarkable about it is how well it manages the on/off road compromise. Not sure the Dodge would run with it.
Ok, now what, a 650hp Power Wagon?

I hope some really interesting stuff comes out before the curtain goes down.

Henessey has a nice Raptor upgrade.

VelcoiRaptor 800 Twin Turbo Upgrade | 2010 - 2013 6.2L F-150 Raptor | Hennessey Performance

 

[daugen]

2013 Ram 3500 HD First Drive - Motor Trend

well we now have $70K pickups, so I guess I'd want some serious power with that.

Since pulling a load is all about getting torque as early as possible, can a gas engine ever compete with a diesel, no
matter how powerful? Quad turbos next?

 

[the old grind]

Since pulling a load is all about getting torque as early as possible, can a gas engine ever compete with a diesel, no
matter how powerful? Quad turbos next?

Compete? I doubt it. Horsepower is a function of torque & RPM. Let's say a gas engine makes peak power at 6k RPM & a diesel at 3k, somewhat typical of both types. There's a big diff in torque generated when HP output is the same. Diesel rods/cranks are more robust, not just to handle higher compression loads but to handle the higher torque necessary to generate HP at lower RPM over its service life. Getting torque 'early' is what diesels do better. Tranny & axle gearing wouldn't be very similar between the two (or to what we usually have) if the gas engine wanted to just haul vs haulin' a__. Doesn't take much math to see why diesels rule the realm when towing the big stuff.

Quad turbos? Supercharging is mostly about increasing cylinder fill at whatever RPM & there's a limit to how much boost (PSI) a gas engine can utilize. Compression dictates octane/timing specifics, and excess boost is 'waste-gated' (think pressure relief) to regulate it vs a geared or belted huffer's more proportional output. Twin turbos vs a single one can be a matter of squeezing it all under a hood with multiple-banked cylinders, exhaust on both sides, and/or with inter-cooling added to the plumbing. I've yet to see an inline with more than one turbo, but there's probably a few & it'd be dictated by engine/turbo sizes when configured.

My brother's Lotus is an early turbo-four, & IIRC it's intercooled. Apparently the quick & easy performance upgrade is simply 'chipping' the system to increase boost pressure by tweaking waste gate parameters. He's talked about it for years, esp when sports car racing season begins and he goes to watch. Only two can fit in the Lotus, so I if ride along with him & the Mrs we go in the .... Jetta turbo-diesel.

Audi's diesels flat took over the "Vingt Quatre Heures du Mans" a few years back. I know what I like.

 

[ericher69]

I was always under the impression that the supercharger was for low and mid torque where a turbo was more for topend ponies. The often quoted "supercharger uses horsepower" is hog wash IMO. How can it "use" horsepower yet make the engine produce more power than stock. Gimme a break. Just because you can actually see a belt being spun around doesn't mean its draining horsepower from the motor. Quite the opposite. IIRC a supercharger is a power adder right? The supercharger being belt driven means that it has IMMEDIATE response to the throttle. Turbo technology has come a long way since the days of yore and twin turbos now almost act like a supercharger.

I dont have any side by side comparision and its not exactly fair either but I had a super charged 6 cylinder car and a turbo charged 6 cylinder truck. For pure fun, the supercharger was hands down more playful! The instant you hit the skinny peddle, there was boost on that car. The truck always took a noticeable amount of time to spool up but when it "lit off" as long as the rpm's were kept up it was very peppy. The majority of drivers "race" stop light to stop light. Bench racers and forum racers quote peak numbers for the most part.

I think I just ranted to myself? But to answer the thread title. Who doesn't need 570hp+ for a truck? The question should be, who can afford a 570hp truck!?

Actually super chargers do "use" HP as parasitic drag much like an A/C compressor but do increase horsepower.

The "takes HP" to spin a supercharger argument is only when compared to a turbo system that uses waste exhaust to make HP in that engine and virtually "takes" no HP away while doing it.

 

[aczlan]

I've yet to see an inline with more than one turbo, but there's probably a few & it'd be dictated by engine/turbo sizes when configured.

There are a few. The B6284T in the Volvo S80 had twin turbos on a straight 6 engine.

Aaron Z

 

[Diamondpilot]

There are a few. The B6284T in the Volvo S80 had twin turbos on a straight 6 engine.

Aaron Z

My BMW 335I has a 3.0L strait 6 with twin turbos. It will flat run. 0 to 60 in just about 4.5 seconds and 1/4 mile in the mid 12's. Its Bone Stock! I love blowing the doors off muscle cars like Camaros at stop lights.

Chris

 

[RedNeckRacin]

I see I have spawned a good little debate. :stirthepot: dont get me wrong, I like HP anyway you wanna slice it. Whether it spins 15k or 3k rpms. Whether it whines or whistles. I was just never a fan of the argument that "a supercharger uses horsepower and therefore isn't good" argument.

Chris- I wouldn't argue that a lightning isn't very useful for towing/hauling when your comparing it to a one ton truck, but it sure can get groceries alot faster!

It's all about how you want to get there. Thats why there are different system to achieve different goals. Personally I would think either twins or a supercharger for a heavy pickup truck. You're gonna want that power right off the line to go scooting down the road.


I'm still waiting on true air ride in a diesel pick-up truck. :thumbsup: (not the add a bag play stuff)

 

[daugen]

I'm still waiting on true air ride in a diesel pick-up truck. (not the add a bag play stuff)

Well, the RAM devotees sure don't think their bags will pop apparently.
I'm not a big truck guy, so I don't understand truck suspensions that well, though I follow, when necessary,
a lot of quarry trucks and I can sure see that suspension move when they're running empty headed to the quarries.
And they all seem to have those big bags or cushions in the rear. If they can build rubber to hold up to that, or some miracle plastic now perhaps,
I'd think supporting a one ton would be within reason. I bet the weight was a real issue for them.

These new Chrysler truck bags are the first use apparently in one ton trucks, though only a ride down a rough road
will be the true test. And ten years of hard use. And I hope they incorporate decent quality shock absorbers in their new expensive air bag system, not the
typical oem four dollar specials.

Now if GM could figure out how to incorporate their magnetized suspension into a truck, plus air bags?, that would be way cool.
I have had that suspension on a Buick Lucerne and now my wife's XTS, and it provides for tremendous control.
You sure can't offer it on a low profit economy car, but now that trucks are hitting seventy grand for a one ton, yikes, there should be plenty of profit to pay for it.

 

[Renze]

It takes power to turn a supercharger just like it does a water pump or alternator since it is belt driven. A turbo is exhaust driven so it is pretty much free horsepower. Superchargers on races cars at max boost can take 300hp+ to turn them.

There is no such thing as free horsepower. Simplified, both the turbo and the supercharger need the same amount of shaft power to force air into the engine: Just the turbo takes the same amount of compression energy back from the expansion of exhaust gases (a bit more actually, but not get too complicated) while the supercharger doesnt take any energy back from the expansion in the exhaust: Rudolf Diesel in his patent description of his invention of the Diesel engine, wrote that the compression could also be done in two or more stages: Essentially what he was describing with those words, is forced air induction: or what we know today as turbos and superchargers. To stay in Rudolf Diesels terminology, the turbocharged engine compresses air in two stages (first the turbocompressor, then the piston compression stroke) and also expands the air in two stages: first the expansion stroke(or combustion, or work stroke) then the expansion in the turbos turbine. The supercharged engine however, has two stage compression but only single stage expansion ! So loss of energy.

To get to the other end:With Miller timing a supercharged engine could be made to do away with the drawback of two stage compression and single stage expansion, and equal the efficiency of a turbocharged engine, because Miller and Atkins valve timing is all about using less of the piston stroke to draw in air (and compress it, so less energy is put into compression) by closing the intake valve early, while the full piston stroke is used to extract energy during the ignition stroke: Due to the heat up of combustion gases they expand, so it is beneficial to have a longer expansion stroke than compression stroke. Since the crankpin offset determins stroke for both compression and ignition, you can close the intake valve at, say 4/5 of the intake stroke, so only 80% of the air is drawn in. Then in the expansion stroke, you can extract 25% more expansion energy...

Miller and Atkins try to achieve the same, but Miller took it a bit further and said you needed a turbo because otherwise you are vacuuming the intake air by about 20% during that last part of intake stroke with closed valve, because the other end of the piston is acting against atmosphere pressure in the crankcase, as well as pushing air against atmospheric pressure out the exhaust pipe. Not that interesting if you keep in mind that spark ignition engines at part load condition, are constantly sucking a vacuum against the throttle valve, and exhausting against atmospheric pressure. At full load, the Diesel is already superior in efficiency, but at part load the gas engine has another major drawback, that is that it needs a fixed air/fuel ratio, but has a fixed displacement so it must create a vacuum.

Thats why Ford is opting for smaller displacement turbocharged gas engines: because of the smaller displacement, it loses less energy by sucking the intake vacuum against the throttle valve, because the turbo doesnt change anything when the exhaust gas pressure and volume (thermal expansion due to combustion heat) is more or less the same as its intake gas pressure and volume. Downsized turbo gas engines just do away with the majority of the throttle valve vacuum loss.


===edit: Reading on, i see two more pages with engine myths, and conclude that my long winded story above, covered most of them