correct. But he was just copy and pasting so probably didn't read or make logic out of it. Probably lacks the education to understand it from what I am reading.

Or command better fuel. Imagine a vehicle with a fuel cell and when fuel/air temp rises it can switch fuel. It is absolutely possible to do this so this is an applicable example of why the whole discussion about heat causing poor energy extraction from fuel irrelevant because it is a cherry picked example of an unfortunate vehicle without alternative fuels and for whatever reason has much too high compression or something wrong with the design of the intake system. Gah

 

Why not copy and paste some more shit without reading or understanding it first , weeere all impressed

 

Yeah, I noticed his writing style subtly changed during his post, right where he began contradicting himself. So I googled and found the article he copied from.

You got caught trying to sound like you know more than you actually do. Learn from it and move on.

 

Thanks for your reply in language I understand
Appreciated

 

we’re paying $2 per litre for puss in rural Queensland, 200klm per day isn’t unusual, nearest city 600klm return

lots of towing

have a 4x4 for local work and a 2x4 for city work
A fuel efficiency solution will apply to both of them.

even considering Injecting straight LPG, but not readily available

 

I was thinking 1/2 to 1 psi to just improve combustion efficiency, and a huge intercooler

 

Haven’t lost me

 

Seeking a efficiency solution
Nothing more

 

All of this will hurt mileage. ICE engines generally from auto to aircraft have better BSFC and become more economical at high altitudes where air is allowed to become less dense. Similarly the way lean cruise works to save fuel is by causing increased throttle opening - more air, less fuel, leaner air fuel ratio, less pumping loss, net gain in economy.
Intercoolers trash energy, impart friction and reduce fuel efficiency all around. Its like adding plumbing length to any other pumping system - net loss in energy.


Turbos impart kinetic energy to gas molecules and 'hurl' them at the throttle body. In response throttle body closes engine vacuum increases and that makes it harder for the piston to draw on the intake stroke, reducing economy. Furthermore the lower the final compression the worse the BSFC conversion of fuel to energy, more economy loss.

For economy from typical gasoline engines it appears they need to breath hot, low density air, with a big throttle opening and low engine vacuum, with a lean air fuel ratio 15 to 16:1, as low rpm as possible with the least weight and drivetrain friction possible. Look into lean cruise tuning.

 

Welcome to ignore.

 

He has to announce whoever he is ignoring to make sure they know that he is reading and responding to the person he is ignoring otherwise how he know whether they know he is reading and responding to what they write for him to read in the future?

This trend across all forums - people block and ignore anything they can't understand and are embarrassed by

Don't worry though in my experience these people often take you off ignore periodically to read what you write anyways and respond to it anyways, even after announcing their ignore, because... well I don't know why. IMO if you are going to ignore somebody you don't tell them and then respond periodically, you just fucking ignore them and move on with your life. Not all human brains are equal and there ARE things that they will never understand no matter how much experience and education. And I guess that frightens them. Scared animals. Scurry, now

 

It could, there are times when being boosted and increasing charge density rather than downshifting is more efficient, just because you don't have the additional frictional losses from RPM. Most engines also don't ever get to zero vacuum, there is usually something like 1.5-2 inHg of vacuum in a naturally aspirated engine even at full throttle. So the turbo is doing more at 1 psi than you might expect, especially lower in the RPM range.

In general, if you don't need extra power I don't think a turbo is the right way to go. You are missing out on exhaust scavenging, which is truly free power and you can have a more efficient intake system on an NA vehicle. Long tube headers and a free flowing exhaust will cost less than a turbo and I think you will get more out of it. It will also put less heat in the engine bay than a turbo which is a win for towing.

If you do need the power, if your loads are slowing you down the math gets more complicated. Your time is worth something and if you can get the job done much more quickly there is a point at which the extra cost of operating the turbo is going to be less than the money you are losing going slow.

Speaking of towing, I had an f150 with the 3.5l ecoboost turbo engine in it and a trailer that weighed 10k. I later traded that truck in for a Raptor with the 6.2l V8. The Raptor got much worse mileage around town and on the highway, but towing on flat lands the numbers were pretty close, and towing in the mountains the bigger engine was better on fuel. The Ecoboost had to be in boost the entire time it was lugging a hill, or if there was a headwind, or if I wanted to do more than 55mph and was usually making a lot of RPM on steep sections. At an altitude of 7,000 feet we loose about 3.4psi of atmosphere, with 22psi on tap the effective size of the 3.5l engine was close to 8 liters under full boost. The Raptor was only acting like a ≈4.8l engine at the same altitude. So even though it was larger, heavier, had bigger heavier tires and had more frontal area, and was up in the RPM all the time it still got better economy towing.

The Raptor also never overheated, where the ecoboost with a massively upgraded radiator and intercooler had to be watched like a hawk because it loved to overheat on long grades, even with the boost turned way down. If you look at what the American OEMs are doing now, there is no turbo gasoline engine in a 3/4 ton or larger truck, but the behemoth 7.3l lives in Ford's mid tier slot, designated for casual towing.

 

WTF is Puss?!

 

I've noticed increased mileage with turbos on engines that didn't come with them.

Part throttle that little bit of extra air being fed by the turbo spinning but not necessarily making boost helps you not have to shift down, press gas a much, press gas for shorter time to reach speed etc...

It does make a difference

 

The problem with the throttle pedal assertion is that pedal position doesn't govern fuel consumption, air mass and load do. You can push more air past throttle blades in the same position under boost. You will not necessarily see boost in the manifold, but you can see it on the other side if the throttle body.

If you are making more power, IE pressing the "gas" for a shorter time to gain more speed you are making more power, generally this requires more fuel.

Driving habits change with a turbo, even without a boost gauge you have audible feedback of what your foot is doing. Whether that is for better or worse is up to the driver.

 

Another part of the fuel economy problem is the cost of the fuel: You generally need more octane when you add a turbo to an NA engine. Here is an example from my local fuel station:

Todays prices:
Regular gasoline: $3.14/ gallon
Premium Gasoline: $3.94/gallon

Both fuels have the same energy density. Regular is 80% of the cost per mile.

Maybe you can get away with a lower change in octane:
Regular gasoline: $3.14
Midgrade $3.64

Regular is 86% of the cost per mile.

 

just by my experience turboing a engine that was NA before results in better mileage. whatever the reason. i can't explain it in detail just observation. i like to do one off projects and over the years its happened every time.

i will test my dakota r/t out as soon as i can. i'll fill it up and check. the computer calc is off because of the 42s

i would get basicall 15.5-16.5 driving down the highway stock

 

lol yah getting 92 instead of 87 is going to kill any gainz

 

The shite fuel they sell in town, it’s puss