Tell that to anyone that uses their truck to haul anything. When was the last time you saw someone hauling a car on a trailer with a Civic? How about hauling a load of drywall to a work site with a Malibu?Originally Posted by blackshine007
Tell that to anyone that uses their truck to haul anything. When was the last time you saw someone hauling a car on a trailer with a Civic? How about hauling a load of drywall to a work site with a Malibu?
Maybe you should reread what I typed. Turbos are the way to go. The whole original idea of them is to increase the efficiency of the motor. Look at it as having the power of a large displacement motor with no fuel economy penalties. I have an '86 F150 and I'm almost tempted to drop a Mustang SVO motor in just for the benefit of getting 24mpg as aposed to 17mpg it currently gets from the 5.0L V8. That SVO motor made more tq and hp than the V8. You can still pull with a turbo motor too. I wouldn't be surprised if Ford made the 3.7L Econoboost V6 the top motor for the superduty trucks to go along with some diesel engines.
K series 626. That's right. It's got a K in it.
A turbo isnt going to increase towing capacity. I drove my brother in laws 1500 with the 4.8 and towed a boat. It towed alright, but it struggled at times. I had no problems at all towing the same boat, with almost 300 extra lbs of camping gear in the bed when I drove his new truck that has the 5.3.
Those 2 motors make damn near the same hp give or take 10 hp. The difference between those 2 motors is that the 4.8L makes 20-30 ft lbs of tq less than the 5.3 so naturally you will notice the tq advantage on the 5.3L motor. Your point on that holds no water. Some of the most powerful production vehicles are turbo. Look at your diesels. Look at some of your performance economy cars like the SRT4 Neon that returned 30mpg on the highway according to the epa. Or the turbo cobalt running 13's getting 30mpg on the highway. Or the Mini cooper S returning 34mpg highway. And then let's turn to GM's Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky cars. The n/a car with the 2.4L gets 26mpg highway while the turbo car with the 2.0L returns 28mpg and both share the same transmissions and rear ends. I think my point is clear. You can make power and reduce displacement without any adverse effects.
K series 626. That's right. It's got a K in it.
sorry bro, but his argument holds alot of weight. the big 'weight' as you term it is torque. thats the reason diesel's are far superior. they make around 300+ hp but all makes(ford, gm, dodge) all make over 500+ tq. i love a turbo more than anyone, but the sad fact is, torque moves weight better than hp. 20hp might not be much, but 20 ft/lbs of torque is huge. small displacement motors are awesome with a turbo but suck when it comes to torque. my poopra makes 250whp more than my vette but 75wtq less than it. both weigh almost the same, but the vette gets 6-7 mpg's better. why? torque, the vette does it with less rpm b/c the motor has the torque to do it.
next time you pull a 11,000 lbs race trailer with your svo motor to the race at 5mph honk the horn as i pass you in my 800wtq turbo diesel doing 80
00 GSR 13.33@114 (355/304), 92 LX 5.0(twin somethings), 02 MTI(TX) ZO7 427 (540/518)sold, bmw 318w/2jz(driftn), 93 Supra TT Hardtop, 04 ford excursion, 55 chevy cruiser
MabletonSpeedShop member
MCE Mafia supporting member
honored to be MCE Dec'08 rotm
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RNQN9i4Be-kvette mtn run
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjgbxbGyN5A poopra 1st 9sec 1/4
I think I mentioned something about having the proper sized turbo. I'm willing to bet that the turbo on your Supra is probably a large single turbo. The type of turbo I'm talking about involves a turbo that spool s up very early. All of the aforementioned cars I brought up makes their peak tq numbers below 3000 rpm. At cruising speeds, you typically want to be riding within 75% of your peak power band in order to get decent gas mileage. That's why the Vette is getting better because at cruising speeds, it's well within the tq range and will do better. I bet the supra is basicly dumping gas. I make 90% of my peak tq at 2600 rpm. My lil v6 will average around 28mpg with peaks of 32mpg highway on occasion. So please don't think I'm trying to say that any turbo on any vehicle will help it get better. It has to be properly matched to the vehicle to get the best overall results. Not just to win races.sorry bro, but his argument holds alot of weight. the big 'weight' as you term it is torque. thats the reason diesel's are far superior. they make around 300+ hp but all makes(ford, gm, dodge) all make over 500+ tq. i love a turbo more than anyone, but the sad fact is, torque moves weight better than hp. 20hp might not be much, but 20 ft/lbs of torque is huge. small displacement motors are awesome with a turbo but suck when it comes to torque. my poopra makes 250whp more than my vette but 75wtq less than it. both weigh almost the same, but the vette gets 6-7 mpg's better. why? torque, the vette does it with less rpm b/c the motor has the torque to do it.
next time you pull a 11,000 lbs race trailer with your svo motor to the race at 5mph honk the horn as i pass you in my 800wtq turbo diesel doing 80
K series 626. That's right. It's got a K in it.
Sorry pal, but you've obviously never towed anything in your life or you'd understand how it works.
Your 2.3 motor makes no power nor torque UNTIL it gets the turbo spooled up, i.e. high rpms. What are you going to do UNTIL then? Sit at the light slipping the clutch until you can pull the weight from a stop? Daily driving is not like a tractor pull competition.
Bigger displacement engines make their torque on the lower end of the rpm range. Some diesels literally have usable torque right off idle. THAT torque is what moves weight, what pulls loads. Your 2.3 bi-turbo setup will NEVER move the weight that a 6.0L diesel does. It's just the facts.
Yes, technology does exist that makes it possible to have high HP numbers from relatively small displacement engines. That's fine. Problem is that just like my buddy nvrnftorq was saying, you can have 500HP and 200 ft/lb of torque in one car just like you can have 400hp and 400 ft/lb of torque in another. Which one do you think is better? Which one do you think will use more gas, everything else held equal?
The best answer to this issue is simply financial. Make it attractive FINANCIALLY for people to drive hybrids and they will drive them. If you FORCE them to, it won't work. Just like any other thing you force people to do. Now, make it atleast SEEM like it's their idea and they do it all day long. Give incentives for people to drive that electric car and they will.
If Ford did that they would completely lose the market to companies that are still building the vehicles that are actually useful.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
