Will Forced Induction Be Forced on You?

TTT 10_11 (002)

By G.R. Whale

I remember attending press conferences where the manufacturer suggested it would "never do [blank]" and the blank was turbo, diesel or hybrid. Nowadays, I can't think of a BMW without a turbo. Both BMW and Porsche do diesels; and most manufacturers that lack a hybrid have gone straight to full electrics — or are on their way, prodded by Tesla early adopters and the corporate average fuel economy credits they need to use.

The debate continues over turbochargers and superchargers. Either one makes a small engine behave like a larger one because more air is being stuffed in — the main difference being whether the device uses exhaust or mechanical (and very soon electrical) energy to drive it.

Pickup truck manufacturers are taking different approaches. Ford's strategy has involved a smaller turbo engine for its popular F-150 and Expedition lineups, while Ram and GM use cylinder deactivation to make bigger engines sip fuel like smaller ones. Nissan has done factory-supercharged V-6s and Toyota's TRD arm offers supercharged V-6 and V-8 systems with a sizable warranty.

You know they're coming and you won't have any choice, but do you care? Which do you prefer for your next gas V-6 or V-8 pickup — turbochargers or superchargers? Let us know in the comment section below.

Manufacturer image

Comments

My 2000 FORD F150 HAS 259×××× plus miles and still running like new never had a problem with it .

I've been having FORD'S all my life good trucks and cars.

Had a 98 gmc 3/4ton with 5.7 vortec that I worked the guts out of it for 230k miles until the frame rotted out from under it. It was a good strong drivetrain. Have a 08 ram 3/4ton with 5.7 hemi that has 120k miles on it and still drives like new and am still working the guts out of it. lol

Supercharged V8 please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TEXXWpyI9w

This mini Hemi V8 sounds better than any V6 or V 10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3VVI6Auvys

My '04 Lightning is still untouched virgin (except for K&N filter) with all original parts/supercharger/pulleys etc (Ok, I also changed the brakes at 79 000 miles).
But 12 yrs later at 82 000 miles today, it's running perfectly like the day I bought it. I abuse the hell out of it with drag racing & burning tires at red lights (down side is I need to change tires every 10-12 000 miles).

Anyways, an amazing piece of machinery & Ford hit this one out of the park....still waiting for GEN III Lightning & if Ford is listening;

The new F-100 platform would be perfect/use either a supercharged 5 liter V8 in (600-700 HP) or better still the Mustang 6.2 V8...now that will blow all RAM recalls & shaky GOVT motor trucks off the map...again...heh heh heh!

Im perfectly happy w my 8 year old normaly aspirated ,4.8 v8 Silvy,still get 26 mpg with simple 4 speed automatic..
Will keep this truck until electric ones come along or some automaker slaps rotary valves on their motors,,

http://www.coatesengine.com

I too am perfectly happy with my two non-turbocharged pickups. Still a little early to judge these newer turbo vehicles but from what I have heard from those that have EcoBoost F-150s they seem to be doing ok with no major issues. Most of the manufacturers would prefer you to not keep any vehicle for more than 3 to 5 years because they make their money by selling you a new vehicle.

I repeat:

there is no 4.8 LS Silverado that EVER got 26 mpg unless it was going downhill with a tailwind.

Why am I so sure? I have one. They don't EVER get 26 mpg. I love my Chevy LS but it's not because of the gas mileage.

I love mine because it's given my 80K trouble free miles. Period.

Small displacement turbo engines in heavy use rely heavily upon fueling to control combustion temps and detonation. While their numbers are impressive and their performance under light loading is admirable, in heavy use they show their inherent weakness-high BSFC.
Medium displacement V8s with cylinder deactivation provides a NVH benefit over a V6, can tolerate a lower fuel octane per given loading and ambient temp, and comparable light load acceleration and at times fuel economy numbers. Ford EcoBoost with a max GCWR load in summer temps needs premium fuel, or there is a significant impact to output, performance and fuel efficiency.
The long-stroke vs large bite argument is over and nothing puts it to rest better than the Ford V10. A fine industrial engine and suited to constant HD use, but in a pickup use-inefficient, sub-par from a performance standpoint, and oversized and overweight.
Modern diesels and V8 gas engines are the future in HDs, charged V6s, small diesels, and hybrids in LDs.

Agree, I don't think a turbocharged small displacement V-6 is meant for heavy duty use, but for most people who buy a full size half ton truck it is probably more than adequate. Most truck buyers will never use the full capacity of their pickups.

Medium displacement V8s with cylinder deactivation provides a NVH benefit over a V6, can tolerate a lower fuel octane per given loading and ambient temp, and comparable light load acceleration and at times fuel economy numbers. Ford EcoBoost with a max GCWR load in summer temps needs premium fuel, or there is a significant impact to output, performance and fuel efficiency.
The long-stroke vs large bite argument is over and nothing puts it to rest better than the Ford V10. A fine industrial engine and suited to constant HD use, but in a pickup use-inefficient, sub-par from a performance standpoint, and oversized and overweight.
Modern diesels and V8 gas engines are the future in HDs, charged V6s, small diesels, and hybrids in LDs.


Posted by: James | Oct 12, 2016 6:57:48 PM

There is a lot of inaccurate information here. First off, any V8 cannot tolerate low octane fuel. For instance the GM 6.2L. It must run 91+ at all times. The reason is compression ratio and ignition timing. It does not matter the size of the engine if CR is high enough with timing it must use higher octane fuel. Plain and simple.

The Ford 3.5L GTDI does not need to have premium fuel for max torque. Just max HP and that is only a marginal gain. Towing with premium fuel shows little to no significant gain in power but Ford does recommend it when towing heavy to control detonation. So owners have to option to run 87 to 91+ obtain fuel while GM 6.2L owners do not have that option.

I would prefer a bigger truck and use 1/2-3/4 it's capacity than getting a lighter one and maxing it out or overloading it all the time. Sometimes I think I should have got a ton truck but the 3/4 ton seems like a happy balance. Also, I remember seeing a test where the 3.5 ecoboost would pull with or outpull the higher displacement chevy and ram but after a mile pulling up grade it started losing power due to heat. Not sure where I saw that test at tho.

Medium displacement V8s with cylinder deactivation provides a NVH benefit over a V6, can tolerate a lower fuel octane per given loading and ambient temp, and comparable light load acceleration and at times fuel economy numbers.

Posted by: James | Oct 12, 2016 6:57:48 PM

You are correct concerning the medium displacement V8 ( current GM 5.3 ) being able to tolerate a lower octane fuel.

//////////////////////////////////

It does not matter the size of the engine if CR is high enough with timing it must use higher octane fuel. Plain and simple.

Posted by: PDiddy | Oct 13, 2016 7:21:03 AM

That is not a 100 percent accurate statement if the burn is stable. Plain and simple..oh, hi LAMO.

FYI, my bet is you are missing a fundamental feature of both designs.

My opinion is in a LD truck 1/2 ton and under there should options for v6 v8 t-v6 thats all fine. In the hd trucks i want easy simple reliable iron power. v8-v10 whatever. There is a reason why the eco boost is not in a HD platform it is not a heavy duty motor. turbos can be reliable now alum v6 blocks are not. and diesels are made for max power/towing so they need turbos.

If things are better, then people will willing move to them.
GM can update their engine lineup as follows:
4.3 V6, increase bore from 99.6mm to 103.25. 4.6 liters & 320hp
5.3 V8, bore increase from 96mm to 99.6mm. 5.7 liters & 400hp
6.2 V8 dropped. Replaced by supercharged 5.3 V8, 500hp.

That is not a 100 percent accurate statement if the burn is stable. Plain and simple..oh, hi LAMO.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Oct 13, 2016 7:47:29 AM

Explain because right now you appear ignorant because you have nothing going to back it up.

Posted by: PDiddy | Oct 13, 2016 9:37:33 AM

I never said your were wrong but inaccurate with your response to James comment. You see, the larger the bore the more unstable the combustion flame (burn) may become. The smaller or medium V8 engine can tolerate lower octane fuel because of the smaller bore. Larger bore engines are more difficult to establish a stable burn as compression pressures rise. This is because the flame has to travel further and before completion may be met with a competing flame known as detonation. LAMO, you should know this stuff.

What size bore are you referring to?

It does not matter the size of the engine if CR is high enough with timing it must use higher octane fuel. Plain and simple.

Posted by: PDiddy | Oct 13, 2016 7:21:03 AM

That is not a 100 percent accurate statement if the burn is stable. Plain and simple..oh, hi LAMO.

@PDIDDY

Not plain and simple. LOAD is the key variable.

Not plain and simple. LOAD is the key variable.


Posted by: papajim | Oct 13, 2016 12:34:12 PM

Any engine that runs is under load. A low compression engine can suffer from detonation under load. While load is a variable there are other factors that I believe are more important.

It isn't just a bore size issue, it is chamber design, timing requirements, quench, filling efficiency, dwell time at TDC, and the list goes on.
Higher octane fuel burns more slowly, so unless the timing map can properly address the slower rate, peak combustion pressure will be chasing the piston. Long stroke engines typically have this issue-a fine line between peak pressure and detonation.
Using fuel to cool the charge before combustion impacts BSFC.
Larger V8s have more ignition events per 720 degrees, which makes a reaction to detonation less noticeable to both output and performance. The factory tune may require premium fuel, but the reduced output on 87 or 86 (mountains) octane fuel is less than the EcoBoost on 91 or 93 vs 87. Ford doesn't make a big point about discussing it, but if you tow, live in a hot climate, or operate near max GVWR or GCWR, you need to run premium in the EcoBoost.
I had an issue with my company EcoBoost Ford. Poor response, rough idle, loss of power at 6,000 ft. I was told by the service manager at Earmhardt Ford in Chandler, AZ to run a minimum of 89 octane, 91 in July/August if driving the mountains.

LOAD-yes. Which is where the EcoBoost shows weakness against V8s.
A turbo gas engine, with a heavy load is going to make max boost quickly, which requires fuel to keep the A/F from going too lean. Run it on the rich side, scrub off the HCs in the cats, and keep the detonation at bay. Without boost output suffers. Without fuel, too lean, reduced boost, detonation, and output suffers. Which is why premium fuel is needed. 11:1, boosted, small-displacement, high-load. Stop trying to reinvent thermodynamics.

Larger V8s have more ignition events per 720 degrees, which makes a reaction to detonation less noticeable to both output and performance. The factory tune may require premium fuel, but the reduced output on 87 or 86 (mountains) octane fuel is less than the EcoBoost on 91 or 93 vs 87. Ford doesn't make a big point about discussing it, but if you tow, live in a hot climate, or operate near max GVWR or GCWR, you need to run premium in the EcoBoost.

Posted by: James | Oct 13, 2016 2:08:56 PM

How does a large V8 have more ignition cycles per 720 degrees over any V8. Unless you have a multiple spark configuration they are a the same. So I fail to see your point of that.


An Ecoboost or any turbo engine will always have more power than a N/A engine in the mountains. Even with 87 octane fuel. As long as fuel quality is the same a boosted engine will much less detrimental atmospheric affects on power over a large displacement V8. In fact you do not need 91 octane fuel for heavy towing, however it is recommended.

LOAD-yes. Which is where the EcoBoost shows weakness against V8s.
A turbo gas engine, with a heavy load is going to make max boost quickly, which requires fuel to keep the A/F from going too lean. Run it on the rich side, scrub off the HCs in the cats, and keep the detonation at bay. Without boost output suffers. Without fuel, too lean, reduced boost, detonation, and output suffers. Which is why premium fuel is needed. 11:1, boosted, small-displacement, high-load. Stop trying to reinvent thermodynamics.


Posted by: James | Oct 13, 2016 2:13:45 PM

Every gasoline engine is like that. While a boosted engine will suffer damage sooner running lean a NA engine. Will also. The current trend is to run 14ish A/F ratio at WOT on NA engines. This improves emissions but a side affect is less power and like most GM V8 a slight surge when WOT. Ford V10s have a similar feel.

I don't mind Turbo or SC engines, but I prefer naturally aspirated engines because they normally have more room in the engine bay for making repairs or changing out parts. I like the Ford 3.5 EB, but I would buy the 5.0 because it has so much more room to work. I keep my trucks for 15+ years (Still driving a 1995 Bronco) and I do my own repairs. Since I do my own repairs I like to make sure I can get to parts relatively easily. HP numbers are not super important to me, I mean my little 302 makes 205hp and it gets me from point A-B without issue.

@PDiddy

You don't sound very objective. An engine idling is NOT under load.

Watch your Oil Temp gauge. Unless you're pushing hard on the throttle, the oil temperature will not go up very much. Under load the oil temp moves quickly into the normal operating range.

Busted!

"there is no 4.8 LS Silverado that EVER got 26 mpg unless it was going downhill with a tailwind.
Why am I so sure? I have one. They don't EVER get 26 mpg. I love my Chevy LS but it's not because of the gas mileage.
I love mine because it's given my 80K trouble free miles. Period."
-- Posted by: papa jim | Oct 12, 2016 6:41:08 PM

Actually, there is a way to get high fuel mileage with that model and engine; all you have to do is never do jackrabbit starts and keep your speed below 45mph no matter what kind of road you're on. I've managed 25mpg with a bloomin' Jeep Wrangler, for heaven's sake, on a 700-mile drive which included going across the Appalachians lengthwise (I-81) and have the photo to prove it. Granted, I wasn't doing a measly 45mph but I also wasn't quite doing the posted speed limit either. It's all in how you drive the thing.

Im perfectly happy w my 8 year old normaly aspirated ,4.8 v8 Silvy,still get 26 mpg with simple 4 speed automatic..
Will keep this truck until electric ones come along or some automaker slaps rotary valves on their motors,,

http://www.coatesengine.com

Posted by: Chevrolet builds a better way to see the USA | Oct 12, 2016 5:29:37 PM

Just curious, are you using us gallon or imperial gallon for your measurements. I have gotten 26 mpg (imperial gallon) with my 99 GMT800 5.3 L on a hot summer day crusing at 65 mph.

You don't sound very objective. An engine idling is NOT under load.

Watch your Oil Temp gauge. Unless you're pushing hard on the throttle, the oil temperature will not go up very much. Under load the oil temp moves quickly into the normal operating range.

Busted!


Posted by: papa jim | Oct 15, 2016 7:44:03 AM

You could not be more incorrect. Enya running engine is under load. It is not making full HD or TQ but it is under load. You have valve train loads, oil pump load, ring drag, compression to overcome, etc. Oil Temps will come up to normal Temps on a gas engine. A diesel is different.

@PDiddy

Of course the small components experience a very small amount of load under light duty or idle conditions.

please cite specifics on what you're saying. Load is variable.

Load is variable.


Posted by: papa jim | Oct 15, 2016 8:16:44 PM

Who said it was not variable. In fact my statement to you explained that exactly. Even the part where the engine is not making full HP or TQ. That right there should have given you the clue that load is variable in my statement.

You could not be more incorrect. Enya running engine is under load. It is not making full HD or TQ but it is under load. You have valve train loads, oil pump load, ring drag, compression to overcome, etc. Oil Temps will come up to normal Temps on a gas engine. A diesel is different.

Posted by: PDiddy | Oct 15, 2016 6:52:56 PM

Are you suggesting that a Nascar engine experiences no more load than that of a postal delivery truck ?



The comments to this entry are closed.