3rd Gen Turbocharger Setup

I agree. Turbos do produce much more power. Do you have any photos of your buddy’s Setup?

 

Sorry buddy, but let’s not spread misinformation. I don’t disagree that superchargers are simpler to package, but the heat issue is false. Superchargers heat soak like a MFer. The fact of compressing the air within the superchargers causes heat, it’s physics. So... heat soaked supercharger, plus the physics of compressing air, equates to a very high air charge. Only way to combat this is super high octane fuel, or some sort of cooler. While some manufacturers do install a pump on the superchargers itself to flow coolant, it’s still at engine temp. A surpercharger is not like an engine, in which it needs to be kept at a specific temp to be efficient. The colder the supercharger stays, the less it will transfer that heat into the air charge. Only other option is meth injection. That’s a finite source though and a PITA to have to refill, but it does work.

Secondly, while superchargers make great power in the lower RPMs, their volumetric efficiency suffers in the higher rpm band and they don’t make more power. Additionally, superchargers take power to make power. Effectively, they are less efficient.

Lastly, turbo lag is only on engine setups that can push massive air volume at higher rpm. The VE map of the turbo has to be matched to the VE of the engine. You only see turbo lag on super high horsepower cars that have very high VE, or people who don’t know how to pick a turbo. If it’s done correctly, a turbo should have minimal lag in a powerband for the intended engine.

Where are you getting your information from...? Turbocharged engines are inherently more efficient than their non-turbocharged equivalents. A turbocharger uses spent gas to spin, compress air, then feed it back to the engine, meaning the engine has to work less to net the same air. An internal combustion engine is roughly 30% efficient. The rest of the energy is wasted in spent gases and heat. By recovering the spent gases via a turbocharger, you are effectively increasing its overall efficiency. If done correctly, a turbocharger will increase your MPGs. Talk to guys with turbo LS motors and some are getting 28-30mpgs on a conservative tune and while driven conservatively. The only reason most setups dont get great gas mileage is that most guys spending the money are looking for big power gains. Biggest issue with turbos is packaging. However, they allow for an arguably easier path of touring an air-to-water or air-to-air cooler, in order to cool down the air charge. This means you can run lower octane fuel without pre-ignition or knock.

 

Bingo. Other than the rods hating life on these 3UR motors, if the tuning options become available, people will pull the long blocks, throw internals at it and boost them to hell.

We’ve got plans for a 1500hp 3UR on Haltech standalone. We’re following a similar build path to the 200mph land speed cruiser and all it had was forged rotating assembly, a different manifold, and a ton of time on the dyno. Assuming the heads can flow well, a set of twins hanging out of the hood of a sienna will do wonders.

 

Pics or it didn’t happen...

 

True...the only things that have changed is more nannies. I can put all these "new" trucks in my dust if I so please... Off road especially...not brag...just fact. 47 years of off road experience.....long before all these new fancy dancy suspensions. I'm not talking about high speed long travel racing. I'm talking about growing a pair and taking a full size truck up Jeep trails. I was wheeling in Oregon back in the 70's on crazy ass fire "trails" up a ridgeline without the stuff I've done to my Tunny. Doesn't hurt to have a pair and not worry about scratches. I'll be honest... yes things have changed a lot over the years... apparently balls got smaller after "My Generation"..

 

@the_midwesterner That’s what I thought that there are distinct advantages of turbochargers over superchargers. That’s all evident with the fact that each and other very auto manufacturer has a vehicle or two that’s turbocharged. Good stuff. Thanks for the info.

 

Anything can be turbo'd but for a truck I would prefer the low down torque of a generously sized natural V8 than deal with a small turbo motor. Turbo is fun with a sports car but on a truck, especially if towing I would get annoyed by the boost constantly going.

 

What about a V8 turbo truck?

 

A V8 one I would enjoy. I mean running a motor that cant push a truck this heavy and adding a turbo to compensate.

 

No misinformation. I'm talking about EMISSIONS TESTING. The problem being that the type of testing guidelines for CAFE standards are antiquated and do NOT factor the modern turbo engines.
I come from a professional automotive background, and know a bit about this fact.

Let me see if I can find the articles that lay it out pretty well...

Here's one regarding the efficiency subject:
The Trouble With Turbos

Here's a second one in which I urge you to pay attention to the section "Reducing Emissions"...what they are saying is VERY TRUE.
Why Ferrari Engineers Don't LIke Turbocharging

Upon boost, the engine needs to add more fuel (a rich mixture mind you) to go along with the boosted air being pumped in, to keep the engine from detonation. Excess fuel means excess CO2.
Quote:
"Government fuel-economy test cycles, especially those in Europe, approximate the driving style of a heavily sedated 83-year-old librarian. Since the engine is rarely taxed, the turbo doesn't spool up, so no extra fuel is used. But purposely driving slowly enough to keep the turbo from generating boost defeats the point of having a turbocharger in the first place. Sadly, out in the real world, riding that big, effortless wave of boosted midrange torque means burning extra fuel—and creating even more CO2. So much for reducing emissions." (Quoted from Road & Track, 1/8/2015)

....This is 100% spot-on. SO, when the PTB decide to upgrade the test cycles for realistic modern-day turbo engines and realistic driving, you can kiss the Turbos goodbye and they will force an alternative, ahem, Electric car on us. After all, they can't go back to the NA engine, which, BTW has been made to run EXCEEDINGLY clean. To do so would admit they were wrong to villainize the NA engine in the first place. And they just can't have that.

In 2009, Porsche's NA flat 6 in the 911 put out cleaner air through the exhaust pipes than the urban air it ingested through the intake.

But that's just not good enough...Anyways, think as you shall. I don't hate turbos...and it's not like I'll never own a car with them...in fact, I drive one right now and it's a . YMMV.

 

Never driven an EcoBoost, I'm allergic to Ford. My daily driver is a turbo motor and knowing how often boost is demanded without any heavy strain I can only imagine how hard a turbo would have to work on a truck.

Again this would only matter for an underpowered motor. Doesn't apply to hot rod set ups like Keith's turbo first gen, that's something cool.

 

Im at 3700’ elevation and SC 5.7 tundra average is 15mpg. I drive like an old man 90% of the time though.

 

I believe that auto manufacturers have gotten the turbo technology down to a science now. It's much more efficient and cost effective than they once used to be. That's why almost every auto manufacturer has at least one turbo vehicle on their offerings. There must be something valuable and critical to the auto industry in turbos. Given the very high emissions standards in the USA and other parts of the world, auto manufacturers would not aim to add turbos and other technology that would severely impact their business and ability to sell their vehicles. As far as, the emissions and its carbon footprint is concerned, ALL gasolene vehicles put out harmful gasses that affect our ozone.

 

I don't disagree with you that how vehicles are currently being tested to determine their fuel efficiency doesn't cater to turbos, but it doesn't mean that they aren't a viable option, are dirtier or produce more emissions. Also, i am not judging your work experience, nor where you have worked, but if we want to toss that around, fine. I work in engineering. Where facts make decisions and math is king. In regards to the articles you posted, they are effectively opinion pieces and the Ferrari article effectively states what I just said. Their first quote is "we don't like turbos, but it's how we keep performance and reduce emissions". Meaning, they can maintain power with smaller displacement engines, picking up efficiency by reusing spent gases, ipso facto reducing emissions. If only we could come up with a way to convert thermal energy into potential energy and use it as a propulsion system, we would then have internal combustion engines that would be 70%+ efficient, but I digress.

In regards to your comment about turbos going rich when you create boost, that is not relative. I would venture to say that most vehicles now target a 12.8-13.4:1 AF, with a feed back wideband 02 to pull fuel depending on the conditions. Also, if you get into the PE table of any vehicles, the 02s are effectively ignored and it goes rich. So your fact of turbos going richer under boost isn't an isolated case. All vehicles do it. However, by using turbos to reuse the spent gases to positively pressurize the air going into the engine and requiring the engine to use less pumping forces to pull the amount of air necessary to satisfy combustion, you increase efficiency. This use of of technology has also recently become more advanced with variable vein turbos, which can adapt to increase and decrease vane angles to be more efficient and have a more dynamic range in their performance.

In theory, turbos are a fantastic idea. If OEMs could get people to change their oil often/correctly in order to reduce the overall cost of failures and then be able to package/control them in a cost effective manner, then all cars would have them, simply from the standpoint that spent gases is wasted potential energy. Additionally, if your statement of Turbos being overall dirtier held true, then the European market, who has significantly more stringent fuel emission requirements, would not continue to use them in the vast majority of the vehicles being produced over there. Additionally, other markets like Japan, with their K cars, would also not be installing them into their more modern platforms.

Frankly speaking, done correctly, the use of turbos increases efficiency period. Efficiency equates to more power less total quantity of fuel burnt, which is better fuel economy. Its all a matter of execution, which seems like it may be your point...

 

Yes, what he said

 

Cummins "heavily involved" in gas engine induction? I think not.

 

Turbo Diesel bro! Cummins Turbo Diesel engines in Dodge and Nissan.

 

Ahhhh, roger that.

 

Just saw this 2 year old thread!-LoL
.. I bolted on a Precision 78mm Turbo back in 2013 onto my 5.7L exhaust. Its dam fun and still running strong..

 

Great to hear!! You don't see this method used much anymore. You must live in a warm climate, that air filter would be clogged with ice and slush around here in the winter months.

 

They make 48volt electric turbos now. Someone needs to try it on a tundra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yrxbcB4CwA
They doubled the torque and almost doubled the HP on a shitty chevy car. Its hilarious actually

 

I always wondered why someone hadn't invented an electric turbocharger...and here we are. Looks like it needs a little refining though.

 

To be fair, they were taped to the side the car. The power converter box is a bit bulky but way less work then an exhaust turbo. I was quite impressed.

 

Turbo on demand with the press of a button.

 

For sure!
I would guess you could set it to hit at a given rpm as well which would be neat.