If you want, I can break it down for you more than I did on the last page lol. All of those things play a role in efficiency, be it volumetric, isentropic, etc, not discounting pumping losses and also fuel atomization and spark, like you stated.

If the turbo is not producing manifold pressure that is above atmospheric, it is not helping the engine. When the turbo-fed engine's volumetric efficiency exceeds that of the engine alone, it becomes an improvement over N/A.

Define your efficiency. It increases volumetric efficiency, not fuel efficiency. Go read my post about power versus efficiency...

You only lose the low end (read: off the line power) at WOT. All other factors the same except for exhaust housing AR ratio (which would make a turbo "laggy"), if you give the turbine time to get to speed, you can still make the same amount of boost. However, because of the lack in pumping losses from the larger housing and therefore less backpressure, you will gain mileage. This is quite contrary to what you just stated. Part throttle power is a whole different ball game than full throttle

 

everyone is forgetting a major point, if he turbos his truck, he will for sure be getting on it more and using more fuel. IMO he's not going to get better mpg.

 

Smokeshow, argue it however you want, people gain MPG with FI when they keep their foot out of it. It seems the maggy guys see about 1mpg and turbo guys tend to get 2-4mpg. The ones who gain the most are th guys with less tq like the 4.8s and 5.3s. Not to mention everyone reports gains when towing too. Regardless of all your theories and trying to make this more difficult than it is, most people see a gain with FI period.

 

I got about the same when I put my blower on my 5.3...

now my 408/1900 setup got about 10% better milage than my 5.3/1900 setup while making about 50% more power, go figure that one

 

Regardless of any opinion, theory, fact...this is the truth. No argument with that!

 

believe me... i dont need you to break it down for me.


increase torque at a lower rpm will increase mpg. VE increases.

200ftlbs at 3500rpm takes more fuel than

200ftlbs at 2500 rpm for a given length of time.

anyone ever notice that you can make 800hp at 5k rpm on a dyno but run on of fuel at 700hp at 6500rpm. all because you are at the limit of a fuel system.

 

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. Regardless, this isn't the point of the thread so if you want to continue discussing it, shoot me a PM or start a turbo theory thread. I've wanted to start one for a while now anyway

 

Jacked thread

so what turbo should this guy get??????

 

OK, this is all I'm gonna add to this...

Energy is a function of heat. The amount of heat that escapes out the tail pipe determines how efficient the machine is. In theory, a Turbocharger recuperated some of the lost/wasted energy/heat and put it back into the cycle, there for making it MORE efficient. How much??? it is difficult to measure without precises measuring devises. Will you see a gain in MPG??? Who knows, there are FAR to many variable to consider, like how efficient was the machine BEFORE the turbo was added. Most gains or losses in economy are do mostly to driving style and habits, not machine efficiency.

As for what turbo Thomas should run, we've already spent a great amount of time discussing this!

 

Wow this thread went to crap. Mr. 26's if you want me to clean up this thread for you and get it back on track just say the word.