WOW brahmus, your knowledge of FI is very impressive!!! It is always interesting to me to here how supercharging an engine compared to a normally aspirated engine rates in power. I agree with you that you would probably stick just as much money into building the motor as you would supercharging. Then your still not guranteed that you will get the same HP numbers due to the combination of parts that may have been selected.

 

I feel the same way so I'm sure you have a permanent frown when you read many of the post on various forums. It only really bothers me when it has to do with information that can potentially cause engine,suspension and other damage which can translate into unnecessary repair money for someone who takes the information as true and fact based. The opinion stated as a fact often is the cause of such situations.

 

Lethal,
I agree. but also look at some of the dyno numbers people post and post from those expecting those numbers and are disappointed. Why, because people like to post the big numbers which is the end result that includes mods, upgrades, tuning etc. When people post their stock system numbers, the first post is "wow your numbers are low" Why, because many think the starting point is higher than it actually is...

 

I would never intend to conciously mislead anyone nor do I think I am a F1 engineer. In fact, my original post was one of "I thought" and my second post was "my meager" knowledge. It seeems in every online forum there are one or two disrespectful people who need to personalize the opinion of an individual that wishes to express what he knows (based on the understanding of science mind you) and turning an open, honest discussion into a battle of who will a make the final point. I take umbrage with someone flagrantly and sarcastically saying I should be writing a romance novel. I would hope my comments are welcome here and my desire to have a good scientific discussion and deeper understanding with like minded individuals is acceptable without mean spirited rhetoric. I do consider myself an automotive historian and the notion of romanticism of the automobile is not new.

Supercharging is NOT new either and the debate over it's superiority over the normally aspirated engine rages on here as it has over the course of the last 60 years amongst engineering minds far superior to mine. My understanding comes from reading, two engineering lectures on F1 engine design in Europe ( I lived in Bologna, Italy for 6 years) and my working with fine old time British mechanics and engineers over the course of the last 25 years as well as the honor of hanging around Maranello every so often in the late 70's (would never happen now).

My original post was to understand and hopefully get a scientific explanation behind peoples individual choices as I just purchased an F150 (too bad we can't make cars like that - best truck in the world hands down). I always question 'Authority".

Interestingly at the Greewich Car Show this year, there was a very mild mannered younger representative from GM and he was talking about the Z08 Corvette and how it will take the automotive world by storm. After talking with him for 5 minutes, it was obvious that he was a fairly recent hire and a very bright engine designer for GM (working on the Z08 Corvette project). He was a graduate of Carnegie Mellon and of course, wanting to pick his brain on supercharging (not often you get to meet very intelligent people like that who lso happen to be nice) I asked him about certain elements of my book that required clarification. After an hour of discussion, his final comment was that if you want more power, you add cubes or design a engine better. While I do understand why people want to supercharge, if one needs more towing power, you buy a dually Super-Duty with the great Turbo Diesel Engine Ford has.

My prewar MG has a large manifold (plenum) on the off side of the engine, coming from a Marshall supercharger ( roots type) mounted between the front rails that builds up pressure. When the engine is opened up, the charge flows in and boost takes over. The book I am referring to is my own and the title is "The Supercharged MG - Theory, History and Installation". I am about 60% of the way through it and do not expect to publish it until after I retire in 5 years. It is a long labor of love and unfortunately, other priorities ( I think they call it life) take precedence.

P.S. I did go on the Magnaflow website and they claim respectable boosts of 12 pounds.

 

Based on your writing style it is obvious that you are an educated person. Why would you be offended because I said ?

Perception and a different choice of words based on the individual.
Example,
You view the supercharger as romantic... I see nothing romantic about it... On the other hand I look at my supercharger and think how sweet it looks. Just a word I am using to describe how I view it. You are in your right to say my supercharger belongs in a pastry and baking book. I'm not going to go write one or leave the site because of a statement.

You have knowledge and adults have different views. If you decide not to share yours, not only will it be your loss, but a loss for others including myself.

 

dogedoc,
I'm thinking that from your previous posts I know I was a little confused at the point that you were trying to make. I respect everyone's opinions and I believe that is how people gain more knowledge by someone offering a different view on something.

You are right when it is great to be able to get into a forum such as this one that has such a great broad knowledge of not just supercharging, but everything else about the F-150. I would personally like to thank everyone that has put there .02 cents worth in on this thread. I look forward to it everyday to see what people have to say about supercharging and hopefully it is something that I could learn from. I also cannot forget some of the humor on some of the comments, people come up with some funny stuff.

Anyway, Hope I didn't bore everyone with this reply. OK, back to the shop talk.

 

More than welcome. That is how misunderstandings are worked out and cleared up.


No it is not, but think about how technology has advanced. Up until a few years ago turbos were second in line because of lag, reliability, etc. With the technology a turbo system can be near as responsive as a SC, Last for 10's of thousands of miles, and have near zero parasitic drag on the motor. The same kind of improvements are represented in Superchargering. If there was any question to benefits, I highly doubt Ford would have stuck Eatons on the Lightning and Harley and put them into production at 8 and 6psi relatively.

What choices? To go FI or not, or which type of FI (forced induction)?

Same here, I think strongly in questioning most everything, that's the engineer coming out in me. Just because you read it or someone states it doesn't make it fact!

That is interesting because I just heard GM is making a new motor that will be supercharged for a new Cadillac car and later brought over to the next Vette????

I think it'll be hard for them to go much more over the Zo6's powerplant relying on more efficent, or larger motors. Ferrari and Lambrogini is a good comparison. Those motors require more "balancing" (V12) (Harmonics) to accomplish higher all motor numbers and still be "drivable".

Great tow vehicle! But it is force inducted with a turbo! I have near "diesel" numbers with and estimated 450hp and 550ftlbs of torque at the engine. The towing problem lies in the weight. My truck doesn't have the "a$$" the 3/4 and 1 tons do. I can pull what they pull and accelerate just a quickly but I "feel" the load more than they do.


Good luck with it!

What do you mean here? An exhaust company talking about boost??

 

I believe that he meant magnacharger instead of magnaflow.

 

Firstly, my apolopies for stating maganflow. I was viewing additional info on a thread on exhaust and I guess my senior moments are getting the best of me. I meant Powerworks.

Brahmus, thank you for sticking to the more scientific aspects of the discussion and requesting feedback in a more gentlemanly manner than it seems others are accustomed.
1.) You bring up some great points but in a nutshell, it is probably exponentially more expensive to "blueprint" an engine than to just bolt on a device and gain power. I think that is why s/c has taken on a more dramatic presence, NOT because of improvements in technology. In fact, the same was true in the 30's. Bolt on power. I think much has to do with marketing in this county and seems at times to take a precedence over science. Physics in the 30's is physics in the 21st century; that is why we call them laws. Economics in the 30's IS NOT economics in the 21st century.
2.) For the 2006 season, Formula One specifically details a normally aspitated engine at present. I think we were on different pages here. I think people were confusing F1 Formula One with FI Forced Induction). I was referring to Formula One
3.) Science now: turbos as opposed to s/cers turn lemons into lemonade. In the Otto Cycle ( four stroke engine) there are 3 energy consumptive phases and one power production phase. By regaining the exhaust energy to force induction in the intake phase, there is a net energy savings. With S/cers, there is no such phase. You rightly point out that there is the lag in turbos but on a pure energy savings level, it is far superior to s/cing ( this is in fact the precursor of the jet turbine engine-very efficient). This is why some companies in the past have gone to "Biturbo" or double turbocharging in order to minimize this lag. The Formula 1 BRM (British Racing Machine) of the sixties utilized a double s/cing solution similar to a "Biturbo". Here, they used the very efficient (from an adiabatic viewpoint, the most efficient) centrifugal s/cer in a dual phase form: one that "kicked in at very low RPM's in oder to "prime the second and avoid lag. This engine is currently on view at Donnington Automotive museum and is n engineering marbvel to see. It was however never successful.
4.) When it comes to an inexpensive bottom end torque solution nothing beats a s/cer. The question is if it he most efficient way?
5.) I still do not understand how a boost of only 6 or 7 psi can be an efficient method of increasing power? Please explain the science behind this.
6.) How efficient is fuel consumption with the devices currently available?

Thnks all for your input on this subject.

 

An after thought: You mentioned your power production is equal to the Ford 6 liter turbo diesel. The Ford website claims 575 of foot pounds of torque. The s/cers mentioned on this thread do not claim development of this power on their websites. In addition, towing capacity is not just a function of engine power and I would never even dream of towing a 16,000 pound gooseneck with an F150 becuase the chasis and drivetrain would never handle it.

 

Ah, I guess it happens to the best of us LOL!!

Absolutley, and I would think you would get to the limit of an all motor powerplant much sooner than if it were FI.. BTW all my FI abbreviations were for Force Induction or Force Inducted!!

I only partially agree with this. It is a better bang for the buck but technology in general has come a long ways in the last 10-20 years!

3.) Here's another way to think about it. A turbo is driven off of exhaust gases that would otherwise be wasted. (Virtually no parasitic loses). A SC must be driven by a belt, directly resulting in hp loses.

There are also several manufacturers, one being VW, that is combining superchargers and turbo's on comercial vehicles. But this has been done on industrial diesel engines for years. Some feed each other (supercharger>turbo) and some use a Positive displacement SC to give the low end grunt and a turbo to take over in the higher rpms but that system gets real complicated.

As opposed to what? I say hands down yes, next to Nitrous. I'm factoring in reliablity, driveablity, cost, easy of install/build up.

I'd like to but my books are at work and I need to cheat to make sure I don't mislead anyone.. haha.. That being said there are some NONintercooled Superchargers on the market starting at 5psi I think and there is an improvement over N/A. Driving around town at a fairly aggressive rate but no WOT runs, I rarely see over 5psi and I can move around much easier than a N/A truck of the same caliber. Remember PSI is misleading. If you were to install cams or even heads and cams into a stock Harley making 6psi prior you may only see 4psi after but increase power by as much ast 60-80 rwhp depending on which stage. A more accurate "limit" would be CFM!

I get 13 hwy mpg in my truck. 10" lift, 38X15.50R20 tires, 4.56 gears, weighting in at about 6000lbs. Similar equipped N/A trucks get what I get or worst and move much slower.

My lightning, mostly stock gets around 16-17 hwy mpg. Similar N/A trucks get about that.

 

Not equal but near! Another thing to think about is area under the curve and not some much on peak numbers.

I have an upgraded Lightning setup in my 4x4 supercrew. I am estimating from the thousands of Lightnings out there that have the same mods as I do and dyno on a regular basis.

I agree, that is why I said my truck doesn't have the a$$ (weight) like the diesels but only lacks in that departement. I monitor my drivetrain and it's been holding up fine. If I were to equip my truck with electric brakes I would be even closer in comparison.

If you throw enough money at any truck you can do just about anything with it.. haha


I do enjoy discussing stuff like this. It makes my brain work and sometimes I realize things I knew but never realized!! And alot of times I learn alot from other people.

 

I have a question, from reading the recent replies here. If you were to buy a truck right now and not figuring in the cost of the vehicle or the fuel to run it, would you buy a lightning/Harley or a 250/350 turbo diesel?

I would like to supercharge my f-150, but the cost of the superchargers is a good chunk of money. So for me, I think it would be easier to talk my wife into getting a different truck than to spend $3500 or more dollars. I want to have a vehicle that is fun to drive and has good pickup.

Anyway, What is everyones thought on this??

 

IMO
If you can convince your wife on a truck change based on the logic and plan listed above,,,

You will be hailed as a walking hero and god in the eyes of many of us married men

 

I'd buy an F350 dually 4X4 with the V-10, then supercharge that.

Really, that's what I want.

However......$3500 is way cheaper than the $15 or $20 thousand it would cost you for the new truck.