Go Back   iRV2 Forums > MOTORHOME FORUMS > MH-General Discussions & Problems
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-24-2015, 07:47 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Rockwood27's Avatar
 
Winnebago Owners Club
Nor'easters Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Freedom, NH
Posts: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorPro View Post
If hey were telling people they would get a 3-5 mpg gain then I know why they went out of business . False advertising.
X2! A Ford Focus 4 cylinder, 2L engine has 160 HP and 146 lb-ft of torque on 87 octane gas. It's rated 30 combined MPG. My Focus ST has the same 2L engine (I would imagine a few internal changes were made!), but is Ecoboost turbocharged and intercooled. It has 252 HP and 270 lb-ft of torque, but on 93 octane gas at 20 psi boost (cost much more than 87 octane). It's rated at only 25 combined MPG. I doubt you'll see much if any MPG increase, unless the original engine had poor air flow characteristics. Much work would have to go into the engine, as a whole, to make all the dynamics work together.
__________________

__________________
Fran, Mary & Zoey (silver Cocker)
2006 Itasca Sunrise 35A, 2005 W-22, Allison 1000 5 speed
'13 Ford Focus ST or '10 Prius on Master Tow Dolly 80THD-SB or '00 Jeep Cherokee 4-down
Rockwood27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 12-24-2015, 08:25 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinboat View Post
Turbo give you more power thru more fuel. More fuel means more polution. More polution means tighter EPA controls on the rest of the fleet. They can only build so many gas hogs.
Yes and now

If you are out of boost or using minimal boost then no, there is not more pollution and no more fuel being used. It acts as a smaller engine then it is

If you are in boost then yes, it will suck down the fuel as quick as a much larger engine. A ecoboost v6 can easily consume more fuel then a v8 when hard in the throttle and it can also get equall or sometimes better mpg then it's n/a base engine if it's not in boost.

In a car yes you can see a several mpg increase IF as stated above you are out of boost. In a RV I would think up to 1mpg is all you would see more then likely .25-.5 mpg. My 1988 Saab spg would get 32-34mpg highway... Parents 86 900s which used the same engine, just minus the turbo and more compression would get 28-31 mpg highway. If I was in the gas hard I would get single digits at the track.... NA car was to slow and boring to even think about taking to a road coarse

In regards to the ford turbo 2.0L vs N/A 2L..... You do realize the turbo has pretty close to double the power. Try comparing a turbo motor that has similar power vs the 2.0L N/A motor. I think their 1.6L ecoboost is the next step up and has slightly better power numbers vs the NA engine. Comparing a base model made for economy vs their present top dog sports car version isn't a equal comparison.
__________________

__________________
NC25T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2016, 09:15 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
airbrushguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 125
It seems to me that turbos are an ill choice for the application. Turbos run off the exhaust and have to spool which is all based on RPM. Granted, you could size the turbo to get it to spool earlier but the reality is that a supercharger is probably a better fit as it would give you a flatter torque curve. At 5lbs of boost you'd get about a 35% increase in net power. That means my measly 400 ft/lbs of torque would increase to approximately 540 ft/lbs and 5 psi would not stress much as far as internals go. That is a massive performance increase in hill climbing, passing and towing performance. Also, forced induction increases volumetric efficiency so fuel mileage gains are not out of the question. It is all in how you set it up and more importantly, how you drive it. The draw backs are cost, expect a minimum of $3500 for the cost of a system and the fact the increased compression generally requires the use of a higher octane rating. On the other hand, no more wheezing engines at altitude.
__________________
Network Engineer/Airbrush Artist in Tampa, FL
2006 Pilgrim Open Road 357RL & 1997 Fleetwood Southwind Storm
airbrushguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2016, 01:21 PM   #32
Community Moderator
 
Scarab0088's Avatar


 
Damon Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 14,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by airbrushguy View Post
It seems to me that turbos are an ill choice for the application. Turbos run off the exhaust and have to spool which is all based on RPM....Also, forced induction increases volumetric efficiency so fuel mileage gains are not out of the question. It is all in how you set it up and more importantly, how you drive it. The draw backs are cost, expect a minimum of $3500 for the cost of a system and the fact the increased compression generally requires the use of a higher octane rating. On the other hand, no more wheezing engines at altitude.
Turbos are OEM on most all Diesel engines which do not need high RPM's to provide beneficial boost.

And hard working gas engines can surely benefit from the boost of a moderately tuned turbo...with improved HP and probable moderate MPG gains (if driven gently).

The point about cost is probably the biggest truth...and just now, engine makers are finding that the emission and power improvements are worth the cost.

There's no reason that a turbo kit couldn't make reasonable improvements on a used RV set-up to make it worth it...just not right now with gas under $2 in many places.

Safe travels
__________________
Kim and Steve, Mustang LCDR (Ret), Damon Outlaw #1193
I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance, Samuel Coleridge
https://www.irv2.com/attachments/signaturepics/sigpic84535_7.gif
WE LOVE OUR OUTLAW RV
Scarab0088 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2016, 11:53 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by airbrushguy View Post
It seems to me that turbos are an ill choice for the application. Turbos run off the exhaust and have to spool which is all based on RPM. Granted, you could size the turbo to get it to spool earlier but the reality is that a supercharger is probably a better fit as it would give you a flatter torque curve. At 5lbs of boost you'd get about a 35% increase in net power. That means my measly 400 ft/lbs of torque would increase to approximately 540 ft/lbs and 5 psi would not stress much as far as internals go. That is a massive performance increase in hill climbing, passing and towing performance. Also, forced induction increases volumetric efficiency so fuel mileage gains are not out of the question. It is all in how you set it up and more importantly, how you drive it. The draw backs are cost, expect a minimum of $3500 for the cost of a system and the fact the increased compression generally requires the use of a higher octane rating. On the other hand, no more wheezing engines at altitude.
I am on the other side of the fence I feel a supercharger is a poor choice, turbo is superior

Yes, a turbo is rpm based however a properly sized turbo can hit max boost very early, it's all about proper sizing for the goals at hand. HP and torque goals as well as where you want the power..... you could probably put a descent size turbo like a pair of gt3071r and be at 8-10psi at 1,500-2,000 rpm's. I used that turbo on a 2.0L and was over 20psi at 3,600"rpm's and over 10psi at 2,000 rpm's.

What turbos are great at is a broad powerband, compare a turbo and supercharger powerband and often times you will see the turbo produces more torque over a much broader range typically the tq comes on earlier. Some supercharges can't develop full boost until redline!

Another advantage is fuel economy. a turbo will get better mpg. If both FI setups are driven hard they will both suck fuel much faster then NA however stay out of boost and the turbo will be better due to not being belt driven but exhaust gas driven.
__________________
NC25T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2016, 10:32 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 350
they both have their pros and cons....personally....I would never have a turbo with 8-10 feet of distance between the turbo and intake. That was the big downside of the rear mounted sts turbos on cars. If it were me I'd do whatever I had to do to mount 2 smaller turbos up front because you're not really looking for top end power here...you want something to get all that mass up and moving from a traffic light. That reason is also why a strong argument for supercharged can be made. I would still do twins up front.
__________________
0rion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2016, 12:19 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Healeyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 298
I daily drive and RV tow a late model Mazda Miata retractable hardtop.

I have equipped it with an after market Electric SuperCharger (ESC). This supercharger puts out 5 PSI of boost at 2,500 RPM and because it is a constant volume output device, the boost is reduced to 2 PSI at at 7,500 RPM. At 2,500 engine RPM, the ESC adds 50 HP and 55 ft./lbs. of torque.

The supercharger body is literally the compressor half of a turbo charger unit and the impeller is driven to 40,000 RPM by a 3 phase 24 VDC electric motor.

The ESC has it's own controller that both charges the 24 VDC battery (2 x 12VDC) and takes that voltage to spin the compressor impeller.

The ESC has two operating modes: 1) activated by a switch under the accelerator pedal and 2) a computer that senses the "load" on the engine and adjusts the boost to achieve improved performance.

With the switch activation, to ME, the ESC acts and feels like a shiftless passing gear. In the load sensing mode it just feels like you have a bigger engine.

When it starts out with 160 HP, adding 50 HP more really wakes my Miata up!

Tim

__________________
Healeyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2016, 03:05 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,492
That is a cool device!
__________________

__________________
Tony & Lori
1989 Country Coach Savannah SE
TQ60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
charging



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ISB 5.9 2003 Turbo VGT failed - Any Upgrade available? kidoo Cummins Engines 2 07-16-2015 09:33 AM
400HP ISL Turbo Failure 3rd Time Ronnie Bledsoe 2006 Dutchstar 43' Cummins Engines 31 05-22-2015 09:09 PM
Exhaust Brake, Compression Brake, vs Turbo Brake dengraham Cummins Engines 15 09-28-2014 04:17 PM
Dinghy Battery Charging bunnb1 Monaco Owner's Forum 1 07-17-2014 09:34 PM
Cummins Releases 25th Anniversary Turbo Diesel Package DriVer RV Industry Press 1 03-26-2014 11:39 PM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.