Advertisement |
|
|
|
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
|
6.0 Powerstroke Discussion of the 03-06 6.0 |
11-20-2008, 11:27 AM
|
#21
|
Name: Phooker
Title: Gluten Free
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Charles, La
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 7,467
|
This sounds flippin awesome...if Danny's supercharged build is anything like the Fordota...you'll beat him with ease.
|
|
|
11-20-2008, 12:35 PM
|
#22
|
Name: Turbo Performance
Title: Comp Diesel Sponsor
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE Idaho
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 2,300
|
That thing is frickin huge. I would think you could get some serious bottom end boost if it gets set up right.
|
|
|
11-20-2008, 02:01 PM
|
#23
|
Name: Abrannan19
Title: NOBAMA 09-12
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 3,034
|
this should get pretty interesting..and Don..I will go in with you on the heads lifting..and I will go 3'1" (price is right style b!tch) LMAO
Good luck Doug..I hope it pans out AND stays together!
|
|
|
11-20-2008, 02:04 PM
|
#24
|
Name: ChiefMC
Title: Green Behind the Ears
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2007
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 67
|
Doug.....I have been wondering how a big Whipple or Kenne Bell blower would work instead of a turbo on a 6.0L. What do you think about the roots style blower for a 6.0L??????
__________________
03 F250 CC SB 105k on the clock....Extreme Tune by ID a CFM intake elbow and MBRP 4" turbo back straight out........WHISTLE.....
|
|
|
11-20-2008, 03:13 PM
|
#25
|
Name: Innovative
Title: Diesel Enthusiast
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jun 2006
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 211
|
I've had more than my fair share of supercharged and turbo charged vehicles. I would choose a turbo setup over a blower any day. On a heavy gasser, the twin screw does offer big block torque due to the instant boost.
Basically you are installing a belt driven turbo. It saves a lot of plumbing on a vehicle with no forced induction, but other than that I don't see any real benefit. It will have to be geared differently, since the centrifugals shine at the high rpm and top of the track.
IMO, we are light years ahead with turbo's in these trucks. Going supercharged is a step backwards due to parastalic loss. Now a huge twin screw(big enough not to cause a bottle neck) with some big twins might overcome the power loss, but that still remains to be seen.
|
|
|
11-20-2008, 03:28 PM
|
#26
|
Name: UNBROKEN
Title: Ezekiel 25:17
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: TEXAS
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17,158
|
Huge twin screw and big twins you say ?
How'sa bout this crazyness in Empire's shop right now ?
__________________
I ain't got no damn diesel
|
|
|
11-20-2008, 03:42 PM
|
#27
|
Name: Timbeaux
Title: Administrator and Head Thread Derailer
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Heart of Dixie
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17,238
|
__________________
COMPETITIONDIESEL.COM BRINGING THE BEST TOGETHER
F250(DD) ANOTHER TRUCK (PROGRAM) NO LIMIT FAB, DIESEL SOUTH, DC CUSTOMS
Quote:
"I just love everything about racing. I wanna race every single day. Its nothing for me to be cutting grass and the neighbor hoss the gas on his mower, and there we are, lined up in the the middle of the street." - Stevie KillinTime Jackson
|
"A gainst stupidity, the gods themselves fight unvictorious."
中
|
|
|
11-20-2008, 06:20 PM
|
#28
|
Name: Innovative
Title: Diesel Enthusiast
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jun 2006
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 211
|
That's what I'm sayin'! That'll do the trick. I have a KB 2.8 in the shop, maybe I should bolt it on the 6.0L...hmmmm.
|
|
|
11-20-2008, 11:25 PM
|
#29
|
Name: Scooter's Roofing
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17,007
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSDPlayer
Change the gear and change the rpm its spinning at. I could have 10psi at idle. At 139mm it will move a ton of air when I want.
|
if you were getting out of 10psi at idle out of a 139mm, just how much power would it be robbing at 4000rpm!? ! and what kind of impeller speed would you be seeing? and would the bearings withstand that kind of RPM
__________________
that's pretty much all of it
|
|
|
11-21-2008, 05:42 AM
|
#30
|
Name: PSDPlayer
Title: Captain Negativity!
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 3,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest Nearing
if you were getting out of 10psi at idle out of a 139mm, just how much power would it be robbing at 4000rpm!? ! and what kind of impeller speed would you be seeing? and would the bearings withstand that kind of RPM
|
I was joking. Blower redline in that unit is 57,000rpm. If I am able to spin the motor 5000rpm I will need a 2:1 gear drive which doesn't exist at the moment and would need to go belt drive. At 5,000 rpm the only Winters gears available would get me only to 53,000rpm or 92% capacity. So I either have to develop another gear drive, which wouldn't be hard. Or belt drive it.
But I am pretty sure the volume from 139mm will do something to put this all back into proportion. I mean its only 82mm larger than stock. Which is more than the second turbo some are running currently.
__________________
05 CC LB DRW Lariat 4x2 Dropped 3/6.
|
|
|
11-21-2008, 08:13 AM
|
#31
|
Name: Scooter's Roofing
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17,007
|
oh, I know... It's a monster!!! I would definately gear-drive something that large.
don't get me wrong, I'm all for something cool and different, and I'm sure you guys will get some power out of it and definately get some coverage
__________________
that's pretty much all of it
|
|
|
11-21-2008, 08:14 AM
|
#32
|
Name: Kleetus
Title: More Smoke = More Fun
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jul 2007
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 329
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innovative
I've had more than my fair share of supercharged and turbo charged vehicles. I would choose a turbo setup over a blower any day. On a heavy gasser, the twin screw does offer big block torque due to the instant boost.
Basically you are installing a belt driven turbo. It saves a lot of plumbing on a vehicle with no forced induction, but other than that I don't see any real benefit. It will have to be geared differently, since the centrifugals shine at the high rpm and top of the track.
IMO, we are light years ahead with turbo's in these trucks. Going supercharged is a step backwards due to parastalic loss. Now a huge twin screw(big enough not to cause a bottle neck) with some big twins might overcome the power loss, but that still remains to be seen.
|
Augh... I really wish people would realize that a turbo's power isn't free energy. It's powered by back pressure from the engine. It still takes the same amount of energy to compress air no matter what the method. Sure some compressors might be more efficient, but not like we're talking about 50% or some really big number...
If you're running a large enough compressor you don't need to turn it as fast, you can waste gate the excess, and you can get nearly instantaneous results, with less heat (from I'll call it over churning the air), and since it can turn slower, it will have less mechanical wear.
There is always a cost of doing business, compressing air is no difference.
__________________
__________________
2006 F250 4x4 6.0 Auto Super Cab 8 Foot Bed
Bone Stock, for now... '05 Harley Grille, Chrome Tow Hooks, Headlights
Rhino Liner, Full LED running lights, HID headlights
More on the way
|
|
|
11-21-2008, 08:41 AM
|
#33
|
Name: PSDPlayer
Title: Captain Negativity!
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 3,284
|
You skipped the part where Volumetric Efficiency drops off as the drive pressure increases.
__________________
05 CC LB DRW Lariat 4x2 Dropped 3/6.
|
|
|
11-21-2008, 07:44 PM
|
#34
|
Name: Power Stroke
Title: I Love My Power Stroke!
Status: Not Here
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Salem, NH
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 157
|
the more i read the more i like this doug charecter
__________________
2006 F350 XLT Sport 6.0L[COLOR="Blue"]
|
|
|
11-21-2008, 07:56 PM
|
#35
|
Name: Innovative
Title: Diesel Enthusiast
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jun 2006
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 211
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kleetus
Augh... I really wish people would realize that a turbo's power isn't free energy. It's powered by back pressure from the engine. It still takes the same amount of energy to compress air no matter what the method. Sure some compressors might be more efficient, but not like we're talking about 50% or some really big number...
If you're running a large enough compressor you don't need to turn it as fast, you can waste gate the excess, and you can get nearly instantaneous results, with less heat (from I'll call it over churning the air), and since it can turn slower, it will have less mechanical wear.
There is always a cost of doing business, compressing air is no difference.
|
I agree, it takes energy to make power...that's simple physics. However, if you size the turbo(s) right, they'll make more power than a blower every time. Like centrifigals, turbo's rely on rpm, so you have that to contend with. Roots and screws are instant boost and that makes for some nasty low end torque. I think the quote is "torque like a diesel". That's not to say a wild combination of a blower and turbo won't make sick power. Just a general theory and we all know how generalizations work.
I'd love to see something different. Dougs always up for a challenge, so I hope it works out and his combo makes even more power than he hopes for.
|
|
|
11-21-2008, 09:49 PM
|
#36
|
Name: Vizsla
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ashburn VA
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 291
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kleetus
Augh... I really wish people would realize that a turbo's power isn't free energy. It's powered by back pressure from the engine. It still takes the same amount of energy to compress air no matter what the method. Sure some compressors might be more efficient, but not like we're talking about 50% or some really big number...
If you're running a large enough compressor you don't need to turn it as fast, you can waste gate the excess, and you can get nearly instantaneous results, with less heat (from I'll call it over churning the air), and since it can turn slower, it will have less mechanical wear.
There is always a cost of doing business, compressing air is no difference.
|
I think that the members on here know turbo power is not free. If you think a supercharger is close to a turbo as far as parasitic losses are concerned, then you sir are wrong. The oem's have traditionally favored superchargers, but there are alot of different turbo engines about to be on the market, simply for fuel economy due to the more efficient nature of a turbo(check out the upcoming Ford gassers). Just an example - quite a few twin turbo mustangs running 700-1000 hp, not too many twin or single supercharger stangs doing that eh? Back to diesels, it costs almost no hp to spin a turbo and the idea of combining the two is a good one because the pitfalls of each are somewhat opposite meaning they should complement each other. IMO some engines will like it, some won't, just a cheaper easier way to get close to twin turbo performance. BTW it is not a new idea, remember the 2-stroke diesels with roots style blower and a turbo?
__________________
2006 F-250 E.C.S.B. 4x4, ARP studs, egr delete, Accufab elbow, Banks intake, MBRP turbo back, SCT X-2 with Erics tunes, Elite stage 2's, VGT-SSX, Air Dog 150, Superlift traction bars, Superlift 4" off-road lift, Bilstiens, Woody rear driveshaft, and some gauges.
|
|
|
11-21-2008, 11:39 PM
|
#37
|
Name: PSDPlayer
Title: Captain Negativity!
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 3,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizsla
I think that the members on here know turbo power is not free. If you think a supercharger is close to a turbo as far as parasitic losses are concerned, then you sir are wrong. The oem's have traditionally favored superchargers, but there are alot of different turbo engines about to be on the market, simply for fuel economy due to the more efficient nature of a turbo(check out the upcoming Ford gassers). Just an example - quite a few twin turbo mustangs running 700-1000 hp, not too many twin or single supercharger stangs doing that eh? Back to diesels, it costs almost no hp to spin a turbo and the idea of combining the two is a good one because the pitfalls of each are somewhat opposite meaning they should complement each other. IMO some engines will like it, some won't, just a cheaper easier way to get close to twin turbo performance. BTW it is not a new idea, remember the 2-stroke diesels with roots style blower and a turbo?
|
Ummm they would be if they sacked up and bought a 139 Procharger.
__________________
05 CC LB DRW Lariat 4x2 Dropped 3/6.
|
|
|
11-22-2008, 04:35 AM
|
#38
|
Name: Scooter's Roofing
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17,007
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kleetus
Augh... I really wish people would realize that a turbo's power isn't free energy. It's powered by back pressure from the engine. It still takes the same amount of energy to compress air no matter what the method. Sure some compressors might be more efficient, but not like we're talking about 50% or some really big number...
If you're running a large enough compressor you don't need to turn it as fast, you can waste gate the excess, and you can get nearly instantaneous results, with less heat (from I'll call it over churning the air), and since it can turn slower, it will have less mechanical wear.
There is always a cost of doing business, compressing air is no difference.
|
a turbo's energy isn't free, but it's cheaper than robbing from the crank! exhaust energy is just thrown away in a non-turbo application.
a turbo vehicle will make more power at a given boost level than a blower...
if blowers were all that and a bag of bisquits, why don't the OEM's use them? why don't stationary engines that operate in a very narrow RPM band or a steady RPM use blowers instead of turbos?
*hint* it's because centrifugal blowers are less efficient and more complex than a turbo
__________________
that's pretty much all of it
|
|
|
11-22-2008, 04:36 AM
|
#39
|
Name: Scooter's Roofing
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17,007
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSDPlayer
Ummm they would be if they sacked up and bought a 139 Procharger.
|
by "sacked up", do you mean threw down a bunch of money on a highly proprietary design requiring custom machined brackets vs. an ultra-simple design that any redneck that can build an exhaust system can plumb?
__________________
that's pretty much all of it
|
|
|
11-22-2008, 05:26 AM
|
#40
|
Name: PSDPlayer
Title: Captain Negativity!
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 3,284
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest Nearing
by "sacked up", do you mean threw down a bunch of money on a highly proprietary design requiring custom machined brackets vs. an ultra-simple design that any redneck that can build an exhaust system can plumb?
|
And the link to the inexpensive, gauranteed compound twin turbo setups that are mass produced for these trucks that require no nitrous?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since each 6.0L that has 2 turbos mounted to it has different brackets, fittings, and turbos would each of those kits not be proprietary?
Where exactly would you mount both of your turbos on a 6.0L, which turbos would you use, how much power will the combination make, what will your pressures be?
__________________
05 CC LB DRW Lariat 4x2 Dropped 3/6.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.
|