Riddle me this

[PSUTE]

OK, I currently drive a 2012 Sierra 1500 with a 5.3 (Old 350). I get about 17 MPG banging up and down the mountains in Appalachia. Got about the same in my 2004 F250 with the 5.4 (old 351) I am trying to wrap my head around little turbo engines that deliver about the same MPG with a shit ton of more moving parts to break down, what's the point?...

Sponsored

 

[Roger123]

If I had to guess, I'd say it's emissions and weight. Smaller motor weighs less and I'll bet even with the same MPG it burns cleaner and reduces overall emissions.

 

[Brokennose]

That's the magic of the turbos my friend. Also note that it's a shit ton more plumbing, only a few additional moving parts around the turbo.

 

[broadicustomworks]

OK, I currently drive a 2012 Sierra 1500 with a 5.3 (Old 350). I get about 17 MPG banging up and down the mountains in Appalachia. Got about the same in my 2004 F250 with the 5.4 (old 351) I am trying to wrap my head around little turbo engines that deliver about the same MPG with a shit ton of more moving parts to break down, what's the point?...

It's the same difference between your LS 5.3 and a standard SBC. I have both. and the 5.3 is light years ahead of the small block.
Small block is fun and easy (and cheap) to work on and hop up. cold natured, runs rich at times (well it did before the new AVS 2 carb), 10mpg, sounds great with Flowmaster Outlaws and duals.
Those old motors wear out fast, burn oil after time (valve seats).
The 5.3 is dependable, smooth, more power (stock vs. stock), better economy, last longer.
The new Ecoboosts with smaller displacement, turbos, etc. is another step above. Another step of ingenuity and innovation.
Much like in Ford terms between the 5.0 of the 80's and 90's vs. a Coyote engine now.
I have a 94 Cobra with the 5.0 HO. A new Coyote GT will eat its lunch all day.
Times change, tech changes, and they find new ways to get better usable power, better economy, cleaner emissions out of old ICE tech by supplementing it with new tech.
Don't be surprised to see ICE go the way of the steam engine in our lifetime, definitely in our children's' lifetimes.

 

[lowmpg]

OK, I currently drive a 2012 Sierra 1500 with a 5.3 (Old 350). I get about 17 MPG banging up and down the mountains in Appalachia. Got about the same in my 2004 F250 with the 5.4 (old 351) I am trying to wrap my head around little turbo engines that deliver about the same MPG with a shit ton of more moving parts to break down, what's the point?...

Don't know how you're driving that F250 to get 17mpg but that is pretty amazing (https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-250_super_duty/2004) Assume you'll be able to baby a Bronco too and do so much better than advertised.

 

[RockEye]

The turbos will also perform far better in the mountains than naturally aspirated. Maybe not so much in the Appilachia but go to the Rockies and you'll quickly notice power drop as you go up. Turbos will keep pulling no problem.

 

[MISSJD]

OK, I currently drive a 2012 Sierra 1500 with a 5.3 (Old 350). I get about 17 MPG banging up and down the mountains in Appalachia. Got about the same in my 2004 F250 with the 5.4 (old 351) I am trying to wrap my head around little turbo engines that deliver about the same MPG with a shit ton of more moving parts to break down, what's the point?...

I feel you on the turbos, I've had 2 go to hell and it was a nightmare. Just about everything is a turbo these days so I gave up the dream.

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

The turbos will also perform far better in the mountains than naturally aspirated. Maybe not so much in the Appilachia but go to the Rockies and you'll quickly notice power drop as you go up. Turbos will keep pulling no problem.

Whao Rock.....

Turbos are terrible in higher altitude due to low air pressure. However, This is most evident when towing and only when you're above 7000 feet. That said, turbo engines are driven even above 10,000 in Colorado all the time; not ideal, but it's done.

V8 days are dead, the turbo and soon electric motor assist age is upon us, catch up and keep up!

 

[Rough Rider]

Turbos are terrible in higher altitude due to low air pressure. However, This is most evident when towing and only when you're above 7000 feet. That said, turbo engines are driven even above 10,000 in Colorado all the time; not ideal, but it's done.

UM...Turbos are much better than NA Engines at altitude becasue they are forced induction and can keep the air more compressed into the engine....so...yeah.

 

[RockEye]

Whao Rock.....

Turbos are terrible in higher altitude due to low air pressure. However, This is most evident when towing and only when you're above 7000 feet. That said, turbo engines are driven even above 10,000 in Colorado all the time; not ideal, but it's done.

Even still, the old V8 or bust argument is just something that many American men will just have to learn to get over along with all of the other crap that American men need to really start to get over.

V8 days are dead, the turbo and soon electric motor assist age is upon us, catch up and keep up!

Actually they are far superior at high altitude. N/A can only pull in air at atmospheric pressure. Turbos will keep forcing air into the engine when N/A cannot.

 

[Rayder]

Well that's some impressive mpg you are getting too. My Yukon XL with the 5.3 is averaging 11.8 right now.

 

[Ricepuddin]

Actually they are far superior at high altitude. N/A can only pull in air at atmospheric pressure. Turbos will keep forcing air into the engine when N/A cannot.

This

Which is why most Pike peak hill climb teams run turbos. For those that don't know the altitude changes made the governing body require oxygen for drivers

 

[RockEye]

This

Which is why most Pike peak hill climb teams run turbos. For those that don't know the altitude changes made the governing body require oxygen for drivers

I just edited my post to mention Pike's Peak and saw you did as well so I deleted it. lol

People that run N/A have power at the starting line and drastically lose power as they go up whereas turbos keep on pulling to the finish.

 

[SamG]

The bronco is less aerodynamic than your pickup - believe it or not.
It also weighs a lot.

The 2.3L turbo in a mustang would achieve 35 mpg.

Its the vehicle, not the engine in this case.

Sponsored