Riddle me this

[ResidualGenius]

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

That's what happens when you get those low altitude boys coming to play in the real mountains!

Sponsored

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

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.

I strongly suggest you guys do some reading on this topic before going further.

Air pressure (volume) is lower at altitude and this is the cornerstone of how turbos work. All engines work harder at altitude, but manufacturers always factor in the effect on their turbo engines. Although performance is affected, it isn't terrible. Mostly, you take a hit on MPG.

Hopefully someone from Colorado makes some comments.

 

[frinesi2]

I strongly suggest you guys do some reading on this topic before going further.

Air pressure (volume) is lower at altitude and this is the cornerstone of how turbos work. All engines work harder at altitude, but manufacturers always factor in the effect on their turbo engines. Although performance is affected, it isn't terrible. Mostly, you take a hit on MPG.

Hopefully someone from Colorado makes some comments.

Sorry ... are you arguing that turbosuperchargers, which were invented to improve high-altitude performance of wartime aviation piston engines, are not as good at high altitudes when compared to naturally aspirated engines?

 

[Ricepuddin]

That's what happens when you get those low altitude boys coming to play in the real mountains!

It's been a long time for me. So long that last time I was in Colorado the beer hit like a train.

I strongly suggest you guys do some reading on this topic before going further.

Air pressure (volume) is lower at altitude and this is the cornerstone of how turbos work. All engines work harder at altitude, but manufacturers always factor in the effect on their turbo engines. Although performance is affected, it isn't terrible. Mostly, you take a hit on MPG.

Hopefully someone from Colorado makes some comments.

Research

https://www.garrettmotion.com/news/...at-elevation-counteracting-lower-air-density/

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

Sorry ... are you arguing that turbosuperchargers, which were invented to improve high-altitude performance of wartime aviation piston engines, are not as good at high altitudes when compared to naturally aspirated engines?

Don't get cute.

All engines struggle at altitude, but turbos have issues when driven above 7000 like I said. A ton of research on this.

Will the engine work? Yes, it will likely work up to 15,000, but MPG and performance suffer. That was a general statement that didn't require qualifiers and can't be debated. A turbo at sea level is operating in optimal conditions, versus at altitude.

To say that turbo engines operate "better" or "well" at high altitude is just ignorant and misleading. Believe whatever you want makes no difference to me. I just think we need to be careful about some of the information we put out there.

 

[ResidualGenius]

It's been a long time for me. So long that last time I was in Colorado the beer hit like a train.

Come on out once we get our new toys, first rounds on me!

 

[Toccoa]

 

[BrentC]

Sorry ... are you arguing that turbosuperchargers, which were invented to improve high-altitude performance of wartime aviation piston engines, are not as good at high altitudes when compared to naturally aspirated engines?

I was about to say the same. The largest part of a jet engine that you see on a commercial airliner is the multi-stage axial compressor at the front end.

 

[Laminar]

Turbos are terrible in higher altitude due to low air pressure.

lol

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?...

Ah, the age old argument that just won't die. "More complexity = bad bad bad!"

And just to be clear, the 5.4 you're lauding was an over-engineered, over-complicated single overhead cam engine with bad COP units, junk fuel pump driver module, stretchy timing chains and tensioners, and spark plugs blowing out through the hood, right? All stuffed in a giant, oversized, ridiculously heavy iron block where it managed to wheeze out a paltry 235hp.

The old 351 F150 would go 0-60 in about 9-10 seconds. Motor Trend was floored when the new '97 F150 with the 4.6 managed 0-60 in 8.8 seconds. The 2V 5.4 would get to 60 in 10+ seconds.

Car and Driver tested the 2.7 F150 at 5.7 seconds 0-60. That's as fast as a Mustang GT from not that long ago.

And I know it's been said here a bajillion times but apparently some of you people have really poor reading comprehension. Turbo motors can be way more efficient when you stay out of boost. Drive one hard and it will use as much fuel as a V8. Stay light on the throttle and it will sip fuel and return the kind of mileage a V8 would only get during freefall.

Check Fuelly results for the F-250 with the 5.4. Most people that track and publish their tanks consistently see ~11mpg combined. Not on that one tank one time, not just for 20 miles coasting down a mountain, but all driving combined.

The 2.7 F-150 manages 17-19 mpg, a 73% improvement. Not to mention that the 2.7 F-150 can tow 9000lbs. where the 5.4 F250 is only rated to 7800lbs with the same axle ratio.

In summary, the turbo engines make WAY MORE TORQUE WAY DOWN LOW than most current NA V8s, and ESPECIALLY more than the old V8 junk they put in trucks a few decades ago. They are faster, more powerful, more responsive, more comfortable, smoother, quieter, and monumentally more capable trucks.

Can you find people that have had bad experiences with EcoBoost engine failures? Sure! But you better not look into the 5.4 3V cam phasers, or spark plug blowouts, or Coyote piston rattles, or burnt intake valves, or bad coolant leaks. And definitely don't look at the oil consumption, collapsed lifters, cracked heads, valve spring failures, and timing chain tensioners on the LS engines.

 

[Ricepuddin]

Come on out once we get our new toys, first rounds on me!

Plan to , wife's from Texas so she hasnt seen much real snow. Hopefully by then the army lifts these travel restrictions

 

[martyb]

The Bronco gearing is significantly higher than your truck. You probably are running a 3.23 or 3.42. If a Bronco had ratios that low it would get better mileage.

The whole idea of a turbo/supercharger is to increase the volume of air going into (or out of) the engine. It multiples pressure so it is impacted less by altitude.

http://www.turbos.bwauto.com/en/products/turbochargerAdvantages.aspx

 

[Ricepuddin]

Don't get cute.

All engines struggle at altitude, but turbos have issues when driven above 7000 like I said. A ton of research on this.

Will the engine work? Yes, it will likely work up to 15,000, but MPG and performance suffer. That was a general statement that didn't require qualifiers and can't be debated. A turbo at sea level is operating in optimal conditions, versus at altitude.

To say that turbo engines operate "better" or "well" at high altitude is just ignorant and misleading. Believe whatever you want makes no difference to me. I just think we need to be careful about some of the information we put out there.

 

[A51Bronco]

Who knew a boxed shaped, lifted, with big tires vehicle wouldn't get optimal fuel mileage???

Come on fellas when you buy off-road vehicles (ie raptors, broncos, jeeps) you're not concerned about fuel mileage.

 

[Laminar]

To say that turbo engines operate "better" or "well" at high altitude is just ignorant and misleading.

Turbo engines suffer fewer losses at high elevation than n/a engines do. In that way, turbo engines operate "better" than n/a engines at high elevation. Nobody is even remotely saying that turbo engines operate better at elevation than they do at sea level.

I just think we need to be careful about some of the information we put out there.

 

[VelocityBronco]

Don't get cute.

All engines struggle at altitude, but turbos have issues when driven above 7000 like I said. A ton of research on this.

Will the engine work? Yes, it will likely work up to 15,000, but MPG and performance suffer. That was a general statement that didn't require qualifiers and can't be debated. A turbo at sea level is operating in optimal conditions, versus at altitude.

To say that turbo engines operate "better" or "well" at high altitude is just ignorant and misleading. Believe whatever you want makes no difference to me. I just think we need to be careful about some of the information we put out there.

How wrong you are...there is a reason people run turbos on mountain snowmobiles...
You will get some power loss at elevation, but not as much as a N/A engine.

Benefits Of Turbochargers at Elevation

Turbocharging at elevation is an efficient way to minimize horsepower loss due to elevation and lower air density. At high elevations turbochargers compress more air into the engine cylinders making up for the lower air density allowing the engine to produce power as if it was at sea level. This extra tunability is found only in turbocharged applications.

Sponsored