Do youi need a 570hp truck?

[the old grind]

"The Hennessy version..."

And done 'right' from the looks of it. :thumbsup:

VERY nice!

 

[BIG DOOLEY]

A turbo charger requires energy to compress air also.
It accomplishes it by choking the exhaust from the engine.

 

[Diamondpilot]

How is a supercharger not practical in a gasser truck? A truck is much heavier than a car and in a gas version motor, a supercharger would give you the grunt to get rolling and up to speed, or to merge onto the highway or race stop light to stop light. Very seldom do you get to race to 100mph or even for a 1/4 mile.

Wasn't the lightning a supercharged 5.4L? And it directly competed with chevy's big block. Gotta be something to that. Turbo technology has come ALONG ways in the past decade thats for sure. But a single turbo vs a supercharger is what I was driving at. Obviously if you have two correctly sized turbo's you can minimize their drawbacks.

I had a Lightning. It was fun but limited to 800# in the bed and 5000# towing. It was about impossible to leave the boat ramp with my 21' boat without spinning the tires. To me it was a toy, not a real usable truck

Chris

 

[buickanddeere]

A turbo charger requires energy to compress air also.
It accomplishes it by choking the exhaust from the engine.

There is enough heat and pressure in those exhaust gasses. That a properly matched turbo will make more intake manifold pressure than there is exhaust manifold pressure.

 

[BIG DOOLEY]

Someone commented earlier that superchargers consume power to operate.
I was just pointing out that turbo chargers are no different.
Heat by the way would be considered a drawback to a turbo and not a benefit to its operation.
thus the intercooler

 

[farm88]

If i had that much power in my truck I would burn the tars of it.

 

[94BULLITT]

Someone commented earlier that superchargers consume power to operate.
I was just pointing out that turbo chargers are no different.
Heat by the way would be considered a drawback to a turbo and not a benefit to its operation.
thus the intercooler

A turbo is more efficient at making power than a supercharger.

 

[crazyal]

I've had both and I like each. There's nothing like the sound of a supercharger, just like there's nothing like the power boost of a turbo (maybe the new twin turbos don't give the same kick). The super charger will cost you energy (gas) when your not working the engine since you are always turning it and making boost while the turbo makes it's power when the engine is working. Toyota use to have a supercharger option for their V6 trucks, not sure if they still do, not sure if they sold many.

 

[firemanmike69]

Someone commented earlier that superchargers consume power to operate.
I was just pointing out that turbo chargers are no different.
Heat by the way would be considered a drawback to a turbo and not a benefit to its operation.
thus the intercooler

Supercharges have charge air coolers as well

 

[linuxman51]

I was always under the impression that the supercharger was for low and mid torque where a turbo was more for topend ponies. The often quoted "supercharger uses horsepower" is hog wash IMO. How can it "use" horsepower yet make the engine produce more power than stock. Gimme a break. Just because you can actually see a belt being spun around doesn't mean its draining horsepower from the motor. Quite the opposite. IIRC a supercharger is a power adder right? The supercharger being belt driven means that it has IMMEDIATE response to the throttle. Turbo technology has come a long way since the days of yore and twin turbos now almost act like a supercharger.

I dont have any side by side comparision and its not exactly fair either but I had a super charged 6 cylinder car and a turbo charged 6 cylinder truck. For pure fun, the supercharger was hands down more playful! The instant you hit the skinny peddle, there was boost on that car. The truck always took a noticeable amount of time to spool up but when it "lit off" as long as the rpm's were kept up it was very peppy. The majority of drivers "race" stop light to stop light. Bench racers and forum racers quote peak numbers for the most part.

I think I just ranted to myself? But to answer the thread title. Who doesn't need 570hp+ for a truck? The question should be, who can afford a 570hp truck!?

The act of compressing air creates a draw on crank hp.. regardless of whether or not it's still a net gain. the charger doesn't spin itself, and the harder and faster you want to spin it (more boost, who doesn't want that) the more input power is required to achieve that goal. you also have the more static draws associated with the shafts, pulleys, tensioners, etc. So yes, they require power to make power.

Turbos do too, depending on what and where you're trying to get the performance increase.. you want snappy almost immediate torque? ok, we have the technology to make this happen, but it will cost you 'top end' power. If you're looking for 'top end' power, you're likely to have to sacrifice how fast all that torque comes in, but then also the 'input power' to get things moving faster can be lower as well.