Critique and help my turbo build!!
02-28-2010, 03:06 PM
#32
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As of right now the only argument to keeping compression is to retain gas mileage. Since I have purchased the truck I have seen a best of 13.1 mpg and a low of 11.2. That being said I highly doubt the mileage will be dropping significant from there. I like the dispute between more to less compression and would love to see some dyno charts to support theory.......any takers?
02-28-2010, 03:16 PM
#33
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mexico
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By no means do I disagree with you, however I know that as we get into 90-95* days it is nice to know that you have a little leeway with octane tolerance. In my case it is more of what running what is available without spending additional money. In this case it is a set a larger chamber heads. As stated I will mill some off to get the comp back up to the 9.1 range (which is nowhere only a reduction of .4:1).
As of right now the only argument to keeping compression is to retain gas mileage. Since I have purchased the truck I have seen a best of 13.1 mpg and a low of 11.2. That being said I highly doubt the mileage will be dropping significant from there. I like the dispute between more to less compression and would love to see some dyno charts to support theory.......any takers?
As of right now the only argument to keeping compression is to retain gas mileage. Since I have purchased the truck I have seen a best of 13.1 mpg and a low of 11.2. That being said I highly doubt the mileage will be dropping significant from there. I like the dispute between more to less compression and would love to see some dyno charts to support theory.......any takers?
02-28-2010, 05:54 PM
#34
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a fairly heavy right foot, 13 mpg was an average of 76-78 freeway and a bit of in town abuse. All other tanks have been with a solid 15 minute warm up before and after work and a 7 mile commute.
02-28-2010, 07:13 PM
#36
Why do you think people with LQ9s regularly get better mileage than LQ4s? My buddy who I did his H/C setup and posts as closet red neck on here actually gained mileage by going up a point and a half in CR on his 5.3. 23mpg in an rcsb z71 aint bad IMO.
Its kind of a mute point now that some of the bolts are broken off in the heads and he has to replace the heads anyway. Im sure either way he'll be happy and it sounds like from what he said about his driving skills he'll be in boost quite a bit so it should make for a fun setup.
If you want dyno comparisons theyre all over the place in the dyno section over on tech, as far as on the truck side there arent a lot of us dyno guys but quite a few guys have gone to 243s on 5.3s and radix combos I cant think of a turbo setup off the top of my head. Maybe someone will chime in.
If you want to get an idea of what you can do with a turbo 5.3 search for Parish8's fairmont thread, good info in there and he posted some dyno info in the dyno section here.
02-28-2010, 07:23 PM
#37
You also went up 20 cubes with your swap so your results are skewed. Its been documented on here long before you were ever around that loss of compression equals worse gas mileage out of boost. Not sure if the comment about experience was directed at me but if it was you have no idea what youre talking about
Why do you think people with LQ9s regularly get better mileage than LQ4s? My buddy who I did his H/C setup and posts as closet red neck on here actually gained mileage by going up a point and a half in CR on his 5.3. 23mpg in an rcsb z71 aint bad IMO.
Its kind of a mute point now that some of the bolts are broken off in the heads and he has to replace the heads anyway. Im sure either way he'll be happy and it sounds like from what he said about his driving skills he'll be in boost quite a bit so it should make for a fun setup.
If you want dyno comparisons theyre all over the place in the dyno section over on tech, as far as on the truck side there arent a lot of us dyno guys but quite a few guys have gone to 243s on 5.3s and radix combos I cant think of a turbo setup off the top of my head. Maybe someone will chime in.
If you want to get an idea of what you can do with a turbo 5.3 search for Parish8's fairmont thread, good info in there and he posted some dyno info in the dyno section here.
Why do you think people with LQ9s regularly get better mileage than LQ4s? My buddy who I did his H/C setup and posts as closet red neck on here actually gained mileage by going up a point and a half in CR on his 5.3. 23mpg in an rcsb z71 aint bad IMO.
Its kind of a mute point now that some of the bolts are broken off in the heads and he has to replace the heads anyway. Im sure either way he'll be happy and it sounds like from what he said about his driving skills he'll be in boost quite a bit so it should make for a fun setup.
If you want dyno comparisons theyre all over the place in the dyno section over on tech, as far as on the truck side there arent a lot of us dyno guys but quite a few guys have gone to 243s on 5.3s and radix combos I cant think of a turbo setup off the top of my head. Maybe someone will chime in.
If you want to get an idea of what you can do with a turbo 5.3 search for Parish8's fairmont thread, good info in there and he posted some dyno info in the dyno section here.
wasnt directed at you,was more of a in general comment.i dont have anything against a high comp.with boost setup, in all honesty i have thought about upping my comp from 9.5:1 to around 10:1. i was just stating that the op could still get decent mileage out of a lower comp. setup if tuned right.im sure a 6 litre would be better and i bet he would like one too but he said he didnt wanna swap motors.
02-28-2010, 07:36 PM
#39
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Mexico
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
making a motor more effiecent is one of the best ways to gain MPG. However Just cause its a lower SCR doesnt garrenty its going to be horrible on MPG. There is a thing called tuning and working it in your favor. you can easily see 20mpg with 60lb injectors/ twin intank pumps at highway speeds with a 8.8scr motor if you know what to do with the tune.
03-01-2010, 12:29 PM
#40
making a motor more effiecent is one of the best ways to gain MPG. However Just cause its a lower SCR doesnt garrenty its going to be horrible on MPG. There is a thing called tuning and working it in your favor. you can easily see 20mpg with 60lb injectors/ twin intank pumps at highway speeds with a 8.8scr motor if you know what to do with the tune.
I would LOVE to see an 8.8scr 5.3 get 20 mpg, Ill eat my hat if I see one. The tuning you keep referring to only goes so far, you cant overcome mechanical short comings with tuning.
The original poster is milling the heads to bring his CR back up some so I suppose we'll never know what the results would be on a turbo app.