CrashTECH

Are you sure? SC as less efficient than TC. Not only that, I don't think there is more or less tuning required than either set up. Both are going to cram air into the motor. PSI is PSI, amirite?

The ECU doesn't care about how the air gets to the engine, just that it is there.

I would love to slap something on my truck. I am just concerned that putting that much extra on a motor with 80k+ miles is a bad idea. I'd love to have the funds to buy a motor and build it up... maybe buy a newer engine and trans and push it toward 15 psi (my MS6 came from the factory with a 2.3L 4cyl with 274hp / 280 ft-lb ) I wonder how far you could push that new V6 (either the EB or the one from the Mustang).

Edit: Anybody know anything about running a SC AND TC at the same time?

BamaFootballGuy

Not to get into ya'll heated measurement debate but I would have to say that yes, weight is probably the way to go. In a real world situation, you can run over some scales or sometimes they are built into the loader. Topping off say a 1yd bucket on a loader is usually not exact. They grab a scoop from the pile and that's what you get... maybe a little more.... but probably a lot less.

CrashTECH

Didn't even think of that. Good call. That way you are sure you are paying for what you get.

VanoFord

See, my truck has 80k on it and I am contemplating the TC upgrade, prolly have close to 100k when I do actually throw it on. I'm not taking the truck to the strip, or even hot doggin around town (unless i would see a dodge w/ a "powered by HEMI" sticker then I would smoke that chuck wagon) so I think the engine would handle it. I had thought about a TC on top of a SC, but I think something would surely break, either internal or something on this setup externally, but anyone wanna test it out lemme know.


BamaFootballGuy - Good Call! I didnt even realize, the last 2 times I went and got mulch, I got 2 cu yds both times. the first filled the bed all the way to the rim, the 2nd wasnt as full, but you're right, a bucket load is just that, a bucket load. it isnt weighed, just that it is a 2 cubic yard bucket (i'm sure that was measured densly packed and not loosely scooped like they do). And we were all tryin to be mathmeticians for NOTHING!

Lenn

I was using the S/C over T/C for the basis of towing and immediacy of boost. Yes, S/C's are much more limited to tinkering than even a TT setup but the fact remains that S/C's are essentially plug and play. No need to plumb lines, fab oil pans, add coolant passages, etc. Also, no need to intercool a supercharger.

Plus, there are a few S/C kits on the market that come with anything you would need to add it to your truck. Turbocharging is a realm pretty much untouched by aftermarket companies for our trucks. STS is the only company that I know of that makes a T/C kit for any F-series and its for the 9th gen trucks. To add a T/C to any 97+ truck would require custom tuning and ECU mapping.

Hell, us 10th gen 4.6L guys get no help at all.

Its insanely difficult to get them to mesh. There are a couple videos on youtube of this done on a 1G Talon.

See this thread on DSM tuners...
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/newb...rbo-setup.html

Thunderslide

I am working and did not take the time to find the best way to explain the difference between a volume and weight ounce.

how about this?


put an ounce (weight) of lead on a scale. now put that into an ounce (fluid) container.
put an ounce (weight) of feathers on a scale. now put that into the same container ounce (fluid) container that was used for the lead. I suspect it will not all fit. but yet the weight is the same but the volume is not.

VanoFord

Lets get a few things clear:

First, DENSITY is relative. Meaning, you could compact the ounce weight of feathers into a smaller volume yet still maintaining the original ounce weight measurement. You can make feathers as dense as lead, but can not do the inverse. So how does your logic play now?

Second, we are trying to atleast figure the answer out, where as you seem to be bent on just telling people they are wrong. Dont just copy paste crap from wikipedia/google and act as if you just solved the mysteries of the world. Put some thought behind that copy/paste and maybe, JUST MAYBE, you'll find the answer.

But then again, I already stated the relative density of topsoil is 1600lbs/cu yd. Therefore, if you get 1 cubic yd, you get 1600 lbs (approximately) of dirt.

If Seller 1 sells it by the yard, all you would get is 1600lbs.
If Seller 2 sells it by the ton (2000lbs), all you would get would be 2000 lbs.

In my original deduction, I said .81, which is slightly higher than 1600/2000 (.75) yet you are still bustin my chops? I think I was close enough for most ppl's gf's yet you seem upset someone beat you to the answer... Sorry, I'll think slower next time.

Thunderslide

okay you win. Do you feel better? It was not babout beating me to the answer I could care less. my only point was and still is. that a fluid ounce is volume and an ounce on a scale are different measures.


yes, you could compress feathers to the same density of lead but that is not practical or useful.

all I am trying to say is an ounce is not equal to an ounce the same way a pound is not equal to a quart.

This is what I have come up with:

1 cu. yd = 25853 ounces

25853 ounces = .81 tons
(25853 ounces = .73 Metric Tons but I doubt he is measuring in MT)

Therefore:

1 cu yd = .81 tons

Lets get a few things clear:

First, DENSITY is relative. Meaning, you could compact the ounce weight of feathers into a smaller volume yet still maintaining the original ounce weight measurement. You can make feathers as dense as lead, but can not do the inverse. So how does your logic play now?

Second, we are trying to atleast figure the answer out, where as you seem to be bent on just telling people they are wrong. Dont just copy paste crap from wikipedia/google and act as if you just solved the mysteries of the world. Put some thought behind that copy/paste and maybe, JUST MAYBE, you'll find the answer.

But then again, I already stated the relative density of topsoil is 1600lbs/cu yd. Therefore, if you get 1 cubic yd, you get 1600 lbs (approximately) of dirt.

If Seller 1 sells it by the yard, all you would get is 1600lbs.
If Seller 2 sells it by the ton (2000lbs), all you would get would be 2000 lbs.

In my original deduction, I said .81, which is slightly higher than 1600/2000 (.75) yet you are still bustin my chops? I think I was close enough for most ppl's gf's yet you seem upset someone beat you to the answer... Sorry, I'll think slower next time.


“1 cu. yd = 25853 ounces” = 3231 cups (8 oz) or = 1615.8 pints(16oz) or 807.9 qts (32oz) or 201.9 gallons (128 oz).
1cu yd actually=173.6 gallons (dry) where did the other 28+ gallons go.

My whole point is that an ounce on a scale is a different unit of measure than an ounce in a spoon.
5 cu yd= 129265 ounces 129265 oz=1009 gallon you end up missing 140 + gallons.
6 cu yd =155118 ounces 155118 oz = 1211 gallon you end up missing 168+ gallons.
25 cu yd= 646325 ounces 646325 oz = 5049 gallon you end up missing 700 + gallons
So for every 6 yards (assuming 25853 oz per yard) you only get about 5 yards on a 12 yard truck you get 10 yards and charged for 12 yards at xx per yard.

I’ll continue to explain slower

farmerbyron

A bit off topic but after 2 pages of how much soil weighs, I'm not too afraid of being off topic.

I am referring mainly to diesels in my post as there were a few posts expressing excitement of the latest powerstroke offerings. I know of several people that own an 08+ powerstroke and not one has gotten by without numerous problems. A v-8 diesel is bad news because it has to run at higher rpms to make sufficient torque to do the dirty work of hauling. The I6 is a naturally more efficient engine design, the crank has a longer throw so when the piston is on the power stroke it has more leverage on the crank. This is why semi trucks almost all have an I6. They produce more torque at lower rpm and just like anything a lower rpm will extend engine life. The same principle applies to 1 ton pickups as well. I just wish someone besides Dodge could figure that fact out. I don't know why they couldn't contract CAT or Detroit Diesel to design a similar motor to the cummins. Ford chassis, Cummins or CAT engine backed by an Allison would be a bulletproof truck.

As far as more cylinders = less rpm, owning a v-10 f-350 I can tell you it is not a low revving engine by any stretch. It seems like it is constantly running at 3,500+ rpms just to keep up. Along with the constant shifting which all leads to 124,000 mi and 2 engines with 3 trannys and the tranny needs it again.

wyattjo

X2