yes, and it BS. If it stays much longer, I'm not. Not that that matters to anyone, just sayin'. I don't mind ads, but not one like this. This one is over the top.

 

throw some head studs on that bad boy, get a tailpipe turbo, and adjust the gate so you only get 1 to 4psi of boost. add EGT, trans temp, and boost gauges to the truck, and have the ECU tuned to handle boost...you will also have to run premium unleaded from that point forward to avoid detonation. that will give you an actual power increase.

if you really want to get into it, upgrade the valve train to comp roller rockers, springs, valves, etc. and put a comp street/strip cam in it. that will really wake that motor up...better look into a torque converter, billet input and valve body for the trans if you go that far though...maybe even swap rear axles for a DANA80 to handle it. it'll lope at idle and be one mean engine.

"cold air intakes" don't do squat unless you give that engine a reason to need more air. (and forced induction obviously will do that)

 

just install adblocker... the add on for firefox . I did it yesterday and the dodge forum has never loaded so fast for me ever... they are doing themselves more harm than good with this interfering toolbar...

 

The powers that be are working on doing something with that toolbar.... given the severely negative response it has been receiving.... it may just go away altogether. Which would be fine.

 

Wouldn't a supercharger be better than a turbo?

 

six of one, half-dozen of the other. Either one will give a DRAMATIC increase in performance.....

 

No...

 

a supercharger would be better if you plan to do bracket racing (drag racing) where being consistent is the key to winning since there is no lag with a supercharger. But a supercharger has parasitic hp loss to drive the compressor taking away from your total gain potential. A turbo charged vehicle making the same amount of boost will put down better HP numbers because a turbo does not rob power from the engine to drive the compressor. It instead uses wasted exhaust gas energy to drive it resulting in no parasitic loss in potential power. The down side to a turbo is lag, but that can be easily overcome by boosted launches. also with a turbo, the more engine load you have, the more air the turbo pushes. another benefit to a turbo is if you are driving easy, you aren't making boost so you aren't burning as much fuel while cruising making it more fuel efficient. Makes a better sleeper too...you cant hear a turbo when your rig is idling...you can hear a supercharger while idling though which is a dead give away.

 

Sorry for asking such stupid questions, guys. Haha I only just turned 17 and this is my second car, but the first one I'm actually learning about. Finding out how the engine works, how to improve performance, you know. I'm not sure if it makes much of a difference but the exhaust pipes are 2 1/4 or 2 1/2 until they get to the stacks, then they're around 4 inches.

 

Although it's often said that a turbocharger has no parasitic loss, that is not absolutely true. Turbochargers generate pumping losses that superchargers do not; while superchargers require accessory drive motor power to drive them that turbochargers do not. Both are a form of parasitic loss.

Basically all the "extra" air that a forced induction system produces flows unrestricted with a supercharger. With a turbocharger, some of that "extra" air is used driving the turbo with exhaust energy, and the net effect is reduced intake pressure (turbos generate inherent exhaust backpressure).

Turbochargers are more efficient than superchargers as engine speed increases. That is the turbocharger's main advantage.

As RPMs increase, the turbochargers pumping losses do not increase as much as a supercharger's drive losses do. That makes turbos the best choice at higher RPMs but a supercharger may be the better choice for an engine operated primarily below about 2500~4000 RPM.

Supercharger drive losses are low at low RPM in comparison to a turbo's pumping losses. That is the supercharger's main advantage.

Both systems generate power above that engine speed, but the turbo will have an easier time overcoming it's losses as RPM increases.

It is much easier to measure drive losses than pumping losses. Both systems generate increased power, but only a supercharger has an easily measured "cost" for that power. So losses for a supercharger can be cited; the pumping losses of a turbo almost never are.

Put another way, "unknown" does not equal "zero".

Because torque x RPM = horsepower, and torque = horsepower at 5252 RPM, the horsepower value of a supercharger's loss at high RPM (when those losses are highest) is always a "big" number. This can be misleading if you don't understand the relationship of torque to horsepower, although it's certainly not a bogus number. Horsepower can never be measured; it is always a calculated value from the torque figure at a given RPM. Torque can be measured; all Dynos read torque only.

In the end, it's easiest to ignore both forms of loss and simply measure the power vs RPM gained with each system. That way they are treated equally on their own merits. You can then look at the operating RPM of the engine as you normally use it and determine which offers the best power potential.

It would be complex and expensive to measure the pumping losses of a turbo on a given engine (a common method used by auto manufacturers, who can actually afford it, is to use two engines, one driving the turbo and one getting the pressure), so it's not an objective measure to include the easily measured parasitic drive loss of a supercharger while pretending the turbo has zero parasitic loss when it does not.