Electric Chicken
Well-Known Member
I thought displacement was the bore x stroke capacity of the block. That wouldn't change with a turbo.
Turbo just lets you force more air and a corresponding increase in fuel into the chambers.
Looking at Toyota Tundra...
- Thread starter Sinister
- Start date
Turbo just lets you force more air and a corresponding increase in fuel into the chambers.
Ontario Outlaw
Hozer Witta Hood
They changed the cylinder wall thickness on the 6.9 to the 7.3, changing displacement
I’m actually curious, now. How does adding forced induction change displacement?
r3gulator3
IMA KEEP IT REDNECK
It changes the rating because of the volume compressed in the cylinder. I have worked on these things all the way back to the mid 90s. The first school bus fleet I worked at had 15 1986 7.3 idi and a couple little bus chassis that had 6.9. Same heads same block. Later versions were bored and stroked. You can get a banks turbo kit and put one on to a 6.9. But the original 7.3 that’s exactly what it was. A 6.9 with a turbo. I could swap fuel pumps injection pumps. I could always rob Peter to pay Paul to get a bus up for afternoon route.
Electric Chicken
Well-Known Member
No the 7.3 was a 7.3 with a turbo. They bored the 6.9 to get the 7.3 then added the turbo to the 7.3 later.
You can't literally just add a turbo to get more displacement. You can get the performance and throughput of more displacement but it's still a smaller displacement engine.
Two of the displacement measurements are in inches and centimeters. A cubic inch is a cubic inch whether it's turboed or not.
Ontario Outlaw
Hozer Witta Hood
I’d argue that, honestly. I’m not trying to be a dick
Your compression ratio, head CC volume, head gasket thickness, bore, stroke, all that determine displacement
Having a huffer or a turbo doesn’t change any of that. You’re changing the amount of air volume along with fuel volume to compensate, yet keep the same stoichiometric ratio to allow for a correct ignition sequence
I understand that a turbo engine versus a naturally aspirated engine flows more air and fuel, but I don’t consider that changing basic engine displacement
Whatever. It’s not worth arguing about, I’m just thinking out loud
r3gulator3
IMA KEEP IT REDNECK
It doesn’t change it in the sense of cubic inch displacement, I am probably explaining it wrong. But I don’t know how to better phrase it.
Ontario Outlaw
Hozer Witta Hood
Maybe I know what you mean. The extra air flow artificially inflates the displacement to larger cubic inches?
r3gulator3
IMA KEEP IT REDNECK
Yes along those line but on the 86 ones I worked on the only number different on the valve cover sticker between the 6:9 and 7.3 was Liters and serial number.
Electric Chicken
Well-Known Member
Well yeah because the displacement was different...
Gdjjr
Well-Known Member
A Naturally aspirated engine uses *x* available CFM (cubic ft.min) air and can only efficiently burn *x* amount of fuel (measured in lbs). A *boosted* engine (turbo or added blower/supercharger) has a forced air induction which is more than it would get in a "natural" (non-boosted) state. Forced air inductors are nothing more than air compressors= key being compress. They compress air into a smaller area which increases the pressure they *enter* an empty area (combustion chamber) so cam/valve timing/opening has to be increased to let more air in. With more air available more fuel can be (has to be) introduced for efficient burn/combustion. The combination of more air and fuel increases torque/horsepower.
Generating what used to be outrageous amounts of power from engines (diesel and gas) is mostly due to the electronic (computers) controlling fuel introduction and quantity at precisely the *right* time. The smaller displacement engines producing the higher numbers are using internal parts comparable in strength to the bigger engines until you get into *diesel* ignition engines which are heavier.
Used to be the main reason for that is/was- Diesel HP/Torque on the dyno and in application was constant and gas engines ratings were intermittent. On the dyno the gas engine *peak* is momentary for measurement only purposes. Diesels are dyno'd for hours vs gas a few seconds.
Metallurgy, and R an D has come a long way to enhance design and production of everything, but specifically engine internals.
Generating what used to be outrageous amounts of power from engines (diesel and gas) is mostly due to the electronic (computers) controlling fuel introduction and quantity at precisely the *right* time. The smaller displacement engines producing the higher numbers are using internal parts comparable in strength to the bigger engines until you get into *diesel* ignition engines which are heavier.
Used to be the main reason for that is/was- Diesel HP/Torque on the dyno and in application was constant and gas engines ratings were intermittent. On the dyno the gas engine *peak* is momentary for measurement only purposes. Diesels are dyno'd for hours vs gas a few seconds.
Metallurgy, and R an D has come a long way to enhance design and production of everything, but specifically engine internals.
r3gulator3
IMA KEEP IT REDNECK
Sinister
pari animositate
So I'm thinking this F150 with the 3.5 would probably be sufficient, get better mileage than a Tundra, and be cheaper.
I guess getting decent towing out of a smaller engine is more about gearing and stuff anyway, which is where these 8 and 10 speed transmissions are coming from.
You could have a Briggs and Stratton pull a barge with the right gearing...
This is for the 2019, but I'm looking at 17's and 18's.
I guess getting decent towing out of a smaller engine is more about gearing and stuff anyway, which is where these 8 and 10 speed transmissions are coming from.
You could have a Briggs and Stratton pull a barge with the right gearing...
This is for the 2019, but I'm looking at 17's and 18's.
Electric Chicken
Well-Known Member
The 3.5 is what they put in the Raptor, just tuned to be hotter. Helluva motor. You'll be happy with it.
Actually your mind will probably be blown.
The only real downside to the 10 speed is that it shifts a lot to always be in what it considers the optimal gear (from what I've heard and read it's mostly when towing). Some people find it annoying. I only have the 6 speed so I don't really experience it and I've never driven the 10.
Shreck
Well-Known Member
My 2012 F-150 was really to light with the 5 and half ft bed and aluminum frame. This Tundra handles the trailer better.
Duck
Sarcastic remark goes here
Electric Chicken
Well-Known Member
The first significant use of aluminum was in 2015 with the body. The frames aren't even aluminum now so they definitely weren't back in 2012.Aluminum frames too?
No wonder the Chevy guys are laughing.
SueAnn
Be safe guys, much love
Ontario Outlaw
Hozer Witta Hood
Phew!!I'm gonna let that one go.....
I was hoping you and injun wouldn’t see that post
Similar threads
