Here's the next truck meet links in all the forums.

SD:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

Ex:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

General Diesel
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

6.7
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

6.4
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

6.0
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

7.3
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

6.8
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

5.4
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

6.2
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

Eco Boost
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...eet-again.html

 

Both guys you quoted are on the PSD side of the fence though.

 

Disagree on. I said it averages out and I did say around 20k because the guy I run w/ that has a 350 w/ a v10 won't gross his truck any heavier. That's his choice. But I'm not limiting it to that gross weight you. I think its the same if the gross was 32k. For every situation you can come up with that your psd has an advantage I can find where it has a disavantage.
The rating in the manual is Fords suggested ratings. Their not rating to failure. Since where on the subject since the psd weighs slighlty heavier it will have a slighly lower net weight {payload}. If you get paid by weight then the extra weight shaves into your pocket.
I have a 6.0l. I love it to death. But the the other power trains cant out pull me and I'm not out pulling them. It averages out. When we're in the flats or smaller hills they pickup faster than I do. When we're taking off from a stop or hitting steep hills I pickup faster. But we're always within reach. I've actually tested this to the extreme. The only test that I've done that showed a hands down advantage for the 6.0 we hooked up my 12' jd disc and dragged it. That was fun and the 6.0 shined, but what does that matter? Nobody disc with their trucks.
The 6.0 is a get down dirty working machine but most trucks come with 3:73 rears. V10s with lower gears can muster matching tq in certain situations. I advise anyone to think before they put their money on the table. Neither drivetrain is 100%. You sacrife something with each one. Just the way it is.

 

I may have overstepped the argument with GCWR, I failed to identify the additional package required. I am a participent in this debate, and it is a debate afterall. I don't intend to be dishonest or speak haft-truths. And I'm quick to admit when I'm wrong.

 

Yeah I know, just being funny cause I can. Lol gotta admit that's true.

 

To be honest, a jet engine makes all of its pressure from low and high pressure turbines, inefficently compared to high bypass turbofan engines. Most jet engines don't have afterburners, mainly fighter jets.

The igniter('s) are there to light off the engine from a start, and thats it. They provide nothing but to light the fuel when starting the engine. They are actually shut off after self sustaining speed has been achieved by the engine.

Also, the theories behind steam power generation and reciprocating engine turbosupercharging is nearly the same. Turbines in a steam powered power plant must have the correct turbine size for the amount of steam being produced. Turbine too small, turbine fails. Turbine too large, not enough power generation/low efficiency. These applications are very similar in concept.

 

Um, no the fuel is not shut off after the motor reaches full start idle speed or any speed for that matter. Even a layman would understand that this would mean unlimited range and no need for huge tanks. Most of the power comes from the compression as I said, but those motors eat fuel like nobody's business and they need the combustion to keep going. It works out to about 80% from compressor blades driving the fan blades (in a turbofan anyway) and 20% thrust from the exhaust. Obviously only fighters and a few other non-fighter jets (B-1B, SR-71 and some others I'm forgetting) have afterburners and using those for any more than a few seconds will melt the back of the jet right off not to mention it uses up a stupid amount of fuel.

Maybe you are talking about some crazy turbofan that I'm not familiar with but I guarantee that the PW-100s I work on now (C-17 Globemaster) and the GE TF39s I used to work on (C-5 Galaxy) sure as heck don't shut off fuel flow unless they are shutting down.

 

No its not true. I'm not on the psd side of the fence. I'm on the superduty side. I have a psd cause that's what I wanted. I wanted lowend tq and lots of it. I swing a 32oz eastwing and plum hammer when I frame thsts not to say a 16oz taskforce hammer won't drive 16 commons all day long. Its the same way with these engines. Why is it so hard to understand?

 

Man some of you guys have gone serious. Lol this is just a fun argument. We all have learned a lot. But it's still funny guys.

 

Ummm yeah, the IGNITERs (which are spark plugs) are shut off after self sustaining speed is reached.... Not the INJECTORs...

The compressor in any turbine engine does NOT drive the fan or anything else for that matter. The compressor is DRIVEN by the turbine and is only used for combustion. In all actuality, each pressure stage in a axial flow turbine engine is just speeding up and slowing down the velocity of the air flowing through the engine to increase pressure in small amounts to support combustion in the combustor. The fan in your pw2000 engine is driven by a free turbine within the engine which is not driving a compressor and is called the "low speed turbine". Guess your name says it all.

You obviously need to go back to engine school, you've got alot of learning to do. I'm an FAA licensed Airframe and Powerplant mechanic with over 15 years on helicopters and 10 years on turbo-shaft and turbo-fan engines. Not to mention my early years in the USAF working HH-60G, Pavelow III and H-3 helos. I've also been an employee of AMARG (aircraft boneyard in Tucson AZ) where we tore down and rebuilt aircraft and aircraft engines every day.

BTW, the engine you are looking to quote is a F117-PW-100 (PW2000 series in commercial 757 talk). PW100 engines are turbo props.

 

deleted......

 

Been away for a few days. Anyhow, IDIJohn, I'd like to see a 6.9 in a motorhome. Is that a custom job, or factory? As for the 7.3's being noisy, (the powerstrokes) they are, but there are a few minor mods you can do that will quieten them down. I've done a couple of them, and I honestly never noticed much difference until I pull up to another 7.3 that has none of them done. Installation of dynamat in the doors and floor pan make a huge difference in the cab too.

 

I stayed out of this for a few days because the back-and-forth was driving me nuts

As for "your mother" comments or any other "humorous" content, it's one thing to have some fun during a debate, it's another to keep poking people for no reason. Let's all be civil and if you have nothing to contribute other than "I was with your mother last night" type stuff, don't bother posting.


Ah I get it now. See, this is the crux of our little debate. I am looking at the turbo as a single apparatus. You are looking at the entire engine and turbo as a single apparatus.

You are 100% correct that the turbo is using wasted energy that comes from a thermal reaction. The ignition of fuel inside the cylinder.

In my case, I am saying that the turbo itself doesn't directly "use" heat to produce mechanical energy. Yes, the hot exhaust gas is produced by a thermal process. But after that explosion is over, and all you have is waste gas moving in a pipe, the turbo uses that moving gas to spin.

The turbo itself is a purely mechanical machine and is not "thermodynamic" in any sense of the word. When it is coupled to an engine, and the entire mechanism is considered, you are 100% correct.

However, I still fail to see where exhaust flow is "radiated out to the environment". It's a purely physical action. The turbo is not consuming BTUs to produce energy, it's consuming velocity which happens to cool off the exhaust gas AFTER the turbo, yet also heats up the gas BEFORE the turbo because of compression.

--

Now, I would also say "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" - TANSTAAFL

Any mechanic energy that the turbo uses to drive it's shaft, is lost exhaust gas velocity. The effect of that lost velocity is a pressure build-up before the turbo, acting back on the head of the piston as it rises on the exhaust stroke (backpressure).

It's not FREE energy driving that turbo. It's a positive-feedback in terms of putting more O2 into the cylinder that far exceeds the loss to exhaust backpressure, but it's still there.

Just sayin'

 

There are many ways to look at the operations, so it is not so cut and dry.

For me, I don't consider the turbocharger an "engine" when used on one of our diesels and this is why :
For the turbocharger / jet engine operation, heat is introduced causing expansion. While this is true also on our trucks, what makes it different is that the heat is not simply "introduced", it is pumped. In fact, air is pumped. No matter what temperature the intake air or exhaust is, the turbo will spin because the air is being pumped by the engine. This is why I decide to stop thinking of it as an "engine".

 

Moving air is not spooling a turbo. Making the turbine move and spooling are two different things. A turbo will not spool without heat unless its mated to an air pump so large that it would be pointless to hook it up cuz the intake side of the turbo would move less air than the source pump is giving it. . . .in other words turbos,like every other machine on earth, is not 100% efficient. If turbos move air. . .the movement of air cannot be the source of energy spooling it. They cannot run without heat. Period.

To put this in more understandable means. . .

Anyone competant individual who's ever owned or perhaps even driven a turbo vehicle without a throttle body (turbos can actually create vacuum with throttle body equipped motors, like gassers) knows the turbo wont build boost without load on the motor. I.e. heat production. . . . .you can downshift all the way to redline (max airflow from motor) and it wont build boost. The turbos rpm is increased (can hear it increase) but no boost is made. There is no boost, and there is no heat (no combustion on downshifts).

Another example is free revving the motor. I can build 2-3 psi with a free rev (more can be achived with twins but its still a fraction of max boost). This is a little boost, with only a small amount of heat.

As load increases, egts increase not only in their max possible temp. . .but also the acceleration to the max temp. This is why turbo vehicles love the highway. The high load/high heat makes for a fast spooling turbo.

It would take a miracle for a turbo to spool without heat. It just wont.