You have to transfer power from the crank to the transmission. The power has to run through the crankshaft.
Naturally Aspirated (NA) V8 Engines
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
Im not debating that.
Im saying that a V8 divides the total HP or torque across more bearing area.
In a situation where both make 500 lb ft - the 6's journal carry 83.3 vs 62.5 if the surface area is identical, which is why I talked about surface area vs journal count.
Greater bearing area usually equals more cooling and total capacity.
Fair enough.
Which one has the greater area of journal? The size of the journals would be the answer to that.
Though 21 lbs is not a lot of force.
Thats why I asked about journal area in the first formula.
Where this comes into play is wear when towing at capacity/ sustaining loads.
Driving around unladen puts little load on anything, no doubt there would be no substantive difference in life unloaded.
As long as nothing else pops or wears out (like a timing chain) Its bearing clearance in the mains that determines lifespan once you build clearance in the mains you can no longer support enough pressure to keep the parts apart and the block has to come apart or you'll spin a main.
Mazda(1st gen turbo mazdaspeed3/6) and Ram(ecodiesel) got these calcs wrong and those motors had too much boost at low rpms causing bearing failures. I haven't heard of this or low speed pre-ignition being much of an issue with the other turbo pickups at least. My Dad just went with the Hemi in his 2019 Ram as that was a good enough engine for what he uses it for and its proven. The extra cost of a turbo truck from any manufacturer or being a guinea pig for the first years of the 4 cyl turbo trucks didn't appeal to him.
without a doubt KISS rules!! "keep it simple stupid" so NA rules in my book!! there ate advantages or not for both + having older flawless turbo 1.8T VAG cars that i love they were much simpler. todays engines striving for big power while being efficient ALL have their issues especially if wanting to pass 100 thou with costly repairs!! two turbos equal twice the problems + REALLY how much power do you REALLY need!! if you got deep pockets buy what you want + repair $$$ as needed or as many do just keep trading before the warranty is gone + repairs get costly!!! reading on this great forum leads me to believe there are many well off members $$$$$$ that can afford tanks-aka trucks costing 50G or so!!!! i live a few miles from the AOAA near shamokin ,Pa + the stream of weekly high dollar TANKS towing a 4 wheeler or so as well as 100 thou motor homes towing said 4 wheelers to the AOAA is proof many are are quite well off!! if you got it spend it it helps the economy!!! not jealous as many work long hrs or are sucessful business owners as some of my very nice friends are + they just live differently than an average Joe in my area + i might add many NJ + NY plates coming into the area, good for local businesses after a years BS by our crappy governor!!
I am not sure why anyone needs pick up to tow:
Both of my turbocharged F150's have been more reliable than the V8 one. None of them have enough power to tow the helicopter dolly up long hills. Slowing to 45mph in a 65 zone. What I really need is a twin turbo V8!
I always find interesting people arguing about V8’s and most common ones are plagued with issues for years. I always stay amazed how Chrysler never resolved tick on HEMI engines. Not to mention that turbo is key in altitude environment. When I had X5 35d, there was no NA V8 that could keep up going uphill in the Rockies.
Even my wife’s Tiguan will show teeth at altitude.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2021
- Messages
- 19
Turbo was always meant for squeezing the last bit of juice out of an already high strung engine. That's why they were always in racing and not commercial besides a few rare examples. Modern engineering is a fraud, look at GM's 2.7 turbo 4. It is more complicated, costs more to build than the 5.3, gets worse gas mileage because the massive boost is always blowing because 4 cylinders are inherently gutless, and it is weaker than the 5.3. Go read any honest review.
There is no substitute for displacement. The turbo engine will never be as powerful as or last as long as the v8. The 243 or 270 winchester will never be as powerful or lethal as the 338 win mag. Size matters, end of story.
Earlier this year I took a 4.6 f150 v8 that had been ran on 3-4 quarts of oil for who knows how long, fixed the odometer with a soldering gun and got a reading of 304,000 miles. Changed the all the seals including the valve stem seals, which were beyond shot because of the low oil history, filled it with 10w-30 full synthetic, and now it smokes none at all, zero. 5w-30 burnt clean through (worn valve stems) but zero smoke with 10w-30 synthetic. Great power. Think that would be possible in an engine that has 10 times the pressure in the cylinders? No way.
The v8 simply works less hard to do the job because of the inherently greater power, because of the larger size and more cylinders. The entire forced induction trend is politically correct thinking trying to have its cake and eat it too. If you want more efficiency you will need a smaller vehicle with a small, weak, gutless engine. Can't have it both ways. Even the small turbo cars get crap gas mileage for what they are, because everyone is flooring them anyway because they are so weak and then the boost blows the mpg in the gutter.
It's pure politics. Forced induction engines in commercial vehicles are purely a result of lying, fraudulent politics.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? What engines move 18 wheelers?
i have business in Europe with fleet of vehicles with diesel, gasoline and CNG/gasoline engines, all small 4cyl turbos. Every day they move merchandise through cities, between cities (speeds which your F150 never saw or will see) and on average they have more miles than your F150. Not to mention that numerous drivers change. In the last 25 years in Europe I saw only 2-3 commercial vehicles without turbo engine.
On 5.3 V8 topic, I will run circles around that engine with my Tiguan.
I put 3 of your phrases in bold. Those 3 things are all thats needed to disregard this entire post.
Extremely high mileage/high hour commercial Turbo Diesels have entered the chat.
Anyway… GM’s 4 banger turbo isn’t gutless. It makes 45 less horsepower and 35lb ft less torque than an engine almost exactly twice its size but it makes peak torque starting at 1500 rpm. It’s also a relatively large 4 cylinder, 0.675 liters per cylinder vs the 5.3’s 0.663 liters per cylinder. I will agree however that cars with super small turbocharged engines, sub 2 liter, would probably be better served by a larger NA 4 cylinder for most people. I rather liked the Altima with the 2.5.
My old design Hemi 5.7 tows my 5th wheel just fine. It has the MDS and when on long trip without a trailer gets 22-23mpg. Trailer towing brings it down to 11mpg. My previous Class A 454 with RV cam never got better than 8mpg towing nothing. When I park the 5th wheel and disconnect, I still have a truck to drive around. I love my Anderson 5th wheel hitch.
Similar threads
