Boost = Fuel Econ?
06-13-2007, 08:54 AM
#1
Boost = Fuel Econ? I'm not looking to call anyone out or dump on anybody but for the life of me I can't see how this makes sense...
from https://ls1tech.com/forums/general-lsx-automobile-discussion/727081-guess-my-mpg.html
I just can't see how a blower of any kind, which simply adds air (= adds fuel) can help fuel economy.
Maybe the fact that it ends up with a better tune?
Originally Posted by 2K1WS6TA
does an air filter help? yes. Does a ram air intake help? yes. Does exhaust help? yes. All are modifications that help the engine breathe better, therefore helping fuel economy. A turbo would help it breathe MUCH better, but he has upgraded fuel system as well flowing more fuel than normal which doesn't help with fuel economy. Friend of mine put a blower on his LS1 and went from 27mpg to 30mpg after tuning on 4lbs.
....
and I could also add "unless you are running a good bit of boost, and have modified the fuel system to accomidate"
....
and I could also add "unless you are running a good bit of boost, and have modified the fuel system to accomidate"
I just can't see how a blower of any kind, which simply adds air (= adds fuel) can help fuel economy.
Maybe the fact that it ends up with a better tune?
06-13-2007, 11:49 AM
#5
Anything that increases the thermal efficiency of an engine will help fuel milage. A turbocharger has the potential to do so. Better put, if it makes the engine make more efficient use of the available air and fuel, thus make the same amount of horsepower with less fuel and air put in, it would increase fuel milage.
The issue, is that turbo systems for an LS1 aren't designed to increase fuel milage, they're designed to increase power. As such, their characteristics are entirely wrong for increased engine efficiency (especially down low, where you really need it for better fuel economy).
The short of it, a supercharger (turbo or belt driven) CAN increase fuel efficiency if you end up with a more efficient engine after the fact, but in a performance system design, that's rather unlikely to happen.
The issue, is that turbo systems for an LS1 aren't designed to increase fuel milage, they're designed to increase power. As such, their characteristics are entirely wrong for increased engine efficiency (especially down low, where you really need it for better fuel economy).
The short of it, a supercharger (turbo or belt driven) CAN increase fuel efficiency if you end up with a more efficient engine after the fact, but in a performance system design, that's rather unlikely to happen.
06-13-2007, 03:29 PM
#7
Originally Posted by digitalsolo
Anything that increases the thermal efficiency of an engine will help fuel milage. A turbocharger has the potential to do so. Better put, if it makes the engine make more efficient use of the available air and fuel, thus make the same amount of horsepower with less fuel and air put in, it would increase fuel milage.
The issue, is that turbo systems for an LS1 aren't designed to increase fuel milage, they're designed to increase power. As such, their characteristics are entirely wrong for increased engine efficiency (especially down low, where you really need it for better fuel economy).
The short of it, a supercharger (turbo or belt driven) CAN increase fuel efficiency if you end up with a more efficient engine after the fact, but in a performance system design, that's rather unlikely to happen.
The issue, is that turbo systems for an LS1 aren't designed to increase fuel milage, they're designed to increase power. As such, their characteristics are entirely wrong for increased engine efficiency (especially down low, where you really need it for better fuel economy).
The short of it, a supercharger (turbo or belt driven) CAN increase fuel efficiency if you end up with a more efficient engine after the fact, but in a performance system design, that's rather unlikely to happen.
This is what I don't get. How will you run a turbo without increasing fuel or air? It seems to be a contradiction.
Wouldn't that have the same effect as raising the compression ratio? (since the fuel/air is compressed before mechanical compression)
I just never heard of this. I can see how (maybe) on a carbed engine, with bad atomization, it helps the air pass through smoother, but on a computer controlled fuel trim I still don't see how that could change the "thermal efficiency".
Trending Topics
06-13-2007, 07:01 PM
#8
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arlington Hts,IL
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not completely false. I added a turbo to my lt1 and my fuel mileage went from 200-220mi a tank with full exhaust to like 240-260mi with the turbo and i know i stepped on it alot more too
06-13-2007, 08:26 PM
#9
NKAWTG...N
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alot of things are at work. I will use my car as an example since that is where the quote is from, I have it tuned as fat as a pig right now. I am not trying to get good mileage. I am trying not to hurt the engine.
If you really really want to increase your mileage just take fuel out of the tune, but be ready to cause damage to your engine. Thats the easiest way to save gas.
If you really really want to increase your mileage just take fuel out of the tune, but be ready to cause damage to your engine. Thats the easiest way to save gas.
06-13-2007, 08:53 PM
#10
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Upstate, SC
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 9silverbird8
your right it doesn't and its completely false
Originally Posted by Sharpe
+1. 
go back and read the previous thread where I originally made the comment.
06-13-2007, 09:54 PM
#11
Tech Resident
Originally Posted by thingthatgoes
This is what I don't get. How will you run a turbo without increasing fuel or air?
think about it: if you normally rev your car and shift at 2500 rpm's during normal driving, but then you mod it and you increase your power so much down low, you only have to rev it up to 2100 rpm's during normal driving to achieve acceleration, you will likely increase your fuel economy. your engine makes more power more readily with less effort, and doesn't have to rev to the sky to get moving. that is why cams kill your fuel economy so much - you have to rev sky high to get that power.
i can see a supercharger increasing fuel economy if it adds a lot of power down low. as for a turbo, they have the potential to make the engine more efficient by forcing the air right into your motor. the turbo's doing a lot of the work for you. this is just theory. the minute you put your foot into it, all bets are off.
06-14-2007, 07:13 AM
#13
You guys don't think that maybe it had something to do with the fact that you got a tune with your turbo, and the fact that you are just estimating your mpg at the same time? Your turbo didn't make your car more fuel efficient. So, I stand by my "+1 "
"
06-14-2007, 09:15 AM
#14
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Upstate, SC
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you will READ, neither of us have a turbo. I am giving information from a friends car that had a vortech supercharger with 4lbs. 26-27mpg before FI, and almost 30 afterwards if he is driving efficiently. We discussed that this could also be due to:
1.) Old injectors were partially clogged and were replaced with newer, slightly larger ones.
2.) O2 sensors were also replaced during FI build-up.
3.) Spark Plugs were swapped for new ones
These factors probably also played a roll in improved economy.
1.) Old injectors were partially clogged and were replaced with newer, slightly larger ones.
2.) O2 sensors were also replaced during FI build-up.
3.) Spark Plugs were swapped for new ones
These factors probably also played a roll in improved economy.
06-14-2007, 09:28 AM
#15
Originally Posted by 2K1WS6TA
if you will READ, neither of us have a turbo.
To anyone reading this, it's no secret: turbos do not equal better mpg. End of story.
06-14-2007, 10:10 AM
#18
Originally Posted by 2K1WS6TA
if you will READ, neither of us have a turbo. I am giving information from a friends car that had a vortech supercharger with 4lbs. 26-27mpg before FI, and almost 30 afterwards if he is driving efficiently. We discussed that this could also be due to:
1.) Old injectors were partially clogged and were replaced with newer, slightly larger ones.
2.) O2 sensors were also replaced during FI build-up.
3.) Spark Plugs were swapped for new ones
These factors probably also played a roll in improved economy.
1.) Old injectors were partially clogged and were replaced with newer, slightly larger ones.
2.) O2 sensors were also replaced during FI build-up.
3.) Spark Plugs were swapped for new ones
These factors probably also played a roll in improved economy.
27 MPG already is "close to 30"
And I really do think that the 3 other factors would make a huge difference as well, so that in of itself is not exactly scientific.
06-14-2007, 10:32 AM
#19
Tech Resident
Originally Posted by Sharpe
Then shut the **** up and stop trying to spread misinformation. I'm not wasting my time reading your posts becuase they are stupid and worthless.
To anyone reading this, it's no secret: turbos do not equal better mpg. End of story.
To anyone reading this, it's no secret: turbos do not equal better mpg. End of story.
adding a turbo can certainly make your engine more efficient. when the engine is being fed air instead of having to suck it all up itself, there is a definite possibility of increased fuel economy. i've heard many, many times of people in all kinds of cars gaining mpg with the addition of a turbo. it's a very real phenomenon.
more power DOES NOT equal more fuel usage. not if efficiency goes up with it. headers add 25 horsepower but they raise your fuel economy so long as you're not going WOT.
