Posted 5/27/2023 20:20 (#10246148 - in reply to #10245821) Subject: RE: Any chance that GM might be investigating a v10 option again?
I don't think we need 700-1000 hp out of them. I fully understand it takes so much fuel to make so much hp & there is no free lunch.
A boost of 20% of the GM 6.6 gas would get it to 480 hp, same as D-max. Torque is less, I understand. Not sure would torque would be for 6.6 turbo'd. I assume fuel burn per hp would be approximately the same with/without turbo. Turbo wouldn't boost until it was called for by computer stuff on engine. Anyone can either run in the "econo" mode, or the "I don't care..." mode. If you can cool a turbo diesel, you can cool a gasser.
I also realize it's different on a smaller scale, but the Ford gassers do just fine with turbo (multi) boost. Our little family car Equinox does just fine also w/turbo. Great mpg & I don't ever see the temp gauge even get to the "straight up" position. Ford's 1/2 T is 3.5L (214 cid if you were born before 2000) & does fine w/turbos, 430 hp & 570 ft lb.
As I've stated in the past, I relate to aircraft turbo'd engines. All are air-cooled that I deal with. Some were "normalized" turbos, some were boosted well beyond atmospheric pressure, even at MSL. They didn't suck gas any differently per hp vs their family's namesake in a NA configuration. Yes, heat was made, but the design changes made it easily managable. They've been around a long-long time.