Turbo vs supercharger - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 1996-2004 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 06-26-2013, 09:09 AM   #1
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midknight26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Fort myers, Fl
Region: Florida
Posts: 28
Turbo vs supercharger

I'm either going to put a supercharger or a turbo/twins in my 99 gt. suggestions?
Midknight26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-26-2013, 09:19 AM   #2
Registered Member
Regular
 
9tee7pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Radford
Region: Virginia
Posts: 673
Depends on your application. If you plan on doing mostly street driving, the I'd say supercharger, if mostly track then I say turbo.
9tee7pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 10:08 AM   #3
Registered Member
Regular
 
Nasty5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Katy
Region: Texas
Posts: 145
I would also think a supercharger would be cheaper my neighbor has a twin turbo set up on his vette and has dumped tons of money in that car and is still trying to tune it right I would just put a supercharger kit on it an be done. Just my 2 cents no real proof as to which one is better
Nasty5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:28 AM   #4
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
If you are asking this question then your best bet is to just buy the vortech s trim kit which comes with everything you need. You should do all the other bolt on supporting mods first though.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 08:42 PM   #5
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Region: Arkansas
Posts: 704
Use the search function please. This has been asked dozens of times. Here's your answer though. It's long-winded, but a good read.

Turbo vs S/C

Here are some arguments for use of waste energy and parastic loss. We used a Honda engine but I am too lazy to find the SR20 notes.

To start things off, turbos are driven by the wasted 30% of fuel energy dumping out of the exhaust stream without parasitic losses on the crankshaft. This use of waste energy is the main reason why turbochargers have a tremendous power advantages over superchargers.

To put this in perspective, even the low boost 6-8 psi street superchargers like the Jackson Racing and Vortech kits take about 10-20 hp from the crankshaft to spin them up. It takes over 800 hp to turn the big roots blower on a top fuel drag racer!

Here is the long and boring nerd way to add some validity to the power debate. Lets figure out how much power it takes to compress the air to make serious engine power. We will do this two ways; we will figure the differences in intake air temp for a turbo, a roots supercharger and a centrifugal supercharger. Then we will show how much power it takes to turn the supercharger. It should all make sense once it’s laid out.

First lets calculate Delta T for the various compressors. Delta T is the change in the intake air temp after it is compressed.

Delta T= Intake Absolute Temperature x (Pressure Ratio to the .238 power –1)/ Compressor Efficiency

Lets assume our engine is going to run 20 psi of boost or a pressure ratio of 2.36.
Pressure ratio= boost pressure+14.7/14.7

The temperature scale engineers use for absolute temperature is the Rankin Scale. On the Rankin Scale Zero degrees is absolute zero. So assuming our intake air temp is 85 degrees, lets call that 545 degrees Rankin.

Lets say our match car is a hot Acura GSR with a B18C motor. By using standard compressor matching equations , we figure that the B18C can flow about 45.3 lb/min going full tilt at 20 psi.

So here we go. Lets figure out Delta T for our good turbo first. Lets assume an efficiency of 78% as there are many turbos that can do that at the given flow and pressure ratio.

Delta T= 545 x (2.36 to the .238 power –1)/ 0.78
Delta T= 158 degrees

A 4-cylinder sized Centrifugal Supercharger is probably much less than 70% efficient at this point but lets be kind to it and assume that, Plugging and chugging gets us a temp of 177 degrees.

Now there are not any current roots blowers on the market that can support this sort of boost pressure on a small 4 cylinder car but lets suppose there is and lets be very kind, assuming it will get 60% compressor efficiency at 20 psi and 45.3 lb/min of flow. This is not likely but lets be nice to the poor roots. Plug and chug and we get a Delta T of 206 degrees. In reality the efficiency would be closer to 50% at 20 psi and the numbers much worse.

Now Delta T is the difference in temp after being compressed. What would our intake charge temp be for the roots assuming an intake temp of 85 degrees? 85+206= an egg frying 291 degrees with no intercooler!

Now lets figure out the power required to make the boost from these three compressors.

The equation for compressor power needed is.

Power in BTU per minute= Mass Flow x Cp (a coefficient) x Delta T/ Compressor Efficiency

To convert BTU per minute to horsepower divide by 42.4

Power = 45.3 x .242 x 158/78 = 2220 BTU min/42.4 = 52 hp recovered from the exhaust.

So here is the Horsepower that won’t be taken from the crankshaft but recovered from the exhaust stream by the turbocharger on our vapor GSR.

If you check out the gas power cycle in a thermodynamics book, the PV diagram for you engineers, you need to correct the power equation a little for a supercharger. Since a supercharger adds pressure to one side of the motor and the turbo adds it to both, we need to do an estimation of the power recovered by the supercharger on the intake stroke.

The equation is:

((Boost Pressure x Engine Displacement in cubic inches x RPM)/2)/12 x 60 x 550

So for our B18C:

(20psi x 110 x 8500 rpm/2)/396000 = 24 hp

To figure out how much power the Centrifugal Supercharger takes from the crankshaft, lets plug and chug again, getting a 65 horsepower, subtract 24 hp and you get a crankshaft power loss of 41 hp

Repeating for the Roots Blower gets us a loss of 65 horsepower stolen from the crank.

So simply reducing our meager data, if you calculate the potential hp of our turbocharged B18C we will get about 453 hp. Thus well might be around 412 hp from our centrifugally supercharged version of the same motor and 388 hp from our roots equipped motor. Now this is vastly oversimplified and does not take into account differences in VE, air density differences for intercooler effectiveness or lack thereof, dynamic matching to compressor maps and engine tuning variable that have to be different between the types of compressors. Of these variables, all of them except for VE differences will be in favor of the turbo. This shows that all other things being equal, the turbocharger does have an advantage when it comes to sheer power output. The compressor efficiencies we used for the superchargers were very conservative. In real life the superchargers would probably be much worse at 20 psi. If we upped the boost higher, to higher pressure ratios where turbochargers really shine, the calculated differences would be even greater.

Again, a 4-cylinder sized Centrifugal Supercharger is probably much less than 70% efficient at this point but lets be kind to it and assume that, Plugging and chugging gets us a temp of 177 degrees or a hellish 262 degrees at the intake. Let me remind you that to my knowlege there are no centrifugal superchargers that can even reach 20 psi on a small engine on the market besides maybe Procharger and Procharger is a horrible design and I dispute that it can be much more efficent than 65% no matter what Procharger claims due to thick impeller blades, no diffuser and a raidial non-curved vane impeller blade, ie, 1950's technology.

Staying in the Compressors Sweet Spot
As we stared before a lot of how a turbocharger behaves is dependant upon how it is matched to the engine. Turbos come in many sizes and can be precisely tailored to the engines displacement and the owners desire in power characteristics. Since the turbo is not directly coupled to the engines crankshaft, there is some latency in the throttle response, described as turbo lag in the previous section of this article. As explained before this lag can be largely tuned out but it will always be there to some degree. Since the turbo is free floating from the crankshaft, creative sizing and wastegating enables the turbo to be kept in a more efficient range of operation over a wider band of the engines operating range.

Better Compressor Efficiency, More Flexibility
Another advantage that most turbochargers have is improved compressor efficiency over superchargers. Compressor efficiency is the thermodynamically calculated temperature rise of compressing intake air a given amount via the ideal gas law divided by the actual temperature rise of air compressed to the same pressure by the compressor in question. This is also known as the adiabatic efficiency. When talking about compressor efficiency, it is given as a percentage with the higher the percentage, the better. The higher efficiency means that the intake charge will be heated less while it is being compressed. A centrifugal compressor like the one found on a turbocharger is very efficient. Typically the efficiency is at least 70 percent over a broad range of engine operation for most turbochargers with state of the art examples having efficiencies around 80 percent. Typical good turbo compressors found in the aftermarket, like the Garrett TO4E have efficiencies ranging in the mid 70’s. Newer designs like Garrett’s GT series can have efficiencies of up to 80 percent. The more efficient the compressor, the cooler the intake charge air will be. In the case of an old school, less than 50% efficient, roots blower vs. a state of the art turbo, the difference in compressor discharge air temp can be over 100 degrees F at the same boost pressure!

Good turbocharger compressor efficiency is important for reducing engine backpressure on a turbocharged car as well. A more efficient compressor requires less power to compress the air, thus the turbine has to recover less energy from the exhaust stream. With less of a pressure drop required to recover the energy, the exhaust backpressure is reduced and the volumetric efficiency goes up. A more efficient compressor also has less turbo lag for this very reason.

The latest designs of turbos like the Garrett GT series and the latest offerings from IHI have highly efficient compressor and turbine wheels combined with low friction ball bearing center sections. The IHI compressor also features an abradeable lining to the compressor housing. This Teflon like coating is abraded away by the compressor wheel to allow the tightest possible housing to wheel fit. This significantly improves compressor efficiency. These high tech features reduce turbo lag to a large degree without sacrificing flow.

In contrast, some newer roots blowers like the Eaton, have improved designs and higher efficiencies in the low 60% range, a vast improvement from the old 50% efficient bus supercharger, but still much less than the typical turbocharger compressor. The roots design is less efficient because it has a lot of internal leakage and does not have internal compression, relying instead of external compression in the manifold. The Eaton’s improved efficiency over prior roots superchargers comes from its having some internal compression due to changes in its port timing and rotor geometry over old style roots blowers. Modern CNC machining techniques also allow the Eaton to have tighter tolerances and less internal leakage then the older designs had.

You might have heard of a Lysholm supercharger, which is very similar to a roots blower but has two rotating screws with a varying pitch to compress the air instead of 3 lobed impellers like the roots. Whipple makes a blower of this design. The Whipple should have superior adiabatic efficiency because of the designs internal compression. Whipple claims 75% although they do not publish compressor maps to validate this claim. The only Import Whipple application that we know of is the Comptech NSX kit, which produces 367 hp to the wheels.

Centrifugal supercharger compressors like the Vortech are much more efficient. The V-5 supercharger used in their Civic Si kit can reach efficiencies of 73% over a fairly broad band. Unfortunately this efficiency is achieved at fairly low-pressure ratios, which would limit the engines swallowing capacity if you were to try to go to a full race high boost application. With small motor, the way to increase the swallowing capacity is to run more boost and higher pressure ratios. Higher boost means more air stuffed into the engine. With high flow and good efficiency at lower pressure ratios, centrifugal superchargers now on the market, seem better suited for large capacity V-8 engines.

Even with the Vortech superchargers broad (for a centrifugal blower) peak efficiency island, the turbo will still dwell in a higher efficiency zone of operation longer than the centrifugal supercharger will. This is due to the turbo’s wastegating allowing the turbocharger to operate in an efficient zone longer.

The inability to operate with good efficiency at high pressure ratios on small engines seems to be a major limiting factor for centrifugal superchargers when it comes to making race winning levels of power with 4-cylinders. Most centrifugal superchargers of the proper size for a 4-cylinder are out in the 65% or less Efficiency Island of the compressor map at a pressure ratio of over 2.4:1 or just a tick under 20 psi. The bigger centrifugal superchargers that can get into the higher-pressure ratios are in the surge zone with smaller 4-cylinder motors like ours. It takes more than 20 psi to win in the quick and outlaw classes these days.

At 2.4:1 the centrifugal supercharger is nearly off the map, close to the surge line on a small 4-cylinder motor and operating in an inefficient part of its operating range where it is heating the air and eating a lot of crank power. This is just not enough boost pressure to make serious quick sixteen winning power with a small displacement 4 cylinder. Many turbochargers are capable of efficiently (easily over 72%) operating at pressure ratios of 3:1 (30 psi) and higher on small engines without surge.

The final negative supercharger issue is the lack of tuning flexibility. On a turbo, you can drastically alter the boost levels by tweaking the wastegate pressure signal with a boost controller. Are you at 15 psi and dump in some race gas? You can crank her up to 20 psi and enjoy the power in a second. Are you racing, running 23 psi and the track starts to hook up better? No problem, turn her up to 27 psi to take advantage of it. With a supercharger, you have to change drive ratios, which is not very practical between rounds.

Vortech is the most efficient of the centrifugal superchargers on the market. Other brands struggle to get their efficiency into the mid 60’s.One of the reasons why some aftermarket centrifugal Supercharger compressors are not as efficient as turbochargers is that typically a small aftermarket company usually engineers them where as most turbochargers are designed by big OEM automotive supply companies and their product is highly engineered. OEM development sinks a lot of costs into optimization of the compressor design, especially in the long haul diesel and stationary engine market where every bit of efficiency is desired as every bit helps improve fuel consumption. Where Garrett has a whole building full of engineers and a multimillion-dollar test facility, an aftermarket company cannot muster anywhere near that level of engineering resources when it comes to design, testing and manufacturing. Buying a turbo from Garrett, Mitsubishi or IHI means that you are buying a unit with lots of engineering time and optimization, way more than what a typical aftermarket centrifugal supercharger will ever hope to have.

Better Matching to the Engine
Another reason why turbochargers are such kings of power is that turbochargers are used heavily in the long haul diesel and commercial stationary engine market. This market covers a wide variety of applications from small 4 cylinder Japanese panel trucks to huge Caterpillar earthmovers. As stated before, fuel economy is very critical to commercial operators as is precise engineering of the engines power characteristics. This diversity in application engine size and output plus the market demands for efficiency on a large commercial scale insures that much R&D money is spent on turbocharger optimization which means that there are literally hundreds of different sizes of turbochargers optimized for a great deal of different applications. This makes it easy to come up with some very nice turbo combination for most automotive performance users. The supercharger aftermarket tends to be of the one-size fits all variety with perhaps about 3 to 9 size applications to cover the performance car market.

So which is best for you? If a very broad powerband and very linear throttle response is paramount and you are happy with about a 40% power increase, then a roots blower is for you. If you don’t care about low-end power but want lots of peak power in the order of nearly a 50 to100% gain with a predictable throttle response then a centrifugal blower might float your boat. Do you want a CARB E.O.? Again a supercharger system has more choices.

A turbo system can be tuned anyway you want, from a responsive, lots of low-end system to a screaming insane, race only power monster. The only drawback is that disconnect from your throttle foot, which can be tuned to be either almost unnoticeable, to somewhat significant. There are less CARB approved options with a turbo.
How to calculate your potential HP output with a turbo
Once you have figured out your engines airflow at the boost you plan on running you can estimate your hp output pretty easily. To estimate your potential power output, you can do so easily with this formula:

HP= Airflow x 60/Air Fuel Ratio x BSFC

Airflow is in lb/min like we just calculated, 60 is to convert minutes units to hours, Air fuel ratio is self explanatory, BSFC is Brake Specific Fuel Consumption as measured in lb of fuel per hp per hour.

For guidelines, a highly boosted turbo engine running on street 92 octane unleaded pump gas might run an AF ratio of 10.5:1 to hold down detonation. Conversely, a highly massaged drag motor running a specialized high specific gravity turbo fuel might run an AF ratio as lean as 13:1. For estimations on BSFC, a rich tuned pump gas motor might run a BSFC of 0.60. A massaged, tuned to the edge drag race motor on specialized gas might run at 0.45.

So lets pick a crisp state of tune (conservative on race gas) for our hypothetical B18C.

Lets pick a conservative, on race gas air fuel ratio of 12:1 and a reasonable BSFC of 0.50, this is a very safe state of tune where you won’t be close to burning down any motors.

HP= 45.3 x 60/ 12 x 0.50
HP= 453

So our hypothetical B18C will put out around 453 hp @ 20 psi of boost. If you take the time to play around with the equations, the things the tuner has the most control over are the VE, through different size turbines, turbine housings, exhaust systems, headwork cam combos, etc and the tuning factors which include AF ratio and BSFC. The intake manifold temperature can be fiddled with different intercoolers or better yet, go and measure your cars post intercooler intake temp. You can play around with these numbers mathematically and see how they can affect your power and what you can do to extract more power.
BackPressure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 02:19 AM   #6
Registered Member
Regular
 
MidnightBlueGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Charlotte
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by BackPressure View Post
Use the search function please. This has been asked dozens of times. Here's your answer though. It's long-winded, but a good read.

Turbo vs S/C

Here are some arguments for use of waste energy and parastic loss. We used a Honda engine but I am too lazy to find the SR20 notes.

To start things off, turbos are driven by the wasted 30% of fuel energy dumping out of the exhaust stream without parasitic losses on the crankshaft. This use of waste energy is the main reason why turbochargers have a tremendous power advantages over superchargers.

To put this in perspective, even the low boost 6-8 psi street superchargers like the Jackson Racing and Vortech kits take about 10-20 hp from the crankshaft to spin them up. It takes over 800 hp to turn the big roots blower on a top fuel drag racer!

Here is the long and boring nerd way to add some validity to the power debate. Lets figure out how much power it takes to compress the air to make serious engine power. We will do this two ways; we will figure the differences in intake air temp for a turbo, a roots supercharger and a centrifugal supercharger. Then we will show how much power it takes to turn the supercharger. It should all make sense once it’s laid out.

First lets calculate Delta T for the various compressors. Delta T is the change in the intake air temp after it is compressed.

Delta T= Intake Absolute Temperature x (Pressure Ratio to the .238 power –1)/ Compressor Efficiency

Lets assume our engine is going to run 20 psi of boost or a pressure ratio of 2.36.
Pressure ratio= boost pressure+14.7/14.7

The temperature scale engineers use for absolute temperature is the Rankin Scale. On the Rankin Scale Zero degrees is absolute zero. So assuming our intake air temp is 85 degrees, lets call that 545 degrees Rankin.

Lets say our match car is a hot Acura GSR with a B18C motor. By using standard compressor matching equations , we figure that the B18C can flow about 45.3 lb/min going full tilt at 20 psi.

So here we go. Lets figure out Delta T for our good turbo first. Lets assume an efficiency of 78% as there are many turbos that can do that at the given flow and pressure ratio.

Delta T= 545 x (2.36 to the .238 power –1)/ 0.78
Delta T= 158 degrees

A 4-cylinder sized Centrifugal Supercharger is probably much less than 70% efficient at this point but lets be kind to it and assume that, Plugging and chugging gets us a temp of 177 degrees.

Now there are not any current roots blowers on the market that can support this sort of boost pressure on a small 4 cylinder car but lets suppose there is and lets be very kind, assuming it will get 60% compressor efficiency at 20 psi and 45.3 lb/min of flow. This is not likely but lets be nice to the poor roots. Plug and chug and we get a Delta T of 206 degrees. In reality the efficiency would be closer to 50% at 20 psi and the numbers much worse.

Now Delta T is the difference in temp after being compressed. What would our intake charge temp be for the roots assuming an intake temp of 85 degrees? 85+206= an egg frying 291 degrees with no intercooler!

Now lets figure out the power required to make the boost from these three compressors.

The equation for compressor power needed is.

Power in BTU per minute= Mass Flow x Cp (a coefficient) x Delta T/ Compressor Efficiency

To convert BTU per minute to horsepower divide by 42.4

Power = 45.3 x .242 x 158/78 = 2220 BTU min/42.4 = 52 hp recovered from the exhaust.

So here is the Horsepower that won’t be taken from the crankshaft but recovered from the exhaust stream by the turbocharger on our vapor GSR.

If you check out the gas power cycle in a thermodynamics book, the PV diagram for you engineers, you need to correct the power equation a little for a supercharger. Since a supercharger adds pressure to one side of the motor and the turbo adds it to both, we need to do an estimation of the power recovered by the supercharger on the intake stroke.

The equation is:

((Boost Pressure x Engine Displacement in cubic inches x RPM)/2)/12 x 60 x 550

So for our B18C:

(20psi x 110 x 8500 rpm/2)/396000 = 24 hp

To figure out how much power the Centrifugal Supercharger takes from the crankshaft, lets plug and chug again, getting a 65 horsepower, subtract 24 hp and you get a crankshaft power loss of 41 hp

Repeating for the Roots Blower gets us a loss of 65 horsepower stolen from the crank.

So simply reducing our meager data, if you calculate the potential hp of our turbocharged B18C we will get about 453 hp. Thus well might be around 412 hp from our centrifugally supercharged version of the same motor and 388 hp from our roots equipped motor. Now this is vastly oversimplified and does not take into account differences in VE, air density differences for intercooler effectiveness or lack thereof, dynamic matching to compressor maps and engine tuning variable that have to be different between the types of compressors. Of these variables, all of them except for VE differences will be in favor of the turbo. This shows that all other things being equal, the turbocharger does have an advantage when it comes to sheer power output. The compressor efficiencies we used for the superchargers were very conservative. In real life the superchargers would probably be much worse at 20 psi. If we upped the boost higher, to higher pressure ratios where turbochargers really shine, the calculated differences would be even greater.

Again, a 4-cylinder sized Centrifugal Supercharger is probably much less than 70% efficient at this point but lets be kind to it and assume that, Plugging and chugging gets us a temp of 177 degrees or a hellish 262 degrees at the intake. Let me remind you that to my knowlege there are no centrifugal superchargers that can even reach 20 psi on a small engine on the market besides maybe Procharger and Procharger is a horrible design and I dispute that it can be much more efficent than 65% no matter what Procharger claims due to thick impeller blades, no diffuser and a raidial non-curved vane impeller blade, ie, 1950's technology.

Staying in the Compressors Sweet Spot
As we stared before a lot of how a turbocharger behaves is dependant upon how it is matched to the engine. Turbos come in many sizes and can be precisely tailored to the engines displacement and the owners desire in power characteristics. Since the turbo is not directly coupled to the engines crankshaft, there is some latency in the throttle response, described as turbo lag in the previous section of this article. As explained before this lag can be largely tuned out but it will always be there to some degree. Since the turbo is free floating from the crankshaft, creative sizing and wastegating enables the turbo to be kept in a more efficient range of operation over a wider band of the engines operating range.

Better Compressor Efficiency, More Flexibility
Another advantage that most turbochargers have is improved compressor efficiency over superchargers. Compressor efficiency is the thermodynamically calculated temperature rise of compressing intake air a given amount via the ideal gas law divided by the actual temperature rise of air compressed to the same pressure by the compressor in question. This is also known as the adiabatic efficiency. When talking about compressor efficiency, it is given as a percentage with the higher the percentage, the better. The higher efficiency means that the intake charge will be heated less while it is being compressed. A centrifugal compressor like the one found on a turbocharger is very efficient. Typically the efficiency is at least 70 percent over a broad range of engine operation for most turbochargers with state of the art examples having efficiencies around 80 percent. Typical good turbo compressors found in the aftermarket, like the Garrett TO4E have efficiencies ranging in the mid 70’s. Newer designs like Garrett’s GT series can have efficiencies of up to 80 percent. The more efficient the compressor, the cooler the intake charge air will be. In the case of an old school, less than 50% efficient, roots blower vs. a state of the art turbo, the difference in compressor discharge air temp can be over 100 degrees F at the same boost pressure!

Good turbocharger compressor efficiency is important for reducing engine backpressure on a turbocharged car as well. A more efficient compressor requires less power to compress the air, thus the turbine has to recover less energy from the exhaust stream. With less of a pressure drop required to recover the energy, the exhaust backpressure is reduced and the volumetric efficiency goes up. A more efficient compressor also has less turbo lag for this very reason.

The latest designs of turbos like the Garrett GT series and the latest offerings from IHI have highly efficient compressor and turbine wheels combined with low friction ball bearing center sections. The IHI compressor also features an abradeable lining to the compressor housing. This Teflon like coating is abraded away by the compressor wheel to allow the tightest possible housing to wheel fit. This significantly improves compressor efficiency. These high tech features reduce turbo lag to a large degree without sacrificing flow.

In contrast, some newer roots blowers like the Eaton, have improved designs and higher efficiencies in the low 60% range, a vast improvement from the old 50% efficient bus supercharger, but still much less than the typical turbocharger compressor. The roots design is less efficient because it has a lot of internal leakage and does not have internal compression, relying instead of external compression in the manifold. The Eaton’s improved efficiency over prior roots superchargers comes from its having some internal compression due to changes in its port timing and rotor geometry over old style roots blowers. Modern CNC machining techniques also allow the Eaton to have tighter tolerances and less internal leakage then the older designs had.

You might have heard of a Lysholm supercharger, which is very similar to a roots blower but has two rotating screws with a varying pitch to compress the air instead of 3 lobed impellers like the roots. Whipple makes a blower of this design. The Whipple should have superior adiabatic efficiency because of the designs internal compression. Whipple claims 75% although they do not publish compressor maps to validate this claim. The only Import Whipple application that we know of is the Comptech NSX kit, which produces 367 hp to the wheels.

Centrifugal supercharger compressors like the Vortech are much more efficient. The V-5 supercharger used in their Civic Si kit can reach efficiencies of 73% over a fairly broad band. Unfortunately this efficiency is achieved at fairly low-pressure ratios, which would limit the engines swallowing capacity if you were to try to go to a full race high boost application. With small motor, the way to increase the swallowing capacity is to run more boost and higher pressure ratios. Higher boost means more air stuffed into the engine. With high flow and good efficiency at lower pressure ratios, centrifugal superchargers now on the market, seem better suited for large capacity V-8 engines.

Even with the Vortech superchargers broad (for a centrifugal blower) peak efficiency island, the turbo will still dwell in a higher efficiency zone of operation longer than the centrifugal supercharger will. This is due to the turbo’s wastegating allowing the turbocharger to operate in an efficient zone longer.

The inability to operate with good efficiency at high pressure ratios on small engines seems to be a major limiting factor for centrifugal superchargers when it comes to making race winning levels of power with 4-cylinders. Most centrifugal superchargers of the proper size for a 4-cylinder are out in the 65% or less Efficiency Island of the compressor map at a pressure ratio of over 2.4:1 or just a tick under 20 psi. The bigger centrifugal superchargers that can get into the higher-pressure ratios are in the surge zone with smaller 4-cylinder motors like ours. It takes more than 20 psi to win in the quick and outlaw classes these days.

At 2.4:1 the centrifugal supercharger is nearly off the map, close to the surge line on a small 4-cylinder motor and operating in an inefficient part of its operating range where it is heating the air and eating a lot of crank power. This is just not enough boost pressure to make serious quick sixteen winning power with a small displacement 4 cylinder. Many turbochargers are capable of efficiently (easily over 72%) operating at pressure ratios of 3:1 (30 psi) and higher on small engines without surge.

The final negative supercharger issue is the lack of tuning flexibility. On a turbo, you can drastically alter the boost levels by tweaking the wastegate pressure signal with a boost controller. Are you at 15 psi and dump in some race gas? You can crank her up to 20 psi and enjoy the power in a second. Are you racing, running 23 psi and the track starts to hook up better? No problem, turn her up to 27 psi to take advantage of it. With a supercharger, you have to change drive ratios, which is not very practical between rounds.

Vortech is the most efficient of the centrifugal superchargers on the market. Other brands struggle to get their efficiency into the mid 60’s.One of the reasons why some aftermarket centrifugal Supercharger compressors are not as efficient as turbochargers is that typically a small aftermarket company usually engineers them where as most turbochargers are designed by big OEM automotive supply companies and their product is highly engineered. OEM development sinks a lot of costs into optimization of the compressor design, especially in the long haul diesel and stationary engine market where every bit of efficiency is desired as every bit helps improve fuel consumption. Where Garrett has a whole building full of engineers and a multimillion-dollar test facility, an aftermarket company cannot muster anywhere near that level of engineering resources when it comes to design, testing and manufacturing. Buying a turbo from Garrett, Mitsubishi or IHI means that you are buying a unit with lots of engineering time and optimization, way more than what a typical aftermarket centrifugal supercharger will ever hope to have.

Better Matching to the Engine
Another reason why turbochargers are such kings of power is that turbochargers are used heavily in the long haul diesel and commercial stationary engine market. This market covers a wide variety of applications from small 4 cylinder Japanese panel trucks to huge Caterpillar earthmovers. As stated before, fuel economy is very critical to commercial operators as is precise engineering of the engines power characteristics. This diversity in application engine size and output plus the market demands for efficiency on a large commercial scale insures that much R&D money is spent on turbocharger optimization which means that there are literally hundreds of different sizes of turbochargers optimized for a great deal of different applications. This makes it easy to come up with some very nice turbo combination for most automotive performance users. The supercharger aftermarket tends to be of the one-size fits all variety with perhaps about 3 to 9 size applications to cover the performance car market.

So which is best for you? If a very broad powerband and very linear throttle response is paramount and you are happy with about a 40% power increase, then a roots blower is for you. If you don’t care about low-end power but want lots of peak power in the order of nearly a 50 to100% gain with a predictable throttle response then a centrifugal blower might float your boat. Do you want a CARB E.O.? Again a supercharger system has more choices.

A turbo system can be tuned anyway you want, from a responsive, lots of low-end system to a screaming insane, race only power monster. The only drawback is that disconnect from your throttle foot, which can be tuned to be either almost unnoticeable, to somewhat significant. There are less CARB approved options with a turbo.
How to calculate your potential HP output with a turbo
Once you have figured out your engines airflow at the boost you plan on running you can estimate your hp output pretty easily. To estimate your potential power output, you can do so easily with this formula:

HP= Airflow x 60/Air Fuel Ratio x BSFC

Airflow is in lb/min like we just calculated, 60 is to convert minutes units to hours, Air fuel ratio is self explanatory, BSFC is Brake Specific Fuel Consumption as measured in lb of fuel per hp per hour.

For guidelines, a highly boosted turbo engine running on street 92 octane unleaded pump gas might run an AF ratio of 10.5:1 to hold down detonation. Conversely, a highly massaged drag motor running a specialized high specific gravity turbo fuel might run an AF ratio as lean as 13:1. For estimations on BSFC, a rich tuned pump gas motor might run a BSFC of 0.60. A massaged, tuned to the edge drag race motor on specialized gas might run at 0.45.

So lets pick a crisp state of tune (conservative on race gas) for our hypothetical B18C.

Lets pick a conservative, on race gas air fuel ratio of 12:1 and a reasonable BSFC of 0.50, this is a very safe state of tune where you won’t be close to burning down any motors.

HP= 45.3 x 60/ 12 x 0.50
HP= 453

So our hypothetical B18C will put out around 453 hp @ 20 psi of boost. If you take the time to play around with the equations, the things the tuner has the most control over are the VE, through different size turbines, turbine housings, exhaust systems, headwork cam combos, etc and the tuning factors which include AF ratio and BSFC. The intake manifold temperature can be fiddled with different intercoolers or better yet, go and measure your cars post intercooler intake temp. You can play around with these numbers mathematically and see how they can affect your power and what you can do to extract more power.
+100
MidnightBlueGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 06:30 PM   #7
Registered Member
Regular
 
R6man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Region: South Carolina
Posts: 130
You can say what u want, muscle car = supercharger, *** ricers with 4 cylinders = turbo.
R6man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 06:41 PM   #8
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Swansea
Region: Massachusetts
Posts: 105
lol
Jcastro7608 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:25 PM   #9
Registered Member
Regular
 
Mile high JDF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Thronton
Region: Colorado
Posts: 5,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by R6man View Post
You can say what u want, muscle car = supercharger, *** ricers with 4 cylinders = turbo.
That's a strange bias, what do you think of the new Cobra Jet then?
__________________
Sold - Black 2000 Mustang GT, gone but definitely not forgotten
- Silver 2007 Corvette
Current - DHG 2001 Bullitt
Mile high JDF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:33 PM   #10
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by R6man View Post
You can say what u want, muscle car = supercharger, *** ricers with 4 cylinders = turbo.
Nope not at all true, look at all the big 2V builds for example, all of the most powerful ones are turbos.

Honestly though, IMO for a Mustang, if you are a manual trans get a supercharger (I am biased towards the roots/screw/PD type), if you are an automatic get a turbo. Some of the scariest Mustang builds out there right now are turbocharged 2Vs with a nice stalled automatic behind them.

With that said... NOTHING sounds better than a cammed motor with a sick exhaust and a supercharger whining away on top of it all.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:36 PM   #11
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
turbo or supercharger or nitrous would be any good choice to go with. the 2vs need a power adder real bad. they Are turds without a power adder
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:38 PM   #12
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
turbo or supercharger or nitrous would be any good choice to go with. the 2vs need a power adder real bad. they Are turds without a power adder
Also untrue, a bolt on PI 2V is easily 12 second capable with the right suspension setup and a good driver.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:40 PM   #13
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post

Also untrue, a bolt on PI 2V is easily 12 second capable with the right suspension setup and a good driver.
the full bolt on 2vs are slow. my cousin just sold his. heads/cams/ full exhaust. trickflow intake and fully built shortblock it was a TURD. he now has a 06 gto
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:42 PM   #14
Registered Member
Regular
 
2300turboford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: london
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 2,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post

Also untrue, a bolt on PI 2V is easily 12 second capable with the right suspension setup and a good driver.
+1 it's a whole lot better than the old 5.0 ppl just think that they are turds bc it takes more money to build them if you take a old 5.0 and a pi 4.6 then add cams heads and intake and the 4.6 will make more power

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

They expect to just do bolt ons and expect big power from the 4.6
__________________
"Racing is life ,anything before or after is just waiting "-the king of cool -Steve McQueen
2300turboford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:46 PM   #15
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2300turboford View Post

+1 it's a whole lot better than the old 5.0 ppl just think that they are turds bc it takes more money to build them if you take a old 5.0 and a pi 4.6 then add cams heads and intake and the 4.6 will make more power

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

They expect to just do bolt ons and expect big power from the 4.6
been there built a 2v. im not just talking out my ***. they need a power adder to be fast
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:47 PM   #16
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
the full bolt on 2vs are slow. my cousin just sold his. heads/cams/ full exhaust. trickflow intake and fully built shortblock it was a TURD. he now has a 06 gto
Then your cousin either was lying to you or he built it completely wrong or the tune was horrible or all of the above. Properly built with those mods and a good suspension setup that list you have should be an 11 second car all day.

And rofl about talking turds and bringing up the GTO. Don't even get me started on those pigs...
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:50 PM   #17
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
go to youtube and type in. 2000 mustang gt 5.4 swap dyno pull. my cousins old car. it was quick with the bottle just not on motor

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post

Then your cousin either was lying to you or he built it completely wrong or the tune was horrible or all of the above. Properly built with those mods and a good suspension setup that list you have should be an 11 second car all day.

And rofl about talking turds and bringing up the GTO. Don't even get me started on those pigs...
LMFAO.
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:57 PM   #18
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Like I said, he did something wrong. Done right that motor should have put out well over 400whp NA. Let me guess, HPS intake? If so that was part of the issue.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 10:01 PM   #19
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
Like I said, he did something wrong. Done right that motor should have put out well over 400whp NA. Let me guess, HPS intake? If so that was part of the issue.
nope. and we know what we are doing bud. i promise you that. we have a fox making 1,400 at the tires right now. we do everything ourselves.
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 10:58 PM   #20
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Lol maybe stick with the pushrods then, something was def wrong with that 5.4L to make those numbers...

Regardless, you do not need to go crazy with the 2V to run 12s which honestly isn't super fast but not exactly slow either. As for a power adder for the OP, I still vote S-trim kit and call it a day.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 11:07 PM   #21
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
Lol maybe stick with the pushrods then, something was def wrong with that 5.4L to make those numbers...

Regardless, you do not need to go crazy with the 2V to run 12s which honestly isn't super fast but not exactly slow either. As for a power adder for the OP, I still vote S-trim kit and call it a day.
what does your 2v put down?
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 11:21 PM   #22
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by R6man View Post
You can say what u want, muscle car = supercharger, *** ricers with 4 cylinders = turbo.


gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 01:46 AM   #23
Registered Member
Regular
 
MidnightBlueGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Charlotte
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 3,887
Turbo>sc

Both are awesome and you'll be happy either way
MidnightBlueGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 09:23 AM   #24
Registered Member
Regular
 
WheelStander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charlotte
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,470
Not one doubt for me... I love my KB, the drivability and power is incomparable.

Look at that beauty and power curve... you can't to that for looks with a turbo.

I've had a couple more pulls and easily top 460whp every time.

And the install was simple. Look at all the issues and expense turbo guys have.
__________________
Induction: Kenne Bell | wHp: 515 Tq: 503 | 1/4 Mile:11.09@123
WheelStander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 09:25 AM   #25
Registered Member
Regular
 
WheelStander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charlotte
Region: North Carolina
Posts: 1,470
This was my first pull on 10#.

Click image for larger version

Name:	ForumRunner_20130706_102444.png
Views:	226
Size:	669.2 KB
ID:	116956



Click image for larger version

Name:	ForumRunner_20130706_102428.png
Views:	418
Size:	934.1 KB
ID:	116955
__________________
Induction: Kenne Bell | wHp: 515 Tq: 503 | 1/4 Mile:11.09@123
WheelStander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 09:48 AM   #26
Registered Member
Regular
 
Matticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Region: Alabama
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by R6man View Post
You can say what u want, muscle car = supercharger, *** ricers with 4 cylinders = turbo.
Just because you don't have a v8 doesn't make it ricey, I know the guys in the civics with fart cans make a bad rep for imports, but I have friends with imports that are some of the nicest cars I've ever been in. My best friend actually drives a mazdaspeed turbo miata with a 6 speed. He's also had a turbo 2 rx-7, s13 240sx drift car, and a cammed 92 fox body making 350 rwhp. There's plenty of awesome cars out there if you open your mind past nothing but muscle cars. And don't get me wrong, I love me some American muscle, mustangs, corvettes, challengers and chargers all day.
Matticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 10:53 AM   #27
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
what does your 2v put down?
1401. To the wheels.

In all seriousness I'm just having a hard time believing that someone who "knows what we are doing" can't get more than those numbers out of a TFS 5.4L. Hell a TFS 4.6L will make those numbers properly built as will a bolt on 4V... But like I said there was probably something wrong with that motor. Biggest issue with the 5.4L 2V is that there is no good intake for it. Anyway... would love to see the dyno sheets and some vids of your fox at the track, would be pretty cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matticus View Post
Just because you don't have a v8 doesn't make it ricey, I know the guys in the civics with fart cans make a bad rep for imports, but I have friends with imports that are some of the nicest cars I've ever been in. My best friend actually drives a mazdaspeed turbo miata with a 6 speed. He's also had a turbo 2 rx-7, s13 240sx drift car, and a cammed 92 fox body making 350 rwhp. There's plenty of awesome cars out there if you open your mind past nothing but muscle cars. And don't get me wrong, I love me some American muscle, mustangs, corvettes, challengers and chargers all day.
I honestly think there are as many bad "American Muscle" owners as there are import owners proportionally. Usually a V8 powered performance car is harder for a young kid to get into and the young kids are the ones most responsible for the whole "rice" thing which sucks for those younger ppl who aren't retarded... Hell look at all the "riced" 96-98 cars popping up these days... they're cheap now so high schoolers/college kids will buy them and want to "improve" them but with limited budgets you get riced out Mustangs.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 11:10 AM   #28
Registered Member
Regular
 
Matticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Region: Alabama
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post

1401. To the wheels.

In all seriousness I'm just having a hard time believing that someone who "knows what we are doing" can't get more than those numbers out of a TFS 5.4L. Hell a TFS 4.6L will make those numbers properly built as will a bolt on 4V... But like I said there was probably something wrong with that motor. Biggest issue with the 5.4L 2V is that there is no good intake for it. Anyway... would love to see the dyno sheets and some vids of your fox at the track, would be pretty cool.

I honestly think there are as many bad "American Muscle" owners as there are import owners proportionally. Usually a V8 powered performance car is harder for a young kid to get into and the young kids are the ones most responsible for the whole "rice" thing which sucks for those younger ppl who aren't retarded... Hell look at all the "riced" 96-98 cars popping up these days... they're cheap now so high schoolers/college kids will buy them and want to "improve" them but with limited budgets you get riced out Mustangs.
Exactly, I saw one at a gas station yesterday that about made me vomit. 3 different paint colors, chrome tail lights, a double wing, funky huge chrome wheels and wide side skirts
Matticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 11:10 AM   #29
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
just as i thought.
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 12:21 PM   #30
Registered Member
Regular
 
Coltonhess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Elyria
Region: Ohio
Posts: 429
Hey now don't put all us teenagers in the same boat. Lol.
Coltonhess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 12:36 PM   #31
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
just as i thought.
No just as I thought.

---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coltonhess View Post
Hey now don't put all us teenagers in the same boat. Lol.
Lol I wasn't I did say it sucks for teenagers when you get the young fast and the furious crowd that makes you all look like tools with all the rice.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 08:04 PM   #32
Registered Member
Regular
 
1996mustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post

the full bolt on 2vs are slow. my cousin just sold his. heads/cams/ full exhaust. trickflow intake and fully built shortblock it was a TURD. he now has a 06 gto
I disagree with this as well as agree with scotty. 5.4 can make nice hp and nasty torque if built correct only downside is their intake manifold and headers. My brother had his mustang pushing 300 and 350 tq to the wheels dynoed at blow by racing here in fl. He didnt have headers or intake but had cams 24# injectors msd cops (useless imo) and a jlt cf intake. Slp lms as well. Dont get me wrong it couldve done more opening her up some more but it wasnt bad either for a straight swap in and tune to see what it got. It was quick. 2v are underestimated in what they could do to be honest. And tes while i do agree they need a power adder to be much quicker its all in the build honestly. As to the gto, sad to say those are some slow turds i raced one in moroso and while im not ashamed to say i lost by a car, i wouldve expected more out of a cammed ls2 with nice bolt ons. Yet i was dissatisfied with the results due to i was expecting trains length lose rather than a close lose which isnt bad for my little 2v

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post

nope. and we know what we are doing bud. i promise you that. we have a fox making 1,400 at the tires right now. we do everything ourselves.
I would love to see that dyno sheet as well. And am very curious as to if you are using a ford motor i.e 351c or 427 or if you are a ls1 swapper in a fox. Either or very interested in seeing a dyno of the beast. And before u even ask no i dont have a dyno sheet but im not also claiming big numbers. To be honest i wouldnt even give my car the benefit of the doubt remotely even close to 280whp. Im not throwing a number i cant back up all i can do is tell u yes i lost to a ls2 however sadly i probably weighted less than the gto stock lol. However we arent here to swing our privates trying to see whos are bigger we honestly like info and the occasional proof in the pudding for certain aspects. My car by all means is not fast. Km sure id lose heads up vs a turtle but i love my 2v either way.
__________________
1996 Mustang GT, 17x9 front and 17x10.5 cobra r replica rims, 255/40/17 front 285/40/17 rear at the moment,
o/r x-pipe flow master 40 series dump downs, cai/ram intake, 75mm c&l throttle body and plenum, pi heads and intake swap, msd wires, stock gears, untuned at the moment, no dyno numbers for now.
1996mustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 08:17 PM   #33
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
yes it is a chevy motor. is there something rong with that? it is a 434. with. f1a procharger at 30psi. running on c116.
Click image for larger version

Name:	image-3430595332.jpg
Views:	813
Size:	267.1 KB
ID:	117042
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 08:20 PM   #34
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
no dyno sheet for her. she put down 1400 on a engine dyno. car has never been on a chassi dyno.
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 08:26 PM   #35
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,269
Click image for larger version

Name:	image-94320351.jpg
Views:	197
Size:	424.3 KB
ID:	117043
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image-2489615490.jpg
Views:	166
Size:	674.9 KB
ID:	117044   Click image for larger version

Name:	image-3544452466.jpg
Views:	181
Size:	396.6 KB
ID:	117045  

Click image for larger version

Name:	image-4097384529.jpg
Views:	207
Size:	233.3 KB
ID:	117046  
Rapinator126 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 1996-2004 Mustang GT

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


» Like Us On Facebook



01:32 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.