Notices
GT S197 General Discussion This section is for technical discussions pertaining specifically to the V8 variation of the 2005 and newer Ford Mustang.

400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-06-2007, 01:21 PM
  #1  
nate2953
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
nate2953's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 139
Default 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

Is there a difference between FI power and N/A power? I mean FI is easier to obtain obviously but you hear so much HP is too much when you supercharge but what about N/A what are the advantages to N/A power if there are any? Thanks
nate2953 is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 01:43 PM
  #2  
hammeron
6th Gear Member
 
hammeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nicely done
Posts: 11,881
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

advantages to staying N/A are no belt
or tensioner issues.
hammeron is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 01:44 PM
  #3  
howarmat
s197 Junkie
 
howarmat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: IN
Posts: 16,087
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

costs more for 400 N/A than FI
howarmat is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 02:05 PM
  #4  
SlideWRX
2nd Gear Member
 
SlideWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 245
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

ORIGINAL: nate2953

Is there a difference between FI power and N/A power? I mean FI is easier to obtain obviously but you hear so much HP is too much when you supercharge but what about N/A what are the advantages to N/A power if there are any? Thanks
Going N/A means you will likely loose (relatively) some low-end torque, at least versus kenne bell style superchargers. Centrifugal supercharger add less (compared to kennebell) torque down low. N/Athrottle is RIGHT NOW, supercharged power is Now, and turbos are *pause* NOW!!! Which is better?Don't know. N/A horsepower usualy means bolting on lighter parts than stock (tubular vs cast manifolds, cmcv deletes, lightweight pullies), while boosting will add weight (supercharger/intake manifold& intercooler). Rough estimates would be N/A is 10-20lbs lighter than stock while boosted cars are 30-60 lbs heavier.

Realistically there isn't 400 N/A horsepower available (until one dives into stroking & raising compression & redline), so one needs to figure out how much power they want, and that will decide whether they go boosted or not.

Tom
SlideWRX is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 02:47 PM
  #5  
nate2953
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
nate2953's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 139
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

So going N/A isnt safer or easier on the engine? So besides being able to say im N/A there aint much advantage is what everyone seems to say?
nate2953 is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 02:54 PM
  #6  
nate2953
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
nate2953's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 139
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

im thinking with BBR heads, a BBR cam, some JBA long tubes and JBA catted H pipe plus what all i already have and my current numbers safely 375 RWHP isnt out of the picture. Yeah a KB or whipple would put me at 425 RWHP no questions asked but ive already sunk so much money into a C&L, CMCVs, UDPs, etc, that id just like to stay N/A. But anyways, doing all that work just seems like more fun and enjoyable to install than doing one blower and being done with modifying the stang. So part of staying N/A is the enjoyment of putting on new parts. Anyhoo, i was just wondering if there was any advantage to staying N/A over FI thanks guys, you all are the best
nate2953 is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 03:25 PM
  #7  
Apoptosis
poptart tits
 
Apoptosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,886
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

Aren't blowers like 100+ lbs?


Apoptosis is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 04:33 PM
  #8  
batmobile2005
2nd Gear Member
 
batmobile2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 343
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

im no expert on this, but i feel like N/A is safer because you dont have that boost blowing into your engine, putting a large amount of strain on the engine (larger than that of N/A)
batmobile2005 is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 04:42 PM
  #9  
06Saleen3V
6th Gear Member
 
06Saleen3V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location:
Posts: 6,414
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

With a 400rwhp N/A car, you will have such a beast under the hood and its all your motor...sound will be amazing as well..very expensive though
06Saleen3V is offline  
Old 11-06-2007, 06:04 PM
  #10  
moosestang
6th Gear Member
 
moosestang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 11,278
Default RE: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI

You say it like it's 100psi, which could be considered a lot of pressure. Get a small air tank and put 10 psi in it, then let it out, ain't that much pressure is it? It's the pistons moving up and down quicker that breaks things.

KtownGt, I think all the twin screws add atleast 100lbs, whipple is 150 including everything, i think.

ORIGINAL: batmobile2005

im no expert on this, but i feel like N/A is safer because you dont have that boost blowing into your engine, putting a large amount of strain on the engine (larger than that of N/A)
moosestang is offline  


Quick Reply: 400 RWHP N/A VS 400 RWHP FI



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 PM.