Which is faster??
04-21-2010, 08:02 PM
#1
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 243
Which is faster??
Ok, this is mostly hypothetical. I didnt look up specs on the 2011 mustang but just say its exactly the same weight as my 2005 gt and the stock engine for the 11 gets 412hp and say I got a supercharger that put me exactly at 412 hp. which would be faster considering they have the same hp/tq and same weight but one is supercharged and one is not, or would they be the same?and by faster i mean 0-60, 1/4
04-21-2010, 08:15 PM
#3
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 166
The supercharged car would be faster IF you assume good traction. This is because the torque curve is flatter and more area under the curve = faster times. Peak number don't mean that much and torque is what gets a car moving (at least at the stock Mustang weight). Area under the curves is what matters.
04-21-2010, 08:18 PM
#4
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 378
The supercharged car would be faster IF you assume good traction. This is because the torque curve is flatter and more area under the curve = faster times. Peak number don't mean that much and torque is what gets a car moving (at least at the stock Mustang weight). Area under the curves is what matters.
"Area under the curves is what matters." Ugh, thought I was done with Calculus for the day.
04-21-2010, 08:24 PM
#6
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 243
so would the answer be the same if say instead of 412 hp, the 2011 got cams and all bolt ons and just say it moved to 475 hp and you made the supercharged engine 475 hp and everything was the same conditions would the supercharged one still be better? (I'm just picking random hp numbers and gains)
04-21-2010, 08:34 PM
#9
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
The details will matter.
It's still a matter of finding the curve that has more area under it for the rev ranges that you use in each gear.
If you can provide better "guesses" with respect to peak torque, peak HP, and the rpms that they are developed at, I might be able to come up with something using an acceleration spreadsheet (it has a curve fit subroutine that writes a torque curve formula, which seems to work reasonably well).
It would probably be best if you use HP and torque curve shapes that are similar to dyno charts that people have posted, for both NA and the same form of FI that you have in mind to estimate the rpms.
Norm
It's still a matter of finding the curve that has more area under it for the rev ranges that you use in each gear.
If you can provide better "guesses" with respect to peak torque, peak HP, and the rpms that they are developed at, I might be able to come up with something using an acceleration spreadsheet (it has a curve fit subroutine that writes a torque curve formula, which seems to work reasonably well).
It would probably be best if you use HP and torque curve shapes that are similar to dyno charts that people have posted, for both NA and the same form of FI that you have in mind to estimate the rpms.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 04-22-2010 at 11:07 AM.
04-21-2010, 08:44 PM
#10
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,401
so would the answer be the same if say instead of 412 hp, the 2011 got cams and all bolt ons and just say it moved to 475 hp and you made the supercharged engine 475 hp and everything was the same conditions would the supercharged one still be better? (I'm just picking random hp numbers and gains)
All you do with cams and [most] bolts ons (Intake, exhaust) is give the motor more power at the upper rev range, so actually you're making the distance between the two cars even greater because as said, the supercharged motor will just have more torque at the low-mid range.
