Forced vs N/A
05-17-2006, 11:28 PM
#12
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 185
RE: Forced vs N/A
MM and FF did except they spent a little more and were making 490 HP (they had a custom intake built that is supposed to be on the market soon. Also that intake added 60 hp and tq i think). I will most likely be dropping in a forged 5.1L stroker kit in with stage 2 or stage 3 cams. With full bolt on's I should be running at least close to that maybe a little less. I really haven't decided if I should do a turbo setup or a full N/A setup. I would make more power in turbo form but I really don't think I will need that much power anyways. If I need a little more I could always run some laughing gas for a really tough competitior.
05-17-2006, 11:28 PM
#13
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Deltona, fl
Posts: 1,239
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: white04gt
Do tell? Code has over 10k in his car and is pushing over 300 hp.. How do you propose you push 400 and spend about 5k?
You gonna throw 100 turbonators on your car?
Do tell? Code has over 10k in his car and is pushing over 300 hp.. How do you propose you push 400 and spend about 5k?
You gonna throw 100 turbonators on your car?
05-17-2006, 11:30 PM
#14
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 602
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: da boss
MM and FF did except they spent a little more and were making 490 HP (they had a custom intake built that is supposed to be on the market soon. Also that intake added 60 hp and tq i think). I will most likely be dropping in a forged 5.1L stroker kit in with stage 2 or stage 3 cams. With full bolt on's I should be running at least close to that maybe a little less. I really haven't decided if I should do a turbo setup or a full N/A setup. I would make more power in turbo form but I really don't think I will need that much power anyways. If I need a little more I could always run some laughing gas for a really tough competitior.
MM and FF did except they spent a little more and were making 490 HP (they had a custom intake built that is supposed to be on the market soon. Also that intake added 60 hp and tq i think). I will most likely be dropping in a forged 5.1L stroker kit in with stage 2 or stage 3 cams. With full bolt on's I should be running at least close to that maybe a little less. I really haven't decided if I should do a turbo setup or a full N/A setup. I would make more power in turbo form but I really don't think I will need that much power anyways. If I need a little more I could always run some laughing gas for a really tough competitior.
More power to ya.. Should be a fast as hell car.. lol
05-18-2006, 12:45 AM
#16
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 487
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: da boss
I never said it was going to be less money than a S/C if fact I say it would probably be more money. Next time read the entire post it usually makes more sense that way.
I never said it was going to be less money than a S/C if fact I say it would probably be more money. Next time read the entire post it usually makes more sense that way.
the motor only cost $3200 for a built short block, but hten you have heads to put on, at least...AT LEAST $1500 for the heads you are gonna need to make "400 RWHP" (probably more than $2000 actually), then you have this "custome fabricated intake", good luck with that, if it really adds +60 HP then it is gonna cost some serious cheddar, prolly over $1000, then you have full bolt ons, heades and full exhaust, over $800, then you have air intake, throttle body, bigger mass air meter, bigger fuel injectors, pullies, custom tune (which you will need) and you are easily over $1500 for allt hat shi*. You do not realize the amount of money it is gonna cost for other misc. crap either. You have no idea what you are getting yourself into if you think a 5.1 stroker motor is gonna make 400 RWHP with full bolt ons for "probably" a little more money than a S/C. The only way you are gonna get over 400 RWHP for around $4,000 is gonna be with an ATI Procharger Intercooled running about 9 psi. Sorry to spoil you dreams kid but best wishes on your 400 RWHP N/A monster.
05-18-2006, 01:14 AM
#17
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 19
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: HaV
if your only at 100k, unless you have beaten the unholy hell out of your motor I hope you can count a while longer... lots of people on here with 150k+... some with close or over 200k on a stock motor.
And a supercharger doesnt decrease the life of your motor.. what decreases life is a lean condition, even slightly so when your talking boosted. So if you run just very mildly lean (like a 13.2 even.. ) your going to see more wear. A properly tuned blown motor should never exceed like a 12.7 a/f.. its the people who do not tune, or who do not upgrade ot the proper injector size that ruin motors in a short period of time.
ORIGINAL: GoatMonkey
There's another factor here. Longevity. It does take some money or luck to build a supercharged engine that will last as long as a regular N/A engine assuming you're not doing extreme things to the N/A engine.
For example here's what I'm thinking. If you're starting with a stock GT. If you just add a supercharger it is going to eventually fail sooner than if you had just left it alone and driven it stock. To make it last you're going to have to go with very low boost and just accept a marninal loss in engine life, or get some forged internals. The other option is to go with a Mach 1 or N/A Cobra engine which would probably cost roughly the same as a good supercharger. Of course you won't be making as much power out of that engine. Add some basic upgrades, exhausts, intake and such and you could probably get it to 330-350hp at the flywheel. Not too bad, and it seems less risky.
Honestly, at this point I have a '99 GT with almost 100K miles on it. I'm just counting the days till the engine finally fails and I can put a Mach 1 engine in there and drive it another 100k+ miles. Superchargers obviously have their benefits though. But there are risks involved. Set it up wrong and you roast your engine. Seems like too much for my daily driver.
There's another factor here. Longevity. It does take some money or luck to build a supercharged engine that will last as long as a regular N/A engine assuming you're not doing extreme things to the N/A engine.
For example here's what I'm thinking. If you're starting with a stock GT. If you just add a supercharger it is going to eventually fail sooner than if you had just left it alone and driven it stock. To make it last you're going to have to go with very low boost and just accept a marninal loss in engine life, or get some forged internals. The other option is to go with a Mach 1 or N/A Cobra engine which would probably cost roughly the same as a good supercharger. Of course you won't be making as much power out of that engine. Add some basic upgrades, exhausts, intake and such and you could probably get it to 330-350hp at the flywheel. Not too bad, and it seems less risky.
Honestly, at this point I have a '99 GT with almost 100K miles on it. I'm just counting the days till the engine finally fails and I can put a Mach 1 engine in there and drive it another 100k+ miles. Superchargers obviously have their benefits though. But there are risks involved. Set it up wrong and you roast your engine. Seems like too much for my daily driver.
if your only at 100k, unless you have beaten the unholy hell out of your motor I hope you can count a while longer... lots of people on here with 150k+... some with close or over 200k on a stock motor.
And a supercharger doesnt decrease the life of your motor.. what decreases life is a lean condition, even slightly so when your talking boosted. So if you run just very mildly lean (like a 13.2 even.. ) your going to see more wear. A properly tuned blown motor should never exceed like a 12.7 a/f.. its the people who do not tune, or who do not upgrade ot the proper injector size that ruin motors in a short period of time.
I don't believe it when people say that a supercharged engine all other things being equal will last as long as a N/A engine. It just doesn't make sense that when you add extra stress to the same parts that they will last just as long.
Now, I do believe that it is possible to make a very reliable supercharged engine that will last a long time. If your are knowledgeable and/or lucky enough to have it tuned correctly from the start and can maintain it well it should last a long time. But still not as long as a N/A engine in my opinion. Of course you can do other things like strengthen up the parts with forged internals, stronger transmission, and such, then in that case the supercharged engine can last just as long.
05-18-2006, 04:38 PM
#19
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 938
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: gt96stang
As long as it's tuned properly and installed correctly, a supercharged motor will last just as long as a n/a motor.. Oh and as long as both are taken care of.
ORIGINAL: GoatMonkey
There's another factor here. Longevity. It does take some money or luck to build a supercharged engine that will last as long as a regular N/A engine assuming you're not doing extreme things to the N/A engine.
For example here's what I'm thinking. If you're starting with a stock GT. If you just add a supercharger it is going to eventually fail sooner than if you had just left it alone and driven it stock. To make it last you're going to have to go with very low boost and just accept a marninal loss in engine life, or get some forged internals. The other option is to go with a Mach 1 or N/A Cobra engine which would probably cost roughly the same as a good supercharger. Of course you won't be making as much power out of that engine. Add some basic upgrades, exhausts, intake and such and you could probably get it to 330-350hp at the flywheel. Not too bad, and it seems less risky.
Honestly, at this point I have a '99 GT with almost 100K miles on it. I'm just counting the days till the engine finally fails and I can put a Mach 1 engine in there and drive it another 100k+ miles. Superchargers obviously have their benefits though. But there are risks involved. Set it up wrong and you roast your engine. Seems like too much for my daily driver.
There's another factor here. Longevity. It does take some money or luck to build a supercharged engine that will last as long as a regular N/A engine assuming you're not doing extreme things to the N/A engine.
For example here's what I'm thinking. If you're starting with a stock GT. If you just add a supercharger it is going to eventually fail sooner than if you had just left it alone and driven it stock. To make it last you're going to have to go with very low boost and just accept a marninal loss in engine life, or get some forged internals. The other option is to go with a Mach 1 or N/A Cobra engine which would probably cost roughly the same as a good supercharger. Of course you won't be making as much power out of that engine. Add some basic upgrades, exhausts, intake and such and you could probably get it to 330-350hp at the flywheel. Not too bad, and it seems less risky.
Honestly, at this point I have a '99 GT with almost 100K miles on it. I'm just counting the days till the engine finally fails and I can put a Mach 1 engine in there and drive it another 100k+ miles. Superchargers obviously have their benefits though. But there are risks involved. Set it up wrong and you roast your engine. Seems like too much for my daily driver.
Pros: With n/a you can mod in parts so WHEN things start to go wrong you have a higher chance of catching it before it gets too painful.
With FI you can simply get more bang for the buck. And reach higher power levels.
Cons: With n/a it gets very expensive and without a really good strategy you can start to chase your tail buying stuff you don't need or can't use.
With FI if you can't dyno tune it yourself, you are leaving the life of your car in someone else's hands. The odds of something going wrong are much higher and when something does go wrong, it's almost always catastrophic.
05-18-2006, 06:34 PM
#20
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
Seriously guys, unless you are made of money and just want something differen't, n/a just totally sucks. Even the big N/a guys on this forum still run the nitrous when it counts.