Forced vs N/A
05-18-2006, 06:37 PM
#21
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
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.
I guess you are ready to spend 15K+ For a custom intake and engine, and have something that is not even close to streetable?
No way you will see over 340 or so RWHP on a n/a 2v and have it be anything close to streetable.
On the other hand, for far less money you can make 400~ RWHP, have a totally streetable car that still gets good highway gas milage (20+) and runs solid low 12s/high 11s on drag raidals.
What more od you want?
Add into all of this that if you simply must have a built engine you can now be making 600+ WHP and still have less invested.
05-18-2006, 06:37 PM
#22
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 628
RE: Forced vs N/A
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
I hope you get alot of satisfaction out of getting wasted by a car that cost a 1/4 as much to build.
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.
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
I hope you get alot of satisfaction out of getting wasted by a car that cost a 1/4 as much to build.
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.
if you want to waist money then get a corvette.
05-18-2006, 06:50 PM
#23
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: shadowfoxx
+1
if you want to waist money then get a corvette.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
I hope you get alot of satisfaction out of getting wasted by a car that cost a 1/4 as much to build.
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.
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
I hope you get alot of satisfaction out of getting wasted by a car that cost a 1/4 as much to build.
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.
if you want to waist money then get a corvette.
05-18-2006, 06:52 PM
#24
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Okla.
Posts: 2,060
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: shadowfoxx
+1
if you want to waist money then get a corvette.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
I hope you get alot of satisfaction out of getting wasted by a car that cost a 1/4 as much to build.
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.
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
I hope you get alot of satisfaction out of getting wasted by a car that cost a 1/4 as much to build.
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.
if you want to waist money then get a corvette.
05-18-2006, 06:56 PM
#25
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 628
RE: Forced vs N/A
quote:
ORIGINAL: shadowfoxx
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
I hope you get alot of satisfaction out of getting wasted by a car that cost a 1/4 as much to build.
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.
+1
if you want to waist money then get a corvette.
At least you would get a fast car out of it
ORIGINAL: shadowfoxx
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rusmisel01GT
N/A = satisfaction of running in the 12's with no S/C...
I hope you get alot of satisfaction out of getting wasted by a car that cost a 1/4 as much to build.
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.
+1
if you want to waist money then get a corvette.
At least you would get a fast car out of it
05-18-2006, 07:01 PM
#26
EXTREME Moderation
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: BLAM-O
Posts: 7,895
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: GoatMonkey
Do those with over 200k miles have superchargers?
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.
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, 07:01 PM
#27
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 237
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
And nobody has been able to back any of this up, AND they ran it on a engine dyno, with NO accessories, with a manifold that won't fit underneath a stock hood, and won't bolt up to anything that is currently on the market (so far as intake tract stuff). Dual freaking t/bs !
I guess you are ready to spend 15K+ For a custom intake and engine, and have something that is not even close to streetable?
No way you will see over 340 or so RWHP on a n/a 2v and have it be anything close to streetable.
On the other hand, for far less money you can make 400~ RWHP, have a totally streetable car that still gets good highway gas milage (20+) and runs solid low 12s/high 11s on drag raidals.
What more od you want?
Add into all of this that if you simply must have a built engine you can now be making 600+ WHP and still have less invested.
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.
I guess you are ready to spend 15K+ For a custom intake and engine, and have something that is not even close to streetable?
No way you will see over 340 or so RWHP on a n/a 2v and have it be anything close to streetable.
On the other hand, for far less money you can make 400~ RWHP, have a totally streetable car that still gets good highway gas milage (20+) and runs solid low 12s/high 11s on drag raidals.
What more od you want?
Add into all of this that if you simply must have a built engine you can now be making 600+ WHP and still have less invested.
05-18-2006, 07:03 PM
#28
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: Forced vs N/A
ORIGINAL: zanderwitaz
how did your mileage go up with a supercharger?
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
And nobody has been able to back any of this up, AND they ran it on a engine dyno, with NO accessories, with a manifold that won't fit underneath a stock hood, and won't bolt up to anything that is currently on the market (so far as intake tract stuff). Dual freaking t/bs !
I guess you are ready to spend 15K+ For a custom intake and engine, and have something that is not even close to streetable?
No way you will see over 340 or so RWHP on a n/a 2v and have it be anything close to streetable.
On the other hand, for far less money you can make 400~ RWHP, have a totally streetable car that still gets good highway gas milage (20+) and runs solid low 12s/high 11s on drag raidals.
What more od you want?
Add into all of this that if you simply must have a built engine you can now be making 600+ WHP and still have less invested.
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.
I guess you are ready to spend 15K+ For a custom intake and engine, and have something that is not even close to streetable?
No way you will see over 340 or so RWHP on a n/a 2v and have it be anything close to streetable.
On the other hand, for far less money you can make 400~ RWHP, have a totally streetable car that still gets good highway gas milage (20+) and runs solid low 12s/high 11s on drag raidals.
What more od you want?
Add into all of this that if you simply must have a built engine you can now be making 600+ WHP and still have less invested.
Even getting on it a few times up to my hometown and back, I averaged a little over 21 MPG. At crusing RPM the blower is not bulding boost, but every time you give it even a little gas the manifold pressure goes to 0. Before the blower you would have a vaccum, making the engine work harder to stay at speed.
05-18-2006, 07:05 PM
#29
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: Forced vs N/A
ANother good point redass. Everyone keeps talking about longevitiy on your engine, I want to see a fully built 4.6 2v making 340+ RWHP last 100K miles.
It all comes down to how you drive it. I can take a car and make it last 150K miles, or I can make it last 10,000.
It all comes down to how you drive it. I can take a car and make it last 150K miles, or I can make it last 10,000.
05-18-2006, 07:09 PM
#30
Retired MF Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,891
RE: Forced vs N/A
i'm able to get 24MPG on the highway in my blown GT. w00t! or was it 23? i dunno. i have to test it again after my shat gets installed.
that's driving like a granny and not getting on it at all. i get about 16-17 when i romp on it quite a bit.
that's driving like a granny and not getting on it at all. i get about 16-17 when i romp on it quite a bit.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JDWalton
4.6L V8 Technical Discussions
8
09-24-2015 08:47 PM
ccdguy
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
1
09-19-2015 05:20 PM