TT or SC?
05-19-2005, 03:43 AM
#21
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chesterfield, VA
Posts: 399
RE: TT or SC?
Isnt turbos for - drag racin and s/c - street type of driving! I think to buy a s/c for half the price of a turbo, is well worth it! A keene belle can reach up to 420hp at 9 psi, Now that is just the s/c ALONE! I dont know why people want soooo much power now a dayz, maybe its jus me, but around 400- 500hp is the "limit" for me!! jmo
05-19-2005, 04:17 PM
#22
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 3,967
RE: TT or SC?
ORIGINAL: Birdieman4
You STILL don't get it. I do buy into the turbo thing, just not on stock cams and stock internals. In the same article you mentioned, look at the centrifugal blower hp curve. Boost comes in smoother, sooner, and pulls like a turbo set-up to redline. Also, take a good look at the turbo hp curve. Look how much sooner boost comes in in the centrifugal car, not to mention the twin screw vs. the turbo setup. You aren't making any real boost until 3500 rpm's. If you are going to shift your car at 5500 rpm's, it only gives you a 2000 rpm boost range. Now with aftermarket cams, it would help that boost rpm range considerably, but we're not talking about aftermarket cams, we're talking stock. Look at the price difference to run a centrifugal blower vs. TT's. Tuning a centrifugal car is also easier than trying to tune a turbo set-up. The article you mentioned only backs up my point even further. It is far more locical, for all the reasons I have just mentioned, to do a blower on a stock gt over a turbo set-up. PERIOD. And P.S. ...........
This statement proves you don't know what you're talking about.
If you still don't buy into the turbo thing, I suggest you go pick up a copy of MM&FF from about 3 months ago. They did a blower/turbo contest on a 03 cobra motor (engine dyno). The TTs simply walked away from everything else. I am talking in the neighborhood of like 150+ more HP peak. They were down on power from the eaton and even the centrifigual until about 3000 RPM, and then look out. If I had a scanner I would post the pics for ya.
Wrong. Every single time, a stock bottom end GT with a set of turbos will rape a stock bottom end GT with a blower. They have competely STOCK GTs, down to the exaust and T/B, making 425~RWHP and 500 Ft/Lbs on just a set of TTs. There is no charger built that will make this kind of power safely without extensive modifications. I wouldn't expect to make more than 380 RWHP and MAYBE 400 Ft/Lbs from a 8PSI blower on a otherwise stock car.
OWNED
05-19-2005, 04:42 PM
#23
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: TT or SC?
ORIGINAL: Birdieman4
You STILL don't get it. I do buy into the turbo thing, just not on stock cams and stock internals. In the same article you mentioned, look at the centrifugal blower hp curve. Boost comes in smoother, sooner, and pulls like a turbo set-up to redline. Also, take a good look at the turbo hp curve. Look how much sooner boost comes in in the centrifugal car, not to mention the twin screw vs. the turbo setup. You aren't making any real boost until 3500 rpm's. If you are going to shift your car at 5500 rpm's, it only gives you a 2000 rpm boost range. Now with aftermarket cams, it would help that boost rpm range considerably, but we're not talking about aftermarket cams, we're talking stock. Look at the price difference to run a centrifugal blower vs. TT's. Tuning a centrifugal car is also easier than trying to tune a turbo set-up. The article you mentioned only backs up my point even further. It is far more locical, for all the reasons I have just mentioned, to do a blower on a stock gt over a turbo set-up. PERIOD. And P.S. ...........
This statement proves you don't know what you're talking about.
If you still don't buy into the turbo thing, I suggest you go pick up a copy of MM&FF from about 3 months ago. They did a blower/turbo contest on a 03 cobra motor (engine dyno). The TTs simply walked away from everything else. I am talking in the neighborhood of like 150+ more HP peak. They were down on power from the eaton and even the centrifigual until about 3000 RPM, and then look out. If I had a scanner I would post the pics for ya.
Wrong. Every single time, a stock bottom end GT with a set of turbos will rape a stock bottom end GT with a blower. They have competely STOCK GTs, down to the exaust and T/B, making 425~RWHP and 500 Ft/Lbs on just a set of TTs. There is no charger built that will make this kind of power safely without extensive modifications. I wouldn't expect to make more than 380 RWHP and MAYBE 400 Ft/Lbs from a 8PSI blower on a otherwise stock car.
You DO realise (being a know it all "professional drag racer") that redline is near 6000 RPM with a GT right? And you do realise that if you shift at redline, the next gear starts at around 3500~ right? So in other words, for the first .1 seconds with the turbo car, your out of the horsepower range, and then for the rest of the race your right in the curve right???
And exactly how does the last quote prove anything, its the TRUTH. Show me ANY supercharger making much over 380ish RWHP on a otherwise stock GT.
Here's a little dyno link fo YA. I guess being a "professional drag racer" means you can spout any **** without backup. I await your post of a link to a otherwise stock gt with a charger kit running 8psi and making numbers anywhere CLOSE to this. (espcially the TQ)
http://www.turbochargedpower.com/200...Cunningham.htm
Da Dyno: http://www.turbochargedpower.com/ima...555%20rwtq.jpg
Please note on the webpage : "Ron's 2001 GT is bone stock except for the HP twin turbo kit and the torque converter" This is thru an AUTO for petes sake, with a stock x pipe and catback killing the very top of the powerband. MDs cam'd/full boltons car with a vortech only made 425 RWHP and a ****load less torque THRU A 5 SPD.
Now im not saying that you cannot build a GT faster with the same amount of money and a supercharger, or that superchargers are useless (im going with a charger soon), but your statement was that "There is no logical reason to do TT's on a stock bottom end and stock cams. PERIOD. " This statement is wrong, plain and simple. It may not be cost efficent, but it sure does make more power, and the car is faster. Not to mention that everything you do after the TT kit will make the car that much faster than a supercharged car.
Who got owned now?
P.S. Good luck on that powerdyne. I hope you like sending your blower out every few months for a rebuild.
05-19-2005, 05:49 PM
#24
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 3,020
RE: TT or SC?
And exactly how does the last quote prove anything, its the TRUTH. Show me ANY supercharger making much over 380ish RWHP on a otherwise stock GT.
I guess being a "professional drag racer" means you can spout any **** without backup.
Now im not saying that you cannot build a GT faster with the same amount of money and a supercharger, or that superchargers are useless (im going with a charger soon), but your statement was that "There is no logical reason to do TT's on a stock bottom end and stock cams. PERIOD. " This statement is wrong, plain and simple. It may not be cost efficent, but it sure does make more power, and the car is faster.
Now im not saying that you cannot build a GT faster with the same amount of money and a supercharger, or that superchargers are useless (im going with a charger soon)
Who got owned now?
05-19-2005, 06:10 PM
#25
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 862
RE: TT or SC?
ORIGINAL: Birdieman4
First of all, NOBODY runs a power adder without at least upgrading their exhaust and mufflers. Even though the guy you mentioned is doing it, no one else is, mostly because it's foolish. So, you aren't going to find a guy driving a supercharged car without at least an exhaust upgrade for a comparison. On good gas, I am firmly convinced I could tune a stock gt to 400+ rwhp. With just an exhaust upgrade, my procharged S281 makes 440 rwhp @ 9ish psi. Remeber a few months ago when I informed you that I had tuned several mustangs to within 1% of their hp potential without a dyno using a digital wideband? You were convinced it was impossible until MD and others informed you it was possible. You certainly didn't believe me. And still don't.
I always back up my info with real world data. I'm still waiting for you to back up your statement about how 'twin screw blowers aren't as fast as centrifugal cars at the track'
You just contradicted yourself in that statement. The discussion here isn't psi to psi, it is hp to hp #, as it has been all along. It is common knowledge to all that a turbo car will make more power at the same psi vs a blower. Got a blown gt making 400 rwhp and wanna make it faster? No problem, just run a little more boost. You STILL don't get it. A stock gt with stock internals can only handle so much hp. It's a concrete #. It's a fixed #. Getting the car's rwhp to the 'high but safe' point is easy for both a blown gt and a tt gt. We're not talking boost psi to boost psi, were talking hp to hp. Let me ask you this. You say...
Tell me, for what reasons are you doing a blower over a turbo set-up? Your answer wil probably be, "it is less $, easier to tune, and I can get the hp I want out of it on my stock internal set-up" Your answers you give for doing the blower will be answers out of practicality and logic. My point exactly, and thank you for helping to back up my point even further. So, my answer to your question...
...is YOU did. BTW, I never said anything about being owned, that was David K. Looks to me like he was calling them like he sees them. -And on the Powerdyne thing, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never owned one, never will.
And exactly how does the last quote prove anything, its the TRUTH. Show me ANY supercharger making much over 380ish RWHP on a otherwise stock GT.
I guess being a "professional drag racer" means you can spout any **** without backup.
Now im not saying that you cannot build a GT faster with the same amount of money and a supercharger, or that superchargers are useless (im going with a charger soon), but your statement was that "There is no logical reason to do TT's on a stock bottom end and stock cams. PERIOD. " This statement is wrong, plain and simple. It may not be cost efficent, but it sure does make more power, and the car is faster.
Now im not saying that you cannot build a GT faster with the same amount of money and a supercharger, or that superchargers are useless (im going with a charger soon)
Who got owned now?
This surpasses ownage. It's like a new level of ownage...I can't even explain it. Please, 2000gt4.6: don't reply, because I may die of laughter if Birdie has to rape your a$$ again. Oh, and by the way...I'd go S/C. I like superchargers more, i dont have any reason why, just think they look/sound better--not too mention that s/c's are in my opinion a more of a domestic induction...tt's are for imports. But liek I said, that's just My personal opinion.
P.S. Don't argue with Birdie...he knows more than all of us do. He does this **** for a living, and is damn good at it from what I hear.
good day all!
05-19-2005, 08:35 PM
#26
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 3,967
RE: TT or SC?
Whoa wait, birdie i dont remember anybody saying anything about powerdyne. im just able to get it for $510. cant go wrong with that.
and yes i call the shots like i see them
"on the sole count of ownage in the in the first degree how do you find?"
"on the sole count of ownage in the first degree, we find 2000GT4.6 guilty."
"thank you ladies and gentleman of the jury you may now be excused."
"sentencing to commence first thing in the morning, may God have mercy on your soul"
and yes i call the shots like i see them
"on the sole count of ownage in the in the first degree how do you find?"
"on the sole count of ownage in the first degree, we find 2000GT4.6 guilty."
"thank you ladies and gentleman of the jury you may now be excused."
"sentencing to commence first thing in the morning, may God have mercy on your soul"
