View Poll Results: A poll
PowerDyne
0
0%
BBK
0
0%
Eaton S/C
0
0%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll
KB vs. Other S/C's...POLE!PICK your FAV.
01-23-2005, 03:01 PM
#22
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 3,020
RE: KB vs. Other S/C's...POLE!PICK your FAV.
If you are gonna do turbos, then it makes sense to re-cam your car. Turbos on stock cams make the least sense of everything. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. The turbos need rpm's to shine the best, and with stock cams your top end power is limited. A re-cam'd car is a different story, allowing for the turbos to do their best work higher in the rpm range. With a serious lack of bottom end in a turbo'd car with stock cams, your effective rpm 'window' is only about 3,500-5,500 rpms. You'd be working against yourself. The same holds true for centrifugally blown cars, except your bottom end power comes in a little sooner. On a mustang with stock internals and stock cams, comparing a centrifugal blower to tt's is a similar comparison, but with a centrifugal blower the power comes in a little sooner. To me, this dictates that with the stock internals and cams, you would gain nothing from tt's over a centrifugal blower. -Which dictates that NO ONE should do tt's with stock cams. You would gain more with a centrifugal blower, save $ on the kit, and save $ on installation. If somebody can give me some logic against my point, lets hear it. (Or you could get a very balanced power adder, the KB, that shines all the time!)
01-23-2005, 08:34 PM
#25
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 3,020
RE: KB vs. Other S/C's...POLE!PICK your FAV.
I'm working on getting Saleen on the car. I cut better apex's than anyone else in shutdown turnout. -And hey, all the cars I drive have screw blowers. (except the 01 which is for sale) BTW, the blower on my dragster last year was making 42 lbs of boost. But seriously,street car wise, I owned both a centrifugally blown car and a twin screw car and it's not even close. If you got the $, get screwed. People that say screw cars don't make top end power are people that haven't ridden in or driven a properly set up screw car.
01-23-2005, 11:10 PM
#26
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Suwanee, GA
Posts: 2,042
RE: KB vs. Other S/C's...POLE!PICK your FAV.
ORIGINAL: Birdieman4
If you are gonna do turbos, then it makes sense to re-cam your car. Turbos on stock cams make the least sense of everything. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. The turbos need rpm's to shine the best, and with stock cams your top end power is limited. A re-cam'd car is a different story, allowing for the turbos to do their best work higher in the rpm range. With a serious lack of bottom end in a turbo'd car with stock cams, your effective rpm 'window' is only about 3,500-5,500 rpms. You'd be working against yourself. The same holds true for centrifugally blown cars, except your bottom end power comes in a little sooner. On a mustang with stock internals and stock cams, comparing a centrifugal blower to tt's is a similar comparison, but with a centrifugal blower the power comes in a little sooner. To me, this dictates that with the stock internals and cams, you would gain nothing from tt's over a centrifugal blower. -Which dictates that NO ONE should do tt's with stock cams. You would gain more with a centrifugal blower, save $ on the kit, and save $ on installation. If somebody can give me some logic against my point, lets hear it. (Or you could get a very balanced power adder, the KB, that shines all the time!)
If you are gonna do turbos, then it makes sense to re-cam your car. Turbos on stock cams make the least sense of everything. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. The turbos need rpm's to shine the best, and with stock cams your top end power is limited. A re-cam'd car is a different story, allowing for the turbos to do their best work higher in the rpm range. With a serious lack of bottom end in a turbo'd car with stock cams, your effective rpm 'window' is only about 3,500-5,500 rpms. You'd be working against yourself. The same holds true for centrifugally blown cars, except your bottom end power comes in a little sooner. On a mustang with stock internals and stock cams, comparing a centrifugal blower to tt's is a similar comparison, but with a centrifugal blower the power comes in a little sooner. To me, this dictates that with the stock internals and cams, you would gain nothing from tt's over a centrifugal blower. -Which dictates that NO ONE should do tt's with stock cams. You would gain more with a centrifugal blower, save $ on the kit, and save $ on installation. If somebody can give me some logic against my point, lets hear it. (Or you could get a very balanced power adder, the KB, that shines all the time!)
people think exhaust pressure makes turbos boost, it is exhaust heat. when you free rev a turbocharged engine there is no spool up until you put a load on the engine. if turbos only shine in the high RPMs then why does a deisel that maxes out at 2400 Rpms make max boost at 1/4 that speed. you do need cams to take full advantage of the turbo, but there is no parasitic loss as with any supercharger setup. you can make more power with the same boost as long as it is tuned properly.
01-24-2005, 01:08 AM
#27
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Posts: 633
RE: KB vs. Other S/C's...POLE!PICK your FAV.
I don't know why you have to spend 5k on a KB when you can get the 1.7 for about 3,800 with everything included, I know is only 6 psi but you can easily change pullies to 8, 9, 10 and get 160+ rwhp.
01-24-2005, 02:27 PM
#28
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 3,020
RE: KB vs. Other S/C's...POLE!PICK your FAV.
I don't know why you have to spend 5k on a KB when you can get the 1.7 for about 3,800 with everything included, I know is only 6 psi but you can easily change pullies to 8, 9, 10 and get 160+ rwhp.
01-24-2005, 03:28 PM
#29
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: KB vs. Other S/C's...POLE!PICK your FAV.
ORIGINAL: matthockey32
people think exhaust pressure makes turbos boost, it is exhaust heat. when you free rev a turbocharged engine there is no spool up until you put a load on the engine. if turbos only shine in the high RPMs then why does a deisel that maxes out at 2400 Rpms make max boost at 1/4 that speed. you do need cams to take full advantage of the turbo, but there is no parasitic loss as with any supercharger setup. you can make more power with the same boost as long as it is tuned properly.
ORIGINAL: Birdieman4
If you are gonna do turbos, then it makes sense to re-cam your car. Turbos on stock cams make the least sense of everything. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. The turbos need rpm's to shine the best, and with stock cams your top end power is limited. A re-cam'd car is a different story, allowing for the turbos to do their best work higher in the rpm range. With a serious lack of bottom end in a turbo'd car with stock cams, your effective rpm 'window' is only about 3,500-5,500 rpms. You'd be working against yourself. The same holds true for centrifugally blown cars, except your bottom end power comes in a little sooner. On a mustang with stock internals and stock cams, comparing a centrifugal blower to tt's is a similar comparison, but with a centrifugal blower the power comes in a little sooner. To me, this dictates that with the stock internals and cams, you would gain nothing from tt's over a centrifugal blower. -Which dictates that NO ONE should do tt's with stock cams. You would gain more with a centrifugal blower, save $ on the kit, and save $ on installation. If somebody can give me some logic against my point, lets hear it. (Or you could get a very balanced power adder, the KB, that shines all the time!)
If you are gonna do turbos, then it makes sense to re-cam your car. Turbos on stock cams make the least sense of everything. You're just shooting yourself in the foot. The turbos need rpm's to shine the best, and with stock cams your top end power is limited. A re-cam'd car is a different story, allowing for the turbos to do their best work higher in the rpm range. With a serious lack of bottom end in a turbo'd car with stock cams, your effective rpm 'window' is only about 3,500-5,500 rpms. You'd be working against yourself. The same holds true for centrifugally blown cars, except your bottom end power comes in a little sooner. On a mustang with stock internals and stock cams, comparing a centrifugal blower to tt's is a similar comparison, but with a centrifugal blower the power comes in a little sooner. To me, this dictates that with the stock internals and cams, you would gain nothing from tt's over a centrifugal blower. -Which dictates that NO ONE should do tt's with stock cams. You would gain more with a centrifugal blower, save $ on the kit, and save $ on installation. If somebody can give me some logic against my point, lets hear it. (Or you could get a very balanced power adder, the KB, that shines all the time!)
people think exhaust pressure makes turbos boost, it is exhaust heat. when you free rev a turbocharged engine there is no spool up until you put a load on the engine. if turbos only shine in the high RPMs then why does a deisel that maxes out at 2400 Rpms make max boost at 1/4 that speed. you do need cams to take full advantage of the turbo, but there is no parasitic loss as with any supercharger setup. you can make more power with the same boost as long as it is tuned properly.
Turbo lag is a thing of the past in most moderate sized turbos of today. Sure ifyou have a 1000 RWHP supra with a turbo about 2 foot wide then it will lag, but most midlevel applications have very little lag.
A Deisel is a competely different story. It isnt set up to make horsepower, but torque. And they flow so much air you wouldnt beileve it. Pistons that are bigger around than your head flow alot of air, even down low in the RPM band.
01-24-2005, 03:33 PM
#30
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: KB vs. Other S/C's...POLE!PICK your FAV.
ORIGINAL: Birdieman4
....From 4500 rpms and up? Too bad street driving requires you to exist under 4500 rpms. MD just made the best argument for doing a screw blower for a street application, life under 4500 rpms on the street.
hmmm.... let me think... 3k for a Vortec that will make more average and more peak hp than a KB from 4500 rpm...
This is the same argument the 5.0 guys try to make when they attempt to say they were/are faster stock than the 99+. Great, you make a crapload of bottom end torque, but unless we are racing from a 30 roll starting in 5th I dont see how this is gonna help you.
The only reason the truly "Big" classes use screw blowers is because you need to develop as much power as you can ALL of the time. You dont have time to wait for the RPMS to spool at all when you are running a quarter mile in 4 seconds. Any class running under 7-8 seconds has little if any application on the street, it is a totally different beast.
If you ever take notice, I have never seen a screw type blower in the true street etc mustang classes. Anything from about 8 seconds and up is running either a turbo or centrifugal (or nitrous).