Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

SC vs. Turbo


mastersmech1

Recommended Posts

I would rather much prefer Turbo's now than SC's, but it's all user preference.

 

With Turbo Technology today, turbo lag is rare, and basically non-existent. Turbo's are made for big power, but SC's are more for the "fast anytime" people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lurker likes the fixed-disp S/C for the big mid-range torque that permits him to chase Priuses (or is it Prii?).

 

Ruf likes his Vortech, like a 'turbo' with no exhaust plumbing, for it's top-end, NA motor 'feel' and 'stealth' qualities.

 

The F-series uses dual-turbos (one small for fast-spool and mid-range and one large for top-end power) and the Lincoln MKX will get the TT (two tiny turbos on the 3.5V6) -- nice!

 

I've rigged a tube from the tank that gathers the methane from the chicken-pen droppings in the back of Jan's 3.0L Taurus... hit the floor-valve by the accelerator nand it's like a NOS 15 wet-shot :hysterical2: ...if the chickens are on their feed :hysterical: ...the we compost the remainder to use on the garden to grow mor chicken feed. It's a self-sustaining cycle. Just a matter of time until the big-three commercialize this fool-proof arrangement ;)

 

Oh, gotta run ...the chickens need water... with a dash of nitromethane :superhero:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see when Hillary moved to your fair state she must have brought her friends at Tyson with her :hysterical2:

 

Ozark Mountain Dare Devils

 

"... Chicken Train, In my brain........"

 

I had a Turbo Coupe and it was very nice but +1 on a positive displacement super charger for me. Area under the torque curve is the Holy Grail :happy feet:

 

And, yes, I'm ready to face the peril........ :hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see when Hillary moved to your fair state she must have brought her friends at Tyson with her :hysterical2:

 

Ozark Mountain Dare Devils

 

"... Chicken Train, In my brain........"

 

I had a Turbo Coupe and it was very nice but +1 on a positive displacement super charger for me. Area under the torque curve is the Holy Grail :happy feet:

 

And, yes, I'm ready to face the peril........ :hysterical:

 

 

So THAT'S why she cackles like a chicken! :hysterical2: ... and she does generate a lot of poop too <lol> ...hmmm, where's my net? :hysterical2:

 

<official notice: no presidential candidates or chickens were harmed in the creation of this post. All characters are fictitious and any resemblance to actual polititianspeople or pultry is purely coincidental :hysterical: >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So THAT'S why she cackles like a chicken! :hysterical2: ... and she does generate a lot of poop too <lol> ...hmmm, where's my net? :hysterical2:

 

<official notice: no presidential candidates or chickens were harmed in the creation of this post. All characters are fictitious and any resemblance to actual polititianspeople or pultry is purely coincidental :hysterical: >

 

 

:hysterical2::hysterical2: To Funny! :hysterical2::hysterical2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really good discussion, though, I don't know if you'll get the answers you want, Mastersmech. I think whether you're looking at a turbo or a supercharger, looking purely at performance, turbos and superchargers are about equal. Everyone has their own opinions about why one is better than the other, but it really does come down to preference I think.

 

That said, there are some things to consider, though. Turbo lag, while it might have been decreased over the years, is a physical fact. The turbo does have to spin up (with higher engine rpms) to make it's boost. The turbocharged cars I've seen have needed to rev their engines up into the 3500 - 4000 rpm range to get their boost, which makes an obnoxious amount of noise (sounds like a giant fan started up) and then they're able to launch. Granted, the noise could be from the size of the turbo that was installed, but, I wouldn't want my Stang sounding like a swamp boat.

 

Another fact about turbos is they need to have cool down time. Intercoolers help, but, lets say you're on your way home from work, and you decide to race a few times. Depending upon how hard you push your car, if you get the turbo good and hot, and then come home without taking the time to slowly cool down your turbo, it can warp the turbo fan. Previous production model cars (such as the Nissan 300 ZX turbo) that came from the factory with the turbos for performance reasons, also had "turbo timer" fans installed, so that if you did run into a situation where you needed to shut down your engine before allowing the turbos to cool, the fans would run after the engine was shut off to cool them down.

 

Superchargers obviously make noise as well, they get that "whine" (or the "weeeee" as Ruf calls it ;) ) which I don't mind too much, but, again, that's preference. Superchargers are "parasitic", or have to draw power from the engine to work, but, it's not enough to really make a difference you'd care about, besides, having that power at any time WITHOUT having to rev your engine into the 3,000 plus RPM range is worth the little bit of power you'll be losing. And on top of which, it's the final power to the wheels, and the quarter mile time that really matters anyway, right? If you're making 475 HP to the wheels, who cares if you're losing a little bit in parasitic draw to allow that to happen? I like the idea of having instant power without having to worry about where my RPMs are.

 

If you observe the racing industry, whether you're talking about Formula 1, NASCAR, Drag Racing, or what have you, you'll find that supercharging is more prevelant than turbocharging. For these guys, winning is their bread and butter. They put loads of money into finding the best setup for their cars, so they can take home that winning pay check. If the majority of the racing industry is using superchargers over turbos, that's good enough for me.

 

Superchargers have power from the start, but the power curve tapers off towards the high end, turbos do the opposite, but, as I stated earlier, I think it all balances out by the end of the quarter mile.

 

 

 

- Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really good discussion, though, I don't know if you'll get the answers you want, Mastersmech. I think whether you're looking at a turbo or a supercharger, looking purely at performance, turbos and superchargers are about equal. Everyone has their own opinions about why one is better than the other, but it really does come down to preference I think.

 

That said, there are some things to consider, though. Turbo lag, while it might have been decreased over the years, is a physical fact. The turbo does have to spin up (with higher engine rpms) to make it's boost. The turbocharged cars I've seen have needed to rev their engines up into the 3500 - 4000 rpm range to get their boost, which makes an obnoxious amount of noise (sounds like a giant fan started up) and then they're able to launch. Granted, the noise could be from the size of the turbo that was installed, but, I wouldn't want my Stang sounding like a swamp boat.

 

Another fact about turbos is they need to have cool down time. Intercoolers help, but, lets say you're on your way home from work, and you decide to race a few times. Depending upon how hard you push your car, if you get the turbo good and hot, and then come home without taking the time to slowly cool down your turbo, it can warp the turbo fan. Previous production model cars (such as the Nissan 300 ZX turbo) that came from the factory with the turbos for performance reasons, also had "turbo timer" fans installed, so that if you did run into a situation where you needed to shut down your engine before allowing the turbos to cool, the fans would run after the engine was shut off to cool them down.

 

Superchargers obviously make noise as well, they get that "whine" (or the "weeeee" as Ruf calls it ;) ) which I don't mind too much, but, again, that's preference. Superchargers are "parasitic", or have to draw power from the engine to work, but, it's not enough to really make a difference you'd care about, besides, having that power at any time WITHOUT having to rev your engine into the 3,000 plus RPM range is worth the little bit of power you'll be losing. And on top of which, it's the final power to the wheels, and the quarter mile time that really matters anyway, right? If you're making 475 HP to the wheels, who cares if you're losing a little bit in parasitic draw to allow that to happen? I like the idea of having instant power without having to worry about where my RPMs are.

 

If you observe the racing industry, whether you're talking about Formula 1, NASCAR, Drag Racing, or what have you, you'll find that supercharging is more prevelant than turbocharging. For these guys, winning is their bread and butter. They put loads of money into finding the best setup for their cars, so they can take home that winning pay check. If the majority of the racing industry is using superchargers over turbos, that's good enough for me.

 

Superchargers have power from the start, but the power curve tapers off towards the high end, turbos do the opposite, but, as I stated earlier, I think it all balances out by the end of the quarter mile.

- Josh

Good input, Josh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm back where I started, leaning toward the hair dryer, like Ruffy. :hysterical:

 

Somthing else you might want to consider, Mastersmech1, is price. I haven't investigated turbos, and what they cost, plus the install, but every turbo install I've seen looks FAR more complex than installing a bolt on SC, with the possible exception of the Shelby Paxton setup. The Paxton looks just as complex as any turbo install I've seen! Any time you get more complex, it invaritably means more man hours to install, which obviously equates to $ :spend: $.

 

Do a little home work and foot work and you'll find the right setup for you. I had the same questions you do a while back, and did a google search something to the effect of: supercharger turbocharger comparison. I had to do some digging through the results, but, after a while I came across a few web pages giving statistics on turbos and the various supercharger types. The conclusion I made (for myself) was that a Whipple Supercharger had the best performance across the spectrum. And... it just so happens that Ford Racing Performance Parts sells a 400 HP whipple setup, and a 500 HP Whipple setup (with everything needed for the install). Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords also did an article on the 400 HP setup on their S197. It was really informative, and they were very objective, and gave the conditions they tested in, air temp, humidity, etc. etc.

 

 

 

 

- Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be chicken MM.

 

Be the first GT500 w/ a 1000 HP Twin Turbo'd 5.4!!! :happy feet:

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/f8e796f...9a4b4328ad2.htm

:hysterical2:

 

 

GREAT SCOTT, that's a fast mother of a Ford GT!! How would it be to have the money to have that monster?! :drop:

 

 

 

- Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somthing else you might want to consider, Mastersmech1, is price. I haven't investigated turbos, and what they cost, plus the install, but every turbo install I've seen looks FAR more complex than installing a bolt on SC, with the possible exception of the Shelby Paxton setup. The Paxton looks just as complex as any turbo install I've seen! Any time you get more complex, it invaritably means more man hours to install, which obviously equates to $ :spend: $.

 

Do a little home work and foot work and you'll find the right setup for you. I had the same questions you do a while back, and did a google search something to the effect of: supercharger turbocharger comparison. I had to do some digging through the results, but, after a while I came across a few web pages giving statistics on turbos and the various supercharger types. The conclusion I made (for myself) was that a Whipple Supercharger had the best performance across the spectrum. And... it just so happens that Ford Racing Performance Parts sells a 400 HP whipple setup, and a 500 HP Whipple setup (with everything needed for the install). Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords also did an article on the 400 HP setup on their S197. It was really informative, and they were very objective, and gave the conditions they tested in, air temp, humidity, etc. etc.

- Josh

I'm saving about $1500 having the Vortech installed vs a Whipple 10lb HO kit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments on boost considerations. There are some widely-propagated misconceptions on turbo-lag and even some magazine articles routinely confuse turbo-lag with the fact that turbos build power more effectively at the top-end.

 

Turbo lag is the time from when you jab the throttle to when the turbo spools-up, i.e. starts being able to respond with any boost (regardless of how much). This is related to rpm but is a different phenomenon from the fact that turbos don't generate much boost at lower rpm.

 

This will be clearer if you think of a centrifugal supercharger as a belt-driven turbo. Unlike turbos, centrifugals have no spool-up lag because they don't have to wait, on the jab of the throttle, for increased exhaust flow to physically 'spool-up' the compressor impeller (because centrifugals, unlike turbos, are belt and gear driven). Like a turbo, they don't make much low-mid boost but centrifugals have no spool-up throttle-lag. I.e. they'll make immediately whatever boost they can achieve for that rpm without the spool-up lag because, unlike a turbo, they are always spooled-up (proportionate to whatever rpm the engine may be at).

 

Of course, the strength of the fixed-displacement s/c is that not only is there no lag, like a centrifugal, but their output is virtually linear with rpm (fixed-displacement) so they make more boost earlier than either a belt-driven centrifugal or an exhaust-driven centrifugal (turbo).

 

The net effect is that a fixed-displacement s/c (whether roots, twin-screw or new hi-helix roots) puts more area under the torque and power curves for a given peak boost and does more of it from a much lower rpm than the centrifugals/turbos.

 

The notion of parasitic losses often attributed only to fixed-displacement S/Cs is erroneous, imo, since belt/gear-driven centrifugals also carry similar mechanical losses. Turbos do too, they just carry the loss as exhaust backpressure which reduces HP just as surely as any mechanical parasitic loss.

 

The real difference between S/Cs and turbos is how the power is "gated." Fixed-disp S/Cs, because of their very nature, need a bypass valve so that boost pressure only saps engine power when invoked with the throttle. Turbos use an exhaust 'waste-gate' to route exhaust gasses around the turbo, but it performs a similar function by not burdening the engine with power-robbing back-pressure when the throttle isn't invoking it.

 

There are various turbo strategies to get around the spool-up lag too. While twin-turbos typically feed different banks of the engine simulatneously, a dual-turbo design (like the new F-series diesel) uses two different (both size and design) turbos: a very small low-mass variable-vaned turbo that spools up very rapidly and can then gradually change its impeller pitch to make boost at fairly low rpm, and a large turbo that, necessarily, incurrs more lag (but doesn't matter) an is tuned to make big boost at mid-higher rpm. The small turbo efffectively hands-off to the large one as the revs rise: no lag, early torque and big mid-range torque -- a win-win-win.

 

Another turbo strategy is to accept a little more exhaust parasitic loss to keep the turbo very lightly loaded (partially spun-up) so that when boost is invoked, the lag is minimal; exotic low-mass materials can help reduce turbo lag further.

 

Still another strategy is a single variable vane turbo (like a big version of the small one on the F-series) which can, as the name suggests, change the angle of the impeller vanes to minimize partial-spool losses or minimize spool-up lag (depending on the design priority) as well as change the vane angles as rpm rise for high-volume boost relatively efficiently at higher rpm.

 

So, all boost strategies have advantages and drawbacks, imo I too am a fixed-displacement bigot (though I'll take the sweet song of a high-revving NA motor given the choice of similar output). To my mind a fixed-disp S/C is ideal for a muscle car because it's much more forgiving on gear selection when you punch it due to the big-early torque and who doesn't like to light up the skins for effect just once in a while ;-) But it requires a robust bottom-end on the engine too. So for a given amount of maximum boost, a fixed displacement S/C will beat the pants off any centrifugal/turbo because of the huge area under the torque curve. On the other hand turbos can make huge amounts of boost at higher rpm. But within a given level of engine strength, a fixed-displacement S/C will put more area under the total power curve up to that level of engine strength than any other design, imo, and is therefore the ultimate street compressor.

 

Many racers use turbos for the same reason they use nitrous: they don't need more power in the low-mid-range where the challenge is just getting the car to hook the alrady huge power to the track. Nitrous, turbos and centrifugals therefore work better as logical power-adders in that application once the car is hooked, so have that advantage, especially in classes that limit tire-size (traction). But the NHRA fuel classes, where huge tires and air-pressure hyper-staged clutches are de rigeur rely on fixed disp S/Cs to make the most power across the band.

 

That said, it is a matter of preference (as an earlier post pointd out) and application, imo. Intercooled twin-screw and new hi-helix roots are the most thermally efficient boost devices, imo, and have proven extremely reliable too and would be my first choice for prodigious area under the curve.

 

In Ruf's case where he's doubling the output on the stock rods, the Vortech centrifugal is a nice choice since huge low-mid torque of a fixed-disp might make pretzels of the GT's rods but spreading the power across more individual power strokes (boost at higher rpm = less energy per stroke) is a nice compromise and likely a bit more friendly to an engine near it's structural limits, given the same target peak power output. I.e. application is a very worthwhile consideration as well. I suspect this is precisely why Ford/SAI selected the Vortech for the Shelby GT-SC's stock rods as well.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 Dan! Area under the curve :happy feet:

 

EDIT:

 

An important aspect is to understand your boost and to develop driving techniques that take advantage of its strengths.

 

 

 

Good point, Mark! Are you conjuring a compressor in your future?

 

Btw, I love the nicely-balanced list of handling/power mods on your car :happy feet: ...has to be a ball to play with in the twisties ;-) :bandance:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliment Dan. I long to take it out on a road track. One small detail that I didn't research - tracks don't let convertibles race unless we have an approved roll bar. :banghead:

 

oh, well... there's always those Moab-area backroads where the po-lice never tread :happy feet: :bandance: :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments on boost considerations. There are some widely-propagated misconceptions on turbo-lag and even some magazine articles routinely confuse turbo-lag with the fact that turbos build power more effectively at the top-end.

 

Turbo lag is the time from when you jab the throttle to when the turbo spools-up, i.e. starts being able to respond with any boost (regardless of how much). This is related to rpm but is a different phenomenon from the fact that turbos don't generate much boost at lower rpm.

 

This will be clearer if you think of a centrifugal supercharger as a belt-driven turbo. Unlike turbos, centrifugals have no spool-up lag because they don't have to wait, on the jab of the throttle, for increased exhaust flow to physically 'spool-up' the compressor impeller (because centrifugals, unlike turbos, are belt and gear driven). Like a turbo, they don't make much low-mid boost but centrifugals have no spool-up throttle-lag. I.e. they'll make immediately whatever boost they can achieve for that rpm without the spool-up lag because, unlike a turbo, they are always spooled-up (proportionate to whatever rpm the engine may be at).

 

Of course, the strength of the fixed-displacement s/c is that not only is there no lag, like a centrifugal, but their output is virtually linear with rpm (fixed-displacement) so they make more boost earlier than either a belt-driven centrifugal or an exhaust-driven centrifugal (turbo).

 

The net effect is that a fixed-displacement s/c (whether roots, twin-screw or new hi-helix roots) puts more area under the torque and power curves for a given peak boost and does more of it from a much lower rpm than the centrifugals/turbos.

 

The notion of parasitic losses often attributed only to fixed-displacement S/Cs is erroneous, imo, since belt/gear-driven centrifugals also carry similar mechanical losses. Turbos do too, they just carry the loss as exhaust backpressure which reduces HP just as surely as any mechanical parasitic loss.

 

The real difference between S/Cs and turbos is how the power is "gated." Fixed-disp S/Cs, because of their very nature, need a bypass valve so that boost pressure only saps engine power when invoked with the throttle. Turbos use an exhaust 'waste-gate' to route exhaust gasses around the turbo, but it performs a similar function by not burdening the engine with power-robbing back-pressure when the throttle isn't invoking it.

 

There are various turbo strategies to get around the spool-up lag too. While twin-turbos typically feed different banks of the engine simulatneously, a dual-turbo design (like the new F-series diesel) uses two different (both size and design) turbos: a very small low-mass variable-vaned turbo that spools up very rapidly and can then gradually change its impeller pitch to make boost at fairly low rpm, and a large turbo that, necessarily, incurrs more lag (but doesn't matter) an is tuned to make big boost at mid-higher rpm. The small turbo efffectively hands-off to the large one as the revs rise: no lag, early torque and big mid-range torque -- a win-win-win.

 

Another turbo strategy is to accept a little more exhaust parasitic loss to keep the turbo very lightly loaded (partially spun-up) so that when boost is invoked, the lag is minimal; exotic low-mass materials can help reduce turbo lag further.

 

Still another strategy is a single variable vane turbo (like a big version of the small one on the F-series) which can, as the name suggests, change the angle of the impeller vanes to minimize partial-spool losses or minimize spool-up lag (depending on the design priority) as well as change the vane angles as rpm rise for high-volume boost relatively efficiently at higher rpm.

 

So, all boost strategies have advantages and drawbacks, imo I too am a fixed-displacement bigot (though I'll take the sweet song of a high-revving NA motor given the choice of similar output). To my mind a fixed-disp S/C is ideal for a muscle car because it's much more forgiving on gear selection when you punch it due to the big-early torque and who doesn't like to light up the skins for effect just once in a while ;-) But it requires a robust bottom-end on the engine too. So for a given amount of maximum boost, a fixed displacement S/C will beat the pants off any centrifugal/turbo because of the huge area under the torque curve. On the other hand turbos can make huge amounts of boost at higher rpm. But within a given level of engine strength, a fixed-displacement S/C will put more area under the total power curve up to that level of engine strength than any other design, imo, and is therefore the ultimate street compressor.

 

Many racers use turbos for the same reason they use nitrous: they don't need more power in the low-mid-range where the challenge is just getting the car to hook the alrady huge power to the track. Nitrous, turbos and centrifugals therefore work better as logical power-adders in that application once the car is hooked, so have that advantage, especially in classes that limit tire-size (traction). But the NHRA fuel classes, where huge tires and air-pressure hyper-staged clutches are de rigeur rely on fixed disp S/Cs to make the most power across the band.

 

That said, it is a matter of preference (as an earlier post pointd out) and application, imo. Intercooled twin-screw and new hi-helix roots are the most thermally efficient boost devices, imo, and have proven extremely reliable too and would be my first choice for prodigious area under the curve.

 

In Ruf's case where he's doubling the output on the stock rods, the Vortech centrifugal is a nice choice since huge low-mid torque of a fixed-disp might make pretzels of the GT's rods but spreading the power across more individual power strokes (boost at higher rpm = less energy per stroke) is a nice compromise and likely a bit more friendly to an engine near it's structural limits, given the same target peak power output. I.e. application is a very worthwhile consideration as well. I suspect this is precisely why Ford/SAI selected the Vortech for the Shelby GT-SC's stock rods as well.

 

Dan

 

 

 

And then someone like Dan comes along and puts it perfectly. Nice write up, Dan! :banvictory:

 

On high reving NA engines, isn't the main problem with that setup that it's a LARGE and heavy engine to make that kind of HP? Which also throws off the car's weight distro, which has been the biggest complaint of "test drivers" on the GT500... too nose heavy.

 

 

 

- Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then someone like Dan comes along and puts it perfectly. Nice write up, Dan! :banvictory:

 

On high reving NA engines, isn't the main problem with that setup that it's a LARGE and heavy engine to make that kind of HP? Which also throws off the car's weight distro, which has been the biggest complaint of "test drivers" on the GT500... too nose heavy.

- Josh

 

..not necessarily... certainly forced-induction has power-density benefits, especially as an add-on, but even an iron 427FE was about 650 lbs and the legendary 427 SOHC Cammer was 680lbs. The 5.4 iron mod in the GT500 is 810 lbs. In alloy any of these would be about 85-100 lbs less.

 

A Ford thin-wall-cast SB (which can be pushed to 427cid using the 351 hi-deck block) run mid-upper 500s, about 100lbs less than the FE. SBs have no lower skirt and the block is physically smaller too -- they're also considerably weaker, except for the new Boss SBs (intro'd 11/06) which use a super-strong diesel-formula iron.

 

Just a swag, but I suspect a SOHC 7.0L H/Boss in iron (ugh!) but using packaging principles of the 3.5L V6 might actually be 100-125 lbs or so lighter than the 5.4 S/C motor. The S/C assembly alone on the GT500 is about 150lbs (according to the Romeo folks, including the S/C, IC and TB) and the 2 additional cams and larger DOHC heads add weight too. I'm assuming both would be robust deep-skit designs, so no diff there.

 

---

 

fyi, CGI is rapidly coming of age in a production sense. Even tho alloy is fundamentally lighter, CGI holds the promise of cheaper and stronger and, if in thinwall, maybe nearly as light for a given strength too (dunno, since I know of no true apples-to-apples examples yet).

 

Hundai will be making some 2008 engines in CGI (by SinterCast Corp, est. 700-900K blocks/yr) and International (Navistar) starts shipping their MaxxForce 11 & 13L big-bore diesels in CGI in 2008 (cast by Navistar subsidiaries in Brazil, I think).

 

Ford has talked of CGI and Cosworth presently offers a I-4 Focus aftermarket racing block for the big-boost Focus crowd. The 2.0L Focus in CGI holds 400+HP under racing conditions very reliably from what I've read.

 

I've also seen rumors of [Ford?] thinking on CGI as a way of using a single block architecture for both gas and diesel applications since CGI is super strong ...but have heard nothing in a production context.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..not necessarily... certainly forced-induction has power-density benefits, especially as an add-on, but even an iron 427FE was about 650 lbs and the legendary 427 SOHC Cammer was 680lbs. The 5.4 iron mod in the GT500 is 810 lbs. In alloy any of these would be about 85-100 lbs less.

 

A Ford thin-wall-cast SB (which can be pushed to 427cid using the 351 hi-deck block) run mid-upper 500s, about 100lbs less than the FE. SBs have no lower skirt and the block is physically smaller too -- they're also considerably weaker, except for the new Boss SBs (intro'd 11/06) which use a super-strong diesel-formula iron.

 

Just a swag, but I suspect a SOHC 7.0L H/Boss in iron (ugh!) but using packaging principles of the 3.5L V6 might actually be 100-125 lbs or so lighter than the 5.4 S/C motor. The S/C assembly alone on the GT500 is about 150lbs (according to the Romeo folks, including the S/C, IC and TB) and the 2 additional cams and larger DOHC heads add weight too. I'm assuming both would be robust deep-skit designs, so no diff there.

 

---

 

fyi, CGI is rapidly coming of age in a production sense. Even tho alloy is fundamentally lighter, CGI holds the promise of cheaper and stronger and, if in thinwall, maybe nearly as light for a given strength too (dunno, since I know of no true apples-to-apples examples yet).

 

Hundai will be making some 2008 engines in CGI (by SinterCast Corp, est. 700-900K blocks/yr) and International (Navistar) starts shipping their MaxxForce 11 & 13L big-bore diesels in CGI in 2008 (cast by Navistar subsidiaries in Brazil, I think).

 

Ford has talked of CGI and Cosworth presently offers a I-4 Focus aftermarket racing block for the big-boost Focus crowd. The 2.0L Focus in CGI holds 400+HP under racing conditions very reliably from what I've read.

 

I've also seen rumors of [Ford?] thinking on CGI as a way of using a single block architecture for both gas and diesel applications since CGI is super strong ...but have heard nothing in a production context.

 

Dan

 

 

Dang, Dan! It baffles me how much is stored in that noggin' of yours! Awesome info! Now, what does CGI stand for?

 

This is the kind of information (and production tech) I've been waiting for. Smaller lighter engines producing more HP more efficiently, and more importantly, reliably! I'm sure that when these engines start to be commonplace (hopefully for Ford) the same technology can be applied to the drive train for the increased HP.

 

Now, if we could only find a way to make fossil fuel affordable still, we'll all be able to hold on to our muscle cars a while longer!

 

 

 

- Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...
...