To SC or not????? my SGT

[Son of GT]

Hi Tony, Did you ask Bud about the gear "shift wars" with the auto SGT SC at high altitudes? I live in Denver and drive my subaru automatic on I-70 btw Vail and Denver all the time and know exactly what you're talking about. I noticed everybody that answered you here were pretty much flatlanders. Driving above 5280 ft changes things alot!

 

 

On a side note, hope to see you in Steamboat this summer at the mustang roundup with at least one of your two bj's!

High altitudes are exactly why superchargers were invented (by the German's in WWII) in the first place, so if anything, a person living at high altitudes would benefit by supercharging their engine because of the forced induction it creates. I believe that the Subaru has a naturally asperated engine which probably suffers greatly at high altitudes, but if the transmission is hunting for a gear while you are driving up a long grade, that issue might not be related to the altitude per se. It's probably happening because of the Subaru's small displacement engine. The transmission is shifting as a reaction to throttle postion, engine R.P.M., and vehicle speed, and would down shift frequently going up a long grade because it's trying to select the best gear to keep the engine within it's optimum power band for the conditions it's operating in. A naturally asperated 4 or 6 cylinder engine will perform alot differently at high altitudes than a V8 with forced induction would.

[twobjshelbys]

High altitudes are exactly why superchargers were invented (by the German's in WWII) in the first place, so if anything, a person living at high altitudes would benefit by supercharging their engine because of the forced induction it creates. I believe that the Subaru has a naturally asperated engine which probably suffers greatly at high altitudes, but if the transmission is hunting for a gear while you are driving up a long grade, that issue might not be related to the altitude per se. It's probably happening because of the Subaru's small displacement engine. The transmission is shifting as a reaction to throttle postion, engine R.P.M., and vehicle speed, and would down shift frequently going up a long grade because it's trying to select the best gear to keep the engine within it's optimum power band for the conditions it's operating in. A naturally asperated 4 or 6 cylinder engine will perform alot differently at high altitudes than a V8 with forced induction would.

 

Agreed - the hunting happens when the weight of the vehicle, grade (angle) and available power all line up on a shift point. Even my Dodge 1500 with the 5.7Hemi does it in the stretch just before the eastbound approach to the Eisenhower tunnel. Of course trying to go 75+ up that grade might have something to do with it. Paxton has a S/C for the Hemi coming

[moabman]

Actually.....

 

I was surprised to learn that Superchargers have been around for a long time.

 

From wikipedia:

 

"In cars, the device is used to increase the "effective displacement" and volumetric efficiency of an engine, and is often referred to as a blower. By pushing the air into the cylinders, it is as if the engine had larger valves and cylinders, resulting in a "larger" engine that weighs less.

 

In 1900 Gottlieb Daimler, of Daimler-Benz (now Daimler AG) fame, became the first person to patent a forced-induction system for internal combustion engines. His first superchargers were based on a twin-rotor air-pump design first patented by American Francis Roots in 1860. This design is the basis for the modern Roots type supercharger.

 

It was not long before the supercharger was applied to custom racing cars, with the first supercharged production vehicles being built by Mercedes and Bentley in the 1920s. Since then superchargers (as well as turbochargers) have been widely applied to both racing and production cars, although their complexity and cost have largely relegated the supercharger to pricey performance cars.

 

Boosting, or adding a supercharger to a stock naturally-aspirated engine, has made a comeback in recent years due largely to the increased quality of the alloys and machining used in modern engines. In the past, boosting would dramatically shorten engine life due to the extreme temperature and pressure created by the supercharger, but modern engines produced with modern materials provide considerable overdesign; thus, boosting is no longer a serious reliability concern. For this reason boosting is commonly used in smaller cars, where the added weight of the supercharger is less than the weight of a larger engine delivering the same amount of power. This also results in better gas mileage, as mileage is often a function of the overall weight of the car, a sizeable percentage of which is weight of the engine. Nevertheless, adding boost to a car will often void the drivetrain warranty. Also, improperly installed or excessive boost will greatly reduce the life expectancy of the engine, the differential and transmission (which may not have been designed to cope with additional torque)."

 

I first heard about this while I was watching a show about a Duesenberg that Jay Leno was restoring and he mentioned that Duesenberg made a supercharged straight 8 in the 20's. I had no idea that some of the techniques that we regard as High Tech & New were used so long ago. :happy feet:

[MoTheDigitalDiva]

High altitudes are exactly why superchargers were invented (by the German's in WWII) in the first place, so if anything, a person living at high altitudes would benefit by supercharging their engine because of the forced induction it creates. I believe that the Subaru has a naturally asperated engine which probably suffers greatly at high altitudes, but if the transmission is hunting for a gear while you are driving up a long grade, that issue might not be related to the altitude per se. It's probably happening because of the Subaru's small displacement engine. The transmission is shifting as a reaction to throttle postion, engine R.P.M., and vehicle speed, and would down shift frequently going up a long grade because it's trying to select the best gear to keep the engine within it's optimum power band for the conditions it's operating in. A naturally asperated 4 or 6 cylinder engine will perform alot differently at high altitudes than a V8 with forced induction would.

That is really great information. Now I have a sound rationale for investing the extra cash in supercharging my baby (and no, I'm not referring to the stinky old subaru).

[1968mustang]

I know sooner or later we can justify all of our fun toy add ons. It just takes us a little while and a team effort.

[Son of GT]

Actually.....

 

I was surprised to learn that Superchargers have been around for a long time.

 

From wikipedia:

 

"In cars, the device is used to increase the "effective displacement" and volumetric efficiency of an engine, and is often referred to as a blower. By pushing the air into the cylinders, it is as if the engine had larger valves and cylinders, resulting in a "larger" engine that weighs less.

 

In 1900 Gottlieb Daimler, of Daimler-Benz (now Daimler AG) fame, became the first person to patent a forced-induction system for internal combustion engines. His first superchargers were based on a twin-rotor air-pump design first patented by American Francis Roots in 1860. This design is the basis for the modern Roots type supercharger.

 

It was not long before the supercharger was applied to custom racing cars, with the first supercharged production vehicles being built by Mercedes and Bentley in the 1920s. Since then superchargers (as well as turbochargers) have been widely applied to both racing and production cars, although their complexity and cost have largely relegated the supercharger to pricey performance cars.

 

Boosting, or adding a supercharger to a stock naturally-aspirated engine, has made a comeback in recent years due largely to the increased quality of the alloys and machining used in modern engines. In the past, boosting would dramatically shorten engine life due to the extreme temperature and pressure created by the supercharger, but modern engines produced with modern materials provide considerable overdesign; thus, boosting is no longer a serious reliability concern. For this reason boosting is commonly used in smaller cars, where the added weight of the supercharger is less than the weight of a larger engine delivering the same amount of power. This also results in better gas mileage, as mileage is often a function of the overall weight of the car, a sizeable percentage of which is weight of the engine. Nevertheless, adding boost to a car will often void the drivetrain warranty. Also, improperly installed or excessive boost will greatly reduce the life expectancy of the engine, the differential and transmission (which may not have been designed to cope with additional torque)."

 

I first heard about this while I was watching a show about a Duesenberg that Jay Leno was restoring and he mentioned that Duesenberg made a supercharged straight 8 in the 20's. I had no idea that some of the techniques that we regard as High Tech & New were used so long ago. :happy feet:

Yes, yes, you and wikipedia are both absolutely correct, and I do know that SC were indeed around well before WWII, but in this particular example, I was referencing the German use of SCers on their carburated Messerschmitt's in order to gain an altitude and acceleration (climbing) advantage over naturally asperated enemy combat aircraft. What did we (the U.S.) do to combat that advantage?

 

We did what American's do best, find the biggest F'in engine with the most H.P. we can find, stuff it into a small airframe and then call it a .......... MUSTANG!!!! With a top speed of 455 M.P.H. which was not the norm back in the early 40's, that plane (and the Spitfire) cleared the sky's of almost every German aircraft ever built for the war effort by the time WWII ended. Towards the end of the war, the German were so low on pilots and aircraft, they started to use incomplete prototype aircraft like the ME-109, which was the first Jet engined combat aircraft. The ME-109 was super fast but didn't manuver very well, so the German pilots tended to overshoot (fly past) their targets which the Mustang pilots took advantage of.

 

Oh, with regards to a Duesenberg's SC, I can personally tell you that if you find one at a swap meet, buy it. But keep in mind that if the seller knows what they have, be prepaired to pay over $100,000.00 for one, and that's no joke, and no BS either.

[Vogon]

IMO:

The Ford Racing Intercooled kit is probably the best bolt on kit available.

The Paxton makes nice numbers and is easy to install but the Ford racing kit is nicer IMO and has ALOT more usable power. I have installed and drove both kits many of times and I truly feel the Ford Racing Intercooled kit is the best.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but will a stock GT500 SC work on the Mustang GT? My friend was thinking of adding a SC to his car, and after I'm SuperSnake'd, I'll have one available. Any hope here?

[dave c]

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but will a stock GT500 SC work on the Mustang GT? My friend was thinking of adding a SC to his car, and after I'm SuperSnake'd, I'll have one available. Any hope here?

No it won't, they are different blocks. But there are plenty of SC for the 4.6

[LuLu]

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but will a stock GT500 SC work on the Mustang GT? My friend was thinking of adding a SC to his car, and after I'm SuperSnake'd, I'll have one available. Any hope here?

No...The GT 500 is a 5.4L-4V engine, uses a different lower intake. But, you can emulate the same results from a 4.6L-3V if you know your craft.

 

However, after reading all of the posts in this thread, IMHO, many of us do not really understand what we are talking about.

[SWEDEMAN]

Wow, sounds cool. I hate to say it, but after all that cost, is it worth it? Or can you trade up to a GT500? Not sure what makes the most sense dollar wise, but if you are stuck on keeping the SGT.... sounds cool!

 

 

I am almost tipping in this direction myself and I would never trade for a GT500! The GT500 is pure brut hp but it has no cornering ability etc..etc... The GT/SC is a much better car all around from SAI than the GT500 is from SVT, in my opinion only ofcourse!! So in my mind it would NOT be a trade up but a trade down IF you decide to go with the SC. However if you just want the HP and don;t care about anything else other than it is a Shelby, then buy the Gt500. Either way they are both extremely nice cars it is just the Gt/SC is the more rare car of the 2. I think SLB8SNK new exactly what he was saying when said "if you want to trade up", that is why the Gt500 guys/gals should just leave well enough alone and just love both cars for being Shelby's.

[IASHELBYGT]

Maybe this will help make up your mind!

Looks good, who did your install?

dave

[dave c]

No...The GT 500 is a 5.4L-4V engine, uses a different lower intake. But, you can emulate the same results from a 4.6L-3V if you know your craft.

 

However, after reading all of the posts in this thread, IMHO, many of us do not really understand what we are talking about.

I'm no mechanic, but if I understand this right your saying with the right intake, the GT500 SC will fit the 4.6L. Do they make such an intake? It was my understanding that these are two different blocks and I wasn't aware that parts are interchangeable? I understand engineers and machinists can make things happen, but I'm not aware of any over the counter parts that can make this happen.

Excuse my lack of knowledge, I'm curious why this isn't being done. With all the upgraded blowers going on to the GT500, there would be a surplus of these used blowers for sale.

[SWEDESHELBY1]

I'm no mechanic, but if I understand this right your saying with the right intake, the GT500 SC will fit the 4.6L. Do they make such an intake? It was my understanding that these are two different blocks and I wasn't aware that parts are interchangeable? I understand engineers and machinists can make things happen, but I'm not aware of any over the counter parts that can make this happen.

Excuse my lack of knowledge, I'm curious why this isn't being done. With all the upgraded blowers going on to the GT500, there would be a surplus of these used blowers for sale.

 

 

Dave I am with you on this one. The SGT engine is a totally different animal than the GT500, so I don't think they would even come close to fitting. But I have been wrong before so I am ready to hear how it works.

[moabman]

It's not a question of the supercharger fitting the block but the supercharger fitting the intake. The intake is what mates the S/C to the heads. You might be able to mount the GT500 S/C to the FRPP Whipple Mustang GT manifold but why would you? The GT500 is a Roots where the Whipple is a twin screw. The Whipple S/C has much better adiabatic efficencies than the stock GT500. I think they are both 2.3 liter blowers which means 1 revolution moves 2.3 liters of air on each one but the Whipple does it without gaining as much heat. I don't even know if FRPP or Whipple will sell you a S/C intake without the S/C.

[greaser]

It's not a question of the supercharger fitting the block but the supercharger fitting the intake. The intake is what mates the S/C to the heads. You might be able to mount the GT500 S/C to the FRPP Whipple Mustang GT manifold but why would you? The GT500 is a Roots where the Whipple is a twin screw. The Whipple S/C has much better adiabatic efficencies than the stock GT500. I think they are both 2.3 liter blowers which means 1 revolution moves 2.3 liters of air on each one but the Whipple does it without gaining as much heat. I don't even know if FRPP or Whipple will sell you a S/C intake without the S/C.

 

 

i saw a low milage gt500 s/c on ebay go for under 2g. so if you could get an intake for say 300 and a tune for 200-300 that would put you at 2500+-. for half the cost i would take a 20 horse loss because of heat. IMHO

[LuLu]

I'm no mechanic, but if I understand this right your saying with the right intake, the GT500 SC will fit the 4.6L. Do they make such an intake? It was my understanding that these are two different blocks and I wasn't aware that parts are interchangeable? I understand engineers and machinists can make things happen, but I'm not aware of any over the counter parts that can make this happen.

Excuse my lack of knowledge, I'm curious why this isn't being done. With all the upgraded blowers going on to the GT500, there would be a surplus of these used blowers for sale.

You grossly misunderstand what I posted.

 

The GT 500 is a 5.4L-4V DOHC engine. The blower is an Eaton 112 blower, somewhat universal. The 5.4L lower intake (which is also the intercooler) will not fit the 4.6L-3V block, period.

 

However, (and as I stated correctly) you can emulate the same results (meaning performance results) if you know your craft. You can mix and match 3V and 4V heads on the 5.4L block, with some customizing, and this is the beauty of the modular engine. However, by the time you get to turn the key, you will have spent twice, maybe 3X money and time that other options would have cost you.

 

There are dozens of companies across the country who will fabricate what you seek, but usually this approach isn't cost/time effective. Toss a Whipple kit (Eaton's retail company) on it and go! Better yet, buy a GT 500 and add all the Shelby/FRP suspension parts. Major cheaper, depending on what you pay for the GT 500.

 

It's not a question of the supercharger fitting the block but the supercharger fitting the intake. The intake is what mates the S/C to the heads. You might be able to mount the GT500 S/C to the FRPP Whipple Mustang GT manifold but why would you? The GT500 is a Roots where the Whipple is a twin screw. The Whipple S/C has much better adiabatic efficencies than the stock GT500. I think they are both 2.3 liter blowers which means 1 revolution moves 2.3 liters of air on each one but the Whipple does it without gaining as much heat. I don't even know if FRPP or Whipple will sell you a S/C intake without the S/C.

Actually, they are pretty much the same blowers. Lysholm Positive displacement. Be aware of the "nick-names" in place for copyright protections. "Twin-screw", "Roots" and "positive displacement", all describe the same patented twin screw technology. Maybe a bearing change here, and a blow off valve there, but basically all the same. Just like the centrifugals from Paxton, Vortech (which now owns Paxton) and ProCharger. Put them all side by side on a table with the names coverved/removed, and I doubt you will pick one out from the others.

 

The PD technology is older than dirt, first patented back in the 1880s and once abandoned by the originator, it was resusiciated by Alf Lyshom in the following century. "Roots" sticks as a name today only because one of the patents was held by Francois Marion Roots, and not released. Lysholm had to license it. First registered in Germany in 1860, it's not a seperate design technolygy. Just caught up in all the international legal mumbo-jumbo spannig two centuries, now a third.

 

Today, Whipple (and Kenne Bell under license from Whipple) market retail products for public comsumption, while Eaton (the parent company of them all) delivers blowers to the manfacturers for production cars. But, again, it's pretty much all the same stuff.

 

Happy motoring gents!

[moabman]

The Roots positive displacement and the Twin Screw positive displacement are similar but they do have different adiabatic efficiencies. That's why Eaton is so high on their Twin Vortices design. It has almost the same adiabatic efficiency as the Twin Screw without needing to be licensed. The Twin Screw has a "male" rotor and a "female" rotor that have different numbers of lobes. This means that one rotor has to be driven faster than the other accomplished by the gearing off of the pulley. The Twin Vortices have identical lobes that are stereo pairs of each other. They are both driven at the same speed also by gears but the gears are the same size. The TVS and TS both are highly twisted compared to the true "Roots" design which Eaton describes as "slightly twisted". The "Roots" design also has identical lobes on each rotor that are stereo pairs of each other. I agree that compared to a centrifugal design the positive displacement designs are much more similar to each other than they are to the centrifugals. However, the designs are distinct and from an engineering standpoint are more than just "marketing".

 

BTW Daimler was the first to apply the "Roots" air pump to boost an internal combustion engine. Alf Lysholm took the Roots air pump and modified its design into the twin screw to achieve that increase in adiabatic efficiency.

[LuLu]

The Roots positive displacement and the Twin Screw positive displacement are similar but they do have different adiabatic efficiencies. That's why Eaton is so high on their Twin Vortices design. It has almost the same adiabatic efficiency as the Twin Screw without needing to be licensed...

I respect your position on this, but I think you missed my point too. Look at it this way?

 

Milk is milk. You can buy it whole, 2% and skim, but it still just milk. It's not soda pop, or, beer.

 

When selecting a supercharger for your SGT, you have basically two choices to pick from, positive displacement and centrifugal. Brand names will offer different features, and mostly due from slight design changes under license, however, the technology of each camp is relatively the same within each camp. Kenne Bell may offer a wider selection of features than OEM intended Eatons, but both are positive displacement technology. To say that one is more efficient than the other, depends on what you want to achieve, and how you want to spend your money.

[twobjshelbys]

Milk is milk. You can buy it whole, 2% and skim, but it still just milk. It's not soda pop, or, beer.

 

Whoa now wait a minute. Milk != Beer?

 

This calls for a total reevaluation of the basic laws of physics.

 

 

I decided to put a Paxton on mine. Only because the FRPP/Whipple won't work on an automatic.

[LuLu]

Whoa now wait a minute. Milk != Beer?

 

This calls for a total reevaluation of the basic laws of physics.

 

 

I decided to put a Paxton on mine. Only because the FRPP/Whipple won't work on an automatic.

Maybe the FRPP/Whipple "kit" isn't offered for an automatic tranny, but the Kenne Bell kits work fine, so, like I stated earlier, a lot depends on your individual talent, skill, and goals. Again, your choice is either positive displacement, or, centrifugal, and dicing it up beyond that is a matter of your preferrences. Still just two to pick from.

 

You misquote me, Two, take my words out of context. I said "milk is milk, and beer is beer". Both share common ground as liquids you can ingest for nutrition, refreshment and/or, pleasure. But, both are (in their individual "roots" [pun intended]) by-products of natural gains grown from the Earth, but following different processing technologies. I don't think you need a cow to produce beer, wine, or distilled spirits, but soda pop is totally man-made.

 

Uggh...I don't believe I am responding to this. Please tell me you're joking?

[pottydr]

Whoa now wait a minute. Milk != Beer?

 

This calls for a total reevaluation of the basic laws of physics.

 

 

I decided to put a Paxton on mine. Only because the FRPP/Whipple won't work on an automatic.

Paton doesnt have a tune for the Shelby automatics yet, I talked to there head guy last week, I have been waitng for 6 months, the person from paxton told me they will have a tune for the automatics 07 and 08 in 3 weeks, I still have my KB waiting, If SAI doesnt call soon, I will install the KB March 1st

[Romeo46LV8]

I decided to put a Paxton on mine. Only because the FRPP/Whipple won't work on an automatic.

 

I actually believe there are a few folks (on other forums ) that are running the HO Whipple kit on '05+ autos - it just have to be custom tuned/tuned correctly which the FRPP tune that comes with the Whipple does not provide.

[twobjshelbys]

Maybe the FRPP/Whipple "kit" isn't offered for an automatic tranny, but the Kenne Bell kits work fine, so, like I stated earlier, a lot depends on your individual talent, skill, and goals. Again, your choice is either positive displacement, or, centrifugal, and dicing it up beyond that is a matter of your preferrences. Still just two to pick from.

 

You misquote me, Two, take my words out of context. I said "milk is milk, and beer is beer". Both share common ground as liquids you can ingest for nutrition, refreshment and/or, pleasure. But, both are (in their individual "roots" [pun intended]) by-products of natural gains grown from the Earth, but following different processing technologies. I don't think you need a cow to produce beer, wine, or distilled spirits, but soda pop is totally man-made.

 

Uggh...I don't believe I am responding to this. Please tell me you're joking?

 

OK, so if A=B then B=A. Beer != Milk? Don't think too hard, just think college in the late '60's and '70's. "Breakfast of Champions" and all that. I thought beer and milk were interchangeable for a while.

 

On Thursday I decided to check out the FRPP/Whipple deal. The Shelby catalog says no automatics on the HO (intercooled) version. I called Ford Racing and spoke to one of their guys that said "it eats automatic transmission like candy". 'Nuf said. You could probably put one and it would fit (after taking off the brace). After that "your mileage may vary".

 

I'm told by a usually reliable source that the Paxton/auto tunes for '08 were "days away".

[LuLu]

OK, so if A=B then B=A. Beer != Milk? Don't think too hard, just think college in the late '60's and '70's. "Breakfast of Champions" and all that. I thought beer and milk were interchangeable for a while.

You must still think so, because I never stated (or, meant to imply) that A = B, nor B = A. In fact, I stated just the opposite.

 

Makes me wonder if anyone really reads these posts...

[2007_Shelby_GT]

Paxton, Keene/bell, Whipple, to each their own! Paxton would be my choice...but that's just me! Doesn't the Paxton allow you to keep the stock tower brace, or do the others allow that as well?

 

SEF

 

AKA:

[LuLu]

Yes, the Paxton allows you to keep the strut tower brace.

[Son of GT]

Paton doesnt have a tune for the Shelby automatics yet, I talked to there head guy last week, I have been waitng for 6 months, the person from paxton told me they will have a tune for the automatics 07 and 08 in 3 weeks, I still have my KB waiting, If SAI doesnt call soon, I will install the KB March 1st

Mine's a 07' Automatic with a Paxton and it came with a Diablo tune from SAI.

[clark17357]

Paxton, Keene/bell, Whipple, to each their own! Paxton would be my choice...but that's just me! Doesn't the Paxton allow you to keep the stock tower brace, or do the others allow that as well?

 

SEF

Yes, you can keep the tower brace with the Paxton. I just got an e-mail from Bud at SAI and he just learned that they will not have EPA certification on the Paxton for 2008 for 3-4 months. They are good to go on the Whipple units, however. Just food for thought. Jim

[mffarrell]

Yes, you can keep the tower brace with the Paxton. I just got an e-mail from Bud at SAI and he just learned that they will not have EPA certification on the Paxton for 2008 for 3-4 months. They are good to go on the Whipple units, however. Just food for thought. Jim

 

Jim,

 

Has the mod shop finished your car, yet? As I recall, you left your car at SAI the Sunday of Carroll's BD bash. I had my car in the mod shop for a day for a hood scoop replacement, lower driving lights, brake duct kit, and center gauge cluster. The mods came out extremely well!

 

I hope that you have your car, now.

[clark17357]

Jim,

Has the mod shop finished your car, yet? As I recall, you left your car at SAI the Sunday of Carroll's BD bash. I had my car in the mod shop for a day for a hood scoop replacement, lower driving lights, brake duct kit, and center gauge cluster. The mods came out extremely well!

I hope that you have your car, now.

No, don't have it back. Per my earlier post, it will be there another 3-4 months. That is the bad news but the good news is how stand up Bud was for, one, telling me what my reality is and, two, giving me all options on what to do from this point forward. Jim