The Outlander Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Hello Folks, Been looking at getting a setup but I'm stuck with a few options, I would like some help on, what is preferred for the GT. I have looked at single turbo, twin turbo, and supercharger. So many out there it’s hard to choose. I did like the Paxton Supercharger "Throwback" Brenspeed Package. But it's like anything else, how fast do you want to go. Suggestions would be helpful. I do have a Vortech on my other car but well it's a land barge, it does have a kick in the pants, but I’m wanting more, Leaning on the twin turbo system. A few years back I had the SVO turbo and it was fun, but lots of lag. What I have been reading on the newer systems they seem to have cut down the lag quite a bit. Help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT500-07 Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 it all depends on what your driving needs are, both have pros & cons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 A similar question was posed on a Corolla forum I frequent (gotta mod the wife's car too now and then). Here's an interesting response. Ken "First, you need to know the most basic fact of super and turbochargers, which is that the term, "Forced Induction" comes from the fact that they forcibly induce time to slow, and in some instances go backwards. The ultimate usage for a super/turbocharger is to power up a flux capacitor or similar device, however, that is not the origin of these devices. Some people tell you they were originally invented to increase specific power and compensate for air density differences due to altitude changes for aircraft. This is totally and completely FALSE. They were originally invented in an attempt to slow time to give pilots more time to drop bombs and shoot their enemies in the face. Quickly, however, it was realized that there was no way to store enough time charge to go backwards in time. As time went on, turbofans were created that were believed to be able to store enough time charge, or "boost," to travel backwards in time. Unfortunately, it was soon realized that the result was only time travel in the sonic sense, by going faster than sound travels in air. It was later discovered that the conversion from metric liters the more metric litres, to the SI unit of furlongs, then fortnights, then, finally, to miles, was performed incorrectly, and the boost needed was significantly higher than could possibly be stored by any known turbomachinery. Eventually, a coke addict named DeLorean created a car which could survive the arduous travel through time, but the car was notoriously heavy and underperforming. Worse yet, the car came without any of the required time travel components. That's right, no boost, no nothing. Luckily, a man named Christopher Lloyd created the flux capacitor, which stored almost enough energy to send objects through time. By using a super/turbocharger, he was able to force enough plutonium to charge the flux capacitor, all that was left was to get enough kinetic energy added to the flux capacitor to obtain needed speeds (luckily, it was only 88 mph, a speed almost attainable by a DeLorean with a tailwind and 95 psi of boost fed by bleed air from the super/turbocharger). This was documented decades later, in the 1980's despite the car having only been released years before the documentary, proving that time travel was successful. This was all fine and dandy, but it was quickly seen that time travel led to a severe onset of Parkinson's disease, thus flux capacitors were outlawed for civilian usage. Manufacturers wishing to make time traveling cars were relegated to building time bending cars (which is relative, since anything that moves bends time). Thus they utilized the turbo and superchargers to power the engine directly, as was done previously with the airplane efforts. Now, how does this lead to differences between the supercharger and turbocharger? Simple. A turbocharger uses time-pressure produced by the normal time bending an engine performs to build time charge. In other words, it creates boost from pressure created by the engine. Due to this it creates more boost from the boost it has created, to a point, all by simply using normal waste pressure. This makes the process very efficient, but it takes some time for this circular boost process to occur, as well as for the pressure built to be large enough for boost to be created to create a significant time charge. This is where turbo-lag is from. Superchargers uses the time work done by the engine to build time charge. In other words, the device is always creating a small amount of boost, and as engine speed increases, so does the boost. However, since it requires time work to build boost, it effectively requires boost to build boost, decreasing ultimate efficiency. Since the supercharger is always making some level of boost, there is always a time bending charge available, which is why it is said that time bending (often mistakenly confused with power), is more readily available. Does that make things more clear???" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shel-b001 Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Definately a great explanation, well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
07-2937 Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 personal opinion whipple sc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbstang Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 If you want more reliability, go with a lower pressure system like the Edlebrock E-Force system.. I mulled over the systems for about 3 months and from an engineering stand point the Edlebrock offers the most for less, is more efficient than the whipple systems.. If your concerned about the keeping the Shelby original, take it to SAI and have them install a system, if you are more Like Carrol was in the sixties and took a car and rodded it for pleasure, use which ever system appeals to you.. Bottom line, do your research, some systems offer asthetics, others offer true power, efficiency and reliability,,,,all offer the ability to provide more boost with a simple change of a pulley, a turbo system or Vortech style systems are not as upgradeable.. read read read... I have the Edlebrock, yep, will lite your pants on fire, SC do that.. Turbo systems are designed for a higher reving engine really, this meaning 4 cyl etc. since it is reving a bit higher the boost will be on sooner, V8 type engines rev lower, lower rpms, bigger cubes mean less work to do the same job.. To spool a turbo you need a bigger bang in the combustion cycle, during the exhaust phase this "bigger bang" exits and spools the turbo, think of it like a fan, how much air do you need to blow into the fan to get it to move? then move faster?.. that is why you need to build Rpm's to get the boost from a turbo, the exhaust moves the fan, which is coupled to a shaft, this shaft spins the compressor (fan) which in turn blows pressurized air into the engine.... hope this helps a bit more.. the links for you http://www.turbotechnics.com/docs/turbo/turbowork.htm http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4966048_turbo...car-engine.html this link is real good comparison to both systems: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/supercharger.htm GNB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT/SC#0471 Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 personal opinion whipple sc +1 it rips....search out the posts by Dennis Whipple, there are many threads if you search, I debated forever! I am more than very happy with the Whipple, I love to hear it whine and I shoot for the boost whenever its safe...make sure you are pointed where you want to go you get there quick...perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outlander Posted October 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Thanks gbstang Well I narowed it down to Supercharge, with the Stage 1 Edlebrock system or whipple system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Thanks gbstangWell I narowed it down to Supercharge, with the Stage 1 Edlebrock system or whipple system. Don't forget the flux capacitor. Ken p.s. Whipples suck. Paxton or bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 If you want more reliability, go with a lower pressure system like the Edlebrock E-Force system.. You care to elaborate? That's a pretty heavy statement to not have anything backing it up. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT500-07 Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 If you want more reliability, go with a lower pressure system like the Edlebrock E-Force system.. I mulled over the systems for about 3 months and from an engineering stand point the Edlebrock offers the most for less, is more efficient than the whipple systems..If your concerned about the keeping the Shelby original, take it to SAI and have them install a system, if you are more Like Carrol was in the sixties and took a car and rodded it for pleasure, use which ever system appeals to you.. Bottom line, do your research, some systems offer asthetics, others offer true power, efficiency and reliability,,,,all offer the ability to provide more boost with a simple change of a pulley, a turbo system or Vortech style systems are not as upgradeable.. read read read... I have the Edlebrock, yep, will lite your pants on fire, SC do that.. Turbo systems are designed for a higher reving engine really, this meaning 4 cyl etc. since it is reving a bit higher the boost will be on sooner, V8 type engines rev lower, lower rpms, bigger cubes mean less work to do the same job.. To spool a turbo you need a bigger bang in the combustion cycle, during the exhaust phase this "bigger bang" exits and spools the turbo, think of it like a fan, how much air do you need to blow into the fan to get it to move? then move faster?.. that is why you need to build Rpm's to get the boost from a turbo, the exhaust moves the fan, which is coupled to a shaft, this shaft spins the compressor (fan) which in turn blows pressurized air into the engine.... hope this helps a bit more.. the links for you http://www.turbotechnics.com/docs/turbo/turbowork.htm http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4966048_turbo...car-engine.html this link is real good comparison to both systems: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/supercharger.htm GNB +1, great post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT500-07 Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 +1 it rips....search out the posts by Dennis Whipple, there are many threads if you search, I debated forever! I am more than very happy with the Whipple, I love to hear it whine and I shoot for the boost whenever its safe...make sure you are pointed where you want to go you get there quick...perfect. just a little fyi, Dustin not Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outlander Posted October 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Well I hope they all Suck :happy feet: But I didn't forget the nuke fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT/SC#0471 Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 just a little fyi, Dustin not Dennis Sorry Dustin if you're reading this ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbstang Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 You care to elaborate? That's a pretty heavy statement to not have anything backing it up. Ken Well, you don't have to be an engineer to figure that out.. But knowing how pressure works on seals etc, not counting the drag on the engine with turning a lobe forced with higher backpressure etc. Read about the whipple, then about the Kenne Belles then on to the E-force, Saleen uses the simliar design as the E-Force... You will also notice that since the air is brought into the front of the supercharger into the base (underside) of the super charger you elimate about 270 deg of bends (this causes back pressure) wich means a higher boost to overcome it.. Boost is not necessarily the pressure you mashing into your engine but pressure is more related to the backpressure of the system.. A more accurate way of measuring the effect of a supercharger is not with Boost pressure, but by the actual CFM of the supercharger... GNB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
07-2937 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Don't forget the flux capacitor. Ken p.s. Whipples suck. Paxton or bust. oh no you diddnt lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doogie65 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 You really can't go wrong with any of the available superchargers for our cars as it really comes down to personal preference. I went with the E-force for some of the same reasons outlined by GBSTANG along with really liking the underhood stealthy appearance and overall design. I was also able to maintain the stock airbox (for now anyways) and still generate very respectable power. I plan to add dual GT500 pumps sometime down the road and will see how much more this kit can deliver without having to add a CAI. Another consideration is your desired level of noise. Once again, I like the almost silent power getting generated by the E-force (aka "sleeper")... where as the Whipple does have a distinct whine, which many prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Well, you don't have to be an engineer to figure that out.. But knowing how pressure works on seals etc, not counting the drag on the engine with turning a lobe forced with higher backpressure etc. Read about the whipple, then about the Kenne Belles then on to the E-force, Saleen uses the simliar design as the E-Force... You will also notice that since the air is brought into the front of the supercharger into the base (underside) of the super charger you elimate about 270 deg of bends (this causes back pressure) wich means a higher boost to overcome it.. Boost is not necessarily the pressure you mashing into your engine but pressure is more related to the backpressure of the system.. A more accurate way of measuring the effect of a supercharger is not with Boost pressure, but by the actual CFM of the supercharger... GNB Right, well that doesn't clear anything up, however. What you said originally is that lower boost equals higher reliability. That's obviously true when comparing 0 psi to 20 psi on a 3V. However, when talking 5-6 psi vs. 10-11 psi, there's absolutely zero evidence to back that claim up, other than a pile of marketing BS from Edelbrock. oh no you diddnt lol I say that in good fun man. If I could have afforded the Whipple at the time, my statement would be reversed! Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT500-07 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Gale Banks part 1, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT500-07 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 part 2, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShelbyGT Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 I build bad ass turbo cars for a living. I've been building/racing turbo cars since 1989. I was going to turbo charge my ShelbyGT (note my screen name). I looked into what was available for superchargers and wasn't impressed. Then just about the time I was going to start the turbo project Whipple released the 550 HO kit. Fact is the 4.6 engine, stock, is good for about 550 reliable horsepower. Knowing this and knowing that any turbo kit I put together was going to easily make more than that level and have lag.......the Whipple kit made sense. The kit is perfect, fitment is perfect, packacing was perfect, instructions were perfect and the service was perfect. You know what else is perfect? The INSTANT torque it produces and the tune. The car runs better than stock as far as drivability goes. Many people get in the car after the supercharger and talk about how it's the fastest thing they ever drove, well I can't say that but my daily driver runs 9.0 at 159 mph;) It is however a far cry from the slow car it started out to be. It's fun to drive now and will spin the tires at will in 1st and 2nd gear. I put the HO 550 kit on my car, the twin fuel pumps and the fuel injectors. My clutch is stock, my driveshaft is stock and so is the rest of the car other than the GT500 Brembo's. I haven't taken any weight out of the car and tonight for the first time I ran it at the drag strip. Stock tires, 32 psi in them, full tank of 93 octane and some other misc. junk in the car. 12.57 at 118.4 mph. Had a blast running it, I am 100% confident that just adding a drag radial to the car would put it at about 11.8 at 120 mph, I'm not much on woulda-coulda-shoulda's but I idled of the line, pedaled it through all of 1st, would hit 2nd and again have to just pedal the throttle until 3rd, best 60' was a 2.04. FOR sure an 11 second capable car. I'm not a very fast shifter and I lifted 100% for the shifts. Whipple claims on a drag radial 11.8's at about 118, from the looks of things that is being conservative. My other car is the same offset and bolt pattern as the Stang so I can put my drag radials or slicks on the car. I'd like to put it in the 11's just for the hell of it. With my back ground in turbo charging and cars in general I have to say I don't think there's a better option for the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmn444 Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 part 2, I want a deisel in my GT now Seriously though, been leaning toward the Brenspeed turbo set up, seems like a no brainer to get more hp with less boost, maybe Ken's right about no proven issues in the 5-11 psi range, but i'd rather keep it lower if possible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT/SC#0471 Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I build bad ass turbo cars for a living. I've been building/racing turbo cars since 1989. I was going to turbo charge my ShelbyGT (note my screen name). I looked into what was available for superchargers and wasn't impressed. Then just about the time I was going to start the turbo project Whipple released the 550 HO kit. Fact is the 4.6 engine, stock, is good for about 550 reliable horsepower. Knowing this and knowing that any turbo kit I put together was going to easily make more than that level and have lag.......the Whipple kit made sense. The kit is perfect, fitment is perfect, packacing was perfect, instructions were perfect and the service was perfect. You know what else is perfect? The INSTANT torque it produces and the tune. The car runs better than stock as far as drivability goes. Many people get in the car after the supercharger and talk about how it's the fastest thing they ever drove, well I can't say that but my daily driver runs 9.0 at 159 mph;) It is however a far cry from the slow car it started out to be. It's fun to drive now and will spin the tires at will in 1st and 2nd gear. I put the HO 550 kit on my car, the twin fuel pumps and the fuel injectors. My clutch is stock, my driveshaft is stock and so is the rest of the car other than the GT500 Brembo's. I haven't taken any weight out of the car and tonight for the first time I ran it at the drag strip. Stock tires, 32 psi in them, full tank of 93 octane and some other misc. junk in the car. 12.57 at 118.4 mph. Had a blast running it, I am 100% confident that just adding a drag radial to the car would put it at about 11.8 at 120 mph, I'm not much on woulda-coulda-shoulda's but I idled of the line, pedaled it through all of 1st, would hit 2nd and again have to just pedal the throttle until 3rd, best 60' was a 2.04. FOR sure an 11 second capable car. I'm not a very fast shifter and I lifted 100% for the shifts. Whipple claims on a drag radial 11.8's at about 118, from the looks of things that is being conservative. My other car is the same offset and bolt pattern as the Stang so I can put my drag radials or slicks on the car. I'd like to put it in the 11's just for the hell of it. With my back ground in turbo charging and cars in general I have to say I don't think there's a better option for the car. Now you are being humble, you posted your video fo you doing a run in your other car and you were driving the crap outta it...keep us posted on the timeslips if you can thanks for posting. What size tires were you running? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShelbyGT Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I'm running the stock tires/wheels on the car, everything is bone stock other than the Whipple/injectors/fuel pump/GT500 brakes. Not sure when I'll run the car again, maybe next year, I'll have to throw a better tire on it when I do, no boubt in my mind good for 11's. MPH tells that story. BTW, the video of my other car wasn't me driving it;) I wish I could shift like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I want a deisel in my GT now Seriously though, been leaning toward the Brenspeed turbo set up, seems like a no brainer to get more hp with less boost, maybe Ken's right about no proven issues in the 5-11 psi range, but i'd rather keep it lower if possible! That's more than fine to say - 'I'd rather keep it lower if possible'. Fine. But what irritates me is when reliability, longevity of the motor, etc is brought into question regarding one blower over another. With a safe tune, the 3V is capable of tolerating 10+ psi for just as long as one running 5 psi, in my opinion. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbstang Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Ok, Turbo's do get the job done,,,,,sure... But then ask yourself? where do you live? (ok not location) if your a toole around town kinda guy, your car lives at about 2000-3000 RPM's. If your a guy at the track, and I mean an SCCA road course or simliar, your car is drivern at alot higher rpms to maximize your HP and torque, a good example look at the Formula cars,,,they are always turbo'ed, almost never blown.. For a saturday night kinda person that we are, your wanting a SC, no legitimate argument otherwise, unless your always drag racing on the freeway and your starting with the RPM's at above that level where the turbo is spooled... I have a dodge Ram 2500, has a 500HP cu,,ims, yep is turbo'ed... The reason a diesel has a turbo and generally over a supercharger is due to the higher compression, (17-1 in most cases) since there is a higher compression, the exhaust gases exiting the engine are moving at a higher velocity, that is why Diesels have ooodles of online torque aside from the nature of the combustion process. I had high performance diesels, twin turbo charged water cooled, through an intercooler to a roots style blower then into an aftercooler,,,lotsa torque! also worked on alot of diesels in various other configurations.. There are alot of applications for either addition, a SuperCharger is the way to go for a street cruiser.. If you race road course go turbo, if you have a diesel,,,well you know my answer too... gnb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmn444 Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I guess I don't understand the preference towards a SC over a Turbo when you start to talk about lag and needing to be at higher rpm's... the 4.6 doesn't "live" under 3K no matter how you drive it, & without running DOT slicks, hooking up with either will likely be nearly impossible, so does it really matter? I guess I figure that i'm spinning in 1st and 2nd bone stock when i push it hard as it is, and while smoking the tires is really fun, that's not really the goal of more hp and tq for me... bottom line for me, the turbo is about $1k less than the 550 whipple, pushes lower psi to get the same rwhp, and waiting less than a second for boost to come on when i'm spinning anyway sure doesn't seem like a big sacrifice to me! I sure may feel different if I had the opportunity to try both, but I have to go on what i've researched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I guess I don't understand the preference towards a SC over a Turbo when you start to talk about lag and needing to be at higher rpm's... the 4.6 doesn't "live" under 3K no matter how you drive it, & without running DOT slicks, hooking up with either will likely be nearly impossible, so does it really matter? I guess I figure that i'm spinning in 1st and 2nd bone stock when i push it hard as it is, and while smoking the tires is really fun, that's not really the goal of more hp and tq for me... bottom line for me, the turbo is about $1k less than the 550 whipple, pushes lower psi to get the same rwhp, and waiting less than a second for boost to come on when i'm spinning anyway sure doesn't seem like a big sacrifice to me! I sure may feel different if I had the opportunity to try both, but I have to go on what i've researched. Sounds to me like you need tires before anything. However, you may be surprised as to how much quicker a turbo 4.6 will get through the 1/4 vs. an equally powered 4.6 with a roots blower on identical tires. That lag makes a whole ton of difference, as far as traction out of the box. As far as 'living under 3k', you're right, it doesn't. If the lag means nothing to you, which is hard to believe, than the turbo is a great way to go. IMO, the centrifugal blowers (Paxton, Vortech, Procharger) are a fine compromise. They make peak HP at redline, similar to a turbo. Out of the hole, traction is no more of an issue as it is with an N/A car. Plus, the price on the centrifugals rivals that of any turbo setup you'll find. The heritage of the Paxton/Shelby setup is a nice bonus too. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmn444 Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I agree about the Paxton name belonging in a Mustang/Shelby, but the intercooled versions aren't much cheaper than the turbo setups and seem to dyno in at quite a bit lower torque numbers too... and yes, still on stock rubber for now too... should have some new shoes for this spring, and plan on the FI in the fall/winter next year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
08 Mustang Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 personal opinion whipple sc +1^^ from what I've read and heard about the Whipple, I would definitely recommend it being one of your supercharger choices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.