What size turbo's for TT - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 51 Old 09-10-2005, 12:36 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Dalamar96's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT.
Posts: 417
What size turbo's for TT

Hi all.
I'm getting the HP twin turbo kit.
I'm not sure if I want the twin 46mm turbo's
or twin 50's.
Can anyone tell me the pro's and cons of either.

Thanks.


96 GT Livernois Stroker, Hellion Turbocharged, 3 link & a few other mods.
67 Fastback Ground up custom.
Dalamar96 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 51 Old 09-10-2005, 03:44 PM
Turbo Wizard
 
snipe656's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston, Tx, USA
Posts: 4,289
More power at the cost of a little bit more lag but nothing that anyone would complain about. Why not ask HP what turbos they recommend for your combination?


--Admiral Aaron

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
snipe656 is offline  
post #3 of 51 Old 09-11-2005, 12:40 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Dalamar96's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT.
Posts: 417
Thanks snipe - I'll check into that...
I have talked with turbocharged power, they were at 46 mm, but now their saying 50.

another question - with my mod's in mind, and stock bottom end,
how much HP do you think I could push and stay together.
I've heard 450 from some ppl, and 500 from others?

96 GT Livernois Stroker, Hellion Turbocharged, 3 link & a few other mods.
67 Fastback Ground up custom.
Dalamar96 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 51 Old 09-11-2005, 12:46 AM
Turbo Wizard
 
snipe656's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston, Tx, USA
Posts: 4,289
Did not realize you had a stock bottom end, I would stay on the safe side and be around 450. I would probably just get 46s as well unless you plan to upgrade the bottom end later on down the road. Heck I would just get a KB but that is just me.

--Admiral Aaron

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
snipe656 is offline  
post #5 of 51 Old 09-12-2005, 08:56 PM
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,088
i would look at 50's myself.......give's you some room to grow....just keep your boost down a bit, say 10psi till you get the bottom end strengthened up...


hotwheels of insanemustangs.com
wyominghotwheels is offline  
post #6 of 51 Old 09-12-2005, 11:14 PM
Registered User
 
Drlee50's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 675
i would go 50's too. but either set can kill that block. i was at 550 rear wheel with a stock block for over a year with no problems. you will be fine with 450-500 hp.

88 GT - R-336, GT47-88, glide, BS3, soon to be E85, street car, 8.95 @156
07' GT- stock
Drlee50 is offline  
post #7 of 51 Old 09-12-2005, 11:18 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drlee50
i would go 50's too. but either set can kill that block. i was at 550 rear wheel with a stock block for over a year with no problems. you will be fine with 450-500 hp.
.
Mr. Juicepilly is offline  
post #8 of 51 Old 09-13-2005, 09:28 AM
Turbo Wizard
 
snipe656's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston, Tx, USA
Posts: 4,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drlee50
i would go 50's too. but either set can kill that block. i was at 550 rear wheel with a stock block for over a year with no problems. you will be fine with 450-500 hp.
There is a difference here though, he has a 2V motor and you I assume based on your signature are referring to a 302W based motor. The stock rods/pistons in the 2V motors are crap for lack of a better term. While some make them last for a little while past 450rwhp or so, many more end up destroying them. If there are no near plans to upgrade the shortblock then no point in upgrading turbos now, can always do that much furthur down the road if/when a upgrade to the shortblock is ever done.

--Admiral Aaron

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
snipe656 is offline  
post #9 of 51 Old 09-13-2005, 11:08 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Dalamar96's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT.
Posts: 417
That makes sense, thanks guys.

I think I'll go with the 50's - for future upgrade of the shortblock. It sounds like
there isn't much difference in lag, and that was what I was mainly wondering about.

Snipe - I took a hard look at getting a KB, figured it would do well with my auto.
But they dont make it easy to do a kit for a 96 with PI heads, and after I figured all
that out, and added long tubes and x pipe, it cost more than the HP kit.....
thanks for the advice.
Dalamar96 is offline  
post #10 of 51 Old 09-13-2005, 11:20 PM
Turbo Wizard
 
snipe656's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston, Tx, USA
Posts: 4,289
It is not always about cost though, I think from a headache standpoint the KB is just the route to go. However if there are fitment issues on your car with one then it becomes no option right there.


--Admiral Aaron

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
snipe656 is offline  
post #11 of 51 Old 09-14-2005, 12:58 AM
Registered User
 
Scones's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: first city south of Detroit
Posts: 498
the KB Blower is a nice and simple alternative to turbo charging, but for me it's turbo boost or no boost. i'd go with the 46s if i were you. they will do everything you need them to do....450hp is ALOT of power and they will support that easily

1986 5.0TT Tribute Car
2010 Ranger 4.0
1989 Kawasaki Ninja ZX6
Scones is offline  
post #12 of 51 Old 09-15-2005, 09:17 AM
Dac
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scones
the KB Blower is a nice and simple alternative to turbo charging, but for me it's turbo boost or no boost. i'd go with the 46s if i were you. they will do everything you need them to do....450hp is ALOT of power and they will support that easily
There are good supercharger advantages on some vehicles. KB Blowers can make a lot of power, they are realitively easy to install, and in many cases are "less headaches" than the turbochargers. I own a car with a Turbocharger and one with a Supercharger. They both have thier advantages, they both have their own personalities. If your trying to get 450 Horsepower, you can do that very easily with a Supercharger and have the car put together in an afternoon. You can do the same with a Turbocharger, but it will take you about Two/Three times as long to put it together..
Dac is offline  
post #13 of 51 Old 09-16-2005, 01:31 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Dalamar96's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT.
Posts: 417
Thanks for the input guys!...
I'm not knocking KB, I think they make an excellent blower, and have an
awsome torque curve. definately one of the best setups for a street car.
But, I also was not impressed with their sales people when I asked about
doing their 1.7 with PI heads (even though their web page says "#are same
as 99 if PI heads are used) the guy flat out told me They dont do it. then
some BS about engineered kits, anyway after some run around, I had to go
over his head and figure it out.

So when I added the KB kit, long tubes and x pipe,
It costs more than the HP kit, and the HP kit comes with a K member, maf,
intake side of things, front coilover conversion, front A arms, and full exhaust to the mufflers and a chip...
To me that makes more sense!


Dac - you have both, how would you compare the two?
Dalamar96 is offline  
post #14 of 51 Old 09-16-2005, 08:02 AM
Registered User
 
Erich's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: MD
Posts: 5,957
I also have a blower car and a twin turbo car. They really do have distinct personalities. With the procharger it is likely to be even more different from a turbo than the KB. Right now, I am all into turbos so I am liking the turbo car's power more. But also it is a 5.0 vs a 4.6 NPI plus light weight. The procharger is bullet proof. I have 278,000 miles on the car and 171,000 on the procharger.
One thing to keep in mind about your motor. You are way ahead of a 5.0 blockwise for high hp. The stock 4.6 block is good up to insane hp levels. The 5.0 is good to 450 or 500 hp tops. The rods and pistons in the 4.6 are suspect at above 450 hp even if the tune is good. My 4.6 is putting out about 350 hp so those stock components go along happily all day. But it is easier to go with upgraded rotating assemblies than blocks. Hell, you can get a used forged crank for 350 bucks for a 4.6. That is a killer kit from HP. You will have a very distinct car after that!
Erich

97 Laser Red GT-248A Wingless model, Built Lincoln Mark VIII motor-Procharger D1SC, 3 core IC
2012 Black GT-Saddle, 3.73s, Brembos, Shaker1000
Erich is offline  
post #15 of 51 Old 09-16-2005, 09:30 AM
Dac
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalamar96
Dac - you have both, how would you compare the two?
You really can't compare the two. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Performance wise, my Supercharged Car is quicker (But results vary with how you build your car.)

I'm not going to say which one is better or which is worst. I like both of them and I do my best to keep an open mind about both systems. I've seen and listened from people who were die hard supercharger nuts and die hard turbocharger nuts. They both can perform equally as well and get you were you want to go. Only you can decide which one is right for you. I'll give you my thoughts on the MECHANICAL aspects of both.

Just remember, NOTHING is free.

A Supercharger takes Horsepower to Turn it (Directly off the Crankshaft). Easy to Measure, hook the supercharger to a tube with a restrictor to allow the boost to escape, yet to pressurise some, to similuate boost.) On my Supercharged car, I lost approximately 54 horsepower. (You have to leave the belt hooked up with it blowing into a tube, otherwise you can't tell. You also have to have a BASE run without the belt hooked up so you can compare the two.).

A Turbocharger takes Horsepower to Turn it (Exhaust Restriction) Yes, the Exhaust restriction WILL cost you horsepower. I've got a dynochart of my car BEFORE the turbocharger was put on and after it was put on, and it cost about 52 horsepower to turn it. (Had the turbocharger blowing into a tube which I put a restrictor on it to allow the boost to escape, yet to pressurize some, to simulate 10 pounds of boost).

Between my two cars, the Supercharger took 2 more horses to turn than the Turbocharger.

Supercharged Car:

EASY to work on. Doing a Head Gasket Change, is not a nightmare. Its very consistant at the Track.

Boost changes are a pain due to a pulley/belt change, Temps are a little higher because the engine has to turn the belt.

Turbocharged Car:

Easy to turn up the boost or turn it down from inside the car (Electronic Boost Controller),

Nightmare Doing Head Gasket Changes (Exhaust is not a fun thing to take off - AND if you need to do it quickly, its not going to happen, especially if you had the car running recently. Exhaust stays hot for a WHILE.). For some reason its not that consistant at the track (Times vary).

Like I said before, it all depends on which you personally want.

IN MY OPINION, if your car is a street car and its YOUR ONLY CAR, go get a supercharger. Your car will only be down about a day.

If you have two vehicles and dont mind your car being down for a bit, put a turbocharger on it, or a supercharger. (Its really hard to beat the KB for the street however).

Before anyone tries to start a supercharger vs turbocharger thread or session, remember, its all in how much money you have. You can make either system go just as fast as the other.

Regardless of which one you choose, remember, the key to longevity with either is a GOOD TUNE on your car. Buy yourself a Tweecer or EEC Tuner and LEARN how to use them. Boost is addicting and if you ever change your boost settings, your computer settings need to be changed also, thats why I suggest either those two Tuner Chips.
Dac is offline  
post #16 of 51 Old 09-16-2005, 09:34 AM
Turbo Wizard
 
snipe656's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston, Tx, USA
Posts: 4,289
Quote:
IN MY OPINION, if your car is a street car and its YOUR ONLY CAR, go get a supercharger.
Some of the reasons in DAc's post was why I tell a lot of people to just get an SC. I do not think people really think out everything on the cars that they depend on. They seem to read posts online and magazines and get these crazy dreams of having a gazillion hp daily driver on a sub-welfare like budget.

--Admiral Aaron

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
snipe656 is offline  
post #17 of 51 Old 09-17-2005, 12:11 AM
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipe656
They seem to read posts online and magazines and get these crazy dreams of having a gazillion hp daily driver on a sub-welfare like budget.
I can sense someone changing their sig right now.
David1969 is offline  
post #18 of 51 Old 09-17-2005, 12:58 AM
Turbo Wizard
 
snipe656's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston, Tx, USA
Posts: 4,289
Thanks

--Admiral Aaron

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
snipe656 is offline  
post #19 of 51 Old 09-17-2005, 09:56 AM
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,088
Quote:
They seem to read posts online and magazines and get these crazy dreams of having a gazillion hp daily driver on a sub-welfare like budget.
lmao, that is so true.....
wyominghotwheels is offline  
post #20 of 51 Old 09-20-2005, 11:38 PM
Registered User
 
syburstang's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Castroville, TX
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipe656
They seem to read posts online and magazines and get these crazy dreams of having a gazillion hp daily driver on a sub-welfare like budget.
If this were possible everyone would be fast as hell. My car isn't sub-welfare, but my wallet is starting to be!

'92 Coupe-331 on the bottle-QUICK STREET CAR!

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine
syburstang is offline  
post #21 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 12:20 AM
Registered User
 
carbd86gt's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Jupiter, FL
Posts: 706
s/c's suck, belt slip is a *****! Turbos are worth the extra install time IMO. Once you install a S/C, your mpg goes down cause now the motor has to turn it. I know, i have had both. Turbos are WAY more efficient and will always make more power. They are also cheaper to mod, all you need is a few $10 wastegate springs and a boost controller. With a s/c, you need to buy $60 pullies and $35 belts. You spend all that money for the belt to slip, shred it, and then you have to buy more crap. Turbos are better all around. End of story.

Muscular Stang Racing - Mustangs racing to cure Muscular Distrophy
Visit
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to see what we are about.
carbd86gt is offline  
post #22 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 08:37 AM
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,088
Quote:
but my wallet is starting to be!
lol, i think we can all relate to that.....
wyominghotwheels is offline  
post #23 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 10:05 AM
Dac
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbd86gt
s/c's suck, belt slip is a *****! Turbos are worth the extra install time IMO. Once you install a S/C, your mpg goes down cause now the motor has to turn it. I know, i have had both. Turbos are WAY more efficient and will always make more power. They are also cheaper to mod, all you need is a few $10 wastegate springs and a boost controller. With a s/c, you need to buy $60 pullies and $35 belts. You spend all that money for the belt to slip, shred it, and then you have to buy more crap. Turbos are better all around. End of story.
Die hard Turbocharger person

If your going by cost, lets compare new Kits only.
You can get a Supercharger Kit these days for about 1800 bucks.
You can get a Turbocharger kit for around 2400 Bucks.
For 600 dollars Difference, you can buy a lot of pulleys and belts.

Again not promoting one over the other, just stating a fact. (If you want to try to compare JY Turbos to a Used Supercharger kit, the price gap gets even wider, considering you can buy some used Supercharger Kits for around 600 dollars from people. Even with JY Turbos thats VERY hard to beat)

The comment about fuel mileage makes me laugh. You do realize even with Turbochargers on a car, your fuel mileage will go down (If you drive normal). Turbos do cost you power by having to have a restricted exhaust. Remember NOTHING is free.

Quote:
A Supercharger takes Horsepower to Turn it (Directly off the Crankshaft). Easy to Measure, hook the supercharger to a tube with a restrictor to allow the boost to escape, yet to pressurise some, to similuate boost.) On my Supercharged car, I lost approximately 54 horsepower. (You have to leave the belt hooked up with it blowing into a tube, otherwise you can't tell. You also have to have a BASE run without the belt hooked up so you can compare the two.).

A Turbocharger takes Horsepower to Turn it (Exhaust Restriction) Yes, the Exhaust restriction WILL cost you horsepower. I've got a dynochart of my car BEFORE the turbocharger was put on and after it was put on, and it cost about 52 horsepower to turn it. (Had the turbocharger blowing into a tube which I put a restrictor on it to allow the boost to escape, yet to pressurize some, to simulate 10 pounds of boost).
The only power adder that is out there that DOES NOT Decrease your fuel mileage when your not using it is Nitrous Oxide. (Superchargers cost you decreased fuel economy, and so does Turbochargers).

And lets be real. Whether you have a supercharger or a turbocharger on your car, your going to get a LOT LESS mileage. You're going to be more lead foot, and thats really going to cost you a lot in the fuel economy state.
Dac is offline  
post #24 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 11:03 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the move
Posts: 318
go 50's and keep low boost... You should be safe around 6psi....

Old Car
99GT 375rwhp/372rwtq

New Project
89 Coupe
99TigerGT is offline  
post #25 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 01:30 PM
Registered User
 
carbd86gt's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Jupiter, FL
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dac
Die hard Turbocharger person

If your going by cost, lets compare new Kits only.
You can get a Supercharger Kit these days for about 1800 bucks.
You can get a Turbocharger kit for around 2400 Bucks.
For 600 dollars Difference, you can buy a lot of pulleys and belts.

Again not promoting one over the other, just stating a fact. (If you want to try to compare JY Turbos to a Used Supercharger kit, the price gap gets even wider, considering you can buy some used Supercharger Kits for around 600 dollars from people. Even with JY Turbos thats VERY hard to beat)

The comment about fuel mileage makes me laugh. You do realize even with Turbochargers on a car, your fuel mileage will go down (If you drive normal). Turbos do cost you power by having to have a restricted exhaust. Remember NOTHING is free.



The only power adder that is out there that DOES NOT Decrease your fuel mileage when your not using it is Nitrous Oxide. (Superchargers cost you decreased fuel economy, and so does Turbochargers).

And lets be real. Whether you have a supercharger or a turbocharger on your car, your going to get a LOT LESS mileage. You're going to be more lead foot, and thats really going to cost you a lot in the fuel economy state.
lol, you do not loose mileage with a turbocharger. With my incon TT on my lx, i recorded 27-28 mph CONSISTANTLY with a stock motor running through the traps at nearly 130 mph. It does not take 52 hp to turn a turbo, it takes that much to turn a blower and sometimes more depending on how big the S/C is. If you have the proper ehaust a/r on the turbo, your mileage will stay the same and it only costs about 5 hp to turn a turbo. Exhaust is wasted energy and thats what turbos run off of, waste so basicly its free power. S/C takes HP that the motor is making, thats why with blowers you make less power with the same boost and it takes more fuel to make that less power than the turbo.

As far as buying s/c kits for $1800, that does not incude a fuel system. How are you going to run boost with a stock fuel system (injectors, fuel pump, etc.)? Even when money is brought into it, IMO turbo is the better way to go.

Muscular Stang Racing - Mustangs racing to cure Muscular Distrophy
Visit
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to see what we are about.
carbd86gt is offline  
post #26 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 01:46 PM
Dac
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbd86gt
lol, you do not loose mileage with a turbocharger. With my incon TT on my lx, i recorded 27-28 mph CONSISTANTLY with a stock motor running through the traps at nearly 130 mph. It does not take 52 hp to turn a turbo, it takes that much to turn a blower and sometimes more depending on how big the S/C is. If you have the proper ehaust a/r on the turbo, your mileage will stay the same and it only costs about 5 hp to turn a turbo. Exhaust is wasted energy and thats what turbos run off of, waste so basicly its free power. S/C takes HP that the motor is making, thats why with blowers you make less power with the same boost and it takes more fuel to make that less power than the turbo.

As far as buying s/c kits for $1800, that does not incude a fuel system. How are you going to run boost with a stock fuel system (injectors, fuel pump, etc.)? Even when money is brought into it, IMO turbo is the better way to go.
Actually you do lose mileage.

You put a restrictive exhaust on your car, and your mileage will suffer. I know for a fact your Incon turbos are more restrictive than a T-64E.

Nothing is free, Turbochargers still take power to turn.

Nitrous Oxide is the only power adder system that doesn't decrease your mileage when put on a vehicle. Thats because the energy used to pressurize it, and the power used to make Nitrous is independant of the car. It takes a pump to pump the gas into a bottle, it took power to make the Nitrous Gas.

Superchargers take a belt to turn it, causing lose of power.

Turbochargers take exhaust power (Which restricts it), to turn the exhaust turbine which also decreases mileage.

When under boost, both the supercharger and the turbochargers take more power to turn their wheels or (Gears for superchargers).

Its like a alternator, the more load you put on it, the more power it takes to turn it.

As far as fuel requirements go.

You can run a supercharger OR a turbocharger with a stock fuel system. I've done this before. Generally a supercharger kit and a few turbocharger kits come with a FMU. This will get you under boost with a stock fuel system. Theres thousands of people that have run boost under a turbo/supercharger with 19 pound injectors and a FMU. It happens.

If you want the proper way of going to maximum boost, I'd recommend a adjustable computer management system. (DFI or a Tweecer/EEC Tuner) So you can dial in your fuel tables correctly.

Last edited by Dac; 09-21-2005 at 01:57 PM.
Dac is offline  
post #27 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 01:54 PM
Dac
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbd86gt
It does not take 52 hp to turn a turbo, it takes that much to turn a blower and sometimes more depending on how big the S/C is.
Have you ever put a non restrictive header on your car, run the car on the dyno? Record the results?

Then put on the turbo header with the turbo, and run the same car on the dyno with a tube on the turbo (to simulate resistance and to build boost) and run the car on the same dyno? (Without pressurizing the engine).

You'll be surprised that it will take more than 5 horses to turn it. When I DID this, it took 52 horsepower to turn it, this on a T-64E Turbocharger.

If you put turbos that are too small on a car, you'll find out that it will run out of steam in the upper RPM ranges. (Restricted exhaust).

Just another thing, ANYTHING that takes power to turn on your car WILL Decrease your fuel mileage. Even a car with Daytime Running lights will cause the alternator to work harder and cause a decrease in mileage. (Running with your wipers on, headlights on, and a powerful stereo also decreases your mileage).
Dac is offline  
post #28 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 03:33 PM
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46
i like this discussion, very informative, as far as a power adder, i will have to choose the Turbo, just because being able to turn the boost down and up at your will. I always think of it as it is there when you need it, and it is not there when you don't want it.

Then would it be a true statement if i were to say "i can turn down the turbo to very low psi and not waste any fuel, where that is not possible with a supercharger, since it is always 'on' " ?
desdenova10 is offline  
post #29 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 10:05 PM
Dac
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by desdenova10
i like this discussion, very informative, as far as a power adder, i will have to choose the Turbo, just because being able to turn the boost down and up at your will. I always think of it as it is there when you need it, and it is not there when you don't want it.

Then would it be a true statement if i were to say "i can turn down the turbo to very low psi and not waste any fuel, where that is not possible with a supercharger, since it is always 'on' " ?
Hate to burst your bubble, but a Turbo is always there just like a Supercharger.

Fact is, on the Freeway my turbo car pulls vaccum. Even my Supercharger car pulls vaccum on the freeway.

Supercharger is always causes some paracitic drag due to the belt, however the Turbocharger does the same thing with the exhaust restriction.

Like I said earlier, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Only power adder out there that does not cost you fuel mileage when your not using it is Nitrous Oxide.
Dac is offline  
post #30 of 51 Old 09-21-2005, 11:27 PM
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46
so when i turn down the turbo to 1 psi, its still gonna waste the same amount of gas as a supercharger would ? also what do you mean by pulling vacuum?
desdenova10 is offline  
post #31 of 51 Old 09-22-2005, 12:13 AM
Dac
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by desdenova10
so when i turn down the turbo to 1 psi, its still gonna waste the same amount of gas as a supercharger would ? also what do you mean by pulling vacuum?
Here goes:

A turbocharger will RESTRICT your exhaust REGARDLESS on what level the boost is set for. No matter what you do, your exhaust is forced through the turbocharger AND through a waste gate. This restriction will cost you some fuel mileage.

A supercharger will put some load on the crank REGARDLESS on what level the boost is set for. No matter what you do, this drag on the crank will cost some fuel mileage.

Now if you get into boost with both systems, its really gonna cost you fuel.

Both a Turbocharger and a Supercharger will NOT pressurize your intake while cruising. Fact is your intake should be under a vaccum under normal driving conditions. While driving normal (Without a load) both systems act like you dont have them. Connect a Vaccum gauge to your car. When you are cruising, your car should be pulling vaccum... A Turbocharged and Supercharged car both under normal cruising conditions act like they are not attached at all (in otherwords, they are not providing boost to your engine).

However with that said, again, Both these systems will still cost you some fuel mileage. A Turbocharger, no matter what anyone says, has a restriction in your exhaust system. Anyone who has had a catalytic coverter start going bad (clogged) knows that their fuel mileage decreased and cost them some power. A turbocharger basically does the same exact thing, it restricts your exhaust and costs you some power and fuel mileage (EVEN if its not currently providing boost to your car). A supercharger will do the same thing, except the belt will cost you some power to turn.

Again the only power adder to your car that will not decrease your fuel economy when you are not using it, is Nitrous Oxide. (Am I pushing Nitrous Oxide? No, I personally do not like it. I had a nasty nitrous explosion a few years back and since have never ever used it again).

Why do I post all this stuff? Because I have had a lot of experience with Turbochargers and Superchargers. I'm also tired of the "Die hard" supercharger people and the "Die hard" turbocharger people. I tell it how it is. I'll be the first one to tell you, if you only own one car, if you want boost, and if you can't afford to have your car down more than a day, put a supercharger on your car. If you have time, if you have patience, and you have a 2nd car, then sure, go ahead and put a turbocharger on the car.

In all honesty if your looking at magazines on the amount of power you think you may be gaining and at the cost they are representing, you'll be surely disappointed. Especially if your trying a DIY turbo system. (Making the hot side and cold side is NOT fun.).

I'm sure some of you may disagree with me, thats your free choice, some of you may even aggree with me. But from my experience with both, they both have advantages and both have disadvantages. One of the biggest advantages to a Supercharger is most people can install one from start to finish in under 5 hours. This is why I tell most people, just put a supercharger on the car.
Dac is offline  
post #32 of 51 Old 09-22-2005, 12:17 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Dalamar96's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT.
Posts: 417
This discussion is very interesting and informative.

Dac - I like your realistic info.... and actual real world numbers! thanks for that.
My 96 is not my daily driver, it's on my lift right now all torn apart.
I'm installing lower and upper control arms, grantenelli rear coilover conv.
just put on the MM XL subs, have transmission parts and front coilover to do
still.... After that, the HP kit. I hope they dont make me wait forever to deliver.

I like the comment about money vs power, thats very true.
so, what your saying is that I cant get a used turbo and have 1000 HP?!

So far 4 ppl say 50's and 2 say 46's

96 GT Livernois Stroker, Hellion Turbocharged, 3 link & a few other mods.
67 Fastback Ground up custom.
Dalamar96 is offline  
post #33 of 51 Old 09-22-2005, 12:20 AM
Registered User
 
carbd86gt's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Jupiter, FL
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dac
Have you ever put a non restrictive header on your car, run the car on the dyno? Record the results?

Then put on the turbo header with the turbo, and run the same car on the dyno with a tube on the turbo (to simulate resistance and to build boost) and run the car on the same dyno? (Without pressurizing the engine).

You'll be surprised that it will take more than 5 horses to turn it. When I DID this, it took 52 horsepower to turn it, this on a T-64E Turbocharger.

If you put turbos that are too small on a car, you'll find out that it will run out of steam in the upper RPM ranges. (Restricted exhaust).

Just another thing, ANYTHING that takes power to turn on your car WILL Decrease your fuel mileage. Even a car with Daytime Running lights will cause the alternator to work harder and cause a decrease in mileage. (Running with your wipers on, headlights on, and a powerful stereo also decreases your mileage).
i have not tried to run a turbo without running boost to the motor. But, do that same test with a blower, i bet you will see it takes A LOT more. How big was the motor that had the T64E and what was the exhaust a/r? Sounds like the exhaust side was way too small, thats why you lost power. I have had both a Vortech and the Incon and i will tell you this...... The car with the incon turbo kit on a stock longblock with just an explorer intake and 12 psi went [email protected] mph in march, the car with the Vortech SQ trim is a stock shortblock, AFR 165's, 1.7 rr, and an Edelbrock perf RPM2 @13 psi went [email protected] in Febuary. Thats all that i need to say that Turbo>S/C, track times! That is also why i am selling my vortech and installing an Incon kit on my cobra as well.

At crusing speeds, the turbos are not doing anything but just sitting, the wastgates are open and exhaust is flowing around the turbines not through them. Thats why your fuel milage WILL not change with a turbo. Turbos also dont put strain on the snout of the crank and put heavy loads on the #1 main bearing. That means longer engine life. Why do most cars that come from the factory that have power adders come with turbos? Why do those cars have longer warranties than cars with s/c's?

Turbo wins!!!

Muscular Stang Racing - Mustangs racing to cure Muscular Distrophy
Visit
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to see what we are about.

Last edited by carbd86gt; 09-22-2005 at 12:26 AM.
carbd86gt is offline  
post #34 of 51 Old 09-22-2005, 12:23 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Dalamar96's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT.
Posts: 417
Thought I'd throw this into the mix.
It's been commented that nitrous doesn't cost fuel milage/restriction.
I know a guy that races a fastback - 351C with nitrous. He commented
that after a few years of filling up the bottle, he could have bought a supercharger.
So, it doesnt cost fuel milage, but it's alot more than fuel when your running it.
Dalamar96 is offline  
post #35 of 51 Old 09-22-2005, 09:10 AM
Dac
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbd86gt
i have not tried to run a turbo without running boost to the motor. But, do that same test with a blower, i bet you will see it takes A LOT more.
Try running the turbo on a dyno like I said, you'll be REALLY SHOCKED. Like I have said before, I HAVE done the test with a Turbo Vs the Supercharger on a Dyno. They were ABOUT on par with each other.

T-64E Turbocharger (.96 A/R Ratio) on a 331 Motor. I know my A/R Ratio on my T-64E is a LOT Larger than the A/R Ratio on your Incon Kit, and its STILL RESTRICTIVE. My system is a lot less restrictive than your Incon kit, and its STILL restrictive. (Not bad for a Car that Runs 9's, NHRA Chassis Cert)

Quote:
Originally Posted by carbd86gt
At crusing speeds, the turbos are not doing anything but just sitting, the wastgates are open and exhaust is flowing around the turbines not through them. Thats why your fuel milage WILL not change with a turbo. Turbos also dont put strain on the snout of the crank and put heavy loads on the #1 main bearing. That means longer engine life
Do some more research on your turbocharger. Even at CRUISE, your exhaust is turning the turbine wheel. Its going through BOTH the wastegate (Which is also restrictive) and the Turbocharger (Which is also Restrictive). The Exhaust flows from the headers, to the Turbocharger, depending on your system, you'll either have a intergrated wastegate on the turbo (Which has alike a 1" by 3/4" Flap that relieves pressure off the turbine) or you'll have a external wastegate that generally has a 2" or so pipe to relieve pressure for the turbo. Eitherway, they still restrict your exhaust and cause a power loss.

Even factory cars, compare the fuel mileage between the Base Model (Same Motor without the turbo) to the car with the Turbo. You'll find out the turbo car is rated for worst mileage.

The same thing can be said with a supercharger at cruise by your logic. At cruise since there is no backpressure on the supercharger, its just free wheeling and causing no power loss. (Thats the logic your using). Thats not the case, the belt will cause some drag and some power/mileage loss. Just like a turbo's restricted exhaust will cause some power loss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carbd86gt
I have had both a Vortech and the Incon and i will tell you this...... The car with the incon turbo kit on a stock longblock with just an explorer intake and 12 psi went [email protected] mph in march, the car with the Vortech SQ trim is a stock shortblock, AFR 165's, 1.7 rr, and an Edelbrock perf RPM2 @13 psi went [email protected] in Febuary. Thats all that i need to say that Turbo>S/C, track times! That is also why i am selling my vortech and installing an Incon kit on my cobra as well.
I've seen Stock classed Fox mustangs run 10's at 130's with just a supercharger on them at 8 pounds of boost. Does that make the Supercharger now better than the Turbocharger? I've also seen the STOCK Class also run LOW 11's without any power adder at all. So by your arguements not having a Turbocharger can get you more power than having one. Again its all different. If your going by track times alone, then you need to bow to the Supercharger. A supercharger motor holds the fastest ET For any Piston Powered Car down the 1/4 Mile. (Again is it fair to compare a Top Fuel Dragster to typical cars on the drag scene? Hell no, but by using your logic, it wins). I have seen some 03 Cobras that had some head work done, changed camshafts, and upgraded the supercharger and run 9's consistantly.

Your arguement doesn't hold water. First of all a SQ Trim on a Vortech is a base no frills model impeller, similar to a A-Trim, which is very inefficient. Next the Incon kit has a better more efficient impeller on it over the SQ Trim. Compare the Incon setup to the YS Trim Vortech. How about Sticking a set of IHI Turbochargers on your car then comparing it to the SQ Trim at those boost levels? The IHI Turbos would be inefficient and the boost temperatures would skyrocket. If your going to compare superchargers to turbochargers or vice versa, you need to compare them with the same style impeller if your going to compare them. Haven't you noticed I haven't compared my Supercharger car to my Turbocharged car? They are apples and oranges. Theres no comparison since they are totally different in what they are built for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carbd86gt
Turbos also dont put strain on the snout of the crank and put heavy loads on the #1 main bearing. That means longer engine life. Why do most cars that come from the factory that have power adders come with turbos? Why do those cars have longer warranties than cars with s/c's?
Although its true that a Supercharger does put some strain on the snout, if a car is properly built, you'll probably never have a problem with it. Regardless whether you put a supercharger or a turbocharger on a car, I recommend GOOD RODS, Forged Pistons and a Forged Crank. (Don't use the stock block). With those items your crank will last a very long time regardless if theres a supercharger on it or not. Believe it or not, your Flexplate or Flywheel causes MORE Strain on your crankshaft than any supercharger could ever cause.

Factory powered cars are about Equal when it comes to Superchargers vs Turbochargers. They go in cycles. Before you can say that theres more Factory Turbocharged Models vs Supercharged Models, do some research, they are actually about equal. They also have about equal warranties also.

Hell one of the best Supercharged cars out there is the Mercedes Kompressor cars. Those cars actually have a clutch assembly on them that turns off the turbocharger when its not needed, therefore improving fuel mileage, and kicks them back on when the added power is needed. Its a niffty little system. If you compare the Neon SRT-4 to the New Cobalt SS they are virtually identical cars also.

I'm not trying to get into a war with you on this stuff, I'm just stating facts. Whether you like it or not, what I have said is true. Like I said, I've own a Turbocharged car and I own a Supercharged car. I used to be the biggest Turbocharger nut there was. I guess I've gotten older and wiser. I've also sat back and looked at both with a open mind, and have done well with both systems. Regardless, you can go just as fast with either system (Or even Nitrous) if you set up your car correctly.

I'm just saying nothing is free. Superchargers AND turbochargers require power to run, and as a result of that, they both will degrade your fuel economy.
Dac is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome