Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Turbo or Supercharged

  1. #11
    FORD GT OWNER Mullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    2,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fubar View Post
    I agree, that the TT/SC seems like a great option. I suspect it still has a heat handicap but at least you get the top end power and low end torque. It also has a "badass factor" that makes it fun as hell at the car meets... where two or three extra power adders equals "King of Parking-Lot" trash talking merits. I'd definitely go this route if it is an option.

    Mullet, do you think having the crank double-keyed is a 'must' for this option?
    I know Hennessey has done 25-35 of them and I bet my failure was the only one like that or he would be requiring it.
    05 GT SC/TT/NOS 1178 RWHP/1020 tq 9.39 1/4. 226.2 mph at Oct 2009 Texas Mile. 2008 Superleggera UGR 2R, 08 Mercedes S65, 89 IROC Z 5.7 29k miles 150 shot NOS

  2. #12
    Totally ****** Up Fubar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    3,829

    Default

    I figure it was a fluke. Theoretically, the turbos should take the stress off of the crank.
    I'm Just Say'n!!!

  3. #13
    GT Owner BlackICE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    SF Bay Area in California
    Posts
    9,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fubar View Post
    I figure it was a fluke. Theoretically, the turbos should take the stress off of the crank.
    At least on the snout for the equivalant HP and TQ.
    BlackICE

  4. #14
    GPS'D 225 Fast Freddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    2,555

    Default

    a double keyed crank has to do with the supercharger and not the turbo's. a double keyed crank is a must for the 4.0L whipple....

    from what i can tell the 3.4L whipple doesn't need it....
    Last edited by Fast Freddy; 09-03-2012 at 11:23 AM.
    The Worlds Fastest Open Road Race GT
    Driven 101 miles in 40 minutes Flat
    150 MPH Avg Speed @ The Bonneville 100 Open Road Race
    216.6 MPH @ Mojave (766 rwhp)
    http://youtube.com/user/FastFreddy488

  5. #15
    GT Owner Wwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fubar View Post

    Do you have goals? Do you plan on tracking? Do you just want to beat the guy with the turbo Viper on the highway? Is it just a fun-factor you are looking for? These are things you really need to know before you jump into a big build.
    F

    +1 , but if you don't have specific goals and budget isn't a factor, then Mullet has your answer

  6. #16
    FORD GT OWNER skyrex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Central Coast California/Lake Las Vegas
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    My answer to this question may seem overly "direct" but that is how I am. I have driven every type of GT set-up except the TT/SC. When I got my second GT I could not wait to get the SC off and get it back to being a TT like my first car. A lot of people talk about turbo lag, but I just don't see it....and I drive my car all the time. At one time maybe that was a factor, but in a high horsepower application like this I have never felt it. The car responds at all times and I would consider myself, as a lot of us would , an above average driver. Could a great driver get more out on the low end out of an SC or TT/SC than a TT. Maybe, but as far as I know no one has lined the up a Whipple, TT/SC and a TT side by side and let a expert third party drive the cars back to back to back. Until that happens this is really not an objective discussion.

    This is a driver question. What is your goal?? If it is to take your friends on a thrill ride with a quick launch to 60mph or take them on the highway and downshift from 4th to 3rd and stab the pedal to hear them go crazy save your money and get a Whipple. Impressing those people will not be hard. Do you want to be able to "say" you have a 1,000hp car and take it to the dyno occasionally to show how powerful your car is?? (It still shocks me how many people have high HP cars and never drive them for effect) If the car is for track or high speed events that may change your answer as well. I don't speak tech, I just drive. I swallowed hard at the price of the TT......until I drove it. After that I never looked back. As a side note some of us have an in cabin boost controller which allows us to adjust the level of boost on the fly. That way you can have a "tame" 700+ rwhp, then adjust it up from there.

    I have said it before and I will say it again. All of the set-ups are fantastic. When you were a kid if someone told you that you would someday own a car that would be making somewhere between 700-1200hp you would have thought they were nuts. The fact that we have cars that not only do that, but do it reliably with minimal problems is automotive heaven.


    Fastest Car at the October, 2011 Mojave Mile/ Fastest Car at the June, 2012 Mojave Magnum with a 235.3mph run, Fastest Car at the October 2013 Mojave Magnum / 64 200MPH+ Passes and counting.......

  7. #17
    GT Owner RALPHIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Mono County
    Posts
    6,076

    Default

    I like Kendall's cost comparison between the two systems. Bang for the buck, which is how Corvettes are normally compared to European Supercars. But, then again, if cost is no object, the situation may reverse itself.

    I would rather compare the two systems with the idea of equality. For the same result, and that result being equal Rear Wheel Horsepower and Torque (RWHP & RWTQ), how do they compare?, since each can achieve identical levels with enough money, hardware and engineering. I see it as follows:

    The supercharger system is likely a less expensive and more performance oriented system up to about 1,000 wheel horsepower. However, let's not forget that to achieve this level, the prime mover (the engine) must create enough power to operate the supercharger, in addition to the power to the transmission input shaft. At a given point (which I have postulated to be at ~1,000 rwhp, a debatable number), the strength of the motor should be increased to withstand the total power that the prime mover must generate. In contrast, the turbocharger system does not place much more strain on the prime mover - just the additional restriction on the exhaust cycle to spin the snails. Once the momentum has gotten the unit spinning, the turbo can increase boost without significant additional strain on the bottom end. So, while the supercharger system may be less costly up to a given power level, above that level will require significant cost increase to the strength of the prime mover due to the demands of the supercharger, whereas to reach that same level with the turbo system will allow the power to be transmitted more efficiently.

    Thus, each sytem has its advantages, depending upon the desired rear wheel output level of the system.
    Last edited by RALPHIE; 09-03-2012 at 11:15 AM.


    "There Are Two Ways to Enslave A Country....One is by the Sword, the Other is by Debt.".......John Adams

  8. #18
    GT Owner RALPHIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Mono County
    Posts
    6,076

    Default PS

    As a postscript, let me add that for a given rear wheel power level, the turbo system puts much less strain on the components of the prime mover, thus significantly improving its endurability. I believe this is why the Auto Union turbo diesels have been so successful in endurance racing.


    "There Are Two Ways to Enslave A Country....One is by the Sword, the Other is by Debt.".......John Adams

  9. #19
    Totally ****** Up Fubar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    3,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fast Freddy View Post
    a double keyed crank has to do with the supercharger and not the turbo's. a double keyed crank is a must for the 4.0L whipple....

    from what i can tell the 3.4L whipple doesn't need it....
    Yes it does (to some degree). I was asking because Mullet is making a good deal more boost, the SC must spin faster (even when the turbos are pushing air trough it) which means it is likely geared lower… however the big additional strain of a SC comes when you let your foot off of the gas or use the motor to slow the car, then you are adding a massive load on the crank to slow the motor, instantly. With the turbos on the back of this configuration it should reduce the stress on the crank as the turbo’s spool up and it might even begin to push the crank (that is completely theoretical, I have no real world experience on this). I really thought Mullet crank would last longer than most people making being power but then it broke. I figured Hennessey looked closely at the cause of the brake. I was just wondering what he decided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wwabbit View Post
    +1 , but if you don’t have specific goals and budget isn’t a factor, then Mullet has your answer
    I don’t think it ridiculously more money for this setup. Hennessey using the stock blower so it basically a little more plumbing and boom… magically mechanical perfection (sorta).

    Quote Originally Posted by skyrex View Post
    My answer to this question may seem overly "direct" but that is how I am. I have driven every type of GT set-up except the TT/SC. When I got my second GT I could not wait to get the SC off and get it back to being a TT like my first car. A lot of people talk about turbo lag, but I just don't see it....and I drive my car all the time. At one time maybe that was a factor, but in a high horsepower application like this I have never felt it. The car responds at all times and I would consider myself, as a lot of us would , an above average driver. Could a great driver get more out on the low end out of an SC or TT/SC than a TT. Maybe, but as far as I know no one has lined the up a Whipple, TT/SC and a TT side by side and let a expert third party drive the cars back to back to back. Until that happens this is really not an objective discussion.

    This is a driver question. What is your goal?? If it is to take your friends on a thrill ride with a quick launch to 60mph or take them on the highway and downshift from 4th to 3rd and stab the pedal to hear them go crazy save your money and get a Whipple. Impressing those people will not be hard. Do you want to be able to "say" you have a 1,000hp car and take it to the dyno occasionally to show how powerful your car is?? (It still shocks me how many people have high HP cars and never drive them for effect) If the car is for track or high speed events that may change your answer as well. I don't speak tech, I just drive. I swallowed hard at the price of the TT......until I drove it. After that I never looked back. As a side note some of us have an in cabin boost controller which allows us to adjust the level of boost on the fly. That way you can have a "tame" 700+ rwhp, then adjust it up from there.

    I have said it before and I will say it again. All of the set-ups are fantastic. When you were a kid if someone told you that you would someday own a car that would be making somewhere between 700-1200hp you would have thought they were nuts. The fact that we have cars that not only do that, but do it reliably with minimal problems is automotive heaven.
    I disagree here, much like you, I have driven both and deeply considered the turbo route but the lag is there in every flavor of the turbo setup I have seen. There is no lack of power when you want to getty-up but there is always a “wall of power” that follows as the turbos spool up. I don’t think this is my opinion, as much as a solid pro/con of the turbo setup. If turbos could be managed perfectly, then everybody would use them.

    Quote Originally Posted by RALPHIE View Post
    I like Kendall's cost comparison between the two systems. Bang for the buck, which is how Corvettes are normally compared to European Supercars. But, then again, if cost is no object, the situation may reverse itself.

    I would rather compare the two systems with the idea of equality. For the same result, and that result being equal Rear Wheel Horsepower and Torque (RWHP & RWTQ), how do they compare?, since each can achieve identical levels with enough money, hardware and engineering. I see it as follows:

    The supercharger system is likely a less expensive and more performance oriented system up to about 1,000 wheel horsepower. However, let's not forget that to achieve this level, the prime mover (the engine) must create enough power to operate the supercharger, in addition to the power to the transmission input shaft. At a given point (which I have postulated to be at ~1,000 rwhp, a debatable number), the strength of the motor should be increased to withstand the total power that the prime mover must generate. In contrast, the turbocharger system does not place much more strain on the prime mover - just the additional restriction on the exhaust cycle to spin the snails. Once the momentum has gotten the unit spinning, the turbo can increase boost without significant additional strain on the bottom end. So, while the supercharger system may be less costly up to a given power level, above that level will require significant cost increase to the strength of the prime mover due to the demands of the supercharger, whereas to reach that same level with the turbo system will allow the power to be transmitted more efficiently.

    Thus, each system has its advantages, depending upon the desired rear wheel output level of the system.
    I really think a properly designed SC setup is more expensive than turbos but simply added a bigger SC to the Ford setup is relatively cheap. I think the limit of cheap rwhp with a SC is going to be around 800. Turbos will give you 950-1000 but after that you need to add a fuel system and more cooling and more tire and more heat shields and more $$$$$$$

    Again, your goals are the most important thing you can decided before you make this decision.
    I'm Just Say'n!!!

  10. #20
    FORD GT OWNER Mullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    2,352

    Default

    Fubar, I think you are over anaylizing the SC/TT. For the record my stock SC is running the stock SC pulley.
    05 GT SC/TT/NOS 1178 RWHP/1020 tq 9.39 1/4. 226.2 mph at Oct 2009 Texas Mile. 2008 Superleggera UGR 2R, 08 Mercedes S65, 89 IROC Z 5.7 29k miles 150 shot NOS

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •