SC and TT Characteristics Compared & Discussed

[Shadowman]

I say the SC\TT setup is a better all around setup because of no lag at any rpm.

Also I believe it's a better setup for a stock motor running Mile events. I know of a few TT setups that have run mile events and they are getting in the low 220's when my setup got a few more mph's. I'm just sayin'.

On this we agree; stump pulling torque and the ability to push the wall of air on the big end .... as long as the discharge air temps stay happy

You have proved many times that your gal plays to win!

Shadowman

 

[Shadowman]

All the technical stuff is a bit beyond me. All I do know is what they feel like to drive.

I can give first impressions of driving my TT after having put 300 miles in over the weekend. Obviously my SC is still fresh in my mind. That said they are two totally different feels when driving. Everything from how the car reacts during acceleration, downshifts to slow down a bit in traffic, is different. SC acceleration gives you a bit more at the bottom end (meaning 1st gear......but I if I remember correct first gear in my TT set-up is limited to prevent some wheelspin) however acceleration from there is totally different. The SC puts you back in your seat but the acceleration while fast is steady and after fourth takes its time to the high mph's.....you know what number I mean. :lol The TT acceleration, as long as your tires can hold, is aggressive through every gear till you decide to lift off the pedal. Put it this way, I have less wrinkles today then yesterday. I do not regret the little bit I lost on the low end at all. :cheers

Just an opinion of a guy with a fresh TT smile who has limited understanding of the tech arguments of earlier posts. :cheers

I/we are all "very" happy and excited for you

Keep her pointed the proper direction and keep your comments coming

Shadowman

 

[Shadowman]

Oh and from my perspective with a car set up blower / blower NOS / TT / TTSC then back to TT. For me personally I love the turbos alone above any other setup.

But that again is personal preference. Anyone doing research needs to spend time in a vehicle that they may have interest in too see what fits within their realm of happiness.

And you my friend have a wicked gal that is exercised all the time

There is no doubt that the two of you play well together

Shadowman

 

[Shadowman]

opopopop

Popcorn sounds good

Shadowman

 

[Fubar]

The thread did start as a "SC v/s TT discussion" thread. As the title implies, OP expects people to take sides and discuss. If I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I don't like you. It just means your wrong.

SC is better in my book for shear badass-ness in the engine bay. All those turbo tubes are cool, of course but the huge meat grinder sitting proudly on top of my big block V8... just makes me smile (AN EVIL SMILE). Now technically, I like the predictability of the SC. I never have to measure my response for fear that the power come on a few seconds late in a turn. But as Chip has said, and I agree with, for big speeds the turbo rules the roost. THe SC just take too much power to run at high RPMs and consequently they end up building too much heat for extended use.

2 cents.

 

[nota4re]

Next topic.... Chicken and Egg : Which came first? Get ready to take sides... film at 11! :biggrin:biggrin:biggrin

 

[Shadowman]

The thread did start as a "SC v/s TT discussion" thread. As the title implies, OP expects people to take sides and discuss. If I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I don't like you. It just means your wrong.

SC is better in my book for shear badass-ness in the engine bay. All those turbo tubes are cool, of course but the huge meat grinder sitting proudly on top of my big block V8... just makes me smile (AN EVIL SMILE). Now technically, I like the predictability of the SC. I never have to measure my response for fear that the power come on a few seconds late in a turn. But as Chip has said, and I agree with, for big speeds the turbo rules the roost. THe SC just take too much power to run at high RPMs and consequently they end up building too much heat for extended use.

2 cents.

I like "huge meat grinder"

Shadowman

 

[Shadowman]

Next topic.... Chicken and Egg : Which came first? Get ready to take sides... film at 11! :biggrin:biggrin:biggrin

This depends on whether one wants breakfast or dinner ............. damn here I go again

Where are those torque curves?

Shadowman

 

[nota4re]

OK, so a few have asked for the TQ charts from the same runs above. I removed them on the charts at the beginning of the thread, because I didn't think they made the story any different. You will see what I mean.


Like I said initially, the SC's "rule the roost" below 4K or so and after that the TT really start to come on. Although boost pressures are constant in both setups above 4K, the gap is largely explained by the extra work that the engine is required to do to turn the SC in the upper ranges. Both the HP and TQ comparisons tell the same story!

 

[avjunky]

Nota4re, thanks for posting the TQ numbers. The TT also sounds pretty cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksxEwo7ySm4&feature=search

 

[tmcphail]

It all comes down to personal preference kids !

 

[HHGT]

Rodney King !!!

Can we all just get along !!!

 

[Shadowman]

OK, so a few have asked for the TQ charts from the same runs above. I removed them on the charts at the beginning of the thread, because I didn't think they made the story any different. You will see what I mean.
View attachment 16536

Like I said initially, the SC's "rule the roost" below 4K or so and after that the TT really start to come on. Although boost pressures are constant in both setups above 4K, the gap is largely explained by the extra work that the engine is required to do to turn the SC in the upper ranges. Both the HP and TQ comparisons tell the same story!

Here I go again.......

The turbo graph looks fine; a lazy start and then ever building for this I thank you however the supercharged graph looks as if a marketing tool for the turbo system; the turbo pull began at 2200 RPM however the supercharger pull not until nearly 3000 RPM as such the over lay is IMO terrible. The supercharger pull if begun at 2200 RPM would have had the torque "bang" nearly straight up and then flat line across until it finally tailed off.

I do appreciate the information as shared however ..... it means "NADA" unless one is selling a turbo system and the person to which it is being solicited to does not undertstand the dyno chart.

Come on; either good data or no data

Shadowman

 

[Shadowman]

Here is what a supercharged dyno sheet should look like with a "very" conservative tune and BTW with a Whipple Gen II.

When we completeed the tune with the A/F at 11.7 ish we had 725 torque at 2200 RPM and she was flat across the board and 715 HP. This on a (as stated) conservative 91 octane tune.

This is power you can "feel"

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[ChipBeck]

Moderators Note

Gentlemen,

I wish I had looked at this thread earlier. I have cleaned up a few of the unacceptable exchanges. Feel free to post contradictory information when you see something you don't agree with. But at all times, please keep your argument in the first person. This simple rule will keep most discussions on a gentlemanly level. When you jump to third person pronouncements, things can get ugly in a hurry.

For example, "I disagree, and here's why" is a perfectly acceptable first person pronouncement. On the other hand, "You are flat out wrong" is an unacceptable third person indictment. When everybody is comfortable enough to post what they know, or what they think they know, excellent information will surface in short order as the collective knowledge of this Forum exceeds that of a supercomputer.

The Ford GT Forum has always been the most civil site on the web and I am confident it will continue that way. All the best.

Chip

 

[nota4re]

Bill, you said,

The supercharger pull if begun at 2200 RPM would have had the torque "bang" nearly straight up and then flat line across until it finally tailed off.

.... but I hope you know that I have tried to be explicit as possible and fully acknowledge the SC benefits in the lower RPM range. If you have some better overlays, we can use those.

In post 6 by ME:

Another anomaly of the chart above is that it doesn't clearly enough show the benefit of the SC in the lower RPM range. With dyno "start" on the SC pulley/tune set-up really didn't get started until a higher RPM, but clearly you can extend the line over and see the advantage at the lower R's. In contrast, the TT run was a "set-up" run and we tried to load the car early (2K RPM) to see the broadest graph as possible.

In post 8 by ME:

What the chart omits - and I said it in a prior post is tha the SC's lower RPM reach is even further - it simply wasn't captured in the dyno run example.

 

[soroush]

I wish someone would build a tt/sc set up with a clutch on the sc pulley that would start slipping when the turbos would come on, that way I can add NOS to it and be done:biggrin

 

[SteveA]

I wish someone would build a tt/sc set up with a clutch on the sc pulley that would start slipping when the turbos would come on, that way I can add NOS to it and be done:biggrin

I believe Detroit Deisel did this back in the early 60's. Just think how cool those twin chrome stacks would look coming out from under the car just behind the doors.:thumbsup:lol

 

[Luke Warmwater]

It's being done with centrifugal chargers in the diesel hotrod world currently.

 

[soroush]

I just heard a 4 litter whipple with a build gt motor stock cams making 1006 hp with 900ftlb, with 800lb of that available at 2600rpm.:eek and thats with no NOS :rofl