 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / July 2005If you have your choice...
What method of horsepower increase would you choose? -Supercharger. -Nitrous -More cubic inches -A more refined (upped compression, etc) motor? Personally, I think more cubes is the sensible path, owing to it's simplicity, but then bolting on a supercharger or nox bottle is perhaps easier. -Rich I put a 75 shot of nitrous on my 98 Mustang GT a/b a month or so ago. Loving every bit of it. If I had to pick... I'd probably go with a built motor w/ a supercharger (ie: 03/04 SVT Cobra). After that.. I'd probably pick a built motor w/ nitrous OR more cubic inches... torn between those 2 (weight issue comes into play though w/ more cubic inches--not THAT much though). -Mike > What method of horsepower increase would you choose? > -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is perhaps easier. > -Rich A twin screw blower or turbos is the best route, IMO. A twin screw blower on an '03-'04 Cobra gets you a reliable 600 rwhp/rwtq out of 4.6L. Plus when you keep your foot light you get the mileage benefits of a smaller displacement engine. When an engine is properly designed for forced induction it is very rugged and reliable, even under high boost conditions. > > What method of horsepower increase would you choose? > > -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > for forced induction it is very rugged and reliable, even under high > boost conditions. I'm with MJ. Two small turbos, an air-to-air intercooler, and EFI on a 302 or 331 -- that's the ultimate. Nitrous is only good till the bottle runs out. Anything over 350 ci, you're stuck with terrible gas mileage all the time. A turbo small block doesn't need all that much cam, and if gas hits $3-4/gal, you just dial back the waste gate. A big block destroys handling and braking, and because you can't eliminate the low end torque if you want to have anything left up top, it's alot harder to hook up. The twin screw is attractive, but it's not easy to control the low end torque either. 180 Out >>>What method of horsepower increase would you choose? >>>-Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > it's alot harder to hook up. The twin screw is attractive, but it's > not easy to control the low end torque either. One other benefit of twin screws and turbos is that will actually produce more torque across the rpm range than a N/A big block. My '89 LX with a stock short block, twin screw blower, and 16 psi made 460 rwtq at 2,500 rpm on a dyno pull. It held 400+ rwtq until 5,500 rpm. On a 331 stroker, using an 8.5:1 CR, A302 block, forged parts and heads/intake/cam to promote high air flow the torque curve would bring a tear to your eye. That being said there are benefits the large displacement engines. They are less complex. This is why I still plan to drop a 427W into the '89 LX one day. hello all - good discussion... is it not true that a positive displacement supercharger effectively "adds" cubic inches? for instance the stock eaton m-112 on the 03/04 cobra actually adds (taking into account inefficency losses) approx 80 cubes to the 281 modular (4.6), effectively making it around 350 ci engine? and a 2.2 kenne-bell twin-screw which equals 134.4 cubic inches, would add 90 or so (after losses)? and then the 2.4 kenne-bell even more? i had read that the inefficiencies of a supercharger equate to only about 70% of the total displacement. with regards to the gas mileage argument, and it may or may not be directly related to the above, my experience is showing that although there is a very small displacement modular under that blower, it's as thirsty as a big block. i'm not talking about around town driving when i'm constantly into the boost from light to light. i mean the best highway mileage i can get out of this car is about 21-22... real highway 6th gear cruising. i average only 10-12 city with an overall average of 13.5. those numbers remind me of 60's big block muscle type mileage - pretty bad. i know that this is a heavy car, and rear end gearing and transmission overdives play a big part in it. but the idea that you can take a small engine and get the benefits by staying out of the boost does not seem to be working for me in the real world. my 96 gt vert (stock with a 3.27 rear) would get around 21/22 city and 28/30 highway, and that is with only 1 overdrive gear. it was a lighter car than this 04 cobra, but still, that is a pretty big difference - and gas aint cheap these days. that being said, trying to get good gas mileage is NOT why i buy an american v-8... from what i understand, the chevy ls-1's which are powerful engines, get 30 highway - even in the heavier cambirds. i think they have 3.55 gears with the t-56 like my car, but are a little lighter? so i can see the logic in the argument that cubic inches is king and why chevy has stuck with their simple ohv small block but just kept the displacment large and the compression high. chris 04 comp orange cobra vert > > > What method of horsepower increase would you choose? > > > -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > 180 Out > hello all - good discussion... > > is it not true that a positive displacement supercharger effectively > "adds" > cubic inches? It is absolutely true that it effectively quote-unquote adds displacement. So does high RPM in terms of CFM. But it is forced induction creating this contrived (and subjective) mathematical equivalent of displacement, not actual swept volume. You're absolutely correct, and many opt for this route. But there is nothing like actual cubes there, all the time, not measured as boost pressure on top of what you actually have... JMI... > What method of horsepower increase would you choose? > -Supercharger. > -Nitrous > -More cubic inches Of course more inches, because as they say there's no replacement for displacement. Blow it, turbocharge it, juice it, cam the sh.t out of it, but big inches still rules. You can run 10s without any of that crap on a junkyard 460 with the right induction and exhaust. I know a guy who does every weekend. And do those mods to a BB motor and you're talking four-digit horsepower that you can actually drive around. And screw gas mileage. That's what beaters are for. In street trim, the 1970 Ford 460 put out 505 lbs/ft. of torque. You can rub the damned valve covers clean and get 10 hp out of those things due to improved heat dissipation. ;^) > -A more refined (upped compression, etc) motor? > > Personally, I think more cubes is the sensible path, owing to > it's simplicity, but then bolting on a supercharger or nox bottle > is perhaps easier. You are a wise man. All that stuff complicates things and affects reliability. Big-inch motors rule, period. > -Rich >You can rub the damned valve covers clean and get 10 hp out of >those things due to improved heat dissipation. ;^) I like your style. The more BB posts I read, the more I want to drop a 460 in the '71. Scott > >You can rub the damned valve covers clean and get 10 hp out of >>those things due to improved heat dissipation. ;^) > > I like your style. The more BB posts I read, the more I want to drop a > 460 > in the '71. Hell yeah!! Go for it. BB is an Attitude. Come to the dark side, it's a lot of fun.  SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 Depends on what you want to do.... and what your future goals are. Your auto enhancements are part of a complete package. When you set out to increase performance, you should have a goal and work towards it. Willy-nilly mods are counterproductive and can even limit performance capabilities. > What method of horsepower increase would you choose? > -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is perhaps easier. > -Rich Bennett Racing in AL has a windsor based 427 stroker supposedly good for 600hp naturally aspirated on 91 octane. I'm thinking one of those with a KB Blowzilla stuck on top. Wabbitslayer 01 GT vert > Bennett Racing in AL has a windsor based 427 stroker supposedly good for > 600hp naturally aspirated on 91 octane. > I'm thinking one of those with a KB Blowzilla stuck on top. Now, we're getting somewhere. > Wabbitslayer > 01 GT vert It all depends on what you want to do with the car. Forced indiction is not generally ideal for a road racing car because of heat soak and the additional weight over the nose. But a drag car is a whole different story... MC > What method of horsepower increase would you choose? > -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is perhaps easier. > -Rich There are allot of cars that have forced induction in road racing, and were talking an extra 20-30 lbs > It all depends on what you want to do with the car. Forced indiction is not > generally ideal for a road racing car because of heat soak and the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > is perhaps easier. > > -Rich True, but look at how many Mustangs there are in road racing that have forced induction. > There are allot of cars that have forced induction in road racing, and > were [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > is perhaps easier. >> > -Rich Ok, perhaps I missed something. Why not use a centrifugal S/C? Is it less reliable than a roots? -----Original Message----- From: RichA [mailto:none@none.com] Posted At: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:49 PM Posted To: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang Conversation: If you have your choice... Subject: If you have your choice... What method of horsepower increase would you choose? -Supercharger. -Nitrous -More cubic inches -A more refined (upped compression, etc) motor? Personally, I think more cubes is the sensible path, owing to it's simplicity, but then bolting on a supercharger or nox bottle is perhaps easier. -Rich In a word.... TORQUE!!!!!! If you like the performance of a BB then a centrifugal just won't scratch the itch. > Ok, perhaps I missed something. Why not use a centrifugal S/C? Is it > less reliable than a roots? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it's simplicity, but then bolting on a supercharger or nox bottle is > perhaps easier. -Rich Ok, Torque. Granted. However, if you have a V8 that is already hard to keep hooked up in 1st, it seems better to put the power where you are (can) use it. What's the point of having that much torque if you have to start from the line is 2nd? I have a built 331 and I am going the centrifugal route. It has the added caveat of not needing to punch a whole in my hood. 8) -----Original Message----- From: Michael Johnson, PE [mailto:nospam@ourhouse.com] Posted At: Sunday, July 10, 2005 12:42 PM Posted To: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang Conversation: If you have your choice... Subject: Re: If you have your choice... In a word.... TORQUE!!!!!! If you like the performance of a BB then a centrifugal just won't scratch the itch. Alias wrote: > Ok, perhaps I missed something. Why not use a centrifugal S/C? Is it > less reliable than a roots? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > simplicity, but then bolting on a supercharger or nox bottle is > perhaps easier. -Rich For me, the torque makes for a more enjoyable driving experience. The centrifugal blowers make the bulk of their power in the 5,000-6,000 rpm range. This means in third gear, for example, you will need to be north of 90 mph to really get into the meat of the power band. With a twin screw I can have huge power increases from idle to redline. I can be in third gear at 2,500 rpm and roll into the throttle and accelerate straight to redline with a rush of acceleration or maybe to the speed limit if that is more prudent. It's the same for any gear actually. It is truly like having a very strong running, high rpm, big block engine under the hood. At the track, the added low end torque will get you off the line quickly if you set the suspension up properly and use slicks. The twin screw's torque curve puts more area under the curve which is what wins drag races. If you take two cars, one with a twin screw and the other with a centrifugal, and they have near the same peak hp levels, the twin screw will usually win if the cars are basically equal in other respects. Also, twin screws are more efficient than centrifugals so more power gets to the wheels. One other plus is that twin screw engines can be set up for very high rpm air flow without loss of low end performance because they produce full boost by 2,000 rpm and a great deal of it is there just off idle too. This isn't so with centrifugals as they don't produce enough low/mid range boost to overcome the loss of low/mid range torque on an engine set up for high rpm air flow. Centrifugals are fine if you like their power band and peaky boost delivery. I just prefer to have a broad, flat and high torque curve of a twin screw. BTW, on fuel injected cars you won't need to punch a hole in your hood to strap on a twin screw blower. I have one on my '89 LX and it still sports the stock hood. > Ok, Torque. Granted. However, if you have a V8 that is already hard to > keep hooked up in 1st, it seems better to put the power where you are [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > perhaps easier. -Rich > > >Ok, Torque. Granted. However, if you have a V8 that is already hard to >keep hooked up in 1st, it seems better to put the power where you are >(can) use it. What's the point of having that much torque if you have >to start from the line is 2nd? If you have to start from the line in 2nd either you don't know what you are doing, or you don't have the car setup properly. >I have a built 331 and I am going the centrifugal route. It has the >added caveat of not needing to punch a whole in my hood. 8) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> simplicity, but then bolting on a supercharger or nox bottle is >> perhaps easier. -Rich -- Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition ZombyWoof (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) > What method of horsepower increase would you choose? > -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is perhaps easier. > -Rich Procharger power baby! I have all the torque I need for the street and top end pulls like wild horses. With the big intercooler up front there's no need to keep filling a damn water/alcohol bottle, run race fuel or pull timing too much. SignatureTropic Green Y2k GT Coupe http://tinyurl.com/avta4 >> What method of horsepower increase would you choose? >> -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > there's no need to keep filling a damn water/alcohol bottle, run race > fuel or pull timing too much. With the new generation of Kenne Bell blowers for the 4.6L Mustangs you can have massive low-end torque and great peak hp numbers. Best of both worlds short of twin turbos. >>> What method of horsepower increase would you choose? >>> -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > can have massive low-end torque and great peak hp numbers. Best of both > worlds short of twin turbos. Well, if your somehow connected to KB, maybe you can get me one for free. I'll do some "Testing" :^) SignatureTropic Green Y2k GT Coupe http://tinyurl.com/avta4 >>>> What method of horsepower increase would you choose? >>>> -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Well, if your somehow connected to KB, maybe you can get me one for > free. I'll do some "Testing" :^) The only connection I have with KB is they have a got a good bit of my money over the years. One thing I can tell you is that driving a car with a twin screw blower, that is properly tuned, will put a grin on your face that Ajax can't remove. <snip> >With the new generation of Kenne Bell blowers for the 4.6L Mustangs you >can have massive low-end torque and great peak hp numbers. Best of both >worlds short of twin turbos. Yeah if gas was .50 cents a gallon again. Right now if I want to beat just about anybody in the 1760 dash I'll do it via motorcycle and do it cheaply as well. If gas goes any higher it will be time to go Prius shopping. -- Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition ZombyWoof (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it cheaply as well. If gas goes any higher it will be time to go > Prius shopping. I work out of the basement of our house. My morning and evening commute burns about 10 calories. My major fuel expense is for coffee. :) >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I work out of the basement of our house. My morning and evening commute >burns about 10 calories. My major fuel expense is for coffee. :) Not a reality that many enjoy. -- Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition ZombyWoof (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) >>><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not a reality that many enjoy. I hear the same statement from my wife. >>>><snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I hear the same statement from my wife. She did mention something about never being able to get you out of the freakin house :) I would have thought that Telecommuting would have caught on a lot more then it has by now. -- Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition ZombyWoof (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) >>>>><snip> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > She did mention something about never being able to get you out of the > freakin house :) It has made me somewhat of a hermit. I have lost my office social skills and am less patient, in general. Maybe I need to leave the basement more. :) > I would have thought that Telecommuting would have caught on a lot > more then it has by now. I don't telecommute since I'm self employed. In my area there are a number of people who work from the home either full time or part time. I can see where it wouldn't work for people who aren't self motivated. There is no pressure at home to work like there is in an office environment. For me, the freedom it affords is wonderful. <snip> >>>>>>Yeah if gas was .50 cents a gallon again. Right now if I want to beat >>>>>>just about anybody in the 1760 dash I'll do it via motorcycle and do [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >skills and am less patient, in general. Maybe I need to leave the >basement more. :) I think I might have to dig one and spend more time in it. >> I would have thought that Telecommuting would have caught on a lot >> more then it has by now. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >There is no pressure at home to work like there is in an office >environment. For me, the freedom it affords is wonderful. Well it is sort of kinda like that. What is so special about your area that a higher % then normal people work from home, or is it just happenstance? Well I must admit that I am not overly motivated to work, but I am fairly motivated by money and working is the only way I know to get it. Other then marrying it that is. -- Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition ZombyWoof (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > What is so special about your area that a higher % then normal people > work from home, or is it just happenstance? I live in the Washington, DC area and traffic is horrible. Also, there is a shortage of skilled workers. I think it is this combination that makes employers offer telecommuting either full time or part time in order to attract workers. I probably know more telecommuters because many engineers and land developers are self employed working from home. > Well I must admit that I am not overly motivated to work, but I am > fairly motivated by money and working is the only way I know to get > it. Other then marrying it that is. I'm not overly motivated myself but greed and staying out of traffic work for me too. > Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition > > ZombyWoof > (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) yesterday driving in traffic next to a black c5 z06 - plate said blownls6 - sounded mean as hell and had a weird whistle while cruising driver told me "408 iron block with f-1 (?) procharger" needless to say i didn't even try in my stock pulley cobra... =) > > What method of horsepower increase would you choose? > > -Supercharger. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > there's no need to keep filling a damn water/alcohol bottle, run race > fuel or pull timing too much. > yesterday driving in traffic next to a black c5 z06 - plate said blownls6 - > sounded mean as hell and had a weird whistle while cruising > > driver told me "408 iron block with f-1 (?) procharger" > > needless to say i didn't even try in my stock pulley cobra... Wow! Now THAT'S the best of both worlds! Or three, or four. I think the f-1 is a step over the D1-SC Enough CFMs for up to 1000hp > =) > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>there's no need to keep filling a damn water/alcohol bottle, run race >>fuel or pull timing too much. SignatureTropic Green Y2k GT Coupe http://tinyurl.com/avta4 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.