Best of both worlds
Mach 1 Member
Joined: December 14, 2004
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Originally posted by MrMorden+December 17, 2004, 12:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMorden @ December 17, 2004, 12:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Actually, a turbo well matched to the engine's airflow and power requirements will produce more low-end torque than a twin screw supercharger.
The only downsides to a turbo vs. a SC is cost and complexity, and the cost differences are disappearing for Mustangs. Turbos make better low-end torque AND better high-end power.
prove that one to me, slick..... how do you figure a turbo can produce more low end torque when it hasn't even spooled up yet?
I agree that a turbo can create more boost than an SC but it's all up top, and it can only do so much good considering you're heads can only move so many cfm. I think turbos are retarded on a V-8 that red lines at 6500 rpms.... there's no sense in it at all.
Most people don't have the money to spin a V-8 up to 10-12K, much less 8000 rpms. You'd have to get the engine spinnin' that fast to make the turbo worth it, and by then, you're floating your valves anyways. Turbos are for 4 poppers and sixers.... they don't make much sense on a production V-8.
Originally posted by clintoris@December 16, 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by MrMorden@December 16, 2004, 11:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-AnotherMustangMan
<!--QuoteBegin-AnotherMustangMan
@December 15, 2004, 1:52 PM
Or you can get a lysholm type twin screw supercharger, i.e. kenne bell and whipplecharger. Instant low end torque (like a roots blower) and massive high end power ( like turboes and centrifugals).
so....twin screws rock.
Or you can get a lysholm type twin screw supercharger, i.e. kenne bell and whipplecharger. Instant low end torque (like a roots blower) and massive high end power ( like turboes and centrifugals).
so....twin screws rock.
Actually, a turbo well matched to the engine's airflow and power requirements will produce more low-end torque than a twin screw supercharger.
The only downsides to a turbo vs. a SC is cost and complexity, and the cost differences are disappearing for Mustangs. Turbos make better low-end torque AND better high-end power.
prove that one to me, slick..... how do you figure a turbo can produce more low end torque when it hasn't even spooled up yet?
I agree that a turbo can create more boost than an SC but it's all up top, and it can only do so much good considering you're heads can only move so many cfm. I think turbos are retarded on a V-8 that red lines at 6500 rpms.... there's no sense in it at all.
Most people don't have the money to spin a V-8 up to 10-12K, much less 8000 rpms. You'd have to get the engine spinnin' that fast to make the turbo worth it, and by then, you're floating your valves anyways. Turbos are for 4 poppers and sixers.... they don't make much sense on a production V-8.
A Turbo will generally be making full boost by 2000rpm. Since it's is not eating 30-60 horsepower in turning the compressor off a belt like a supercharger does, it is making much more torque at 2000rpm than any supercharger.
I'll grant you that the twin screw will be making full boost off idle, but how much useful work gets done there? None. And even if you have all that boost at idle, you'll be traction-limited in what you can put to the pavement.
A typical twin screw blower might put out 400rwtq below 3000rpm at 8psi...a turbo setup at the same boost level can easily put out 450-500rwtq below 3000rpm.
It's just physics -- you can't get around the blower having to turn that pulley. Slick.
[/b][/quote]:worship: You are a very wise man :worship:
notice my screen name thats the license plate i ordered from the DMV, i am totaly going with a twin turbo set up
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 11, 2004
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Sequential charging is useful on Diesels because they can take ridiculous amounts of pressure in the combustion chamber.
On a gasoline engine, you can already exceed the viable amount of air getting into the engine.
On a gasoline engine, you can already exceed the viable amount of air getting into the engine.
Cam Tease
Joined: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Sequential charging is great for straight engines, such as 4 bangers and I6s, but with V6's and V8's i think youd be much better off running a single turbo per cylinder bank. (two identical turbos running independently of each other pumping identical boost into their respective dedicated bank of cylinders). But, any TT kit is expensive and ive never really been a fan of turbos anyway, so --ill say it again-- go with a TWIN SCREW SUPERCHARGER!!!!
Cobra Member
Joined: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
I just LOVE all of the UNEDUCATED OPINIONS on the "superiority" of the twin-screw superchargers over turbos. Modern turbo technology far exceeds anything that ANY supercharger can do. A supercharger requires HORSEPOWER to turn; like an A/C compressor, only much more. The higher the boost, the more hp required to turn the sc. Please do some research before "misinforming" someone who has a legit question.
An 8lb turbo into an 8lb sc does NOT equal 8lbs.
Turbo + Super is a waste of time and effort.
An 8lb turbo into an 8lb sc does NOT equal 8lbs.
Turbo + Super is a waste of time and effort.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: June 24, 2004
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
I didn't really notice people saying that twin-screw is superior...
Anyway, speaking of uneducated opinions, some of you have been saying that turbos put out just as much low-end torque as twin-screws. That isn't true, whether the turbo is matched or not. Please see the dyno charts in the November issue of MM&FF, where they tested roots, twin-screw, centrifugal, and twin turbos setups on a Stang.
They dyno charts clearly show that for the first 4000 or so RPM, twin-screw beats turbo.
Also, see the thread I started on this subject a while ago:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showtopic=8634#
Anyway, speaking of uneducated opinions, some of you have been saying that turbos put out just as much low-end torque as twin-screws. That isn't true, whether the turbo is matched or not. Please see the dyno charts in the November issue of MM&FF, where they tested roots, twin-screw, centrifugal, and twin turbos setups on a Stang.
They dyno charts clearly show that for the first 4000 or so RPM, twin-screw beats turbo.
Also, see the thread I started on this subject a while ago:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showtopic=8634#
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Boomer
GT350
0
Aug 20, 2015 01:15 PM