Turbocharger or supercharger?
10/31/05, 08:50 AM
#21
V6 Member
Join Date: October 20, 2005
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected. The S281-E contains a forged steel crankshaft and connecting rods, forged aluminum pistons, and special aluminum cylinder heads with unique valve springs and performance camshafts. (The blower has to account for some of that 500hp though 
)
)
10/31/05, 05:25 PM
#22
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any opinions on the STS (squires) remote mounted turbo system? My concern is water due to the location of the airfilter...
They had a decent write up in motor trend for one installed on the new chevy HHR
http://www.ststurbo.com/
http://www.ststurbo.com/2005_mustang_gt
They had a decent write up in motor trend for one installed on the new chevy HHR
http://www.ststurbo.com/
http://www.ststurbo.com/2005_mustang_gt
10/31/05, 05:39 PM
#23
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 11, 2004
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by s281sc@October 31, 2005, 11:53 AM
I stand corrected. The S281-E contains a forged steel crankshaft and connecting rods, forged aluminum pistons, and special aluminum cylinder heads with unique valve springs and performance camshafts. (The blower has to account for some of that 500hp though )
I stand corrected. The S281-E contains a forged steel crankshaft and connecting rods, forged aluminum pistons, and special aluminum cylinder heads with unique valve springs and performance camshafts. (The blower has to account for some of that 500hp though
)
10/31/05, 05:57 PM
#24
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 11, 2004
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AJC@October 31, 2005, 8:28 PM
Any opinions on the STS (squires) remote mounted turbo system? My concern is water due to the location of the airfilter...
They had a decent write up in motor trend for one installed on the new chevy HHR
http://www.ststurbo.com/
http://www.ststurbo.com/2005_mustang_gt
Any opinions on the STS (squires) remote mounted turbo system? My concern is water due to the location of the airfilter...
They had a decent write up in motor trend for one installed on the new chevy HHR
http://www.ststurbo.com/
http://www.ststurbo.com/2005_mustang_gt
11/1/05, 03:09 AM
#25
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by clintoris@June 23, 2005, 7:39 AM
I'm goin' with a lysholm compressor (twin screw) type supercharger. I'll probably go with Whipple, but Ken Bell is a good one too... not sure if Saleen had done a good job of making a twin screw yet. I wouldn't go with a centrifugal s/c or a roots.... least of all a roots. the twin screw is the most efficient as far as s/c goes, but... it's ultimately up to you.
here's the deal.... this engine can handle only about 8 psi of boost..... would you rather have all 8 lbs from idle to redline, or do you want a turbo that's going to take 1/2 of your RPM range to spool up?
sure, there may be turbos that are "lagless", but that takes a LOT of plumbing (because you have to build volume) and you have to have a very large turbo, and you're not going to be able to use but only 8 psi of the charge, so you're blowing off all the excess thru the waste gate, almost constantly I'd guess.... at least with a "lagless" turbo.
Think about it.... when you go to the gas station to put air in your tires.... say you had a pickup w/ 33" tires. one was running low, so you pop a couple of quarters in the little compressor provided by the gas station... you start out with only 10 psi in the tire... no big deal.... you only need 25 more psi. well..... you're going to be there a long time and it's going to cost you a couple of bucks. Those compressors don't have a very large tank at all.... and that's the problem... if there's no volume, the compressor can't keep up with the demand for air. Your turbo works much the same way. at first, the compressor can't keep up with the demand for air, so there is a deficeincy ..... called lag. it's not until the exhaust can push your impellers upward of around 14K rpms before it can push enough air to run at the desired boost. The more duct work you have, the less lag you'll have because you'll have more volume.... but you'll have to run plumbing out to your rear and back to have enough to make it "lagless".
Now, a centrifigal blower works much like a turbo, but it's belt driven... less lag, but it still has to spool up before it's boosting.
Roots types lose litterally half of their charge back out the intake manifold.... and they still have to build pressure into lower intake before they start boosting.. then they just lose it back out the top in the form of hot air.... very inefficient.
Screw type blowers are so tight that they are boosting immediately in the supercharger, and don't lose any back through the bower. You'll still want to intercool the charge, but it's much more efficient than any other blower. I've ran my mouth long enough... go to this link for Whipple and do some homework... there's a lot of good info here. Be sure to check the links at the bottom of the page... they go into a little more depth. There's even little interactive diagrams that explain it all.
good luck brutha.... have fun.
I'm goin' with a lysholm compressor (twin screw) type supercharger. I'll probably go with Whipple, but Ken Bell is a good one too... not sure if Saleen had done a good job of making a twin screw yet. I wouldn't go with a centrifugal s/c or a roots.... least of all a roots. the twin screw is the most efficient as far as s/c goes, but... it's ultimately up to you.
here's the deal.... this engine can handle only about 8 psi of boost..... would you rather have all 8 lbs from idle to redline, or do you want a turbo that's going to take 1/2 of your RPM range to spool up?
sure, there may be turbos that are "lagless", but that takes a LOT of plumbing (because you have to build volume) and you have to have a very large turbo, and you're not going to be able to use but only 8 psi of the charge, so you're blowing off all the excess thru the waste gate, almost constantly I'd guess.... at least with a "lagless" turbo.
Think about it.... when you go to the gas station to put air in your tires.... say you had a pickup w/ 33" tires. one was running low, so you pop a couple of quarters in the little compressor provided by the gas station... you start out with only 10 psi in the tire... no big deal.... you only need 25 more psi. well..... you're going to be there a long time and it's going to cost you a couple of bucks. Those compressors don't have a very large tank at all.... and that's the problem... if there's no volume, the compressor can't keep up with the demand for air. Your turbo works much the same way. at first, the compressor can't keep up with the demand for air, so there is a deficeincy ..... called lag. it's not until the exhaust can push your impellers upward of around 14K rpms before it can push enough air to run at the desired boost. The more duct work you have, the less lag you'll have because you'll have more volume.... but you'll have to run plumbing out to your rear and back to have enough to make it "lagless".
Now, a centrifigal blower works much like a turbo, but it's belt driven... less lag, but it still has to spool up before it's boosting.
Roots types lose litterally half of their charge back out the intake manifold.... and they still have to build pressure into lower intake before they start boosting.. then they just lose it back out the top in the form of hot air.... very inefficient.
Screw type blowers are so tight that they are boosting immediately in the supercharger, and don't lose any back through the bower. You'll still want to intercool the charge, but it's much more efficient than any other blower. I've ran my mouth long enough... go to this link for Whipple and do some homework... there's a lot of good info here. Be sure to check the links at the bottom of the page... they go into a little more depth. There's even little interactive diagrams that explain it all.
good luck brutha.... have fun.
11/1/05, 03:11 AM
#26
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what you prefer read this it may help understand the different beasts
http://www.kennebell.net/media/artic...TBASHpart1.pdf
http://www.kennebell.net/media/artic...TBASHpart2.pdf
http://turbochargedpower.com/Turbo%20vs%20Blowers.htm
http://www.kennebell.net/media/artic...TBASHpart1.pdf
http://www.kennebell.net/media/artic...TBASHpart2.pdf
http://turbochargedpower.com/Turbo%20vs%20Blowers.htm
11/1/05, 08:57 PM
#27
Cobra Member
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally posted by clintoris@June 23, 2005, 7:39 AM
sure, there may be turbos that are "lagless", but that takes a LOT of plumbing (because you have to build volume) and you have to have a very large turbo, and you're not going to be able to use but only 8 psi of the charge, so you're blowing off all the excess thru the waste gate, almost constantly I'd guess.... at least with a "lagless" turbo.
Think about it.... when you go to the gas station to put air in your tires.... say you had a pickup w/ 33" tires. one was running low, so you pop a couple of quarters in the little compressor provided by the gas station... you start out with only 10 psi in the tire... no big deal.... you only need 25 more psi. well..... you're going to be there a long time and it's going to cost you a couple of bucks. Those compressors don't have a very large tank at all.... and that's the problem... if there's no volume, the compressor can't keep up with the demand for air. Your turbo works much the same way. at first, the compressor can't keep up with the demand for air, so there is a deficeincy ..... called lag. it's not until the exhaust can push your impellers upward of around 14K rpms before it can push enough air to run at the desired boost. The more duct work you have, the less lag you'll have because you'll have more volume.... but you'll have to run plumbing out to your rear and back to have enough to make it "lagless".
sure, there may be turbos that are "lagless", but that takes a LOT of plumbing (because you have to build volume) and you have to have a very large turbo, and you're not going to be able to use but only 8 psi of the charge, so you're blowing off all the excess thru the waste gate, almost constantly I'd guess.... at least with a "lagless" turbo.
Think about it.... when you go to the gas station to put air in your tires.... say you had a pickup w/ 33" tires. one was running low, so you pop a couple of quarters in the little compressor provided by the gas station... you start out with only 10 psi in the tire... no big deal.... you only need 25 more psi. well..... you're going to be there a long time and it's going to cost you a couple of bucks. Those compressors don't have a very large tank at all.... and that's the problem... if there's no volume, the compressor can't keep up with the demand for air. Your turbo works much the same way. at first, the compressor can't keep up with the demand for air, so there is a deficeincy ..... called lag. it's not until the exhaust can push your impellers upward of around 14K rpms before it can push enough air to run at the desired boost. The more duct work you have, the less lag you'll have because you'll have more volume.... but you'll have to run plumbing out to your rear and back to have enough to make it "lagless".
A turbo does it's job by compressing air and feeding it to your engine. The energy to compress the air comes from the exhaust side. It does NOT have any kind of "storage tank". And the longer plumbing just INCREASES lag by increasing the mass of the air in the system that has to be accelerated when you get on the gas. You want short and direct plumbing to minimize lag.
There are a lot of ways to minimize lag. About the best way out so far is to use a variable A/R turbo. This turbo changes the angle the exhaust gasses enter the turbine to control the speed of the turbo (and we are talking about 100k PLUS speeds. 14k would barely get a slow breeze out of a turbo!). This allows the exhaust gasses to have high "leverage" against the turbo during low flow (slow engine speeds) to spool the turbo up quickly. It can then increase the A/R at higher flows to control the maximum boost without having to resort to wastegates (that dump EXHAUST gasses past the turbine, NOT compressed air after the compressor! A blow-off valve dumps compressed air during times when you were running hard at high boost and then suddenly let off the gas. This helps the turbo to keep spinning at speed instead of dead heading against super high compressed air so it's ready to go with boost when you get back on the gas).
You can also use a "small" turbo and a large wastegate to build boost quickly at low speeds, but it does limit the max boost you can generate (not really an issue on the street anyway) and the turbo is not operating in it's most efficent pressure-volume curve, so the air comes out hotter than it has too. But you can build boost VERY quickly this way.
One point I DO agree with you: The screw type compressor (a roots type is a BLOWER, not a compressor!) is definitely the best of the mechanical superchargers. And if I do end up with a machanical supercharger on my car, it will definitely be some type of screw compressor.
But I really prefer turbosuperchargers just because they are so much more elegant. (in my eyes at least!)
11/1/05, 09:59 PM
#28
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 11, 2004
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RRRoamer@November 2, 2005, 12:00 AM
This is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. A turbo system has NOTHING in common with your little gas station example. (and the example is WRONG by the way! Those things do not HAVE a storage tank. That little compressor has to pump up the air for you while you wait. And it ISN'T a very big compressor!)
A turbo does it's job by compressing air and feeding it to your engine. The energy to compress the air comes from the exhaust side. It does NOT have any kind of "storage tank". And the longer plumbing just INCREASES lag by increasing the mass of the air in the system that has to be accelerated when you get on the gas. You want short and direct plumbing to minimize lag.
There are a lot of ways to minimize lag. About the best way out so far is to use a variable A/R turbo. This turbo changes the angle the exhaust gasses enter the turbine to control the speed of the turbo (and we are talking about 100k PLUS speeds. 14k would barely get a slow breeze out of a turbo!). This allows the exhaust gasses to have high "leverage" against the turbo during low flow (slow engine speeds) to spool the turbo up quickly. It can then increase the A/R at higher flows to control the maximum boost without having to resort to wastegates (that dump EXHAUST gasses past the turbine, NOT compressed air after the compressor! A blow-off valve dumps compressed air during times when you were running hard at high boost and then suddenly let off the gas. This helps the turbo to keep spinning at speed instead of dead heading against super high compressed air so it's ready to go with boost when you get back on the gas).
You can also use a "small" turbo and a large wastegate to build boost quickly at low speeds, but it does limit the max boost you can generate (not really an issue on the street anyway) and the turbo is not operating in it's most efficent pressure-volume curve, so the air comes out hotter than it has too. But you can build boost VERY quickly this way.
One point I DO agree with you: The screw type compressor (a roots type is a BLOWER, not a compressor!) is definitely the best of the mechanical superchargers. And if I do end up with a machanical supercharger on my car, it will definitely be some type of screw compressor.
But I really prefer turbosuperchargers just because they are so much more elegant. (in my eyes at least!)
This is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. A turbo system has NOTHING in common with your little gas station example. (and the example is WRONG by the way! Those things do not HAVE a storage tank. That little compressor has to pump up the air for you while you wait. And it ISN'T a very big compressor!)
A turbo does it's job by compressing air and feeding it to your engine. The energy to compress the air comes from the exhaust side. It does NOT have any kind of "storage tank". And the longer plumbing just INCREASES lag by increasing the mass of the air in the system that has to be accelerated when you get on the gas. You want short and direct plumbing to minimize lag.
There are a lot of ways to minimize lag. About the best way out so far is to use a variable A/R turbo. This turbo changes the angle the exhaust gasses enter the turbine to control the speed of the turbo (and we are talking about 100k PLUS speeds. 14k would barely get a slow breeze out of a turbo!). This allows the exhaust gasses to have high "leverage" against the turbo during low flow (slow engine speeds) to spool the turbo up quickly. It can then increase the A/R at higher flows to control the maximum boost without having to resort to wastegates (that dump EXHAUST gasses past the turbine, NOT compressed air after the compressor! A blow-off valve dumps compressed air during times when you were running hard at high boost and then suddenly let off the gas. This helps the turbo to keep spinning at speed instead of dead heading against super high compressed air so it's ready to go with boost when you get back on the gas).
You can also use a "small" turbo and a large wastegate to build boost quickly at low speeds, but it does limit the max boost you can generate (not really an issue on the street anyway) and the turbo is not operating in it's most efficent pressure-volume curve, so the air comes out hotter than it has too. But you can build boost VERY quickly this way.
One point I DO agree with you: The screw type compressor (a roots type is a BLOWER, not a compressor!) is definitely the best of the mechanical superchargers. And if I do end up with a machanical supercharger on my car, it will definitely be some type of screw compressor.
But I really prefer turbosuperchargers just because they are so much more elegant. (in my eyes at least!)
11/2/05, 10:29 AM
#30
Cobra Member
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I'm still afraid that it is going to be a while before a GOOD turbo system is released for the 05/06 GT. That Spanish Oak CPU is VERY complex and intrusive. It is going to be a while before folks get there minds wrapped around that little bugger well enough to make a turbo system (with it's non linear throttle-airflow relationship) work properly.
But, then if everyone remembers when EFI first came out on the Mustang everyone was yanking it off and installing carbs because "EFI is the death of performance". That lasted for a couple of years before folks figured out how to work with the EFI system. Then things got VERY interesting: Great power, great drivability and great fuel economy. The same thing will happen with the new engine/ecu. Some will figure out what makes it tick and how to make it tick even better.
I just wonder if someone will be able to figure out how to get the ECU to directly control the wastegate or variable A/R so that they can totally integrate the turbo system with the factory ECU. Eventually...
Oh well. I don't intend to get serious with this sort of stuff until my warantee expires and I have stuffed a forged short block under the hood. Might as well add ported heads while I have it all apart too...
But, then if everyone remembers when EFI first came out on the Mustang everyone was yanking it off and installing carbs because "EFI is the death of performance". That lasted for a couple of years before folks figured out how to work with the EFI system. Then things got VERY interesting: Great power, great drivability and great fuel economy. The same thing will happen with the new engine/ecu. Some will figure out what makes it tick and how to make it tick even better.
I just wonder if someone will be able to figure out how to get the ECU to directly control the wastegate or variable A/R so that they can totally integrate the turbo system with the factory ECU. Eventually...
Oh well. I don't intend to get serious with this sort of stuff until my warantee expires and I have stuffed a forged short block under the hood. Might as well add ported heads while I have it all apart too...
11/2/05, 11:03 AM
#31
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 25, 2005
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I here that boss330, modular performance, and VT are great engine builders that price according to their products, not their good names. This is a question for someone who knows about their pricing. How much (generally) would it cost for a forged shortblock to handle say 600rwhp? I guess base it off a motor that is assembled, streetable and has good reliability (which I here is the norm for these companies anyways). I know there are many factors, so please just give your best guess. Thanks in advance.
11/2/05, 12:02 PM
#32
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 11, 2004
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by stang9325@November 2, 2005, 2:06 PM
I here that boss330, modular performance, and VT are great engine builders that price according to their products, not their good names. This is a question for someone who knows about their pricing. How much (generally) would it cost for a forged shortblock to handle say 600rwhp? I guess base it off a motor that is assembled, streetable and has good reliability (which I here is the norm for these companies anyways). I know there are many factors, so please just give your best guess. Thanks in advance.
I here that boss330, modular performance, and VT are great engine builders that price according to their products, not their good names. This is a question for someone who knows about their pricing. How much (generally) would it cost for a forged shortblock to handle say 600rwhp? I guess base it off a motor that is assembled, streetable and has good reliability (which I here is the norm for these companies anyways). I know there are many factors, so please just give your best guess. Thanks in advance.
I will be getting a shortblock from SHM when the time comes... http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/online...roducts_id=1191
Except Manley Pro-Series I-Beam rods and .020 overbore JE 8.6:1 pistons.
BTW, i'll be exchanging...it's a great deal, especially for the quality job they should do (from listing what they use and do, it sounds professional - bored and honed to .020 with a torque plate just to name something that is very important).
11/2/05, 05:09 PM
#33
FR500 Member
Join Date: August 15, 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd go with a turbo setup simply on the basis of efficiency (no parasitic drag or loss) compared to a mechanically driven compressor / SC. Plus, turbos do not place a load on the front end of the crankshaft or suffer from thrown belts or slippage when things get extreme. Not that it applies to the "real world" of street driving, but, most if not all forced induction race cars today (except drag racing) use a turbo. No SC's at Indy, Le Mans, or in the WRC.
11/2/05, 05:12 PM
#34
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 11, 2004
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by hi5.0@November 2, 2005, 8:12 PM
I'd go with a turbo setup simply on the basis of efficiency (no parasitic drag or loss) compared to a mechanically driven compressor / SC. Plus, turbos do not place a load on the front end of the crankshaft or suffer from thrown belts or slippage when things get extreme. Not that it applies to the "real world" of street driving, but, most if not all forced induction race cars today (except drag racing) use a turbo. No SC's at Indy, Le Mans, or in the WRC.
I'd go with a turbo setup simply on the basis of efficiency (no parasitic drag or loss) compared to a mechanically driven compressor / SC. Plus, turbos do not place a load on the front end of the crankshaft or suffer from thrown belts or slippage when things get extreme. Not that it applies to the "real world" of street driving, but, most if not all forced induction race cars today (except drag racing) use a turbo. No SC's at Indy, Le Mans, or in the WRC.
I sincerely hope no one brings up the fact that there are no top fuel dragsters using turbochargers. (those that are biased to S/Cs)
11/2/05, 05:20 PM
#35
Originally posted by Ford05MustangGT@November 2, 2005, 5:15 PM
I sincerely hope no one brings up the fact that there are no top fuel dragsters using turbochargers. (those that are biased to S/Cs)
I sincerely hope no one brings up the fact that there are no top fuel dragsters using turbochargers. (those that are biased to S/Cs)
BTW, when I was in Vegas for the NHRA races 2 weeks ago, there was one turbo car trying to qualify for the Pro Mod field. Didn't make the 16-car cut (15 blowers, and one on the bottle). And then there was a turbo-charged late-model Cougar running in the Comp class. He had a 4.6L motor in it, and laid down some 6-second passes. Word was he was making something like 1500hp. yikes...
11/2/05, 05:27 PM
#36
FR500 Member
Join Date: August 15, 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhh, yeah... 
I think top fuel allows roots-style SC's only. ( I'm not too familiar with the engine specs, so I hope I'm not talking out of my rear end . If it turns out I am, that was my wastegate venting to the atmosphere.) A turbo-era BMW F1 car was reported to make somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000+ hp.
I think top fuel allows roots-style SC's only. ( I'm not too familiar with the engine specs, so I hope I'm not talking out of my rear end . If it turns out I am, that was my wastegate venting to the atmosphere.) A turbo-era BMW F1 car was reported to make somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000+ hp.
11/2/05, 07:36 PM
#37
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard Holdner made 990 hp on a stock 03 cobra motor running race fuel and a twin turbo set up.... i havent seen any S/C kits that can do that
"While we were impressed with the power output at 11 psi, we continued by upping the boost pressure to 13.6 psi where the twin-turbo engine thumped out 830 hp and 756 lb-ft of torque. This thing just seemed to be getting happier and happier with each turn of the screw. With our air/fuel and timing still well within safety levels (combined with the safety of 114-octane fuel), we pushed on to 16.2 psi. Now things were getting serious, as the 4.6-liter produced 891 hp and 815 lb-ft of torque."
"Our final effort brought the boost pressure to 20.8 psi and the power to an incredible 990 hp, while the peak torque stood at 911 lb-ft. Remember that all this is from an engine that displaces just 281 ci. Turbos rule!"
Quad-Cam Crate Upgrade, Richard Holdener, Super Rod Magazine, November 2004.
"While we were impressed with the power output at 11 psi, we continued by upping the boost pressure to 13.6 psi where the twin-turbo engine thumped out 830 hp and 756 lb-ft of torque. This thing just seemed to be getting happier and happier with each turn of the screw. With our air/fuel and timing still well within safety levels (combined with the safety of 114-octane fuel), we pushed on to 16.2 psi. Now things were getting serious, as the 4.6-liter produced 891 hp and 815 lb-ft of torque."
"Our final effort brought the boost pressure to 20.8 psi and the power to an incredible 990 hp, while the peak torque stood at 911 lb-ft. Remember that all this is from an engine that displaces just 281 ci. Turbos rule!"
Quad-Cam Crate Upgrade, Richard Holdener, Super Rod Magazine, November 2004.
11/2/05, 07:38 PM
#38
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RRRoamer@November 2, 2005, 11:32 AM
I'm still afraid that it is going to be a while before a GOOD turbo system is released for the 05/06 GT. That Spanish Oak CPU is VERY complex and intrusive. It is going to be a while before folks get there minds wrapped around that little bugger well enough to make a turbo system (with it's non linear throttle-airflow relationship) work properly.
But, then if everyone remembers when EFI first came out on the Mustang everyone was yanking it off and installing carbs because "EFI is the death of performance". That lasted for a couple of years before folks figured out how to work with the EFI system. Then things got VERY interesting: Great power, great drivability and great fuel economy. The same thing will happen with the new engine/ecu. Some will figure out what makes it tick and how to make it tick even better.
I just wonder if someone will be able to figure out how to get the ECU to directly control the wastegate or variable A/R so that they can totally integrate the turbo system with the factory ECU. Eventually...
Oh well. I don't intend to get serious with this sort of stuff until my warantee expires and I have stuffed a forged short block under the hood. Might as well add ported heads while I have it all apart too...
I'm still afraid that it is going to be a while before a GOOD turbo system is released for the 05/06 GT. That Spanish Oak CPU is VERY complex and intrusive. It is going to be a while before folks get there minds wrapped around that little bugger well enough to make a turbo system (with it's non linear throttle-airflow relationship) work properly.
But, then if everyone remembers when EFI first came out on the Mustang everyone was yanking it off and installing carbs because "EFI is the death of performance". That lasted for a couple of years before folks figured out how to work with the EFI system. Then things got VERY interesting: Great power, great drivability and great fuel economy. The same thing will happen with the new engine/ecu. Some will figure out what makes it tick and how to make it tick even better.
I just wonder if someone will be able to figure out how to get the ECU to directly control the wastegate or variable A/R so that they can totally integrate the turbo system with the factory ECU. Eventually...
Oh well. I don't intend to get serious with this sort of stuff until my warantee expires and I have stuffed a forged short block under the hood. Might as well add ported heads while I have it all apart too...
www.turbochargedpower.com should have their kit avalible in 30-90 days
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JonathonK
2005-2009 Mustang
2
9/19/15 03:19 AM