So what would you guess the gas drop mileage would drop to?

 

<!--QuoteBegin-Whipple Website

Systems come complete with a new high-flow air intake system, intake manifold, air-to-water intercooler, air-bypass system and all the necessary parts for a simple do-it-yourself installation
[/quote]

Has to be Air-to-Water because of the manifold mounted style of supercharger that the whipple makes. Its the same type at the 03-04 Eaton Cobra's.

 

If the clown shoe fits.... [/b][/quote]
Hug?

 

It would probably go up a little, but require premium.

 

If you can keep your foot out of it it doesnt increase much. The problem is when most people get a supercharger they love the feeling and cant keep their foot off the right pedal.

 

50% increase in power So that would make it 450 HP

 

Quote from the Wipple link:

"2.3L twin-screw supercharger (as used on the Ford GT and 06’ Lighting) "

Is this really true? I was under the impression the Ford GT used a Eaton (Roots-type) supercharger, not a twin screw Whipple. BTW, I had a 1.5 liter Whipple (KB) on a '93 F-150 5.8 and it worked very well. Full boost at about 1800 rpm. Putting a 2.3 liter SC on a 4.6 liter engine should result in the SC running at a much lower rpm.

The Boss Hog

 

Ford used Roots type on Cobra and Lightning (old) but the GT(40) has a Whipple and before it was rumored to be delayed or cancelled the 06 Lightning was to have a Whipple also.

 

I thought the GT used a lysholm type supercharger. What's the difference in a roots, eaton, and lysholm type anyway?

 

I am happy but I really want tt's.

 

I wonder if they will be able to add the supercharger to mustangs that have the new automatic tranny? I sure hope so, hopefully they will have parts to make the automatics much stronger?

 

Hey BPMURR, go to this page and read on the different types of super chargers and decide for yourself..... I wasn't sure what the difference between a roots type blower and a screw type were, but after some reasearching the other night, this kinda nailede it down for me. After reading this, I'd definitly go with the screw.... Whippel is a screw.

screw type vs roots type blowers (vs centrifugal - booo)

 

Lysholm is a the official name for screw, and Eaton developed the roots

 

sory guys, I put the wrong link up.....

THIS ONE BETTER DESCRIBES THE DIFFERENCE.

ROOTS vs. SCREW vs. CENTRIFUGAL

 

whipple and kenne bell are the best names in twin screw very pricey but worth it imo!! vortech and procharger are getting closer to that level but they really cant compare the two types of s/c's!!

 

I'm sorta surprised by how little power Ford is getting out of a normally aspirated motor. 300 out of a 4.6 liter seems kinda soft. BMW does 333 out of a 3.2, and Honda gets quite a bit more per liter in their 2000 (I thought). Of course people drive torque, and I don't want a car like the Honda that I have to run a motorcycle revs to have power. So I suspect the low end and smoother pull of the V8 will say a lot. (I haven't gotten to drive a GT yet -- but suspect that 300 is ample). Still, just the numbers seem low to me.

I'd think we'd start at 400 (or even 460), and then put the blower on top of that (580, 600+?) -- that's without going to a bigger/heavier motor.

 

While everything you say is true, try comparing the torque numbers. Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

I think Ford did it right this time, sounds like they sent out a bunch of mules to the aftermarket manufacturers...unlike the 4.6 introduction in '96 when it took FOREVER to get performance parts. The whipple & KB units will always be higher priced than the centris cuz you also have to include a new manifold.

The great thing about this is it looks like all the supercharger manufacturers will be realeasing products soon, that means competitive pricing.

 

Not a bad write-up but it missed the main difference between the two. The Lysholm (manufacture in Sweden; Whipple and KB put together kits and market them in US) compresses the air inside the SC body. With the roots, compression takes place in the intake manifold. Thats why the twin screw is more efficient.

The Boss Hog

 

You've basically answered your own question. Building the motor for a higher specific output would make it much peakier and less torquey. You really can't compare an M3, with individual throttle bodies, extremely high-quality internals or a Honda VTEC motor, with the luxury of a high-end cam lobe with 240-250 degrees duration @ 0.050", to a high-volume affordable car like the stang.

The Cobra is the nearest approach Ford ever took to the M3-style engine, and for an American V8 it's pretty peaky, complex, and expensive

 

Mr. Black, that makes a lot of sense. (That the M3 is pretty expensive and low volume). Thanks.

But even the 5.4 in the GT(-40) is getting just barely over 100/liter and it is SC (not normally aspirated). (Which I always think gives you conservatively 30-50%). And that's not really a high volume engine. So the specs look low to me.

As for peaky, I always think of that as having a really vertical looking torque curve. (Very specific RPM range for power). My M3 (the 96) was rated fantastic because it has such a flat/smooth torque curve. I think the later motor (at 333) was considered a little more peaky. And I've heard the Honda is a lot more like that (and less pleasant because of it). And I never liked my Hondas for that reason. And obviously more cylinders generally equals more torque (potential). And as we both said, people drive torque. But Fords specs still look low to me. The Vette is at 400/400 (rough) I thought, and it isn't much bigger is it? (I don't remember the displacement but thought it was also a smallblock).

Look, I realize that once you get in the car and drive, it is more about output and feel than how they got there. So it isn't like I think I'll enjoy the car less because there are others on the road doing better in specs. And I understand that engineering is about tradeoffs. But I'm just not sure what the tradeoffs are. It seems like Ford is building fantastic and inexpensive cars. But others are getting more HP/weight, or more HP/liter, and have very reliable motors. We could argue it is just a function of $dollar per HP, and that would make a lot of sense. (Though I'm curious as to why). So I'm just trying to understand the tradeoffs. (You gave me some food for thought, so thanks).

And one last question. "individual throttle bodies". I always thought the throttle body was the port/passage between the intake manifold and the carb. Since we're talking FI, what is the throttle body? Just the port between the air filter and intake manifold? And you're saying the M3 has 6 instead of 2? Any info appreciated. Thanks.