Keep Paxton or go with Turbo

[61mmstang94]

10psi on a tiny turbo is not the same as 10psi on a large turbo. your comments speak volume's for your knowledge of how things work.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Once again, you're claiming I said something I never said. I never stated larger turbos won't make more power than a small one at equivalent boost levels. You're struggling.

with the proper turbo set up, the turbo makes the power, again, look at much smaller motors making gobs of power, in na form they dont make much but under boost they really shine.
It takes a lot of boost and race gas for them to do it. They're not doing it on low boost and 91octane. I quit, bro. You just don't get it.



your numbers are far superior 99% of the reason it being an auto, which is great, that was your choice to build it for that, i have my reasoning for keeping it a stick car. i guarantee if you and i were to run boost for boost id make more power than you, but you'd beat me down the track in the 1/4 being you have the auto and it uses the power curve better.
Wow, so you essentially explained that an auto sucks up more HP on a dyno sheet than a standard trans. Good job, Einstein.


your superiority in the 1/4 mile means nothing to me as beleive me, if i wanted it, i'd be there and be doing it better than you. after this weekend im strongly considering an auto, and competing in the psca, id upgrade to a 91mm from my 80mm and go with an auto, would be looking at low 8's high 7's at over 180mph...
So could anyone else and it's easier (and much cheaper) said than done. :thumbsup:


you should have clarified what year gt as obviously 240rwhp isnt 300 rwhp, but you can pull the wheels off the ground with the right tire and suspension with 300 horse. :beer:
I was under the impression that most 99-04s dyno'd a tad UNDER 240, but I could be wrong. Would you care to share your video collection of all these bone stock 99-04 GTs yanking the front wheels with just suspension? I'm not talking about some completely gutted and torn apart, expensive race chassis with a racing trans and everything else done up except they decided to thrown in a stock 2v...I'm talking about your collection of completely stock 99-04 gts with suspension work/tires doing wheelies. I'd be interested to see all of them.

.

 

[LS1PUSSOUT]

10psi on a tiny turbo is not the same as 10psi on a large turbo. your comments speak volume's for your knowledge of how things work.
with the proper turbo set up, the turbo makes the power, again, look at much smaller motors making gobs of power, in na form they dont make much but under boost they really shine.
your numbers are far superior 99% of the reason it being an auto, which is great, that was your choice to build it for that, i have my reasoning for keeping it a stick car. i guarantee if you and i were to run boost for boost id make more power than you, but you'd beat me down the track in the 1/4 being you have the auto and it uses the power curve better. your superiority in the 1/4 mile means nothing to me as beleive me, if i wanted it, i'd be there and be doing it better than you. after this weekend im strongly considering an auto, and competing in the psca, id upgrade to a 91mm from my 80mm and go with an auto, would be looking at low 8's high 7's at over 180mph...
you should have clarified what year gt as obviously 240rwhp isnt 300 rwhp, but you can pull the wheels off the ground with the right tire and suspension with 300 horse. :beer:

finally somebody who knows a thing or two. I can run 12's with a bolt on GT making 250whp all day

 

[61mmstang94]

finally somebody who knows a thing or two. I can run 12's with a bolt on GT making 250whp all day

Maybe, but that also means you can add power to that same car and at a certain point it isn't going to go any faster due to traction and the fact that you still have a stock 5-speed, stock rear, and stock suspension. Ever think about that?

No, because you've never built a car in your life to understand what it takes to do certain things with it. You sit around reading magazines and internet forums. You bought a shortblock and put on a turbo kit. That doesn't constitute building anything. You bolted some crap together that your parents bought for you and now you think you're something.

If you want to prove anything, take your POS to the track and prove me wrong. Without changing anything, go run faster than high 11s @12Xmph. I'll bet money on it that it won't happen.

 

[Roll Race Rob]

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Once again, you're claiming I said something I never said. I never stated larger turbos won't make more power than a small one at equivalent boost levels. You're struggling.

where did you say it? look above bill nye, "Take a look at 03-04 cobras running 10psi on a turbo setup or any other 4.6 with even ported heads running that little amount of boost. They enjoy boost just as much as your basic setup and don't make 700rwhp because the fact is that it flat out takes more than 10psi to really start making some good power on something that doesn't make much in n/a form. Now if you had something, like a larger cube setup that made decent power n/a, then I'd believe claims about 700rwhp on such low boost and pump gas, but you don't."
that there sounds to me like your comparing other cars with the similiar motors to mine, but different power adders, trying to say that if they dont make the power i do at 10psi then im lying.

It takes a lot of boost and race gas for them to do it. They're not doing it on low boost and 91octane. I quit, bro. You just don't get it.

of course it takes lots of boost for them to do it, they are a MUCH smaller motor, this was only brought to attention because you tried claiming smaller motors can't make power, so i pointed them out.

so could anyone else and it's easier (and much cheaper) said than done.

its a tranny swap away, which isn't all theat expensive considering i could get $2k for my set up, and probably find a bad ass auto for around the same price if i looked hard enough.

I was under the impression that most 99-04s dyno'd a tad UNDER 240, but I could be wrong. Would you care to share your video collection of all these bone stock 99-04 GTs yanking the front wheels with just suspension? I'm not talking about some completely gutted and torn apart, expensive race chassis with a racing trans and everything else done up except they decided to thrown in a stock 2v...I'm talking about your collection of completely stock 99-04 gts with suspension work/tires doing wheelies. I'd be interested to see all of them.

again, i never made this claim, i only backed it with that a 300 na horse car can lift the wheels, which 3v makes 300 horse na. you never specified what gt, dont try and change the topic of debate now. :bash:

 

[61mmstang94]

where did you say it? look above bill nye, "Take a look at 03-04 cobras running 10psi on a turbo setup or any other 4.6 with even ported heads running that little amount of boost. They enjoy boost just as much as your basic setup and don't make 700rwhp because the fact is that it flat out takes more than 10psi to really start making some good power on something that doesn't make much in n/a form. Now if you had something, like a larger cube setup that made decent power n/a, then I'd believe claims about 700rwhp on such low boost and pump gas, but you don't."
that there sounds to me like your comparing other cars with the similiar motors to mine, but different power adders, trying to say that if they dont make the power i do at 10psi then im lying.

of course it takes lots of boost for them to do it, they are a MUCH smaller motor, this was only brought to attention because you tried claiming smaller motors can't make power, so i pointed them out.

its a tranny swap away, which isn't all theat expensive considering i could get $2k for my set up, and probably find a bad ass auto for around the same price if i looked hard enough.

again, i never made this claim, i only backed it with that a 300 na horse car can lift the wheels, which 3v makes 300 horse na. you never specified what gt, dont try and change the topic of debate now. :bash:

You obviously understand nothing about what I'm trying to say and you give me a headache so I'll just agree with you if you'll shut up. :rollseyes

 

[98 N/A 4V]

Adding my $.02 cents here about the n/a wheelie thing since you guys are out of my league with your fancy pancy turbos, blowers, etc..

But I think with a very loose front end and stiff rear suspension that a 99+Gt could yank the tires with slicks leaving off the limiter on a very well prepped track like Atco or NED. Granted you'd probably be only able to slide a credit card between the tire and ground and it'll probably fall on its face after the struts are at full extension but I think it can happen.

-Mark

 

[61mmstang94]

Adding my $.02 cents here about the n/a wheelie thing since you guys are out of my league with your fancy pancy turbos, blowers, etc..

But I think with a very loose front end and stiff rear suspension that a 99+Gt could yank the tires with slicks leaving off the limiter on a very well prepped track like Atco or NED. Granted you'd probably be only able to slide a credit card between the tire and ground and it'll probably fall on its face after the struts are at full extension but I think it can happen.

-Mark

I'm pretty sure that's not what LS1killer was arguing a while back. He was talking about a solid wheelie with just tires and a the right REAR suspension. We all understand that if the chassis is completely setup to dead hook and the weight transfer is there that it's a possibility, but even in that case it's not all that likely. We're talking stock weight distribution, trans, etc. and just sticky tires with some rear suspension.

 

[98 N/A 4V]

I'm pretty sure that's not what LS1killer was arguing a while back. He was talking about a solid wheelie with just tires and a the right REAR suspension. We all understand that if the chassis is completely setup to dead hook and the weight transfer is there that it's a possibility, but even in that case it's not all that likely. We're talking stock weight distribution, trans, etc. and just sticky tires with some rear suspension.

Oh. In that case I retract my statement. Got to have an extremely loose front end to yank the fronts with low HP.

Carry on then.. lol.

 

[97desertCobra]

i pulled that information verbatim from the hyland book, i dont know how its not correct unless he lied about it.

the numbers i listed are labeled as "03 cobra heads" notice the typo in the chart titles.

how did i post the wrong info?

i know you werent comparing the novi and X turbo, but i am. thats why i asked how much those similarly sized turbos flow.

edit: android phones and uploading pics straight to picasa = awesome.

Perhapse I didnt word it right. The flow numbers you posted are correct, it was the terminology. 03-04 Cobra heads are reffered to as C heads, as are the 99-01 heads. When talking about C heads its important to mention the year. Thats what I was trying to get at when I mentioned in my early post reguarding the 03 Cobra C heads.

 

[97desertCobra]

the motor itself isnt a power house, the turbo is. the turbo makes the power. there are 4cylinder motors that wouldnt break 200 horse that are making 1000 horse with turbo's, just because a motor only makes so much doesnt mean the turbo is only allowed to make so much power on top of that, thats not how it works. again, the turbo makes the power. i guess i trap 134mph in shitty air and shitty 1/8 and only make 500 horse, i must be one hell of a driver, minus the shitty 1/8. the b heads arent shitty at all for a turbo application, there's cars in the 6's with b heads. 6's in the 1/4 are shitty too, i forget.

Ok well for your engine to make 700rwhp with 10#'s of boost would mean that your engines base power before seeing forced induction would have to be making about 500rwhp n/a. At the rate at which your horse power per pound of boost graph is climbing(plotted it on my TI-84) your car should make 1050rwhp with only 15# of boost. :bs:

Once again that would make this the most powerfull 4.6 I have ever heard of. Just to put in into perspective, John Mihovetz(sp?) is making appx 2000rwhp in his 52# boost, B head 4.6L, 6 second car. His car makes 38 horse power per pound of boost. Guess what yours is making? 70 horse power per pound of boost! Can you see why I say you are full of :bs::bs::bs:!

As for trapping 134mph, I know of cars that have only 600rwhp that trap higher than that. If your car makes 700rwhp thats cool! But I guarantee you its not making it on only 10# of boost! More like 20+, and thats reality. Should I back up my point using more math and physics? Or shall we all keep believing that your car has a flux capacitor?op:

 

[Roll Race Rob]

Ok well for your engine to make 700rwhp with 10#'s of boost would mean that your engines base power before seeing forced induction would have to be making about 500rwhp n/a. At the rate at which your horse power per pound of boost graph is climbing(plotted it on my TI-84) your car should make 1050rwhp with only 15# of boost. :bs:

Once again that would make this the most powerfull 4.6 I have ever heard of. Just to put in into perspective, John Mihovetz(sp?) is making appx 2000rwhp in his 52# boost, B head 4.6L, 6 second car. His car makes 38 horse power per pound of boost. Guess what yours is making? 70 horse power per pound of boost! Can you see why I say you are full of :bs::bs::bs:!

As for trapping 134mph, I know of cars that have only 600rwhp that trap higher than that. If your car makes 700rwhp thats cool! But I guarantee you its not making it on only 10# of boost! More like 20+, and thats reality. Should I back up my point using more math and physics? Or shall we all keep believing that your car has a flux capacitor?op:

your logic is flawed.
you can't make a claim that all lbs of boost net the same power outcome. 10 psi on a big turbo will net A LOT more air flow than 10 psi on say a 57 or 61mm turbo, or that 10psi on my turbo nets the same gains as 10psi as your supercharger, if that were the case why would ANYBODY ever want to run a larger power adder? if i could see the same results from 10lbs of boost out of a supercharger i would have never gone turbo.
i picked up roughly 350-400rwhp on 10psi, which is 35-40 horse per pound, which isn't unheard of at all with a larger turbo.
your logic in adding the power fromm what a motor would make n/a doesn't work, you take the power your motor make's n/a, and deduct that from the final power number, that is what power you make per pound of boost.
when i get the tune down on 20psi, you'll see the other numbers ill make, which will be quite a bit higher than 700.
please do back up more of your flawed logic with simple math. :rolling:

 

[Roll Race Rob]

and to add fuel to the fire, john is running a twin turbo set up.
he runs twin 77's, each turbo pushing roughly 26psi, each turbo producing roughly 800rwhp (2x800=1600 turbo horse + roughly 400 n/a = 2000 horse)
why is it hard for you to believe my borg warner s380 makes roughly 35-40 horse per pound on my car when johns precision 77's, make roughly 31 horse per lb of boost? especially in that the borg wanrer s380 outflow's a precision 77 hands down across the board?
your proving my claim yourself, thanks.

 

[61mmstang94]

your logic is flawed.
you can't make a claim that all lbs of boost net the same power outcome. 10 psi on a big turbo will net A LOT more air flow than 10 psi on say a 57 or 61mm turbo, or that 10psi on my turbo nets the same gains as 10psi as your supercharger, if that were the case why would ANYBODY ever want to run a larger power adder?
And MIhovetz has even bigger turbos than your one single turbo, meaning his should be higher than your with your logic. But you;re claiming your single turbo (smaller when compared to both of his) is making more per pound of boost. Also, I don't know why you keep acting like you have some magical turbo that's so huge. It's just an s380 and we know what they can do.

Also, people run bigger power adders for more power, but often times running that bigger power adder only gives you a lot more power when you really crank the boost up. For example, with my 76mm turbo I might be limited to 20psi. If I ran a 91mm turbo on my car at the same psi it woudl pick up power, but not necessarily an insane amount. The real advantage will come from the fact that the 91mm turbo will be efficient at even higher boost levels and I might be able to crank 30psi out of it to really let it shine. It has nothing to do with you claiming you made some inflated number on an ordinary turbo that really isn't that big and such low boost and 91 octane on a small low compression setup.:rollseyes

if i could see the same results from 10lbs of boost out of a supercharger i would have never gone turbo.
i picked up roughly 350-400rwhp on 10psi, which is 35-40 horse per pound, which isn't unheard of at all with a larger turbo.

Possibly when you get higher into the efficiency of that turbo, but 10psi on a 4.6 is far under that efficiency curve and you won't net yourself 400+rwhp from that 1st 10 psi.


your logic in adding the power fromm what a motor would make n/a doesn't work, you take the power your motor make's n/a, and deduct that from the final power number, that is what power you make per pound of boost.
when i get the tune down on 20psi, you'll see the other numbers ill make, which will be quite a bit higher than 700.
It won't last long with a tko600 and it won't be doing much of anything at the track so who cares about what dyno numbers an s380 can make. We already know what it's capable of doing anyways so you won't be surprising anyone.

please do back up more of your flawed logic with simple math. :rolling:
He's somewhat right, that you'd need your engine to produce a little more than under 300rwhp to make 700rwhp on only 10 psi. and that if you had an n/a setup that was making more power it would be more reasonable to claim those numbers on only 10psi.

and to add fuel to the fire, john is running a twin turbo set up.
he runs twin 77's, each turbo pushing roughly 26psi, each turbo producing roughly 800rwhp (2x800=1600 turbo horse + roughly 400 n/a = 2000 horse)
why is it hard for you to believe my borg warner s380 makes roughly 35-40 horse per pound on my car when johns precision 77's, make roughly 31 horse per lb of boost? especially in that the borg wanrer s380 outflow's a precision 77 hands down across the board?
your proving my claim yourself, thanks.
Now you've out done yourself. Congratulations!:dancenana:

.

 

[AntiHeightPunk]

xtoodlesx wouldnt the race cars you are comparing yours too have a shit ton more compression than you?

 

[THAITED]

Just because the manufacture claims that the turbo makes big power (1,000 HP), it doesn't mean that it will (when you slap it on the engine). It's depends on the modification (combos) and the size of the engine (cubic inch), tuning etcs in order to achieve the power, is that correct???

 

[LS1PUSSOUT]

Just because the manufacture claims that the turbo makes big power (1,000 HP), it doesn't mean that it will (when you slap it on the engine). It's depends on the modification (combos) and the size of the engine (cubic inch), tuning etcs in order to achieve the power, is that correct???

no the power level is more dependant on the turbo. you can take the same size turbo and make 500whp on a v8, then slap it on a honda and make the same hp just at higher boost level. Its the same amount of air, just on the v8 it has more displacement to flow through and producing less boost. The air isnt as compressed

 

[61mmstang94]

no the power level is more dependant on the turbo. you can take the same size turbo and make 500whp on a v8, then slap it on a honda and make the same hp just at higher boost level. Its the same amount of air, just on the v8 it has more displacement to flow through and producing less boost. The air isnt as compressed

Not always true. If a turbo ever becomes too small where it's a restriction, causing too much backpressure for a setup, it will not make as much power as it might be able to make on a smaller motor more in it's range of efficiency. Some setups will be more efficient for a certain turbo and be capable of getting a little more out of it than others. Saying that X turbo will always make X power no matter what setup it is on is as retarded as every one of your other posts.

 

[LS1PUSSOUT]

Not always true. If a turbo ever becomes too small where it's a restriction, causing too much backpressure for a setup, it will not make as much power as it might be able to make on a smaller motor more in it's range of efficiency. Some setups will be more efficient for a certain turbo and be capable of getting a little more out of it than others. Saying that X turbo will always make X power no matter what setup it is on is as retarded as every one of your other posts.

you are the only one who would ever try and use a turbo that small

 

[61mmstang94]

you are the only one who would ever try and use a turbo that small

You're the one who has the little baby turbo...:lol1:

 

[LS1PUSSOUT]

You're the one who has the little baby turbo...:lol1:

you are talking about using something like a dsm turbo on a 4.6 or 5.4 modular engine. i dont need to say much more here:lol1: