Keep Paxton or go with Turbo

[61mmstang94]

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:

:lol: That's one example, but I never said anything about a DSM or a 4.6 or a 5.4.

 

[97desertCobra]

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:

I love how my logic is flawed yet I'm the one using real math to back up my point. What have you used so far? Oh yes thats right, trust me guys I'm making that much power! You are a joke! Like stated, Johns car is using 2 turboes, both of which are larger than yours. Your logic is the one that is flawed not so smart guy!:bored: Also I never tried to compare a super charger to a turbo charger, you did and its a stupid argument. Of course boost for boost a turbo will make more, and not because the turbo flows so much more cfm, but because it doesnt have the parasitic loss from the belt spinning the blower. Lets move on.

An engine in n/a form is experiencing 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure and makes x amount of horse power. Lets just say this engine makes 300rwhp. Now in order to double the amount of horse power that engine is producing you would have to double the amount of atmospheric pressure that it is experiencing.:idea: So now your turbo is pushing 14.7 psi and you car is making 600rwhp.

The above example is that in a perfect world with no parasitic loss, no loss from heat or friction of any kind. In the real world even the best turbo cant touch the perfect example, some can get close when they really push alot of boost in their efficiency range. So the only way for that 300rwhp engine to make more than 600rwhp with less than 14.7 psi of boost is to make more horse power n/a. How much power does your car with untouched B heads and intake make n/a do you think? 280rwhp? That would be my guess. So how is it that this magical turbo of yours can bend the laws of physics? op:

 

[97desertCobra]

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.

The reason I used the total horse power and divided it per pound of boost was just to show the difference between yours and Johns car. I wasn't in the mood to try and figure out what Johns car was making n/a, what your car is supposedly making n/a and then deduct from the total then divide by the amount of boost. My "simple math" was done to show gross difference between your claim with your otherwise stock B headed car and Johns car which is the most powerfull B headed Ford 4.6L in existence. If I had taken the long way to show the difference it still would have turned out that your car is making nearly double the amount of horse power per pound of boost than his is, which is utter :bs:

 

[61mmstang94]

I love how my logic is flawed yet I'm the one using real math to back up my point. What have you used so far? Oh yes thats right, trust me guys I'm making that much power! You are a joke! Like stated, Johns car is using 2 turboes, both of which are larger than yours. Your logic is the one that is flawed not so smart guy!:bored: Also I never tried to compare a super charger to a turbo charger, you did and its a stupid argument. Of course boost for boost a turbo will make more, and not because the turbo flows so much more cfm, but because it doesnt have the parasitic loss from the belt spinning the blower. Lets move on.

An engine in n/a form is experiencing 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure and makes x amount of horse power. Lets just say this engine makes 300rwhp. Now in order to double the amount of horse power that engine is producing you would have to double the amount of atmospheric pressure that it is experiencing.:idea: So now your turbo is pushing 14.7 psi and you car is making 600rwhp.

The above example is that in a perfect world with no parasitic loss, no loss from heat or friction of any kind. In the real world even the best turbo cant touch the perfect example, some can get close when they really push alot of boost in their efficiency range. So the only way for that 300rwhp engine to make more than 600rwhp with less than 14.7 psi of boost is to make more horse power n/a. How much power does your car with untouched B heads and intake make n/a do you think? 280rwhp? That would be my guess. So how is it that this magical turbo of yours can bend the laws of physics? op:

Don't present logic to this guy. We should just buy his story that his car is more efficient than just about any other turbo setup with the stock b-heads and intake because he said so. He doesn't understand that his turbo isn't some magical piece, and it's a simple s380 which has been used before. Discussing things with this guy is like talking to the wall because he understands nothing and creates his own arguments putting words in our mouths like bringing in superchargers, etc. lol

Bottom line is that I would be willing to bet that his car will take more than 10psi to reach 700rwhp. I don't understand why he's so worried about making that number at only 10psi to begin with, we know it COULD make more, but it's going to take a lot more boost and more than 91 octane. Yet he continues to try to convince us his car is defying simple physics and what's been proven time and time again, that a 4.6 making under 300rwhp n/a will take more than 10psi to reach the 700rwhp mark.

 

[Roll Race Rob]

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.

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.

Now you've out done yourself. Congratulations!

i broke down each of mihovetz's turbos, its simple math, your losing sleep over somebody having a much more effecient set up than you, plain and simple.
obviously you don't know what a s380 can do as your still debating it.
the tko600 has lasted in plenty of cars making more than 1000 to the wheels, spew more shit from your mouth!

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???

wrong.
turbo's make the power, of course it helps to have bigger heads and bigger intake's etc etc but not nearly as much as people think. this is why a 2 litre can produce the same/sometimes more power than a v8 with the same turbo. the 2 litre comes nowhere near close to flowing what a v8 does n/a but the turbo makes up for that.

I love how my logic is flawed yet I'm the one using real math to back up my point. What have you used so far? Oh yes thats right, trust me guys I'm making that much power! You are a joke! Like stated, Johns car is using 2 turboes, both of which are larger than yours. Your logic is the one that is flawed not so smart guy!:bored: Also I never tried to compare a super charger to a turbo charger, you did and its a stupid argument. Of course boost for boost a turbo will make more, and not because the turbo flows so much more cfm, but because it doesnt have the parasitic loss from the belt spinning the blower. Lets move on.

An engine in n/a form is experiencing 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure and makes x amount of horse power. Lets just say this engine makes 300rwhp. Now in order to double the amount of horse power that engine is producing you would have to double the amount of atmospheric pressure that it is experiencing.:idea: So now your turbo is pushing 14.7 psi and you car is making 600rwhp.

The above example is that in a perfect world with no parasitic loss, no loss from heat or friction of any kind. In the real world even the best turbo cant touch the perfect example, some can get close when they really push alot of boost in their efficiency range. So the only way for that 300rwhp engine to make more than 600rwhp with less than 14.7 psi of boost is to make more horse power n/a. How much power does your car with untouched B heads and intake make n/a do you think? 280rwhp? That would be my guess. So how is it that this magical turbo of yours can bend the laws of physics? op:

i used just as much, (and much more logical), math as you have.
john's turbos are 77mm, mine is an 80, along with the race cover the bord warner s380 is not only larger but better designed than a precision 77.
77<80, thought you were math genius?
john's 77 produces 800 additional horse @ 26psi, thats roughly 31 horse per pound of boost. x2 thats 1600 horse, along with john's motor thats roughly 2000.
my 80 produces 350-400 additional horse @ 10psi, thats roughly 35-40 horse per pound of boost. along with my motor thats about 700.
again, the s380 will outlflow and make more power than the 77, hands down.
i already stated this once before but it must have confused your mathematical prowess.
what do you mean a turbo wont make more power because it flows more cfm than a supercharger? thats the main reason it makes more power! more cfm=more power. of course the supercharger being belt driven add's to the power loss but i can guarantee most any DECENT 74+mm turbo will flow quite a bit more than most of the blowers people are putting on their cars. of course there are blower's on full drag cars making 50+ psi moving a shit ton of cfm but those arent going on your car!

The reason I used the total horse power and divided it per pound of boost was just to show the difference between yours and Johns car. I wasn't in the mood to try and figure out what Johns car was making n/a, what your car is supposedly making n/a and then deduct from the total then divide by the amount of boost. My "simple math" was done to show gross difference between your claim with your otherwise stock B headed car and Johns car which is the most powerfull B headed Ford 4.6L in existence. If I had taken the long way to show the difference it still would have turned out that your car is making nearly double the amount of horse power per pound of boost than his is, which is utter :bs:

you can't, including the power each motor produces skews the numbers, you should know this math genius.
look above, as explained twice, my turbo doesn't produce double his turbo's, its in plain english.

Don't present logic to this guy. We should just buy his story that his car is more efficient than just about any other turbo setup with the stock b-heads and intake because he said so. He doesn't understand that his turbo isn't some magical piece, and it's a simple s380 which has been used before. Discussing things with this guy is like talking to the wall because he understands nothing and creates his own arguments putting words in our mouths like bringing in superchargers, etc. lol

Bottom line is that I would be willing to bet that his car will take more than 10psi to reach 700rwhp. I don't understand why he's so worried about making that number at only 10psi to begin with, we know it COULD make more, but it's going to take a lot more boost and more than 91 octane. Yet he continues to try to convince us his car is defying simple physics and what's been proven time and time again, that a 4.6 making under 300rwhp n/a will take more than 10psi to reach the 700rwhp mark.

i never said my turbo was magical, i simply stated it flows a shit ton of air for a street car, and thats why it produces the power it does.

 

[THAITED]

I was told by the tuner that 700 rwhp with 91 octane is like a time bomb waiting to exploed (600 is more presentable @ 10 PSI).

 

[97desertCobra]

i never said my turbo was magical, i simply stated it flows a shit ton of air for a street car, and thats why it produces the power it does.

An engine in n/a form is experiencing 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure and makes x amount of horse power. Lets just say this engine makes 300rwhp. Now in order to double the amount of horse power that engine is producing you would have to double the amount of atmospheric pressure that it is experiencing. So now your turbo is pushing 14.7 psi and you car is making 600rwhp.

The above example is that in a perfect world with no parasitic loss, no loss from heat or friction of any kind. In the real world even the best turbo cant touch the perfect example, some can get close when they really push alot of boost in their efficiency range. So the only way for that 300rwhp engine to make more than 600rwhp with less than 14.7 psi of boost is to make more horse power n/a. How much power does your car with untouched B heads and intake make n/a do you think? 280rwhp? That would be my guess. So how is it that this magical turbo of yours can bend the laws of physics?

Please explain how your car is the exception? Never have I ever heard of any one making 700rwhp with a 4.6 and 10 PSI. Even the 03 Cobras running 80mm and larger cant touch that, and their cylinder heads flow more cfm than yours do. Your car would have to be making between 420-500rwhp n/a to make 700rwhp with 10# boost.

As for your arguement against Johns car and his turbos, the twins use their combined efficiency and cfm to work together, thats why people use a twin set up. How do you think the cfm flow of two 77mm turbos compare to your single 80mm turbo? Not to mention that your untouched B heads and intake cannot take full advantage of your 80mm turbo cfm flow to begin with!

 

[61mmstang94]

i broke down each of mihovetz's turbos, its simple math, your losing sleep over somebody having a much more effecient set up than you, plain and simple.
You'll still always go slower, even if your dyno sheets are prettier, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over a dyno queen.

obviously you don't know what a s380 can do as your still debating it.
the tko600 has lasted in plenty of cars making more than 1000 to the wheels, spew more shit from your mouth!
You were claiming 1350, bud. It won't handle that with any traction whatsoever.

wrong.
turbo's make the power, of course it helps to have bigger heads and bigger intake's etc etc but not nearly as much as people think. this is why a 2 litre can produce the same/sometimes more power than a v8 with the same turbo. the 2 litre comes nowhere near close to flowing what a v8 does n/a but the turbo makes up for that.

So you're telling me that heads and cams don't matter now? lol SO why does anybody bother finding out the best combo when they're doing serious racing if the only thing that matter is the turbo? lol You're a clown....the heads and cams and manifold will make a big difference.

i used just as much, (and much more logical), math as you have.
john's turbos are 77mm, mine is an 80, along with the race cover the bord warner s380 is not only larger but better designed than a precision 77.
77<80, thought you were math genius?
john's 77 produces 800 additional horse @ 26psi, thats roughly 31 horse per pound of boost. x2 thats 1600 horse, along with john's motor thats roughly 2000.
my 80 produces 350-400 additional horse @ 10psi, thats roughly 35-40 horse per pound of boost. along with my motor thats about 700.
again, the s380 will outlflow and make more power than the 77, hands down.
i already stated this once before but it must have confused your mathematical prowess.

Don't make me laugh any harder. Please.


what do you mean a turbo wont make more power because it flows more cfm than a supercharger? thats the main reason it makes more power! more cfm=more power. of course the supercharger being belt driven add's to the power loss but i can guarantee most any DECENT 74+mm turbo will flow quite a bit more than most of the blowers people are putting on their cars. of course there are blower's on full drag cars making 50+ psi moving a shit ton of cfm but those arent going on your car!
I know of some procharged cars making similar power to turbo cars. Explain that, alllknowing one.

you can't, including the power each motor produces skews the numbers, you should know this math genius.
look above, as explained twice, my turbo doesn't produce double his turbo's, its in plain english.

i never said my turbo was magical, i simply stated it flows a shit ton of air for a street car, and thats why it produces the power it does.
So now it knows it's on a street car as if that matters?lol Dude, what you're not understanding is that your s380 will not give you almost 2.5 times the amount of power it was making n/a on 91 octane and only 10 psi. People have run larger turbos than your little s380 and if it's on an engine that makes like 280rwhp (like yours most likely would) it's not going to be seeing 700rwhp on 10psi and a conservative 91 octane tune. If you don't understand that, then we'll let you continue living in your fantasy world if that's where you're happiest. :loser:

.

 

[Roll Race Rob]

I was told by the tuner that 700 rwhp with 91 octane is like a time bomb waiting to exploed (600 is more presentable @ 10 PSI).

what does your tuner know that other tuner's don't?
the only way he can make such a comment would be by assuming im running A LOT of timing, thereby making it unsafe on 91 onctane.
who's to say my timing is unsafe?
other than that his comment is as blind as 61mmstang.

An engine in n/a form is experiencing 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure and makes x amount of horse power. Lets just say this engine makes 300rwhp. Now in order to double the amount of horse power that engine is producing you would have to double the amount of atmospheric pressure that it is experiencing. So now your turbo is pushing 14.7 psi and you car is making 600rwhp.

The above example is that in a perfect world with no parasitic loss, no loss from heat or friction of any kind. In the real world even the best turbo cant touch the perfect example, some can get close when they really push alot of boost in their efficiency range. So the only way for that 300rwhp engine to make more than 600rwhp with less than 14.7 psi of boost is to make more horse power n/a. How much power does your car with untouched B heads and intake make n/a do you think? 280rwhp? That would be my guess. So how is it that this magical turbo of yours can bend the laws of physics?

Please explain how your car is the exception? Never have I ever heard of any one making 700rwhp with a 4.6 and 10 PSI. Even the 03 Cobras running 80mm and larger cant touch that, and their cylinder heads flow more cfm than yours do. Your car would have to be making between 420-500rwhp n/a to make 700rwhp with 10# boost.

As for your arguement against Johns car and his turbos, the twins use their combined efficiency and cfm to work together, thats why people use a twin set up. How do you think the cfm flow of two 77mm turbos compare to your single 80mm turbo? Not to mention that your untouched B heads and intake cannot take full advantage of your 80mm turbo cfm flow to begin with!

your math/equation is once again flawed and will be proven so by a SLEW of cars making more power on less boost than what your mcgoole equation derives, i do not have the time right now to do so but will show you plenty of REAL WORLD numbers proving your mcgoogle equation wrong.
as far as your comment regarding john's twin set up, i NEVER ONCE claimed my single 80 outflows his twin 77's, i merely stated my single 80 outflow's his single 77's, one at a time.
as far as this comment "Not to mention that your untouched B heads and intake cannot take full advantage of your 80mm turbo cfm flow to begin with!" you are obviously still thinking inside the box, turbo's have proven time and time again the cfm your heads/intake/engine flows n/a is NOT the bottleneck when it comes to turbo cars, turbo's prove this in that 2 litre 4 cylinder honduhs flow DICK n/a, yet when strapped with a large turbo those DICK numbers go out the window!
ill be back with plenty of other motor/turbo set ups proving your mcgoogle equation false! :read:

 

[Roll Race Rob]

You'll still always go slower, even if your dyno sheets are prettier, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over a dyno queen.

of course, when beaten in a debate one instead try's to change the argument.

You were claiming 1350, bud. It won't handle that with any traction whatsoever.

i was claiming what the turbo is capable of, i didn't once say my car will make that as i don't plan on pushing it that hard.:dw:

So you're telling me that heads and cams don't matter now? lol SO why does anybody bother finding out the best combo when they're doing serious racing if the only thing that matter is the turbo? lol You're a clown....the heads and cams and manifold will make a big difference.

you TRULY are a ****ing idiot.
look at what you quoted, i clearly state "of course it helps to have bigger heads and bigger intake'sbut not nearly as much as people think." sure, if your squeezing every ounce of power out of a set up of course you benefit from larger cube's, heads, intakes, etc a 4v with a built bottom end and some boost can go deep 9's-8's, which is plenty fast for most any car enthusiast.:burnout:

Don't make me laugh any harder. Please.

again, you get proven wrong in a debate and you resort to childish banter.:cryying:

I know of some procharged cars making similar power to turbo cars. Explain that, alllknowing one.

i never said superchargers can't make similiar power to turbo cars. take a larger off the shelf supercharger and pair it up against a smaller 1970's technology master power turbo and the same motor and of course the power gains are going to be similiar.
compare that supercharger to a larger nicer turbo and it won't touch it, period.
you really argue the opposite?:??:

So now it knows it's on a street car as if that matters?lol Dude, what you're not understanding is that your s380 will not give you almost 2.5 times the amount of power it was making n/a on 91 octane and only 10 psi. People have run larger turbos than your little s380 and if it's on an engine that makes like 280rwhp (like yours most likely would) it's not going to be seeing 700rwhp on 10psi and a conservative 91 octane tune. If you don't understand that, then we'll let you continue living in your fantasy world if that's where you're happiest.

it being on a street car had nothing to do with it, you took it out of context, what somebody who loses a debate often resorts to doing.
my comment was that it flows a shit ton of air for a street car, stock heads/intake don't matter as it is paired with a larger turbo for a street car, and that's what it makes those numbers.
DUDE, what your not understanding is it does warrant those power gains and has been backed up with timeslips. it's physics, as our math genius above would try and say. it takes x amount of power to get y lbs to move z speed. you, along with your mcgoogle math master friend have both been proven wrong, and now either a. repeat yourself even though its been disproven or b. change the subject and try and poke fun in some other way or c. take text out of context to try and change the debate.
ill leave it at this, i KNOW what my car makes, if some dildo's don't want to believe me i don't care, happy thanksgiving. :beer:

 

[61mmstang94]

what does your tuner know that other tuner's don't?
the only way he can make such a comment would be by assuming im running A LOT of timing, thereby making it unsafe on 91 onctane.
who's to say my timing is unsafe?
other than that his comment is as blind as 61mmstang.


:

I am blind So perhaps you can show me all of the other stock displacement, low compression with stock heads, stock intake 4.6l running 10 psi on 91 octane or less that is making 700rwhp. How about you do that for me.

 

[Roll Race Rob]

I am blind So perhaps you can show me all of the other stock displacement, low compression with stock heads, stock intake 4.6l running 10 psi on 91 octane or less that is making 700rwhp. How about you do that for me.

if you read a few posts above i plan on showing other cars that defy the mcgoogle equation of your desert cobra friend, there are plenty of cars making more power on less than the 14.7psi that he state's must be made per lb of boost thereby disproving his equation.

 

[61mmstang94]

if you read a few posts above i plan on showing other cars that defy the mcgoogle equation of your desert cobra friend, there are plenty of cars making more power on less than the 14.7psi that he state's must be made per lb of boost.

No, I want to see one with stock heads and intake, stock displacement, 91 octane @10 psi like you suggest is so common. Now you're talking about basically 15psi sheets? Make your mind up. But since there are a lot of inflated dyno sheets like your own out there I wouldn't be surprised if you could get one and post it up, but there's still no proof what car the sheet belongs to or the gas, or the displacement, or the heads, and boost it's running so that won't prove anything anyways.

 

[97desertCobra]

of course, when beaten in a debate one instead try's to change the argument.

again, you get proven wrong in a debate and you resort to childish banter.:cryying:

i never said superchargers can't make similiar power to turbo cars. take a larger off the shelf supercharger and pair it up against a smaller 1970's technology master power turbo and the same motor and of course the power gains are going to be similiar.
compare that supercharger to a larger nicer turbo and it won't touch it, period.
you really argue the opposite?:??:
, what somebody who loses a debate often resorts to doing.
:

You are the only one believing that you are winning the debate. So far you have not proven how you are the exception to the rule. Instead you come up with cute little childish insults and assume you are the victor. And I didnt google the 14.7 psi as being the pressure at 1 atm, I pulled that out of my physics text book. :read:

Now for the supercharger, take a Procharger F1C and compare it to a 76mm. They both will produce very similar power levels at similar boost levels. The turbo will have the advantage due to the parasitic loss of the supercharger. But they will be close and both are comparable in terms of size and cfm flow.

 

[Roll Race Rob]

I am blind So perhaps you can show me all of the other stock displacement, low compression with stock heads, stock intake 4.6l running 10 psi on 91 octane or less that is making 700rwhp. How about you do that for me.

so mebbeh my build is one of a kind? that makes it no valid? ill see if i can find other s380 4v owners but i think it is in fact fairly low.

No, I want to see one with stock heads and intake, stock displacement, 91 octane @10 psi like you suggest is so common. Now you're talking about basically 15psi sheets? Make your mind up. But since there are a lot of inflated dyno sheets like your own out there I wouldn't be surprised if you could get one and post it up, but there's still no proof what car the sheet belongs to or the gas, or the displacement, or the heads, and boost it's running so that won't prove anything anyways.

i never suggested it to be common, i suggested that mcgoogle's equation was wrong, and there were a lot of cars' that could prove this statement. i didn't say what psi the cars were running as i haven't done much research yet, but i guarantee there are plenty of cars, turbo and blower alike, disproving mcgoogle's claim of 14.7psi.

 

[Roll Race Rob]

You are the only one believing that you are winning the debate. So far you have not proven how you are the exception to the rule. Instead you come up with cute little childish insults and assume you are the victor. And I didnt google the 14.7 psi as being the pressure at 1 atm, I pulled that out of my physics text book. :read:

Now for the supercharger, take a Procharger F1C and compare it to a 76mm. They both will produce very similar power levels at similar boost levels. The turbo will have the advantage due to the parasitic loss of the supercharger. But they will be close and both are comparable in terms of size and cfm flow.

i have proven im the exception to the rule in that i have the dyno sheet, have ran the time's at the track, and have pulled various vehicle's that trap over 135mph, all while being on 10psi.
that is proof, you choosing to not beleive it does not, not make it proof.
your physics book is either wrong or outdated, which i wouldn't be surprised if was the case. new discoveries are happening all the time, what once was true may now be disproved with better products/technology.

take an f1c and a garrett or borg warner in a 76mm and the numbers will be noticeably higher for the turbos, even with belt drive loss aside.
you could compare the f1c to a ebay 76mm 20 year old tractor technology and yes, the numbers may in fact be similiar, but only by comparing a higher end blower to a lower end turbo will this hold true, comparing a higher end blower to a higher end turbo and your point is no longer valid.

 

[61mmstang94]

so mebbeh my build is one of a kind? that makes it no valid? ill see if i can find other s380 4v owners but i think it is in fact fairly low.

i never suggested it to be common, i suggested that mcgoogle's equation was wrong, and there were a lot of cars' that could prove this statement. i didn't say what psi the cars were running as i haven't done much research yet, but i guarantee there are plenty of cars, turbo and blower alike, disproving mcgoogle's claim of 14.7psi.

Actually, he presented a pretty good rule of thumb that can apply to many cars. There will always be some variation, but your setup isn't that far above the curve with such low displacement and compression running stock heads and intake, I promise you.

 

[THAITED]

Then just show us your dyno sheet then so we can see everything timing, A/F, boost and etc.

 

[61mmstang94]

Then just show us your dyno sheet then so we can see everything timing, A/F, boost and etc.

It still wouldn't give us actual proof of anything that is done to his car and dyno sheets can be inflated to satisfy the ego of the customer.

 

[97desertCobra]

It still wouldn't give us actual proof of anything that is done to his car and dyno sheets can be inflated to satisfy the ego of the customer.

This.