How much for your setup?

------------------
94B4C M6
Finishing project
Borla Competition--
AFR Heads
383 + Paxton Supercharger

 

excuse me?!?.......pics? webpage? timeslips?

 

Hey sleeperZ whats your set-up? Are you using an LT1? I am building a TT LT1 for my 69 Camaro and would be very interested in your set up. I'm only looking for about 600-700 HP though. Please don't keep us in the dark. Later.

------------------
95 6 speed T/A
69 Camaro SS 396 with Twin Turbo 95 LT1 project
http://www.geocities.com/camaroracerlt1

 

As long as there is boost, there will be conflict among the OWNERS of the two types of set-ups. I personnaly have owned a supercharged mustang(10.70's @130) It was daily driven and had the AC and full stereo/interior, etc... I now want to TT my LT1. Why? I don't know. I have had a SC car now I want a Turbo one. I like how quit a turbo car idles and has a muffled sound(until swooooossshhhhhhhh!!!)

------------------
Jamie Taylor
'94 Z28 M6
Mods: BBK 52mm TB, Granetelli MAF, MSD 8.5 wires, MSD coil, Bosch +4 plugs, gutted cat., In the final stages of HOT cam kit, ported heads, CSI H20 pump, Jet Hot Hooker LT's(thanks to the GP), custom 3" Y-pipe, and Custom CAI installations. It's nice being a welder, I can do all this custom tubing stuff easy!!!
1971 Datsun 240Z with V8 power. 500+rwhp

 

Heats up a lot more huh ?

Vortech V1 S Trim Adiabatic efficiency: 72% **

VORTECH V-1 T-TRIM Adiabatic efficiency: 73% **


Turbonetics :

T66 Max efficiency: 76%
T70 Max efficiency: 75%

No strain on crankshaft, easily adjusted boost, no belt to slip, like the sound better than a blower whine, silent at idle ( competition wont know whats about to hit them),

Now I just need to decide what I want to do, since the pcm wont see boost, JZ can you keep me updated as to your progress with the APEXI unit ?



------------------
94 Teal 6 speed Z28
86 Z28, 93 LT1 swap in progress, TH350, intercooled turbo.

 

 

What cars have you been looking at?

It's just the opposite.

 

Sorry guys no website or picts. My digital camera took a sht awhile back. As for money I try not to keep track On 12psi, I run a little faster then cars that run 10.40's@ 133-135mph. Im car is not approved to run 9's or 10's so I stay away from the track. However, I have one shot coming up here, I will post soon...

My comb is 383 with a T-76 turbo, and a 6 speed My exhaust is all custom except im using the turbo tech manifold.

------------------
1994 Turbocharged Camaro

 

camaroz28racer2, I will start testing the APEX AFC controller as soon as I get the car back. Right now the motor is in its finishing stages. After that I just have to get the fuel system installed then install the new MAP and APEX AFC, and start tuning.

Jose


------------------
97 SS #1500 T-76 383
88 Supra Turbo CT-26/T04
87 Buick Grand National T-70

 

Well...

As I have "seen", so not pinpointing any cars that was like the rule for me. I've been searching around the web and I've seen some turbo setups that pump a lot of CFM more than the supercharger, which was the main reason for the supercharger making more power per boost... Since all the turbo setups I had seen where very high on PSI but low on CFM...

 

??

Are you sure you were not comparing say a Vortech with an XX Trim on a built motor, vs something like a single T25 on a stock motor?

 

No... Not really... but it was regarding a paxton supercharger (novi 2000) which pumps 1700 cfms...

Anyways.. what you guys dont get is that There is nothing like a free lunch... Turbo's dont get boost free... They have 1.5x to 2x more backpressure for boost... That is backpressure that the pistons have to literally PUSH exhaust out.. Which means that the turbo does have pumping air issues that eat up HP and not to say that you can contaminate your intake charge if you do not eliminate overlap... So... The only advantage I see is lower rpm boost.. other than that... I dont know.. maybe its easier and has less back pressure HP loss, a TT than a singe supercharger...

If one were to use 2 smaller supercharger, things could be compared, but now, that would be a real PITA to install...

Another questions.. why arent NHRA Top fuelers using turbos???

 

I think that one common misconception is that boost kills engines.... No boost does not kill engines. Yes you have more crankcase pressure, yes you have more chance of blow-by due to the increased static compression but the actual defintion of boost is forcing so much air into the engine that it overcomes the natural vacumn and starts forcing more air in than the engine is asking for. With more air being compressed more heat is generated are there is more chance of detonation or preignition. That's the stuff that kills engines.

I myself had a Turbo Technologies 60-1 kit but I opted to trade it for my S-Trim and a couple other things... Linear power is way easier to tune. I mean if you really want to operate a turbo right you need an aftermarket engine computer and with that money I'd rather put a 355 in my car. I mean it all really depends on what you want but for me the supercharger was easier in many aspects... And I mean after working on my car I just tried to imagine how cramped the engine bay would be with a turbo and all its tubing and it would have been hell to work on and tune. Also superchargers (especially vortech) have been around for so long and have such a wide range of users that there is always somebody who has gone through what you are doing and can offer advice. That's just my opinion.

However, I can't deny that intercooled turbo's all-around are a better method of forced induction performance wise than a supercharger. If you are doing it for cool factor you are wack. If you are doing it because you have the need for speed, most excellent. But otherwise, there is no reason to go through the trouble of making a turbo work on a car that was in no way prepared to be turbocharged from the factory. I mean crazy boost levels with the turn of a dial is beautiful. And so much boost its sickening... But for me, the blower is doing the job nicely... and I'm just getting started =)

 

I know it is old tech, but I went the supercharger route on my 68, with a big block. The 671 added heat, weight, and power
But it also had continous problems with bearings, which more than likely are not specifically related to the blower.

Now that is gone and I am trying the turbo route on a 96 LT1. Due to the fuel injection, there is a lot more to it, but I already had the DFI worked out pretty well in the N/A tune, with shot of spray.

I chose the twin turbo route to be different (like a FI LT1 in a back half 68 isn't different enough already! ), and because I like the idea of making horsepower, without taking horsepower back from the engine. I have seen more than one S/C car with broken snouts or spun balancers (I am a firm believer in dual keyways).
Now granted, those were in high boost situations, making around 500-600 RWHP. I plan on being a little higher than that once I get my 383 built, and don't foresee any crank problems!
I also found that going the turbo route I could do it quite a bit cheaper, as a do-it-yourselfer. That certainly isn't the case if you buy a turbo kit.. but that is me

Hopefully I will get my wastegate problem solved, and actually see some boost on my setup.. and then have some solid numbers to brag on!

Here's what it looks like now.. just didn't have the oil lines on the twins in these pics..

 

For me, the primary advantage of a turbo is the superior "area under the curve" compared to a centrifugal supercharger. Supercharged (centrifugal) cars post lower track performance than their dyno numbers suggest.

For example, just take a look at the folks on this board. Some 600 RWHP blower motors can hardly trap 130 MPH in a 3600 - 3700 lbs. car. Hell, naturally aspirated motors can accomplish that with 100 RWHP less. Just check out LS1Tech some time

On the other hand, on our large displacement motors, spooling up a good size turbo (T76+) is not an issue. A properly set-up turbo will hit peak boost WAY down low in the rev band and hold it throughout in the power curve instead of peaking a few hundred RPM before redline as with a blower. "Right now" boost at 2K RPM - with a FAT torque curve to match - sounds good to me

And track numbers back this up. For example, Dale Basemann traps at 134 MPH in a heavy *** Impala, with "just" 670ish RWHP.

In essence, dyno figures of blower motors are to some degree "misleading." The total average horsepower will be less than a turbo or n/a motor for any given peak figure. And average HP gets you down the track, not peak HP. Again, this all assumes a properly matched turbo configuration/motor combo.

Other benefits that have already been mentioned:

1) Less stress on the crank
2) Earlier peak boost
3) Superior area under the curve
4) TORQUE!
5) More 1/4 mile MPH per RWHP
6) No belts slippage issues
7) Adjustable boost
8) Quiet idle/sleeper effect if that's your gig
9) Allows for taller gearing = better to build boost = lower cruising RPM = eliminating premature hearing loss
10) Lower BSFC = less fuel system demands, which can become significant when making BIG power

I'm one of those rare weirdos that doesn't care much for blower whine

That about covers it for now