Ford GT with both supercharger and twin turbo

[mattlikespeople]

there should be a type of supercharger made with some sort of clutch on the drive pulley and flow through system so after the low end grunt is surpassed the supercharger can disengage and let the turbos really come to life

[Mstng2]

The final word, or at least my final post on the matter you can spout numbers til your blue but I'll leave it at this...

"John,

There must be hundreds of threads on numerous forums debating the twin setup with the supercharger in place. We didn't test it to debate it really. We just wanted to show people that it will work with either a factory supercharger (or aftermarket for that matter) OR a regular intake (99/01 Cobra, 03/04 Mach1, 96-98 GT, 96-98 Cobra, 99-04 GT, etc.). The system will install just as easily on a non-supercharged application. We don't sell the kit with a supercharger, we just want people to know it WILL work and make insane power if they do keep their supercharger. Add to that the initial neck-snapping response and you have the best of both worlds. We simply did what not many people have tried before and brought it to light. If someone wants to call 1,188rwhp out of a 281 cubic inch motor inefficient, so be it. They can run it w/out the blower and make less AVERAGE power and more peak power. What it comes down to is that people can have their cake and eat it too.

We appreciate your interest in and support of our kit.

Thanks,

Jeff Yochim
Hellion Power Systems"

[sMoney]

I must agree with Mstng2, the end-goal of a compound boost setup is not peak power, but power all over the rev range.

The fact that the Cobra from the article needed 44 psi to make those numbers is simple: it's the stock motor. The camshafts, heads, supercharger, headers, all of the parts that make up the basic engine are unchanged from the factory setup that was engineered to produce ~400hp. At that power level, almost everything is a restriction. In effect it may seem inefficient, but that's because the stock parts are choking down the insane power potential of that much boost. I know because I subscribe to MM&FF and I read over that article VERY well.

And as far as the first run being 800-some-odd hp, their tuning it, of course the first run won't yield anything crazy. First dyno tuning runs always set the boost low, the timing is cut back and it's run slightly rich. After reassuring themselves that everything is safe, they carefully begin tweaking things in search of more power. How would you like to take your prized project somewhere only to have the motor grenade itself on the first pull? All because the tuner wanted a bad-assed first pull and maxed out the boost, ran crazy timing and left the a/f ratio stock?

Yes turbos alone can make the same power, but only when looking at peak numbers.

[DBLDREW]

Originally Posted by Mstng2

I see your point, but lets see a 4.6 @ 1188 HP and the equivelant boost needed from turbo only.

Then lets race both cars, and see who wins...

Here is a dyno graph of turbo horespowers twin turbo set up for the 4.6 cobra motor that makes 1171HP…

Turbo Horsepower - turbo kits, chassis, accessories

Now here is the nail in the coffin that was achieved at 27psi!! Now to be fair the turbo only motor was making a little less power (~50-100hp) at a lot of the same rpms as the turbo/SC combo. But if you raise the boost up to say 30-32 psi you would be making more power at all rpm points and have several 100 more hp on the top end. Or if you want to actually compare apples to apples and you raise the boost up to 44psi on the turbo you would be knocking on the 2000hp door (if the block holds up).

So 1188@ 44psi vs 1171@ 27psi that’s not even close, it’s blatantly obvious how inefficient the turbo/sc combo is

[Mstng2]

The fact that the Cobra from the article needed 44 psi to make those numbers is simple: it's the stock motor. The camshafts, heads, supercharger, headers, all of the parts that make up the basic engine are unchanged from the factory setup that was engineered to produce ~400hp. At that power level, almost everything is a restriction. In effect it may seem inefficient, but that's because the stock parts are choking down the insane power potential of that much boost.

Totally agreed, but Mr Drew only spouts what fits the argument, Again... Lets race both cars, and see who wins... Who gives a flying leap if it's efficient or inefficient... LOL

[DBLDREW]

Originally Posted by Mstng2

Totally agreed, but Mr Drew only spouts what fits the argument, Again... Lets race both cars, and see who wins... Who gives a flying leap if it's efficient or inefficient... LOL

I only post my opinion and back it up with facts. Please prove me wrong, post some dyno numbers that point to me being wrong.

As far as to which car would win. If we are racing identical cobras one with the turbo/sc combo and other that is turbo only, If we make it a fair race where both cars are running the same psi (to accurately evaluate both systems) then the turbo only car will win with no problem.

The turbo only car running 27psi made 1170 hp the turbo/sc combo running at 38 psi made 846hp, so it’s safe to assume that if the T/SC combo was dropped down to 27psi it would probably be in the 700hp range. So a 1170 hp cobra would spank a ~700hp cobra. Or better yet rather then play the guess game lets give the T/SC combo an 11psi advantage. So again a 1170 hp cobra would still spank a 846hp cobra.

[Mstng2]

You hop around like an ant crossing a parking lot in July. You slammed the TT Supercharger system in the first post, that's what started it. I think you have shown that it is inefficient, yet I claim that it is a good system, and makes unreal power in a better curve. Where's your beef? Now you want to compare power with equal PSI? That's not the point, never has been. That's just like the ricers arguement well if I had 8 cylinders...

If someone wants to call 1,188rwhp out of a 281 cubic inch motor inefficient, so be it. They can run it w/out the blower and make less AVERAGE power and more peak power.

So be it...

[DBLDREW]

Originally Posted by Mstng2

You hop around like an ant crossing a parking lot in July. You slammed the TT Supercharger system in the first post, that's what started it. I think you have shown that it is inefficient, yet I claim that it is a good system, and makes unreal power in a better curve.

Actually the turbo only car has a better curve power band. If we look at the dyno graph and look at the points from 110mph – 135mph that represents about a 1500-2000 rpm range (depending on if it’s a stock ring and pinion, tire size etc). Now that is a good indication of real usable racing power. The rpm drop on the t56 if shifting at 6500rpm is 1st to 2nd has a 2150 rpm drop (what that means is when you shift from fist to second your rpm will drop down to 4350 rpm) 2nd to 3rd is 1750rpm drop 3rd to 4th 1500 rpm drop.

So you can see that 1500-2000 rpm range is very important because that is where the engine is going to be performing in a race.

So looking at the T/SC combo we have 110 mph =890hp, 115mph= 1050hp, 120mph=1188hp, 125mph= 1140hp, 130mph= 1090hp, 135mph=1000hp,

The average power =1059hp

Looking at the Turbo only car we have 110mph=930hp, 115mph=1050hp, 120mph=1120hp, 125mph=1150hp, 130mph=1150hp, 135=1171hp.

The average power for the Turbo car is =1095

Where's your beef? Now you want to compare power with equal PSI? That's not the point, never has been. That's just like the ricers arguement well if I had 8 cylinders...

That is a weak argument, for a ricer to get 8 cylinders, would take a engine swap, to turn up the boost on the turbos is a turn of a knob, not even close to compare the 2.

The bottom line is that 1188hp is impressive until you take it into context. Look if you added the twin turbo system you can keep the SC on and make your 1188hp @44 psi, or you could remove the sc and run the turbos up to your 44 psi and make close to 2000hp, or drop the psi down to around 30 and make over 1200hp. Remember the more you compress air the hotter it gets, with increases the chance of detonation. So why not remove a heavy supercharger to increase your power?

[97talon]

Originally Posted by mattlikespeople

there should be a type of supercharger made with some sort of clutch on the drive pulley and flow through system so after the low end grunt is surpassed the supercharger can disengage and let the turbos really come to life

Volkswagen TSI turbo-supercharged Golf on sale - News from 4Car

The supercharger provides the low end and then the turbo takes over at 2000 rpms. This equals 170 hp from a 1.4L motor.

[Mstng2]

...And I wonder about the pressures thing, because the 24psi vs 44psi seems wrong. If the Turbo has a waste gate it will bypass and only run at a speed necessary to compound a total of 24psi. To calculate a turbo for this application is more complicated also. Boost pressures don't add. The pressure ratios multiply. The pressure ratio is the absolute pressure at the outlet divided by the pressure at the inlet, Pr = Pout/Pin

For example, if the Eaton is pullied for 10 psi w/o the turbo, that means Pout = 10 + 14.7 = 24.7, and hence, Pr = 24.7/14.7 = 1.68. If the turbo were pushing 8 psi of boost at its outlet, that means a pressure ratio of 1.54 for the turbo. Therefore, the total pressure ratio is 1.68*1.54 = 2.59, which would mean a total boost pressure of (2.59 - 1)*14.7 = 23.4 psi

So if you want a total boost pressure of 17 psi, the total pressure ratio needs to be (14.7 + 17)/14.7 = 2.16. Therefore, since the pressure ratio across the blower is fixed by the pulley ratio and eff engine & SC displacements, that means the pressure ratio across the turbo needs to be 2.16/1.68 = 1.28. Hence, the gauge pressure at the outlet side of the turbo will only be (1.28 - 1)*14.7 = 4.2 psi (rounded off), which hardly seems worth the trouble.

To size the turbo with the Eaton pullied for 10 psi, you can simply assume the turbo is feeding an engine with a larger displacement. So for a 330 cid motor, it will effectively look like 0.9*1.68*330 = 499 cid, (where I've assumed the volumetric efficiency of the engine relative to manifold conditions is, VE = 0.9)

Also the 'turbo is more restrictive because of the blower' theory doesnt make sense to me. Won't 24psi of 'turbo only' entering the combustion, be the same as 24psi of 'turbo and S/C'? (for simplicity sake). Also you could run much larger exhaust housings than would be normal for a 281 cid engine and not have the lag, but see the increased flow potential. Thus saying that the turbos are infact less restrictive in that application than a normal 24psi all turbo 330 cid engine.

[SpinsAll4]

some people might not get what im trying to point out with this statement, but the most powerful/quickest/fastest eagle talon tsi has uber better flowing head/cam/intake/ect than the already great flowing stock pieces. this uber fast talon still runs 54 psi of boost and spins to 1000 rpms on a 2.0 motor to make an estimated 1200-1300 hp. my stock engine if it would hold that much power would have so much restriction it might as well take double that boost to make the same power.

comparing the cars you mentioned to the stock engine sc/tt combo isnt a fair comparison. you seam to have lost grasp of the fact that 30 psi isnt 30 psi on every motor. for all the facts you have mentioned, the sc/tt motor could still be flowing very similar airflow numbers as all the motors you mentioned, but with much more restriction its going to read a much higher boost pressure.

basically just saying your argument on what motor makes how much power at so many PSI is a BS arguement. yes, the sc/tt is a bit less efficient, but that has nothing to do with how much boost other motors are running. if it did, then why ARENT those other motors running 44psi instead of settling for 20-25 and much much less power? dont bother trying to answer that question

[Turbo AWD]

What does 44 PSI really mean in terms of Hp output? Can you really say X amount of PSI = X amount of Hp. For example 1 PSI on a T25 turbo wont equate the same power output as 1 PSI on a T56. Why you say? Simple the T56 outputs more CFM's (Cubic Feet per Minute) then the T25.

Whats the CFM output of the centrifugal supercharger at X psi? Whats the CFM output of the given turbocharge at X PSI?

The main goal is to push as much CFM of air past the intake valves as possible, not to create the most positive pressure at the intake manifold.

Why do people upgrade to a bigger turbo? Is it to gain more lag or maybe just for looks? Nope, bigger turbo = greater CFM output. Greater CFM output = greater power output.

I'm willing to bet that the Supercharger/Turbo combo = more fun, dispite the sacrifice of the top top end Power. Why? becuase of the gain of all the usable power throughout the RPM range. I like to make my power down low. Why? more fun on the street. The goal being to make peak power under the torque curve........................... just my 2 cents.

[Soup]

Originally Posted by mattlikespeople

there should be a type of supercharger made with some sort of clutch on the drive pulley and flow through system so after the low end grunt is surpassed the supercharger can disengage and let the turbos really come to life

There are, The company is called blitz and makes them for toyotas. SuperchargersOnline.com :: Product: Blitz Supercharger System for Scion xA & xB (1NZ-FE, Automatic)

[Mr Deej]

whats the point with supercharger and turbo's on a GT? It dosent even have enough traktion to handle the original hp