Supercharger / Turbocharger Results (INFO) Thread

[Granatelli]

Originally Posted by FASTRNL

Here is a link that could be useful. its the same kit I have on mine and it made 519rwhp so maybe it would repeat effectively! http://www.superchevy.com/technical/...ng_system.html

Perfect - what I meant by repeat was heat soak - great numbers - my Mag at 440 and 7psi seems light but my torque numbers are still stout at 465.

[FASTRNL]

lmao! opps! yeah we did 2 pulls following the final run on that sheet. But they only printed the first 3 pulls. Hp did fall off a bit but Tq stayed consistant through heat soak. 509 RWHP 458 RWTQ is where it was on the final pull.

[Granatelli]

Still awsome numbers - I remember when my first 1982 Cross Fire Camaro made 160hp and i thought i had the fastest car in school - dyno'd at 102hp and 98ft/lbs to the tires

I still managed to shread a set of tire in 8,000 miles

[Camaro21]

I just got the dyno numbers for the Maggie install with the ADM Street Cold Air Intake that ADM Performance did today on my car.. Impressive numbers that came out of that shop.. Thanks Andy and Pat. You guys Rock..

I dropped it off Sunday evening and it was ready by 4:30 PM on Monday.. That is Service..

Check out my Dyno numbers and Dyno Video:

Here is the Video:

[BUMBLEB]

Just had my tune done Kooks Lt W HF cats,x pipe,Muffler,and resenator deleate,160 T-Stat, 580 RWH @9PSI Boost

[Cole@Fastlane]

looks good but what are you doing for fuel delivery??

[Granatelli]

Originally Posted by Camaro21

I just got the dyno numbers for the Maggie install with the ADM Street Cold Air Intake that ADM Performance did today on my car.. Impressive numbers that came out of that shop.. Thanks Andy and Pat. You guys Rock..

I dropped it off Sunday evening and it was ready by 4:30 PM on Monday.. That is Service..

Check out my Dyno numbers and Dyno Video:

Here is the Video:

408 stock? Wow! that is 70hp higher than any car we have ever dyno'd here with no mods

[Cole@Fastlane]

This will always be a debate of which one is better between gear heads.

My two cents is this

Why add more paricitic drag to the engine by driving a supercharger off of the crankshaft when you can use the exhaust waste to drive a turbocharger?The whole purpose to adding pressure to the intake is the addition of power and torque so why give up any to run a charger when you can charge the intake without the loss of any power?

[Granatelli]

Originally Posted by Cole@Fastlane

This will always be a debate of which one is better between gear heads.

My two cents is this

Why add more parasitic drag to the engine by driving a supercharger off of the crankshaft when you can use the exhaust waste to drive a turbocharger? The whole purpose to adding pressure to the intake is the addition of power and torque so why give up any to run a charger when you can charge the intake without the loss of any power?

Well....speaking as the guy that sells arguably the nicest and best laid out twin turbo kits on the market - and the past owner of Paxton Superchargers, (also designed the Novi-2000) Nothing is really free.

The exh manifolds on most turbo systems could be deemed as restrictive when compared to long tube headers - so 1 could argue that the exhaust system on a turbo car “robs power” vs. good long tube headers. But following your line of thinking, yes I agree Turbos are more efficient lb for lb in most applications. And I still ay the Magnuson has more guts below 2500 then any turbo system – after that the turbo is king – they both have there place

[Cole@Fastlane]

Originally Posted by Granatelli

Well....speaking as the guy that sells arguably the nicest and best laid out twin turbo kits on the market - and the past owner of Paxton Superchargers, (also designed the Novi-2000) Nothing is really free.

The exh manifolds on most turbo systems could be deemed as restrictive when compared to long tube headers - so 1 could argue that the exhaust system on a turbo car “robs power” vs. good long tube headers. But following your line of thinking, yes I agree Turbos are more efficient lb for lb in most applications. And I still ay the Magnuson has more guts below 2500 then any turbo system – after that the turbo is king – they both have there place

1st of all i never said it was free but you said it all for me anyway.after 2500rpm the turbo is KING i mean really who cares about idle to 2500.

I dont think anybody is going to start racing but making you shift at 2500 rpm anytime soon.

Turbos are more efficient lb for lb PERIOD.....

[radz28]

Would anyone agree that it depends on application?

If I'm towing, do I need that power/torque down low?

If I'm racing, will that power/torque doen there get me off the line quicker?

Will being a little softer down low help me come off the line easier and help me plant the power?

[Granatelli]

Originally Posted by radz282003

Would anyone agree that it depends on application?

If I'm towing, do I need that power/torque down low?

If I'm racing, will that power/torque doen there get me off the line quicker?

Will being a little softer down low help me come off the line easier and help me plant the power?

Love the wing on your car - can I see more pics like icon? Avatar thing?

If you are towing - peak torque is what you want

If you are racing you want peak everything Turbo are best for real street car that want the best of all worlds.

The maggies look the best when you open the hood - very OE looking and they make goos power

Pure Racing - it is a toss up between a centrifugal and turbos

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Granatelli

Love the wing on your car - can I see more pics like icon? Avatar thing?

If you are towing - peak torque is what you want

If you are racing you want peak everything Turbo are best for real street car that want the best of all worlds.

The maggies look the best when you open the hood - very OE looking and they make goos power

Pure Racing - it is a toss up between a centrifugal and turbos

LOL - I'm sorry. My avatar is RICE. It's just a sceenshot of my Forza Motorsport 3 SS. I'm not as cool as most of the rest of the people here.

Thanks for the info'

[Cole@Fastlane]

Originally Posted by radz282003

Would anyone agree that it depends on application?

If I'm towing, do I need that power/torque down low?

If I'm racing, will that power/torque doen there get me off the line quicker?

Will being a little softer down low help me come off the line easier and help me plant the power?

I love how you spell your state and city.

If you are towing you just tighten up the aspect ratio of the turbine side to light the turbo quicker.The faster you want to spool the turbo the tighter you get the a/r.In a racing application you open up the a/r for higher rpm power but it wont light up as quick.

If superchargers were better for towing i think all the diesel manufacturers would be using them but they stopped using them and went to turbos in the 1970s and have never looked back.

There is absolutely no application where a supercharger is going to out perform a turbo.

It comes down to what you like.I personally would rather just keep an eye on the egt guage than have to worry about belt tensioners, 8 or 10 rib set ups with all the pulleys, and worrying about belt slipage.