BLOWERS BLOWERS BLOWERS! Kenne Bell, Whipple, Vortech, ProCharger,

I like the kenne bell, but i hear putting together a vortech/paxton on a 4.6 sohc is just easy hp/tq, might as well do it one day

>>15853602
As a 3v owner, I was originally planning on going with a Vortech/Paxton or a ProCharger, but I hear the response isn't as immediate as a roots style blower.

Daily reminder that centrifugal chargers are a waste of money

>>15853630
True, but in my opinion on a 3v or 4v dohc i just prefer a properly built single/double turbo setup rather than going with a blower in the first place, those babies want to breath a little man :)

>>15853657
Twin screw is GOAT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bCsBmCdemU

>>15853666
Not that I have anything against turbos, butt in my mind they still have that stigma of stomping your foot down and getting nothing until 4k. I get that they're the way of the future, but putting a turbo on a V8 Mustang just feels......wrong.

>>15853726
turbo lag is a thing of the past

>>15853734
But how much money do you need to pour into a well put together setup to achieve that with a turbo?

File: 5OXcmdg.jpg (664KB, 2719x2039px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 2719x2039px

Someday I'll actually put it back together.

>>15853657
shit opinion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHg2uqJvLOk

If you've a torquey v8 you don't need more terks

>>15853726
Not that I have anything against ill informed tripe, but in my mind you're an idiot.
>>15853821
No more than any other retro fit turbo setup. Just put a little effort into matching housings with your engine. Don't just go for the biggest unit you can afford, because bigger=/=better.
A well matched turbo will have a broader boost curve than a well matched belt driven pump.

>>15853734

Anti lag wouldn't exist if that was true. A tiny ass turbo spools up almost instantly, yes, but then you got no top end power.

>>15853734
turbo lag will always exist, you can mask it or reduce it till it's imperceptible but we're not there yet.
in fact the advances made in turbo performance have been minimal over the last 30 years, it's other things like electric throttle bodies, vvt, dsg transmissions that have reduced how noticeable it is. however even in a mclaren p1 or bugatti veyron you can still feel the lag.

File: 64362446.jpg.cf.jpg (44KB, 533x399px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 533x399px

Fun history:

Vortech was started by a designer and salesman from Paxton.
Paxton thought the gear whine from the gear drive would be too loud and people wouldn't want it over Paxton's silent ball drive system, so they left and started their own company.
Notice a vortech bolts up to an SN series Paxton's brackets.

Procharger was started by a vortech employee who started his own company.

Powerdyne was another concept from a Paxton designer. Paxton thought the belt drive system was not reliable enough, so the designer left and started his own company.

Granatelli bought Paxton.
Swan song Paxton was the GSS (granatelli signature series).
It had all the design enhancements from years of sn's, including the optional high output impeller thats hard to find.

The rights to SN series Paxton's are held by a California wheel company (forget their name).
Owner is old school and doesn't deal with the internet- if you find factory rebuild kits on eBay its another guru that deals with internet sales for a cut of the profits.

>>15853557
>who makes the best forced induction monster for the money?

Turbonetics or Precision I suppose

I run high compression, 9.7:1, so I have a paxton 1220S with meth injection with 7psi

Question for you tarbodudes

Do you ever get irritated by BOVs?

>>15854436
Bait, but I'll play.

Friend has an engine build that's very similar to mine.
He's at 9.2:1
I'm at 11.2:1
We have different intakes, but numbers from all tests are very similar.
Everything else is identical.
Except.
He went turbo.
I went super.
He squeezed out 900+hp @ 21 psi on the dyno
He dialed it down of course to around 700hp.
I'm hitting just under 600hp @ 7 psi .

My torque curve is still better than his.
My 60 foot, 100 foot, 1/8 and 1/4 times are faster than his.

File: 14364841_1072708862782591_699993930405399358_n.jpg (52KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 960x640px

EUROCHARGED

>>15854496
He must be a shit driver or have a shit tuner because no way that should be happening
Turbo ls2 vs supercharged ls2 the turbo has superior power and torque delivery at all rpms

File: 1mert1.jpg (95KB, 700x543px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 700x543px

>>15854496
Currently saving up for a littlefield 871 to be mated with my 540 bbc

Best s/c would be whipples twin screw
I would get one but I'm not made of money

>>15854525
Post dyno sheets for these better torque curves on identical engines.

>>15854525
But it happens all the time superchargers have superior bottom end

>>15854548
>>15854556
http://www.fullboost.com.au/forum/showthread.php?43437-BOOST-vs-BOOST-(Supercharged-vs-Turbo)-V8-comparison-by-MPW

Superchargers can't compete at all
They are inferior antiquated technology only suited to boomers and their feelings

>>15854579
LMA fucking O
Video is bullshit.
Look at first dyno they show with the supercharger, graph says its over 350hp
Then they don't show a graph for the turbo run, only the comparison graph, WHERE THE SUPER ONLY PEAKED AT 300hp.

Scam artist selling turbos.

Try again.

>>15854632
Confirmation bias resulting in you being full retard
Roflmao

File: blower.jpg (49KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 636x358px

>2016
>turbo

kek

>>15854636
>500hp
>engine now weighs 900lb
Roflmao

File: _20160920_022331.jpg (2MB, 5344x2485px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5344x2485px

>>15854635
Super dyno

File: _20160920_022313.jpg (4MB, 5344x2600px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5344x2600px

>>15854652
Turbo dyno

>>15854579
If you don't understand why the are under the curve is more important than peak, then you shouldn't be posting here.
Turbo lost off the line, by the time that thing spools up, super is 4 car lengths ahead.
Look at those graphs.
>>15854652
>>15854663

>>15854670
>being this stupid
Turbo offers superior area under the curve over all other methods of induction
Theres a reason all the fastest street legal drag cars run parallel turbos

File: 1472164104419.jpg (19KB, 222x293px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 222x293px

>>15854579
>outdated
There's a reason it's still around especially roots stayed, because it's dirt cheap and anyone can do it you can run it with carbs and still have no electronics plus with just a couple different ratio pulleys you can have different drive ratios and go anywhere between 2 psi to 30 if you are crazy enough, all with maybe 20 minutes of work
Just watched that video
If you do listen closely you can hear him say "we don't want anyone to think one is better then the other if we put a comparable size turbo to the supercharger we would see similar power"
Plus look at those curves the turbo is fucking gradual as fuck
Plus they had to put a 3400 rpm stall convertor in it to avoid lag
Now if that were a s/c it would be making boost at idle
YOU NEED TO REV TO 3400 RPM TO SPOOL THE TURBO AND BETTER YET FUCKING MOVE
WEW LAD

File: 515.06.jpg (30KB, 400x349px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x349px

>>15854770
Gee golly would you look at that these old dated relics are propelling cars past 300 miles an hour
Seems pretty relevant to me

>>15854798
Turbo is banned from nhra as well as ohc engines

>>15854783
Turbos for 4.8 vortec to make 1000hp, $500 a turbo and scrap metal plumbing
Supercharger capable of the same power on a 4.8 vortec, over 5k
Turbos are superior power and cost

File: 3f307b9776ecac4a9279a77208a6bf4b.jpg.cf.jpg (60KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x400px

>>15854770
>superior area under the curve.
Not what the graphs show.

>drag cars
You don't spend your life at 8,000 RPMs like they do. Off idle (I.e. the real world) superchargers shit all over tarbos.

>>15853557
anyone have experience adding a blower to a small displacement engine? I like the idea of a supercharger over a turbo, but most small cars lean toward turbo kits. would it be worth doing over a turbo?

File: 1460227924691.jpg (13KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 320x320px

>>15854802
Dosent matter
Roots is still fastest on the strip
And that is some pure fucking bull if you need 5k to get close to 1000 hp when a roots will only set you back 3k ready to bolt on for a high quality blower not some low quality eBay special
And I just did some research it's around 2200 with a twin to get you into that territory and alot of people are also running nitro so there is alot more then just a "500 dollar turbo and scrap metal"
Turbos are never superior in a cost to power ratio that is why people like to run superchargers

File: Si17.jpg (2MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x2448px

I have a Comptech blower on my Si. Currently making approximately 300whp.

>>15854829
Having positive boost at idle is great. Dunno wtf turbo loyalty is about.

Also
>Select all the images with street numbers
>Click the same tile THIRTEEN TIMES
Faggot fucks

All you guys talking about spending thousands of dollars on combustion engine modifications, these are going to all be derelict and useless when self driving electric cars are the law.

>>15854857
we'll be talking about supercapacitors and software tweaks to the navigation hardware by then.

File: 12331595_108037749567360_133881014_n[1].jpg (30KB, 320x310px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 320x310px

>>15854862

You know, that just sounds fucking awful.
I'm about to buy heads and a Novi for my little 5.0, and then I'm reading about the obama administration ideas on self driving cars.
Will they all be forced to stay in the slow lane unless passing? Just like I will?
Are cops going to be prevalent as fuck?
Are they going to use these new self driving cars to catch speeders in the regular cars?

I'm scared.
I really am.

>>15853726
Plug on two VGT's with a quick spool valve on each - or use a small nitrous shot to get it going.

>>15854149
>If you've a torquey v8 you don't need more terks
But anon, centrifugals add torque too!

File: turbovssuper.png (747KB, 854x475px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 854x475px

>>15854829
>Not what the graphs show
what graphs? res is turbo, blue is super

>>15854829
>Off idle (I.e. the real world) superchargers shit all over tarbos
because everyone races around at 1000rpm right? even then, it doesnt matter

>>15854849
show me a supercharger that can do this, or get a car into 9s for 5k total (including buying the car)
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1109-stock-gm-ls-engine-big-bang-theory/
http://www.dragzine.com/features/car-features/matt-happels-newest-9-second-junkyard-fairmont-sleeper/
now kys

>>15853630
>I hear the response isn't as immediate as a roots style blower.
Throttle response is just as good (if not better because your ECU doesn't have to compensate for the heat), but centrifugals simply build boost by making RPM, unlike positive displacement units (which make boost at just about every RPM).

>>15854868
cops with manual driving cars will be more rare, since many will use automated shit to get to crime scenes. patrols will be done with drones and other autonomous cars. You'll be flying your P-51 Mustang while everyone else gives it up for Airbus

>>15854496
>He's at 9.2:1
>I'm at 11.2:1
There's the problem.

>>15854888
so not only is the turbo making 30% more power, its also less stressed and thus more reliable?
stupidcharger cucks btfo

>>15854802
>Turbo is banned from nhra as well as ohc engines
Only turbo is banned in Top Fuel (not banned in other classes btw), OHC is not (but why make it OHC if you're limited to 2v?).

>>15854893
It's not that it's less stressed, if you ran the turbocharger at 11.2:1 you'd have to dial the boost back to around the 7 psi mark also

>>15854989
More like 10 PSI, because you can actually properly intercool a turbo - you can't do that easily/cheaply on a positive displacement supercharger.

>>15854670
>turbo lost off the line
Maybe if your car only has a 1000rpm stall converter, or you're too inadequate to operate a clutch pedal and a throttle at the same time.

>>15854521
It goes
It goes
It goes
It goes
It goes
EEEEUUUUUUUURRRRROOOOOCHARGED

>>15854440
>9.7:1 is high compression
lol you sure are retarded.

>>15854543
>>15854877
:^) you really need to do some research

>>15854886
>build super sleeper mini jet planr with heat seeking missiles
>kill all the cop drones in my area
>put cardboard cutouts of people in front of cop car station and auto braking ensures pedestrian safety first
>manual driven cars are banned
>huge ass street race for the rest of the night while the 400lb cops are running on foot to the highway

Kek i like this future

>>15855837
AY that's kinda high when you are running forced induction

File: DSC_0507.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>15853557
where does the heat from a supercharger come from? i always hear people complain about it, but because they dont deal with exhaust like turbos do, where does that heat come from?

>>15856368
Friction from compressing air and of course some from the rotors flailing around at 6000 rpm

>>15854840
look at reviews for supercharged toybarus

>>15855056
>because a turbo will spool just by revving the engine without load.
You're a fucking idiot and need to turn in your man card.

Typical benchracer.

>>15854993
Idiot.. It's called an aftercooler.

>>15856639
the turbo fanboys itt don't know anything about cars that hasn't been told to them in an engineering explained video. sad!

>>15856639
>he doesnt build boost on the strip by brake torquing

lmoa

>>15854993
An aftercooler plate setup that mounts between the intake mani and the roots blower is about the same price as a non ebay intercooler setup

>>15856547
No.

Compressing air in and of itself causes it to heat up. Pressure and heat are both energy, and in gasses, they are partially interchangeable.

The main difference is that turbos 99 times out of 100 use an intercooler. On superchargers, which are generally mounted directly onto the engine, this is less common because it demands the use of an air-to-water intercooler for packaging reasons, and those cost significantly more. No intercooler equals hot charge air. Hot air means lower density. Lower density means less oxygen molecules. Hot air also means higher propensity to knock, further reducing boost pressure limits and therefore power.

Now, if you want to compare apples to apples, make sure both systems have intercoolers, unlike that memepic where they show a >100 hp difference.

Sure, the turbo will probably still make more net power when it reaches full boost, but the SC is going to have the more streetable torque curve, and potentially higher average hp over the entire rev range. From that point, you need to consider your gearing and application before you can call one better than the other.

>>15856876
so is it possible to remotely mount, say, an m90 roots blower and have it go through an air-to-air intercooler? how difficult would this be to pull off?

>>15856876
You also have to consider that a sc takes some power from the engine, so if you have the same whp the turboed engine isn´t producing as much power. This means that you need forged internals earlier if you go sc

>>15856876
Didint I just say it was from the compressing of air
And supercharger intercoolers are inefficient bulky and restrictive the best thing to do to avoid overheating and avoid knocking is water injection

>>15856876
I have never in my life read such a long winded load of tripe.

That poster is correct. Even before taking intercooling into account, positive displacement supercharging is a lot more prone to heat intake charge. Hell, even screw blowers are substantially more thermally efficient than roots blowers, let alone centrifugal pumps.
> the turbo will probably still make more net power when it reaches full boost, but the SC is going to have the more streetable torque curve
Er, no. Stop thinking all turbo engines drive like RB25s with a T88.
>and potentially higher average hp over the entire rev range
Is it opposite day? An exhaust driven turbo charger has the capacity to provide more boost over a wider rev range than a fixed gear pump, and does so in a way that's "on demand" with throttle application.

THE ONLY advantage a fixed gear positive displacement pump provides is an advantage at an arbitrary rev range (which is only relevant if you either have a stall converter that locks up at 1000, or if you have a manual and you lack the capacity to operate a throttle and a clutch at the same time) and an instantaneous response to throttle, as it's controlled by RPM and not throttle.

File: Jeff-Lutz-Pro-Mod-Camaro (1).jpg (1MB, 1422x948px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1422x948px

>>15854798
>inb4 this shitposter
>>15854802
This.
>superchargers
>competing
lel

>>15854335

Antilag is for cars with turbos as big as buckets, or people just trying to show off.

I just like N/A response time better.

And I know someone is going to respond to this saying "if you use the RIGHT turbo there's no lag."

There's always lag. There is no "right turbo" that magically doesn't need greater exhaust volume to spool, or bearings that are suspended in frictionless antimatter.

Turbos make better power, no doubt about it. But they don't feel as good to drive, and they never will.

>>15854149
>He thinks you can have "enough" torque.
>laughing_women.jpg

>>15858300
Lol, turbo is more fun to drive than na any day of the week
Is rather take an engine that throws me into the back of my seat and burns rubber through all gears at all rpms rather than a gutless engine I need to ring out to 5000rpm before I start moving
Bbbut muh miniscule difference in response!!

>>15858406
Did you mix up your sentences?

>>15858300
This.
NA>SC>TC

>>15858440
F20c makes 160hp at 6000rpm
A turbo f20c makes 300hp at 4000rpm
Figure out which is more fun to drive

>>15858458
In terms of which makes the least power to which makes the most, sure

>>15858406
wanna know how I know you've never driven a turbocharged car?

>>15858491
Wanna know how I know you've never driven a turbocharged car?
Go back to watching videos on YouTube of an sohc civic with a 80mm turbo and a shit plug and play tune

>>15858467
All else equal, turbo is dead last in terms of power delivery.

>>15858371
a more torquey powerband encourages lazy driving.
great for towing and comfy cruising but subjectively inferior for spirited driving

>>15858510
Nope, see >>15854877

>inb4 damage control

>>15858461
> All this bench racing

File: InstagramCapture_5f3db27c-16f3-41e7-8ddb-add4c9e26c83.jpg (793KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 1024x1024px

>>15858498
A daily a turbocharged car, and I used to daily an N/A car.

Turbo lag is not fun, and my car even has a twin scroll that spools at 2200 RPM, its still annoying to have literally no power until it spools.

They dont deliver power at any RPM, and most turbos even fall off in the high end, you fucking mongoloid, its literally physics.

Turbos deliver great peak power, but they aren't as nice to drive, and they literally never can be. Technology is doing it's best, and the fact that my turbo has as little lag as it does considering my cars 1.6l displacement is great, it's fantastic, but the car would be nicer to drive with a larger, N/A or supercharged engine, just because power delivery would be smoother, and more importantly, instant.

>>15858542
>posts a fucking Kia
Opinion discarded. Kys retarded cuckold

Turbos are literally superior to na and sc in every single aspect

>>15858554
>my car doesn't meet your cherrypicked criteria so I'm wrong

good argument fucktard

File: a7fa637bd05141ad216c93c97c65ecfb2d4d290ef2ccf62ea8048fa64beec09d.jpg (40KB, 593x393px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 593x393px

>>15858523
Nope. All else equal, a NA engine making 500hp will always have superior driveability and throttle response to a TC car making the same peak power.

>>15858559
Well your turbo 1.6 makes more power than an na or sc version of the engine would, and would offer superior power delivery
So whatever

>>15858563
A turbo will have broader powerband and make peak power much earlier
Retarded tripcuck

>Na and sc fags literally brain dead and think their stupid feelings are facts rather than opinions

>>15858567
Like I said, a larger N/A engine would be nicer to drive, but the turbo makes more peak power.

Did you read anything I said?

>>15858567
>let me tell you about the car you own based on what I learned from wikipedia
you fucking pleb go back to >>>/v/

>>15858576
stop making things up you clueless retard

>>15858576
Where did you learn that turbos have good powerbands

>>15858608
>>15858609
>Na and sc cucks are literally this brain dead
Keep thinking every turbo engine is an sohc civic with 80mm turbo

I've produced proof turbo offers superior power at all rpms
Keep crying about your opinions and shutting conjecture though!

>>15858638
> a screencap of one engine build is proof
Lol

>>15858642
>the feeling powered conjecture I type on an anime image board is though!
Roflmao, stay btfo stupidcharger cuck

>>15858576
Prove me wrong

>you can't

>>15858461
>bench racing
Get that same engine to the same specs of a turbod and the na will be alot more fun you clearly have never driven a turbod car or a high strung na

>>15858650
lmao you have clearly never worked on a car, tuned a car, studied engineering and i'd be surprised if you can even drive.
stop acting like you know something now because you watched some youtube videos, it's cringey as fuck.
also you come across as a tryhard teenage edgelord with your feelings bullshit

>>15858672
Prove yourself right, you can't
Roflmao

See >>15854877

>stupidcharger cucks btfo

>>15858681
LOL a 400hp+ f20c would be real fun to drive, for all of five seconds at eleventy billion rpm before it grenades

>>15858682
>this much damage control and projection
Stay btfo

>stupidcharger cucks literally just posting conjecture and crying when they can't back up their opinion based claims
Roflmao, btfo!

Daily reminder turbo is the best and cheapest method of achieving power. Hands down.
>bbbut muh throttle response on an na engine making half the power!!!

>>15858712
>I need a ton of power to have fun

sounds like you're a shitty driver

>>15858722
>I can't handle more than 100hp
Is all I'm hearing from you.

File: 20160920_165758.jpg (209KB, 606x608px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 606x608px

>>15858638
>turbo offers power at all ranges
Nigga are you trying to be retarded
>opinions
You are referring to the nonsense you are spewing right?

ITT turbotards get mad that other people can have fun in their cars without a snail blowing air into their shitbox

>>15858697
>>15858712
is this a cringepost thread now?

>>15858734
See >>15854877
Stay btfo. Feel free to try and back up your opinion based conjecture though

>>15858736
>dmg cntrl

supercharge my n/a Barra?

>>15858742
no, just weld it to another barra and make a V12

>>15858712
Wrong again there cucko
http://www.jegs.com/i/Weiand/925/7385/10002/-1?CAWELAID=230006180001326611&CAGPSPN=pla&CAAGID=15769068431&CATCI=pla-193073533991&gclid=CIuDwrSTn88CFYmVfgodYOQORg

On the right set up with this it is easily 1000hp
You really need to do some research
And don't be saying how some 500 dollar eBay turbo is ganna make a 4.8 magically have 1000 horsepower

>>15858753
A pair of $500 ebay turbo WILL make over 1000hp on a junkyard 4.8
Hotrod big bang theory ;^)

What's on the right setup for that Supercharger by the way? After you've spent 10k building the engine? Roflmao

Stay btfo

>>15858740
http://www.jegs.com/i/Weiand/925/7385/10002/-1?CAWELAID=230006180001326611&CAGPSPN=pla&CAAGID=15769068431&CATCI=pla-193073533991&gclid=CIuDwrSTn88CFYmVfgodYOQORg
Lmao just one of the millions of dyno sheets that prove a sc always is better in the bottom end and has a nice flat curve unlike a turbo which is always like in pic related
You are literally trying to refute common just do a little google search you will see more sheets like the one I posted

>>15858854
See >>15854877
Stay btfo

File: 1465971015400.jpg (48KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 306x306px

>>15858825
Gee idk maybe the same fucking thing as a turbo just different cam grinds and tuning
>500 eBay turbo will make over 1000hp
Well you better tell all those guys spending a couple Gs on turbos to get into that range

>>15858854
>ywn strap a 8-71 on top of a 427 BBF with a 7:1 compression ratio

File: SCcomp.gif (18KB, 575x495px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 575x495px

>>15858854
>>15858866
Forgot pic and for some reason pasted the blower again

>>15858867
why are you comparing apples to oranges. the bbt 5.3 works on the basis that everything is treated as a disposable item. you're too stupid to wrench so why should anyone care about your conjecturing

>>15858682
>lmao you have clearly never worked on a car, tuned a car, studied engineering and i'd be surprised if you can even drive.
Gotta be honest bud, you clearly haven't done any of those things either.

>>15858877
Oh so the turbo has VASTLY superior delivery
Thanks for helping me prove my point

>>15858895
>switch goal posts
Never have I said turbos don't have good top end and power delivery
The whole thing you are arguing is that turbos are good at low end when clearly they are not
But as you can see there that turbo needs to be revd past 4000 rpms to make what a regular roots would make at 2500
Looks like someone's wrong again
You 0
Everyone else in this thread 72648284
:^)

>>15858854
>sc always is better in the bottom end
At an arbitrary rpm range. This is good if your idea of acceleration is mashing the throttle at idle and changing up at 2000rpm.
>and has a nice flat curve unlike a turbo
If you consider that a positive. I see that as more indicative that it fails to continue building pressure throughout the rev range, tapering off where as a turbo, once within its threshold (yes turbocharger shitposters, you still have to fill the exhaust and pressurize the turbine) had more capacity to provide a flat torque curve.

I prefer mah drivan feels of a fixed gear supercharger, but the objective advantages of a turbo (not just peak outputs) is irrefutable.

>>15858937
>turbos clearly don't have good low end
Dont make me link it again, see >>15854877

>makes 150lbft more from 3750 to 6500
Gee I sure wonder which is more useful in performance applications...

Stay btfo

>>15858962
See >>15854783
I addressed that earlier stay BTFO

>>15858877
>this evidence of a mismatched turbocharger combination from a source with a vested interest against turbochargers is proof all turbochargers are flawed
Bud, your shitposting just as hard as the guy you're responding to.

>>15858993
They are not flawed I just picked on with a good range of choices there are hundreds more out there if you wanna take a gander

>>15858990
A post full of butthurt damage control that doesn't change the facts
Try harder

>huur DUUR muh below 3000rpm
Sorry but do you know anything about performance driving? That's a typical stall for a drag car, no one on a track drives near there, even on the street it's still irrelevant

Turbo is superior in every single aspect. Deal with it

>>15859022
You mean the truth? Because that's what it's doing you gotta face the meme my boy turbos have there place just not in the bottom end
>drag car
You mean the ones with roots blowers?
You literally can't refute facts, wanna try again?

>>15859067
All the fastest cars at drag week are turbo
Stay btfo

Daily reminder nhra bans turbo btw

File: 1463556078196.jpg (5KB, 247x247px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 247x247px

>>15859096
But they have never broken the top fuel record?
It's like blowers are superior are or something?

>>15859096
> Wanting to replace the turbo after ever pull because the nitro meth is detonating in the exhaust

>>15859119
/thread

>>15859114
Too fuel bans turbos bevause they are superior to Supercharger shit
Just like how ohc was banned in nascar
And how FIA banned rotaries from le mans :^)

>>15859134
Whether or not ohc was banned from NASCAR is irrelevant to the fact that after 40 years, Ford is the only manufacturer to employ OHC in their V8s.

>>15859134
Regardless there has never been a turbocharged car that is faster then a top fuel drag car, grasping at straws there pal? :^)
And meme triangles are not banned anymore
Do you know what Google is?

It all depends on your application. A larger displacement engine with smaller turbos doesn't have lag. A 6.0 truck engine with some tiny twins will spool up before you hit 1200 rpm, and that setup is good for about the same power as a decent positive displacement super. That setup would cost more than a super alone and would require much more work (plumbing, Bov, etc) for similar power and reliability. Smaller engines are crap from a dig reguardless, so it's more beneficial to run a turbo. That's why you see the v8 guys going super more often than not.

Wow, this thread is fucking awful.

>>15859490
Back to super chargers

I'm in the market for a roots and I'm building a 540 mark iv bbc can anyone tell me would there be any advantage to a 1071 then a 871 so far what I've seen is the 871 is a better designed and 1071 dosent flow as well as the 871

>>15859557
What kind of power are you looking for?
And what setup?

>>15859134
>he's a rotard
embarassing!

>>15859568
I'm looking for around the 1000 hp range with a 540 big block chevy and around 9:1 compression could go lower
Possibly these heads http://www.jegs.com/p/Brodix/Brodix-Big-Block-Chevy-BB-2-X-BB-2-XTRA-BB-3-Series-Aluminum-Cylinder-Heads/1922611/10002/-1
And http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2106&gid=291 for a cam

>>15859420
There has never been a top fuel car that offers superior power and power delivery to a 2 stroke turbo diesel ship engine:^)

>>15856639

What is a transbrake senpai?

>>15859663
There was a gentleman I met at a meet once with a Chevelle SS, that had an LSX 454R swapped in, and he ran a procharger that made 995hp/1025tq with a 9.5:1

Procharger has retailers that specialize in 1000+HP applications, and this guys place did the install, intake fab, and carb tune for him, so that would be something to consider.

I want to boost my 2000 3L furd ranger. What do you guys recommend? I know its stupid but its not about it being a strip star or anything. Im going to daily it boosted for 3 months then get a GM diesel but i just want an interesting build and i love my shitty ranger

>>15861320
Check ebay to see if you can pick up a used Eaton roots type for that engine. Those are really good daily-driver power adders

>>15859663
So you'll be mid-low 700's before boost. That 871 at 8-10 pounds should get you there. If you're looking for more after that, get the 1071. It depends what you're putting it in and how you're driving. That's a monster setup though, would be cool to see.

>>15858542
You drive a Kia with flower shaped alloys, your opinion is discarded and you should kill you are self.

>>15861373
see
>>15858559

File: IMG_20160816_132438.jpg (686KB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 2688x1520px

>>15861320
Got pic related on my winter daily, I second this. Eaton M90 in pic