Does anyone have a s/c on a stock 5.0

Discussion in 'Mustangs & Fords' started by 91 Fox, Oct 12, 2009.

Help Support RICEKILLER.COM Forums by donating:

  1. Dec 14, 2009 #21

    Vader

    Vader

    Vader

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    irving tx
    turbos > superchargers.
    btw prob. 60-75% of people that run sc also run a stock bottom end.

    ps. my car made 530/600 on 14psi with a t70, .68ar hci through a 5spd.
     
  2. Dec 14, 2009 #22

    800Phelps

    800Phelps

    800Phelps

    grandstang

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,488
    Likes Received:
    10
    that is a retarded statement.

    yes turbo's are the most efficient, make for killer top-end cars and very behaved to the point even a grandma could drive it on the street. doesn't mean it's greater in all forms of racing :roll:
     
  3. Dec 15, 2009 #23

    Vader

    Vader

    Vader

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    irving tx
    when you can figure out adiabatic efficiency and actually know how to read a compressor map then you can tell me that is a retarded statment. You are a supercharger fan, thats cool. I was saying I prefer turbos and psi to psi (which is mainly just a measurment of restriction.)
    a turbo will make more power. Its been proven time and time again. Never said it would be faster at the track, just more efficient. You obviously dont really know much about cars, thats cool. I paid people to do my car work also (when I was 18) Re-read my post. I wont reply to anymore of your posts. The op wanted info it and thats what was posted. If you want to see how fast a stock block turbo car is pm me, I would gladly show you my tail lights.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2009
  4. Dec 15, 2009 #24

    Vader

    Vader

    Vader

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    irving tx

    ps. show me where this was said. :a_doh:
     
  5. Dec 15, 2009 #25

    Skinny Will

    Skinny Will

    Skinny Will

    Attention..Disorder..Shit

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    20,334
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    Play-know, Texas
    is that a callout?

    VADER vs. PHELPS!!!!!!
     
  6. Dec 15, 2009 #26

    [email protected]

    Blake@Colters

    [email protected]

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    efficient is a relative term in this statement. in terms of efficiency S/C's are superior to turbos. With the advent of ball bearing turbos instead of journals, turbos have become more efficient, faster spooling etc then they use to be. Instant power/more freedom of power, pick one.


    Personally I love the whineeeee.
     
  7. Dec 15, 2009 #27

    EchoStatic

    EchoStatic

    EchoStatic

    Broke and broken!

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Dallas
    I'd assume a s/c would be more fun on the street.
     
  8. Dec 15, 2009 #28

    800Phelps

    800Phelps

    800Phelps

    grandstang

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,488
    Likes Received:
    10
    looks pretty clear to me..... ">" meaning greater right? of coarse you wont respond, because you know you have already made yourself look like a idiot!
    yet you have the nerve to say i am? oh yeah since i own a S/C i am a fan boi:roll: you want to get technical, nitrous is the the greater power adder. no real added weight, no parts compressors to take up room, little to no maintenance, instant torque, instant HP, should i keep going or am i being a nitrous fan boi now?

    never once did i degrade any of the above power adders. if anyone should learn English, or how to read it, that would be you mister RETODDIDRACING guy:thumbsup:

    all power adders are > than the next in certain aspects, but your statement was general, and stupid at best.

    to your turbo theory "creating the most HP" HP is a bi-product of torque and without torque you don't have shit! i guess you think that a NHRA top fuel rail runs what it does due to the 8k HP alone huh? got news for you, by the time your turbo spools enough boost without pushing through the lights to power that monster big block the blower guy will be give credit to his sponsors and god and his fans:thumbsup:

    i could go on and on, but i just realized i could be viewing other threads.
     
  9. Dec 16, 2009 #29

    Vader

    Vader

    Vader

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    irving tx
    The adiabatic efficiency of a supercharger is low, that means that the engine must waste more of its NA hp on driving the SC. Ex. an f3 would take more hp to drive than most hondas produce, wouldn't want to see the new f4. I've had 3 sc cars and I liked them alot by the way. What is used to drive a turbo?? exhaust. The engine produces this anyways, there for the turbo has a high adiabatic efficiency because it has very little parasitic loss.



    Why not, is he in Tx? If so sounds good. Track or "mehico" is cool.
     
  10. Dec 16, 2009 #30

    800Phelps

    800Phelps

    800Phelps

    grandstang

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,488
    Likes Received:
    10
    do you read? or just spout off at the mouth?

    :picard: that was your best response? trying to argue with somthing i already admitted to? yes a S/C has major parasitic values.... your point? if that is your arguement then nitrous is > then turbo's. no back pressure and no front end wait.

    just go away...you obviously are just wanting to argue.

    you can get in line with the rest of the ppl that assume my car is slow. i am sure it will be back together around spring.
     
  11. Dec 16, 2009 #31

    Riktor

    Riktor

    Riktor

    Wormwood Comet

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    3,997
    Likes Received:
    3
    SOLUTION

    [​IMG]

    The RIKTOR has spoken
     
  12. Dec 16, 2009 #32

    Vader

    Vader

    Vader

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    irving tx
    Just so you know, that wasn't a response to you. This thread is way off track so end discussion. Sorry if your butthurt.

    ps. what is the "front end wait" comment mean? I don't understand what your saying.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2009
  13. Dec 16, 2009 #33

    Fonzie

    Fonzie

    Fonzie

    now has a lighter version

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    13,598
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    right here!
    phelps stfu... he never said specifically that a turbo was better in any sanctioned event as opposed to another. he just said turbos > superchargers..

    you just want to argue, yourself. hey mr. kettle.

    and seriously the top fuel dragsters is your best arguement? have you ever heard necrohippoflagofilia.. the love of beating dead horses.
     
  14. Dec 16, 2009 #34

    94Gt5.0

    94Gt5.0

    94Gt5.0

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ny

    My buddy has that kit, soo fuckin sick!! Although hes loosing the blower over the winter..
     
  15. Dec 16, 2009 #35

    Vader

    Vader

    Vader

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    irving tx
    We were always arguing about compound boost over at theturboforums.com. That kit is pretty sweet and it has been proven.
    I've yet to see one in person though. I did see a compounded turbo system though and a guy on ttf did a compound cetri to roots blower setup that was pretty badass.

    and thanks to fellow ttf-er Fonzie for deciphering mr.Phelps posts ( I know I couldn't be bothered with that nonsense, lol just playing Phelps)
     
  16. Dec 16, 2009 #36

    Riktor

    Riktor

    Riktor

    Wormwood Comet

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    3,997
    Likes Received:
    3
    It is a setup I have been considering for my Truck. It needs a bit more power for towing and other than stuffing a 7.3 in it... this would give the proper power-torque/weight ratio...
     
  17. Dec 16, 2009 #37

    EchoStatic

    EchoStatic

    EchoStatic

    Broke and broken!

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Dallas
    If your counter-arguement includes pointing out typos, it loses effectiveness.

    Especially when you make one yourself in the same post :D
     
  18. Dec 16, 2009 #38

    Vader

    Vader

    Vader

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    irving tx
    Not being an ass, but I really don't know what he means by that.

    ....but I did see my typo, lol
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2009
  19. Dec 16, 2009 #39

    Fonzie

    Fonzie

    Fonzie

    now has a lighter version

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    13,598
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    right here!
    :lol: Hey vader how'd you know I was also on the theturboforums? I haven't been over there in a while.. Definitely one of my favorite forums no doubt!

    I'd love to check out your setup, you said you had a stock block'd single 76 making over 500whp?
     
  20. Dec 16, 2009 #40

    800Phelps

    800Phelps

    800Phelps

    grandstang

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    7,488
    Likes Received:
    10
    figured vador and fonzie would get along :lmao:

    oh and front-end weight! i was on my lunch break when i typed it and was in a hurry.