|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: bigtimeauto]
#1340119
11/26/12 07:58 PM
11/26/12 07:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,641
Oakland, MI
dizuster
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,641
Oakland, MI
|
Quote:
pretty simple if you ask me:
That's one more 90 degree bend then my turbo has on my cold side.... 
And I have single exhaust, so that's only half the work there too! LOL... 
I know you LOVE staging at idle, but I bet you'd love you car even more if it were faster with a turbo and all you had to do is put it on a two step during staging...
But I understand... going slow is a good trade off for easy staging.
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: bigtimeauto]
#1340121
11/26/12 09:02 PM
11/26/12 09:02 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,619
Norwich CT USA
Defbob
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,619
Norwich CT USA
|
Quote:
the heads were the first set of mopar heads i ever bought. My goal was to make 875 NA and i was told they would work, After i decided to procharge it all i did was change the cam, pistons make a 4150 intake adapter and that was it.
Yes a engine needs to make real good power by itself or the boost won't be as big as a gain as it can be. Don't forget i don't turn this blower hard either it only see's 22lbs in the 1/8 and 24 in the 1/4.
Boost is only a measurement of restriction.
The restriction are those heads 
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: bigtimeauto]
#1340124
11/27/12 10:53 AM
11/27/12 10:53 AM
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 636
Central,Ohio
FASTFISH420
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 636
Central,Ohio
|
Bigtime your combo is real similar to what I would like to build  if I could sell my N/A stuff.I wish I had my old 572 stuff back that I ran back in 03 I would have a F2 on it blowthru deal.Ive hinted around the idea about crank driven F2 on my W8 stuff,but would rather do 540 to 572 wedge or Hemi. Whats the best ET you have run with that thing??
Last edited by FASTFISH420; 11/27/12 10:54 AM.
1969 Barracuda 8 second all/motor small block
2014 Shelby GT500 Mustang
Uratchko Racing Engines
www.URE-RACING.com
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: bigtimeauto]
#1340125
11/27/12 11:29 AM
11/27/12 11:29 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,590
Indy
joshking440
Lunch is on me!
|
Lunch is on me!
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,590
Indy
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
pretty simple if you ask me:
That's one more 90 degree bend then my turbo has on my cold side....
And I have single exhaust, so that's only half the work there too! LOL...
I know you LOVE staging at idle, but I bet you'd love you car even more if it were faster with a turbo and all you had to do is put it on a two step during staging...
But I understand... going slow is a good trade off for easy staging.
I do put it on the 2 step at 3500. the fact is i can do it at will without a special *Staging* procedure.
BUT whats really funny is all i hear is talk about how slow my car is from the turbo guys yet for 4 years i haven't seen one get around it?
well only showin up to one race a year makes it hard for the Turbo cars to guess where you are or are NOT gonna show up to
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: FASTFISH420]
#1340126
11/27/12 11:31 AM
11/27/12 11:31 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,590
Indy
joshking440
Lunch is on me!
|
Lunch is on me!
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,590
Indy
|
Quote:
Bigtime your combo is real similar to what I would like to build if I could sell my N/A stuff.I wish I had my old 572 stuff back that I ran back in 03 I would have a F2 on it blowthru deal.Ive hinted around the idea about crank driven F2 on my W8 stuff,but would rather do 540 to 572 wedge or Hemi.
Whats the best ET you have run with that thing??
He went 5.20s at indy....I think he has been a touch faster.... he is still sleepin
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: joshking440]
#1340127
11/27/12 01:15 PM
11/27/12 01:15 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,138
San Angelo, Texas
W8n2DustU
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,138
San Angelo, Texas
|
I've ran both in the Duster. Never got the turbo sorted out though. Did figure out after it was to late that my AMS 1000 had a broken internal wire that would not allow me to make boost. Anyhow I was able to run a 5.21@140 weighing in at 3263# with a 360" W8 motor. This was at an altitude of 3758' corrected.
2010 Toxic Orange Challenger built by B and B Racecars! All aluminum R4/P5 engine, Proformance TH400 (3 speed) tranny, full Reid case, nodular 9" rearend, full Dragpak suspension, Protorque custom converter, BS3, PTE 85mm turbo, fire core wires, carbon doors, carbon front clip, and a whole lot more!
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: HEMIFRED]
#1340130
11/27/12 02:37 PM
11/27/12 02:37 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,166
Left Coast
BobR
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,166
Left Coast
|
Quote:
blowers take 10% of your power to turn them . turbocharger uses none 
Not quite true.
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: MoparBilly]
#1340131
11/27/12 02:48 PM
11/27/12 02:48 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,166
Left Coast
BobR
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,166
Left Coast
|
Quote:
Great question Mike!
The technology race between these two is hard to keep up with, and I'm sure the answer probably reflects those advancements, and the individual application, as well as the persons previous experiences.
I'm just an old nitrous, carb dinasour, so all this stuff is beyond me, but having just attended both Drag Week, and the Street Car Super Nationals, it appears to me that the Turbo Cars have the upper hand. All the rides perpetuating that feeling however, are top flight, no expense spared, best tuners in the biz, so I'm not sure that's the case for the common man!
Qualifying in 10.5 Outlaw at SCSN
Doug Sikora Procharged Hemi Mustang 6.350-226.54
Mike Murillo TT Mustang 6.354-235.39
Billy Glidden Nitrous Mustang 6.45-217.21
Sikora's BAE equipped Stang: The piping appears to be a bit larger than Bigtime Auto's 
We've had this car with a SBF/nitrous, a SBF/F3 135 Procharger, SBF/ twin Precision 88's and now a BAE with a 136 Procharger. This combo is hands down the best, fastest and quickest of the 4. We were originally going with twins and the BAE but Doug and I decided it would be more fun and much more consistent with the 136. Our best runs to date were a 6.346 ET and 229.70 MPH speed. Our goal is to get the car into the 20's. I believe that's not too far down the road.
Driving a turbo car at the race track is much more challenging than driving a supercharged car but for the street the turbo is probably the better option.
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: Crizila]
#1340132
11/27/12 04:25 PM
11/27/12 04:25 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,041
Finally a HUSKER again
Moparnut426
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,041
Finally a HUSKER again
|
I was always told a Turbo is free HP since its fed by exhaust, but builds a lot of heat, and the chargers eithe roots or snail are crankshaft driven and in turn require hp loss to spin, but dont build nearly the heat. The charger systems have come along ways with built in intercoolers, and such, but the turbo also has had some serious upgrades like ball bearings, variable veigns, and such.
Id still LOVE to boost the Demon, but the 10.8 compression will require a lot of reworking the engine.
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: Moparnut426]
#1340135
11/27/12 07:38 PM
11/27/12 07:38 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,646
Plymouth Meeting, PA
bigtimeauto
Trophy Winner
|
Trophy Winner
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,646
Plymouth Meeting, PA
|
Quote:
I was always told a Turbo is free HP since its fed by exhaust, but builds a lot of heat, and the chargers eithe roots or snail are crankshaft driven and in turn require hp loss to spin, but dont build nearly the heat. The charger systems have come along ways with built in intercoolers, and such, but the turbo also has had some serious upgrades like ball bearings, variable veigns, and such.
Id still LOVE to boost the Demon, but the 10.8 compression will require a lot of reworking the engine.
Turbos block up the exhaust so they are not free either.
10.8 is no problem, intercooled gas, c 16 no intercooler or e85 would be fine.
BB, TT5,Procharged 3300lb Street Car 4.79/154
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: Moparnut426]
#1340136
11/27/12 09:52 PM
11/27/12 09:52 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,506
Az
Crizila
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,506
Az
|
Quote:
I was always told a Turbo is free HP since its fed by exhaust, but builds a lot of heat, and the chargers eithe roots or snail are crankshaft driven and in turn require hp loss to spin, but dont build nearly the heat. The charger systems have come along ways with built in intercoolers, and such, but the turbo also has had some serious upgrades like ball bearings, variable veigns, and such.
Id still LOVE to boost the Demon, but the 10.8 compression will require a lot of reworking the engine.
A few of the things that made me go with a Procharger ( centrifugal blower ) verses a turbo are: stand alone lube system, less heat issues ( inner cooler ), exhaust plumbing, Staging issues ( reads consistancy, spool up, exhaust heat ), Lube line plumbing, oil temp issues ( I'm already running a filled block ). Generally, the centrifugal blower system appeared to be a lower maintenance system. The "kit" I bought was very close to a true "bolt on " system. I had already prepped for it though by loosing the P/S and P/B systems from my car. I also have a car with a "ballroom sized" engine compartment. 
Fastest 300
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}