Turbo or Supercharger poll

[Liquifire]

Just like it says........we are going to take a poll and see which one is the favorite. pick one........turbo or super.....

[Toolman]

Turbos rule, You guyz is crazy.

[Louie]

The fastest guys all use turbos.

[HotRodV6]

Yeah much more HP potential from the Turbo. Much better drivability and tunability also. Atleast IMHO.

[~redlinels1~]

Turbo>Charger

[Tman]

Vortech here ....

[peter@aps]

Turbos are the go for high torque and power at lower boost levels and long term engine durability. :)

Peter

[N20LS1]

Turbos have less parasitic loss than superchargers, you don't have the hassle of changing pulleys or s/c belt slippage + Turbos sound better.

[BLOWN_70_CAMARO]

In my knowledge Turbos were exhaust driven. You don't see many Camaros that are exhaust driven. Know if ya had a Grand National we could talk Turbos

[Granatelli]

Naturally this is my opinion. - I will give the Positive and Negative to each kit AGAIN IMO. I would love to hear from others on their opinions as to what, why, where and how they feel on this subject

Centrifugal -
* Plus or minus same price to acquire as a turbo or Twin Screw/Roots
* Boost is RPM dependant - more RPM = More boost there is very linear is this respect
* Centrifugals DO NOT beat up the air like a roots or twin Screw at cruise - that means they actually produce less heat (heat caused by compressing the air) when cruising.
* Centrifugals are all about high velocity air - that means they DO NOT like restriction on the inlet or outlet. Small piping is not your friend with a centrifugal
* Centrifugals look for reasons not make boost - that means they are prone to surging. Surging as defined by more air then the engine wants to consume at the that RPM - the down side to this is less boost but not a lot of heat - so it really is a wash
*Centrifugals are far more dynamic then roots/twins screws. That means they have a huge window to perform and operate effectively throughout the dynamic range of the "air” compression cycle. -
* Centrifugal are the BEST in this department. - Therefore you get the most out of a Centrifugal based on what you ask the blower to do.
* However - they do not make boost anywhere near as well as the Turbo or Twin screw down low.

Twin Screw/Roots
* Plus or minus same price to acquire as a turbo or Centrifugal in kit form
* Boost curve is the BEST - They come on strong down low and if sized right can maintain the boost throughout the power (rpm) band
* Twin Screw/Roots beat up the air at cruise - that means they actually produce heat (heat caused by compressing the air) when cruising making them more susceptible to detonation and pinging.
* Twin Screw/Roots are all about Instant power because the boost is always there, they are not as RPM dependant as the Centrifugal or the Turbo. The down side to this is they build heat and retain it
* Twin Screw/Roots are prone to surging. Surging as defined by more air then the engine wants to consume at that RPM - Again the down side to this terrible heat issues, they requires bypass valves to control air over heating issues.
*Centrifugals are far more dynamic then roots/twins screws. That means they have a huge window to perform and operate effectively throughout the dynamic range of the "air” compression cycle. - The Roots / twin-screw type blowers operate on a more narrow window and cannot move as much air as a centrifugal or turbo (pound for pound). That means a centrifugal or turbo will support lets says from 100 to 600hp in the same unit and a roots type blower typically would support from 400 to 600. - Confused? A Novi-2000 will work on a 250hp Mustang and is emissions legal - that same exact blower can be removed and installed on an NMRA Renegade racecar and support 1000hp and run high 8-second quarter mile passes. (record is 8.37) As an example - the Roots blower on a car like MAD Max the movie ( that huge honk'n blower sticking out of his hood CAN NOT support as much as a puny Novi-2000 or Vortech Y trim
* This is a huge pitfall for the roots type/ twin screw.
* Twin Screws take the most power to drive of the three types but twin screws are still better (less power robbing then a Roots type
* Twin Screw / roots are KING of the road if you have an auto trans in a heavy car like 3400 and up pounds and all you want is 425 to 450hp.

Turbos
* Usually cost a few hundred more then a centrifugal in kit form but hey are very comparable
* Boost is not RPM dependant so much but one could argue you need RPM to make exhaust pressure and exhaust flow. Exhaust flow drives the turbo to accelerate.
* Turbo DO NOT beat up the air like a roots or twin Screw EVER - that means they produce less heat (heat caused by compressing the air) when cruising.
* Turbo like open inlets do typically do not care how big or small the outlet is. (naturally bigger is better but they are very forgiving - Small piping is not so much an issue with the turbo
* Turbos look for reasons to make boost – They are all about making power. However they are not prone to surging at all because they balance themselves out in the exhaust side.
*Turbos are far more dynamic then roots/twins screws. That means they have a huge window to perform and operate effectively throughout the dynamic range of the "air” compression cycle. – But not as good as a centrifugal
*Turbos make boost down low almost as well as a Twin Screw/Roots but it cost the engine very little to get the power

So again that is my professional opinion which I am sure most will agree with.

[Skillet]

Turbos are cooler. :notworthy:

[Granatelli]

I like them all. I sell turbo stuff now but owned Paxton Superchargers for several years. In the LS1 and LS2 world it sure seems like Turbos are the way to go. There is something wrong with a big centrifugal mounted in an F-body. It just lloks wrong regardless of how it performs - IMO

[turbo86]

Turbo,,, I'm biased...

[juiceboxx]

Superchargers>Turbochargers

Its all about the Low-RPM kick baby!

[Granatelli]

Turbo

[timmy]

turbo LAG = :thumbdn:

BUT:

look here
http://www.ststurbo.com/centrifugal

[WinSomeLoseNone]

I gotta say turbo. I watched two identical irocs (350 tpi 5spd both 89) go at it, one turbo and one vortech supercharged and the vortech obviously pulled but once that turbo spun up it was over he blew the superchargers doors in. Ever since watching that i have always been a turbo man.

[Firebird84]

wrong title, if you dont say turbo you have never driven a car with one.

[Granatelli]

Like I said I come from the world of Paxton; as i am the inventor of the Novi-2000. I like centrifugals and STS is wrong about how they present their case model. In an F-body i hate the way the centrifugal looks - it just looks wrong. I like turbos and I have already said that.

[FastPontiac]

I have the sts and like it, drives stock till you push it down. Then it makes an addicting whooosh sound, and it pushes you back in the seat to tell you that you did the right thing.

[Granatelli]

That is what turbo kits do. Then again so does nitrous:lol:

[NeeD4SpeeD]

Well i like the supercharger because of low RPM boost but turbos are know to be cooler and produce more HP....

Superchargers does rob slightly off the engine HP while turbos run from the exhaust..

Finally with the supercharger you will get the whine of the belt... or the turbo you will get that nice blow off...

It's really up to you.. I on the other hand am split between the two... So i cant make up my mind!

[Granatelli]

Well i like the supercharger because of low RPM boost but turbos are know to be cooler and produce more HP....

Superchargers does rob slightly off the engine HP while turbos run from the exhaust..

Finally with the supercharger you will get the whine of the belt... or the turbo you will get that nice blow off...

It's really up to you.. I on the other hand am split between the two... So i cant make up my mind!


The turbo will have way more torque down low then the supercharger

[peter@aps]

The turbo will have way more torque down low then the superchargerThat's true in most if not all applications and I must admitt up front to being biased towards turbocharging, that said a big twin screw SC (nod a PD SC) does produce aweome torque down low.

Peter

[Granatelli]

That's true in most if not all applications and I must admitt up front to being biased towards turbocharging, that said a big twin screw SC (nod a PD SC) does produce aweome torque down low.

Peter

Agreed:notworthy:

[peter@aps]

Agreed:notworthy:

Cheers.:notworthy:

Peter

[NeeD4SpeeD]

The turbo will have way more torque down low then the supercharger
:iagree:

[alamantia]

I see a lot of Turbos on rice, I thought super charges went on real cars, Ls1's are using turbos now???

[Bandit02]

I'm a fan of superchargers (roots) awsome low end grunt and nothing says move like a rippin supercharger at 4k. Turbos are also great but they require so much fabrication and pipeing to work right.

[cjargedws6]

it's all about the procharger but the turbo's are making good power gains up top, i really did not expect the sts kit to do so well but it does not matter turbo or supercharger........... :burnout: HELL YEA FOR FORCED INDUCTION

[Mad-Max]

Turbo for sure:yup:

[EE1983]

I must say, one of the coolest things Ive seen was a video of a turbo'd Camaro SS, the sound alone almost made me want to go buy one and put the setup on it.

V8, turbo spool, external wastegate... oh my!

[Granatelli]

I am looking for a few good solid sales and tech people to come work for Granatelli Motor Sports. We are also looking for mechanical drawers. These positions are open immediately. We are growing in leaps and need qualified personnel

How to apply for a position at Granatelli Motor Sports, Inc.:

Send your resume with a cover letter and complete GMS employment application to our human resources department or call:
Attention: Human Resources Department
Granatelli Motor Sports, Inc.
1000 Yarnell Place
Oxnard, CA 93033-2454
805-486-6644 (Phone)
805-486-6684 (24 Hour Fax)
Hours: M-F 8AM-5PM (PST)

CUSTOMER SERVICE - Positions Available

ENGINEERING - Positions Available

GRAPHICS - Positions Available

MECHANIC - Positions Available

PRODUCTION - Positions Available

QUALITY CONTROL - Positions Available

SALES - Positions Available

TECHNICAL SUPPORT- Positions Available

PLEASE CALL AND ASK FOR ME _ J.R. GRANATELLI

[fatguyinalilcar]

im going to have to say supercharger, who builds a car to lag? i like the power there when i touch the pedal, no waiting for it crap. leave the turbos for the deisel guys.

[Granatelli]

im going to have to say supercharger, who builds a car to lag? i like the power there when i touch the pedal, no waiting for it crap. leave the turbos for the deisel guys.

There is no lag - lag is a thing of the past. Our turbo kit will spool and make boost faster then any centrifugal and better the the magnuson

[98_Formula]

turbo are higher maintenance, and there aren't many complete kits cept for STS, and the thought of leaving my turbo out in the open like that scares me... but if ur up to the task of the turbo and know enuff about what ur doing, i think its hte way to go

[Granatelli]

turbo are higher maintenance, and there aren't many complete kits cept for STS, and the thought of leaving my turbo out in the open like that scares me... but if ur up to the task of the turbo and know enuff about what ur doing, i think its hte way to go

Granatelli offer a single 550hp turbo kit for LT1 and LS1 F-Body

We have a race kit that goes to 800 f-body 76mm single

or twin turbos for the Vette 97-04 500 to 900hp

[ZAPFOOL!!]

All I know is Im waiting for the new Kenne Bell 2.6L and the new Whipple aint doing too bad

[notsomellow]

Ya know how they say "there is no replacement for displacement"? Turbo or supercharger, they both have their pros and cons. But, why bother with either when retaining stock displacement. Gonna do something then do it right. Save your money and commit to your motor. If you dont, you'll never truly feel the true power of your super or turbo. Also, all I ever here is "power power power!" Try droping the weight of your car 500lbs and feel that kind of power! "There is no replacement for less weight"-Me.

[Fedge]

turbo:notworthy: :drivin:

[FastPontiac]

Ya know how they say "there is no replacement for displacement"? Turbo or supercharger, they both have their pros and cons. But, why bother with either when retaining stock displacement. Gonna do something then do it right. Save your money and commit to your motor. If you dont, you'll never truly feel the true power of your super or turbo. Also, all I ever here is "power power power!" Try droping the weight of your car 500lbs and feel that kind of power! "There is no replacement for less weight"-Me.
All I know is my car is a daily driver and I drive it through the winter. I put the STS turbo kit on my 01 TA and have alot of power now. I have not lost the stock drivablility. I can have stock gas mileage or better if keep my foot out of it (not possible) and it drives stock unless I push to go pedal too far. Displacement has been replaced by technology. I have a 79 TA that has 455 cid and runs about the same in the 1/4 but sucks so much gas I cant afford to drive it much. It also idles rough and the brakes fade quite a bit. I'm putting 435 to the rear wheels in my 01 TA, have a smooth idle and can afford to drive my car. I have the stock cam, heads, y-pipe, etc. Don't knock it till you try it. Booooost it!

[notsomellow]

Actually I have great respect for turbo. I road race in GT-1 class in the comma series (mid america) with my father's 2004 Noble M12. It has a twin turbo set up on a 3 litre Ford Duratec V6 block. The power of the car is intense rocketing to 60 mph in just 2.7 seconds (not kidding) but it only has 517 rwhp. The reason it is always the fastest car at the track is not entirely due to 517 rwhp, but rather to the fact that it only weighs 2100 lbs. I have come to respect the weight of this car more than the power or how it is attained. You know, you can shave lots of weight off of your car and still retain everyday driveability, ya just gotta be sneaky.

[Granatelli]

Ya know how they say "there is no replacement for displacement"? Turbo or supercharger, they both have their pros and cons. But, why bother with either when retaining stock displacement. Gonna do something then do it right. Save your money and commit to your motor. If you dont, you'll never truly feel the true power of your super or turbo. Also, all I ever here is "power power power!" Try droping the weight of your car 500lbs and feel that kind of power! "There is no replacement for less weight"-Me.

I agree actually - Kinda. :burnout: Heads and a cam go a long way on the LS1. No need to yank the motor out though. Our turbo kit with heads and cams can make 700hp when asked to. You can easily drive around town with 550 and then turn it up when you want to race. Naturally 700 is a lot to ask from the stock short block but the average person is way happy with 550 to 600 and the stock short block can do that if you don't drive it like you stole it every day

[marklar]

Depends on the car. Turbo if its a V6, Supercharger if it's a V8 :)

[Marc87GN]

Turbo all the way. I would doubt that most people that have been in a strong turbo car would pick a SC. I had a 99 GT before the GN and ran a Centrifugal(V2 S-trim) and a T-76 turbo with the exact same setups on it over 5 years. I would never go back to an SC in anything. I was tired of hearing the low whistle 100% of the time. Take a ride in a Supercharged LS1 and then one with a good size turbo or twins and make your decision.

[ericwilloughby]

turbo are higher maintenance, and there aren't many complete kits cept for STS, and the thought of leaving my turbo out in the open like that scares me... but if ur up to the task of the turbo and know enuff about what ur doing, i think its hte way to go


Higher maintenance? SC require oil change 6,000 miles. Turbos, what maintenance?

[Granatelli]

:) Turbochargers and LS1 / LS2 just belong together

[notsomellow]

Tell me about it. My dad has a gutted 02 Trans Am with a LS1 bored to 427 with twin turbos. The thing sounds like a 572 w/ no exhaust! and it drives like it to. *(10 pt cage, no glass..all lexan plastic windows, 4 corner coil overs, willwoods all around, Jericho 4 speed mated to Tilton 3 disc clutch, Moser 12 bolt, Ron Davis radiator, etc,etc....very fun car, nothing beats american muscle.

[notsomellow]

Tell me about it. My dad has a gutted 02 Trans Am with a LS1 bored to 427 with twin turbos. The thing sounds like a 572 w/ no exhaust! and it drives like it to. *(10 pt cage, no glass..all lexan plastic windows, 4 corner coil overs, willwoods all around, Jericho 4 speed mated to Tilton 3 disc clutch, Moser 12 bolt, Ron Davis radiator, etc,etc....very fun car, nothing beats american muscle.

[notsomellow]

oops

[ericwilloughby]

What are talking smack about. 346 bored to 427. Neat trick.

[m1083]

i own a procharger and love it. and as far as it generating boost down low, maybe 4 to 5 lbs at around 3500, but at the same time i cant put my foot down untill third gear anyhow so no complains here

[Liquifire]

on the street does low end torque matter(if you are at the track and are using slicks then maybe this hook up would matter), am I wrong in saying this because if you have too much HP to put to the ground it is just wasted, right?

Notsomellow.......what are the dyno numbers on your dads setup? what type of turbos?

[m1083]

Turbo all the way. I would doubt that most people that have been in a strong turbo car would pick a SC. I had a 99 GT before the GN and ran a Centrifugal(V2 S-trim) and a T-76 turbo with the exact same setups on it over 5 years. I would never go back to an SC in anything. I was tired of hearing the low whistle 100% of the time. Take a ride in a Supercharged LS1 and then one with a good size turbo or twins and make your decision.

besides belt drag. what else is the difference 8 lbs from a turbo and 8 lbs from a sc. i think boost is boost there is still the same pressure in the intake manafold, take away from the hp loss in the belt drag i dont see why one would make more power then the other?????????

[Granatelli]

besides belt drag. what else is the difference 8 lbs from a turbo and 8 lbs from a sc. i think boost is boost there is still the same pressure in the intake manafold, take away from the hp loss in the belt drag i dont see why one would make more power then the other?????????


Turbo will take less power from engine to drive it and turbo will make more torque down low.

[ericwilloughby]

The SC is set up to make 8# at max RPM. The turbo will be making it at about 2,500-3,000 RPM.

Does anyone know? at 3,000 and 6,000 RPM:
How much HP is wasted driving a SC and
How much HP is lost due to back pressure on a turbo?

[EE1983]

The SC is set up to make 8# at max RPM. The turbo will be making it at about 2,500-3,000 RPM.

Does anyone know? at 3,000 and 6,000 RPM:
How much HP is wasted driving a SC and
How much HP is lost due to back pressure on a turbo?


I dont think there is really any way of measuring the back pressure on a turbo. If you have a proper exhaust setup (large enough 02 housing, downpipe, etc) you shouldnt be losing any power.

[ericwilloughby]

Back pressure itself is easy to measure. Put a gauge on it. I think you would be surprised how high it is.
What would have to be intuitive is how much HP is lost due to that pressure. I.E. I've driven on a clogged cat, due to NOS on 93 LT1, and 35 was my max speed.
If anyone has measured it or can just guess.
Just guess.

Also, a turbo can't utilize headers, cam, and open Ex system.
Could these things make up for the belt drive loss in a SC. = or > turbo HP.

[EE1983]

Back pressure itself is easy to measure. Put a gauge on it. I think you would be surprised how high it is.
What would have to be intuitive is how much HP is lost due to that pressure. I.E. I've driven on a clogged cat, due to NOS on 93 LT1, and 35 was my max speed.
If anyone has measured it or can just guess.
Just guess.

Also, a turbo can't utilize headers, cam, and open Ex system.
Could these things make up for the belt drive loss in a SC. = or > turbo HP.
Where are you putting this gauge exactly? In the exhaust manifold before the turbo or after it?

What do you mean a turbo cant utilize an open exhaust system?

[ericwilloughby]

Before the turbo. We're talking about how much back pressure the turbo is making to drive a fairly bitchin' compressor.

Headers, cutouts if using a STS, what ever.
Cam is a no no because of overlap.

There is enough back pressure you don't even need a muffler.!!!

[EE1983]

Before the turbo. We're talking about how much back pressure the turbo is making to drive a fairly bitchin' compressor.

Headers, cutouts if using a STS, what ever.
Cam is a no no because of overlap.

There is enough back pressure you don't even need a muffler.!!!


I just didnt see the point in measuring backpressure. In theory, a turbocharger is usually considered more efficient because it is using the wasted energy in the exhaust stream as a source of power. I always thought just using exhaust isnt actually draining power from the motor, but the supercharger clearly is.

[caseyWS6]

I gotta say turbo. I watched two identical irocs (350 tpi 5spd both 89) go at it, one turbo and one vortech supercharged and the vortech obviously pulled but once that turbo spun up it was over he blew the superchargers doors in. Ever since watching that i have always been a turbo man.

The problem was it was a Vortech my husband and brother had them they sucked, switched to Procharger the difference wasn't even comparible totally awesome now:notworthy:

[ericwilloughby]

I just didnt see the point in measuring backpressure. In theory, a turbocharger is usually considered more efficient because it is using the wasted energy in the exhaust stream as a source of power. I always thought just using exhaust isnt actually draining power from the motor, but the supercharger clearly is.


Of course a turbo is more efficient. But not free. And much less efficient in the rear. The question was:


Does anyone know? at 3,000 and 6,000 RPM:
How much HP is wasted driving a SC and
How much HP is lost due to back pressure and the inability to use exhaust mods on a turbo?

[Granatelli]

Back pressure itself is easy to measure. Put a gauge on it. I think you would be surprised how high it is.
What would have to be intuitive is how much HP is lost due to that pressure. I.E. I've driven on a clogged cat, due to NOS on 93 LT1, and 35 was my max speed.
If anyone has measured it or can just guess.
Just guess.

Also, a turbo can't utilize headers, cam, and open Ex system.
Could these things make up for the belt drive loss in a SC. = or > turbo HP.

There is back pressure in all applications - Turbo, N/A and Blowers. That is why bigger exhaust helps all engines to a point and then it looses torque. Exhaust is like a balancing act

Turbo can benefit from Cams and certainly open exhaust. Turbos HATE restrictive exhaust systems so cut outs make a huge difference

[Granatelli]

Back pressure itself is easy to measure. Put a gauge on it. I think you would be surprised how high it is.
What would have to be intuitive is how much HP is lost due to that pressure. I.E. I've driven on a clogged cat, due to NOS on 93 LT1, and 35 was my max speed.
If anyone has measured it or can just guess.
Just guess.

Also, a turbo can't utilize headers, cam, and open Ex system.
Could these things make up for the belt drive loss in a SC. = or > turbo HP.

There is back pressure in all applications - Turbo, N/A and Blowers. That is why bigger exhaust helps all engines to a point and then it looses torque. Exhaust is like a balancing act

Turbo can benefit from Cams and certainly open exhaust. Turbos HATE restrictive exhaust systems so cut outs make a huge difference

[Granatelli]

Of course a turbo is more efficient. But not free. And much less efficient in the rear. The question was:


[QUOTE=ericwilloughby]Does anyone know? at 3,000 and 6,000 RPM:
How much HP is wasted driving a SC ? About 35hp at cruise - this is AT CRIUSE if the question is 3k to 6K at Wide Open throttle then you're talk'n like 100hp to drive the blower

How much HP is lost due to back pressure and the inability to use exhaust mods on a turbo? You can use exhaust mods the other post is wrong. As for headers, naturally you don't normally use header with a turbo but the cut out is a big help even with the turbo. The "extra back pressure" caused by the turbo costs perhaps 40hp ay WOT. That is why a turbo can make a ton of power of low boost and a blower takes more.

As an Example: Starting with a 300hp engine on a dyno (assume the N/A car makes 300 to the tires)

N/A = 300 (this is our base)
Roots blower at 15psi = 480 to 500
Centrifugal blower at 15psi = 520 to 545
Centrifugal with intercooler at 15psi = 565 to 585
Turbo intercooled at 15psi =585 to 600 but with about 100 to 140 ft/lbs more torque then the centrifugal

[ericwilloughby]

Good numbers. If they are close then I was right. The "extra back pressure" caused by the turbo costs perhaps 40hp ay WOT.

If :
Turbo intercooled at 15psi =585 to 600
Centrifugal with intercooler at 15psi = 565 to 585
Then the turbo reduces output by almost as much as the blower because it only makes 15-20 more HP then the centifugal. If the blower is robbing 80 than the turbo is robing 50-60.

[ericwilloughby]

The other post is not wrong.
You can't use cut outs on a rear mount turbo.
Headers are "almost" useless. Same with cam.

Unless you have some dyno experience that says otherwise. I'd like to know.

[Granatelli]

Good numbers. If they are close then I was right. The "extra back pressure" caused by the turbo costs perhaps 40hp ay WOT.

If :
Turbo intercooled at 15psi =585 to 600
Centrifugal with intercooler at 15psi = 565 to 585
Then the turbo reduces output by almost as much as the blower because it only makes 15-20 more HP then the centifugal. If the blower is robbing 80 than the turbo is robing 50-60.

The numbers are theoretical. and there is NO EXTRA back pressure caused by the turbo. If you were to install a pressure gauge at the collector on a supercharged car V. a turbo cat the pressure in the exhuast "should be" close to the same unless you had a crappy exh system

[ericwilloughby]

Of course there is extra back pressure. The scroll squeezes the exhaust down to about 1.6 inches or so. And you verified the amount of loss when you theorized the #'s for turbo vs. SC and there was not a 80 HP differance between the two.

[Granatelli]

Of course there is extra back pressure. The scroll squeezes the exhaust down to about 1.6 inches or so. And you verified the amount of loss when you theorized the #'s for turbo vs. SC and there was not a 80 HP differance between the two.

So then if I understand you correctly, you chose to believe what you want to:lol: Just to prove a point I just unscrewed the EGT out of the #7 exhaust port of my 2006 Vette. With an 8psi Procharger is has 16psi of back pressure at 6300rpm. So now I pulled the belt off and made a quick pull with no belts. It has 7.2 psi of pressure in the exhaust N/A. That sucks.

I then checked the back pressure in a 05 Mustang with a 12psi turbo and all 3inch single exhaust. At 6500 and 12psi it only has 18 psi in the exhaust. I then took the discharge tube of the intercooler and made a pass. Granted the car ran like Crap but it only has 4psi back pressure through the turbo exhaust but without the benefit of the turbo pressurizing the intake

What is the point? The turbo makes no more back pressure in the exhaust then the next system

[goldfingerfif]

I dunno if someone has said this but it takes about 5hp from the engine to make a turbo give it an additional 100hp. It takes about 30hp from the engine to give it 100hp.

Sorry I admit I am biased and I think a turbo is better in almost everyway. I just hate the hillbilly thought of just strap the thing to the engine.

[ericwilloughby]

So then if I understand you correctly, you chose to believe what you want to:lol: Just to prove a point I just unscrewed the EGT out of the #7 exhaust port of my 2006 Vette. With an 8psi Procharger is has 16psi of back pressure at 6300rpm. So now I pulled the belt off and made a quick pull with no belts. It has 7.2 psi of pressure in the exhaust N/A. That sucks.

I then checked the back pressure in a 05 Mustang with a 12psi turbo and all 3inch single exhaust. At 6500 and 12psi it only has 18 psi in the exhaust. I then took the discharge tube of the intercooler and made a pass. Granted the car ran like Crap but it only has 4psi back pressure through the turbo exhaust but without the benefit of the turbo pressurizing the intake

What is the point? The turbo makes no more back pressure in the exhaust then the next system


What are you taking about? You are making the numbers that prove I am right but you refuse to see it. I am very impressed that you actually took the time and work to measure the back pressure.

18psi is significant. I didn't know it would be that high.

Of course the turbo creates extra back pressure. It's a restriction in the exhaust that drives a compressor. WTF.

The SC does not impose back pressure on the exhaust. You arn't measuring back pressure caused by the driving of the SC. You are measuring the exhaust pressure created by making more HP. The running of more fuel and air into and out of the engine.

[Bigrus]

turbo

[grandkodiak]

are headers and hiflow cats useless to a turno setup? i was always planning a blower so i'm new to the turbo thang... but i have headers and hiflows awaiting install... if i sell them off i'll be that much closer to turbo if i go that route and wont gain anything... i'll be saving nearly a grand in installation if i can manage to run without them...

[01SCSS]

I'm runnin a Procharger and I still say TURBO!

[vxchev8]

I voted turbo but wouldn't knock back a cheap s/charger kit

[Snake Eater]

turbo :yup:

[ericwilloughby]

are headers and hiflow cats useless to a turno setup? i was always planning a blower so i'm new to the turbo thang... but i have headers and hiflows awaiting install... if i sell them off i'll be that much closer to turbo if i go that route and wont gain anything... i'll be saving nearly a grand in installation if i can manage to run without them...

I am not the expert and just cant bring myself to put down the $5,000 for a SC or turbo. I'd rather buy a new 05 GTO. But you would get less, maybe much less, of a gain moding the exhaust of a turbo car. Headers are supposed to create a suction on the valve. Scavenging. Thats why there is a separate tube for each EX port. It would be very hard to get that done with all the tubes emptying into a 1.6" turbo scroll. And a turbine blade blocking the path.

Do any of the factory turbo cars have headers on them??????

I have asked before. Will an SC engine with headers and exhaust and maybe a cam make the same power as the same engine with a turbo?? Same boost and intercooler of course?

Granatelli, do you know?

[Snake Eater]

yes.

[goldfingerfif]

I am not the expert and just cant bring myself to put down the $5,000 for a SC or turbo. I'd rather buy a new 05 GTO. But you would get less, maybe much less, of a gain moding the exhaust of a turbo car. Headers are supposed to create a suction on the valve. Scavenging. Thats why there is a separate tube for each EX port. It would be very hard to get that done with all the tubes emptying into a 1.6" turbo scroll. And a turbine blade blocking the path.

Do any of the factory turbo cars have headers on them??????

I have asked before. Will an SC engine with headers and exhaust and maybe a cam make the same power as the same engine with a turbo?? Same boost and intercooler of course?

Granatelli, do you know?

It takes about 5hp from the engine to make a turbo give it an additional 100hp. It takes about 30hp from the engine to give it 100hp.

So the one with the turbo will have slightly more.

[Granatelli]

What are you taking about? You are making the numbers that prove I am right but you refuse to see it. I am very impressed that you actually took the time and work to measure the back pressure.

18psi is significant. I didn't know it would be that high.

Of course the turbo creates extra back pressure. It's a restriction in the exhaust that drives a compressor. WTF.

The SC does not impose back pressure on the exhaust. You arn't measuring back pressure caused by the driving of the SC. You are measuring the exhaust pressure created by making more HP. The running of more fuel and air into and out of the engine.

You are wrong but OK. - You will note there is only 4 lbs of pressure in the exhaust system even with the turbo in the exhaust stream. In a perfect world, there should be like 2lbs of back pressure in a N/A motor and 1 to 1 with forced induction. So 10psi in the engine should be like 10 or 11 psi in the exhaust. - That is regardless of blower type or turbo type.

A turbo DOES NOT need back pressure to drive drive it. However that does not mean that the pressure from the exhaust does not drive the turbo.

The original point made was turbo’s take power to drive them via Exh back pressure and Blowers take power off the crank to drive them. My factual rebuttal to that was, “the back pressure gained by driving the turbo is insignificant as compared to the blower” - case it point - we did more testing today on 3 2006 Mustangs.

It was a very interesting approach - the goal was to make 400hp. Magazine wanted to know how much boost it took to make 400 at the tires. Like I said all 3 cars were tested bone stock

Car 1 - made 256hp
Car 2 - made 260hp
Car 3 - made 262hp

Car 1 - we installed the new GMS turbo system with air to air front mount intercooler
Car 2 - we installed a Vortech with water to air after cooler
Car 3 - we installed a new KB 144 blower with 8 rib belt upgrade and water to air after cooler.

Car 1 - took 4.75 psi to meet the goal (401) - At 6 psi it had 435 and 441 ft-lbs.
Car 2 - took 9.10 psi to meet the goal (399.4) - At 6 psi it had 365 and 355 ft-lbs.
Car 3 - took 9.81 psi to meet the goal (401.2) At 6 psi it had 358 and 396 ft-lbs.

Notes -
Car 1 picked up 35hp by increasing boost by only 1.25psi – at 8psi it made 498hp and 509ft-lbs
Car 2 - took 3.1 psi to gain 35hp
Car 3 - took 3.8 psi to gain 42hp

You can shoot holes in the test notes and claim the other blowers do not have the ability to adjust boost like a turbo and therefore the test is off a bit as it relates to peal rpms but the real picture is in the original test. – HOW MUCH BOOST FROM VARIOUS FORCED INDUCTION SYSTEMS WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE 400 HP ON A NEW MUSTANG – Now we know:drivin:

[Granatelli]

are headers and hiflow cats useless to a turno setup? i was always planning a blower so i'm new to the turbo thang... but i have headers and hiflows awaiting install... if i sell them off i'll be that much closer to turbo if i go that route and wont gain anything... i'll be saving nearly a grand in installation if i can manage to run without them...

Hi flow cats will help the turbo tremendously - headers well that depends on the turbo kit - but probably not

[HSVFREAK]

Twin turbos = Awesome driving experience

I have owned a vortech V7 charged ls1, Its just doesn't compare to the power of twin turbo's:drivin:

[FasstChevys]

I agree actually - Kinda. :burnout: Heads and a cam go a long way on the LS1. No need to yank the motor out though. Our turbo kit with heads and cams can make 700hp when asked to. You can easily drive around town with 550 and then turn it up when you want to race. Naturally 700 is a lot to ask from the stock short block but the average person is way happy with 550 to 600 and the stock short block can do that if you don't drive it like you stole it every day

Why bother running 700 on a stock bottom end? The end result is inevitable, so why go there? Go forged before chasing that kind of power, otherwise be happy with about 500 to the wheels on the stock bottom end. That's my 2 cents. :)

[ericwilloughby]

You are wrong but OK. - You will note there is only 4 lbs of pressure in the exhaust system even with the turbo in the exhaust stream. In a perfect world, there should be like 2lbs of back pressure in a N/A motor and 1 to 1 with forced induction. So 10psi in the engine should be like 10 or 11 psi in the exhaust. - That is regardless of blower type or turbo type.

A turbo DOES NOT need back pressure to drive drive it. However that does not mean that the pressure from the exhaust does not drive the turbo.

The original point made was turbo’s take power to drive them via Exh back pressure and Blowers take power off the crank to drive them. My factual rebuttal to that was, “the back pressure gained by driving the turbo is insignificant as compared to the blower” - case it point - we did more testing today on 3 2006 Mustangs.

It was a very interesting approach - the goal was to make 400hp. Magazine wanted to know how much boost it took to make 400 at the tires. Like I said all 3 cars were tested bone stock

Car 1 - made 256hp
Car 2 - made 260hp
Car 3 - made 262hp

Car 1 - we installed the new GMS turbo system with air to air front mount intercooler
Car 2 - we installed a Vortech with water to air after cooler
Car 3 - we installed a new KB 144 blower with 8 rib belt upgrade and water to air after cooler.

Car 1 - took 4.75 psi to meet the goal (401) - At 6 psi it had 435 and 441 ft-lbs.
Car 2 - took 9.10 psi to meet the goal (399.4) - At 6 psi it had 365 and 355 ft-lbs.
Car 3 - took 9.81 psi to meet the goal (401.2) At 6 psi it had 358 and 396 ft-lbs.

Notes -
Car 1 picked up 35hp by increasing boost by only 1.25psi – at 8psi it made 498hp and 509ft-lbs
Car 2 - took 3.1 psi to gain 35hp
Car 3 - took 3.8 psi to gain 42hp

You can shoot holes in the test notes and claim the other blowers do not have the ability to adjust boost like a turbo and therefore the test is off a bit as it relates to peal rpms but the real picture is in the original test. – HOW MUCH BOOST FROM VARIOUS FORCED INDUCTION SYSTEMS WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE 400 HP ON A NEW MUSTANG – Now we know:drivin:

I never argued that a turbo wasn't better. It is. Just not free.
Great tests. I'm not here to shoot holes. Here to learn.

1 question. water to air. What temp is the water? 180, engine thermostat. Or what ever the water temp is in the radiator??? I assume each car had proper tuning?
2. 9+ psi is high. How did you get them to run on that? Alcohol injuction. Race gas?

Conclusion to our point. At 6 PSI the turbo made 70 HP more than the others. If the turbo was free boost then it took 70 HP to drive the SC. If it was taking 100 HP to drive the SC then the turbo was robbing 30 HP. I doubt the water to air is nearly as good as the air to air. Why didn't they use the same intercooler on all tests? The #'s would have been much closer.

[ericwilloughby]

Was the boost measured in the intake or on the SC-turbo outlet?

[Granatelli]

I never argued that a turbo wasn't better. It is. Just not free.
Great tests. I'm not here to shoot holes. Here to learn.

1 question. water to air. What temp is the water? 180, engine thermostat. Or what ever the water temp is in the radiator??? I assume each car had proper tuning?
2. 9+ psi is high. How did you get them to run on that? Alcohol injuction. Race gas?

Conclusion to our point. At 6 PSI the turbo made 70 HP more than the others. If the turbo was free boost then it took 70 HP to drive the SC. If it was taking 100 HP to drive the SC then the turbo was robbing 30 HP. I doubt the water to air is nearly as good as the air to air. Why didn't they use the same intercooler on all tests? The #'s would have been much closer.

3 different cars - Each kit was tested as it is delivered by the manufacture

Actually air to water works better on dyno blasts

[stonebreaker]

You are wrong but OK. - You will note there is only 4 lbs of pressure in the exhaust system even with the turbo in the exhaust stream. In a perfect world, there should be like 2lbs of back pressure in a N/A motor and 1 to 1 with forced induction. So 10psi in the engine should be like 10 or 11 psi in the exhaust. - That is regardless of blower type or turbo type.

A turbo DOES NOT need back pressure to drive drive it. However that does not mean that the pressure from the exhaust does not drive the turbo.

The original point made was turbo’s take power to drive them via Exh back pressure and Blowers take power off the crank to drive them. My factual rebuttal to that was, “the back pressure gained by driving the turbo is insignificant as compared to the blower” - case it point - we did more testing today on 3 2006 Mustangs.

It was a very interesting approach - the goal was to make 400hp. Magazine wanted to know how much boost it took to make 400 at the tires. Like I said all 3 cars were tested bone stock

Car 1 - made 256hp
Car 2 - made 260hp
Car 3 - made 262hp

Car 1 - we installed the new GMS turbo system with air to air front mount intercooler
Car 2 - we installed a Vortech with water to air after cooler
Car 3 - we installed a new KB 144 blower with 8 rib belt upgrade and water to air after cooler.

Car 1 - took 4.75 psi to meet the goal (401) - At 6 psi it had 435 and 441 ft-lbs.
Car 2 - took 9.10 psi to meet the goal (399.4) - At 6 psi it had 365 and 355 ft-lbs.
Car 3 - took 9.81 psi to meet the goal (401.2) At 6 psi it had 358 and 396 ft-lbs.

Notes -
Car 1 picked up 35hp by increasing boost by only 1.25psi – at 8psi it made 498hp and 509ft-lbs
Car 2 - took 3.1 psi to gain 35hp
Car 3 - took 3.8 psi to gain 42hp

You can shoot holes in the test notes and claim the other blowers do not have the ability to adjust boost like a turbo and therefore the test is off a bit as it relates to peal rpms but the real picture is in the original test. – HOW MUCH BOOST FROM VARIOUS FORCED INDUCTION SYSTEMS WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE 400 HP ON A NEW MUSTANG – Now we know:drivin:I have to question this test. For one thing, KB doesn't sell a 144 blower - a 144 is an old school roots blower sold by Weiand/Holley and B&M, not a modern twin screw as you implied by calling it a KB, which, quite frankly, makes me question whether you actually conducted this test since you didn't even get the competitors right.

Secondly, did you put any type of free-flowing exhaust on the blower cars? Your turbo kit comes with high-flowing cats - did you use the same cats for the blower tests or did you use the stockers? It would be real easy to torpedo the blowers with a restrictive exhaust.

[Granatelli]

I have to question this test. For one thing, KB doesn't sell a 144 blower - a 144 is an old school roots blower sold by Weiand/Holley and B&M, not a modern twin screw as you implied by calling it a KB, which, quite frankly, makes me question whether you actually conducted this test since you didn't even get the competitors right.

Secondly, did you put any type of free-flowing exhaust on the blower cars? Your turbo kit comes with high-flowing cats - did you use the same cats for the blower tests or did you use the stockers? It would be real easy to torpedo the blowers with a restrictive exhaust.

Let me start by saying this is not a bash Jim and or Kenne Bell post. the point was being made as to all the bad things that come with a turbo and I was merely evidencing that untruthes as to how they were posted

http://www.kennebell.net/superchargers/ford/gt05-06_3v/gt05-06_3v.htm If you go to their website you will see the blower I tested as it appears to be right on their home page. They claim it will support 850 hp. I was told it was a 144. They call in a 2.4 which actaully makes it a 146.4 - So you are correct it is not a 144, it is a 146.4.

GMS merely did the testing. They had there own people doing all installs on the various cars and of the various kits. As I recall all the cars had stock exhaust manifolds (including the turbo car). AND:) the turbo car had a single 2.5" down pipe feeding back into the factory 2.5" exh.

Therefore they all had similar exh systems and the turbo was at the biggest disadvantage. If I wanted to stack the test int he favor of the turbo I could have run a 3" down pipe.

[ericwilloughby]

Air to water. Once again. is the water in the intercooler 180 degrees or what?
Was the boost measured at the intake or where?
Why didn't they use the same intercooler on all tests? The #'s would have been much closer.

[Granatelli]

Air to water. Once again. is the water in the intercooler 180 degrees or what?
Was the boost measured at the intake or where?
Why didn't they use the same intercooler on all tests? The #'s would have been much closer.

Eric - you are trying to skew the test. The test was never intended to pit each product against each other - although I think the results would have still been much the same.

This test was intended to show the performance of each product "as delivered” in fact the Kenne Bell blower was the only one that was not a direct off the shelf tested kit as it had a special 8 rib upgrade and a smaller blower pulley.

I am not here to fight with you guys - let’s go back 30 or 40 posts.

I like the turbo for power and torque. This is my opinion. I owned and operated Paxton for several years and I am credited with designing the Novi-2000

[stonebreaker]

Let me start by saying this is not a bash Jim and or Kenne Bell post. the point was being made as to all the bad things that come with a turbo and I was merely evidencing that untruthes as to how they were posted

http://www.kennebell.net/superchargers/ford/gt05-06_3v/gt05-06_3v.htm If you go to their website you will see the blower I tested as it appears to be right on their home page. They claim it will support 850 hp. I was told it was a 144. They call in a 2.4 which actaully makes it a 146.4 - So you are correct it is not a 144, it is a 146.4.

GMS merely did the testing. They had there own people doing all installs on the various cars and of the various kits. As I recall all the cars had stock exhaust manifolds (including the turbo car). AND:) the turbo car had a single 2.5" down pipe feeding back into the factory 2.5" exh.

Therefore they all had similar exh systems and the turbo was at the biggest disadvantage. If I wanted to stack the test int he favor of the turbo I could have run a 3" down pipe.
Not necessarily. If the stock cats and not the mufflers are the primary restriction, then it is still possible to skew the test if that restriction was reduced for the turbo and not the blowers. So, did the blower cars have stock cats? The fact that it took the centrifugal and the positive displacement blowers similar boost numbers to make the same HP, suggests to me that you left the cats stock on those cars.

As far as calling a 2.4 liter blower a 144, I wasn't there so it's impossible to verify your account; however, since KB uses metric nomenclature, I find it incredibly suspicious that you would convert the metric number to English units in your head and just happen to be off by 2 ci, "accidentally" identifying it incorrectly as a roots blower.

All told, I'm having a tough time accepting your assertions at face value. You've made too many technical errors in this thread to make me feel comfortable with your level of expertise - I get the feeling you're more into the sales side of things than you are the technical side.

[Granatelli]

Not necessarily. If the stock cats and not the mufflers are the primary restriction, then it is still possible to skew the test if that restriction was reduced for the turbo and not the blowers. So, did the blower cars have stock cats? The fact that it took the centrifugal and the positive displacement blowers similar boost numbers to make the same HP, suggests to me that you left the cats stock on those cars.

As far as calling a 2.4 liter blower a 144, I wasn't there so it's impossible to verify your account; however, since KB uses metric nomenclature, I find it incredibly suspicious that you would convert the metric number to English units in your head and just happen to be off by 2 ci, "accidentally" identifying it incorrectly as a roots blower.

All told, I'm having a tough time accepting your assertions at face value. You've made too many technical errors in this thread to make me feel comfortable with your level of expertise - I get the feeling you're more into the sales side of things than you are the technical side.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.:lol: I have no problem with anyone questioning me that is why this is an open forum. It is hard to dispute the facts though.

The facts are that I designed the Novi-2000 start to finish. To date it is the only 50 state legal supercharger capable of producing 1000 hp. I have dyno'd at least 15 '05 Paxton and or Vortech Mustangs and they are all pretty much the same. I have tested 3 KB '05 Mustangs this last one being what I was told as their best kit. It was the first to have the 8 rib conversion. As for converting from metric to otherwise, all the old timers (like me) go by cubic inches not liters. So if you chose to question my math so be it. Everyone at the test referred to the blower as the new KB 144.

Last week Magnusson tested what they called their new 170 blower on a H2 Hummer. But I guess you would call that a 2.7.

When guys ask me what kind of car I drive I say a LS1 Vette with a 350. I never call it a 5.7. Even though it is really a 5.6.

I raced Mod Motor Mustangs and they are commonly known as either 4.6 or 5.4 liter engines. No one calls them 281’s or 331’s. However when Saleen sells the car the badges the car as a 281 not a 4.6. Ford sells their race 4v race motor a Boss302 aka Cammer 5.0.

How guys here drive a 302 Mustang and how many drive 5.0? Last time I checked it was the same. 144 or 2.4 – ask me (which you did not) and I say you a few of you are hyperfocussing on the wrong thing.

The thing is the Turbo makes more power pound of boost for pound of boost or AKA lbs for lbs.

Someone asked did we measure boost in the motor at the blower. Once you go wide open it all equalizes so what is the difference where you measure it – the simple answer is ALL CARS WHERE MEASURED AT THE MANIFOLD.

The KB blower made boost sooner then the other combos but not more power or torque. That just tells me that it take more power to turn it down low.

As for the exhaust comment. – Like I said the kits were tested as delivered.

Let’s do this in reverse – you have a stone stock car and you have $6000 to spend on forced induction. How would you spend the 6k. I would buy a turbo. It will make the most power and torque and I will have money left over for a wax job. You can install a twin screw and headers and any cat or no cat – I will still make more power and torque pound for pound and that will mean less stress on the rotating assembly

[stonebreaker]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.:lol: I have no problem with anyone questioning me that is why this is an open forum. It is hard to dispute the facts though.

The facts are that I designed the Novi-2000 start to finish. To date it is the only 50 state legal supercharger capable of producing 1000 hp. I have dyno'd at least 15 '05 Paxton and or Vortech Mustangs and they are all pretty much the same. I have tested 3 KB '05 Mustangs this last one being what I was told as their best kit. It was the first to have the 8 rib conversion. As for converting from metric to otherwise, all the old timers (like me) go by cubic inches not liters. So if you chose to question my math so be it. Everyone at the test referred to the blower as the new KB 144.

Last week Magnusson tested what they called their new 170 blower on a H2 Hummer. But I guess you would call that a 2.7.

When guys ask me what kind of car I drive I say a LS1 Vette with a 350. I never call it a 5.7. Even though it is really a 5.6.

I raced Mod Motor Mustangs and they are commonly known as either 4.6 or 5.4 liter engines. No one calls them 281’s or 331’s. However when Saleen sells the car the badges the car as a 281 not a 4.6. Ford sells their race 4v race motor a Boss302 aka Cammer 5.0.

How guys here drive a 302 Mustang and how many drive 5.0? Last time I checked it was the same. 144 or 2.4 – ask me (which you did not) and I say you a few of you are hyperfocussing on the wrong thing.

The thing is the Turbo makes more power pound of boost for pound of boost or AKA lbs for lbs.

Someone asked did we measure boost in the motor at the blower. Once you go wide open it all equalizes so what is the difference where you measure it – the simple answer is ALL CARS WHERE MEASURED AT THE MANIFOLD.

The KB blower made boost sooner then the other combos but not more power or torque. That just tells me that it take more power to turn it down low.

As for the exhaust comment. – Like I said the kits were tested as delivered.

Let’s do this in reverse – you have a stone stock car and you have $6000 to spend on forced induction. How would you spend the 6k. I would buy a turbo. It will make the most power and torque and I will have money left over for a wax job. You can install a twin screw and headers and any cat or no cat – I will still make more power and torque pound for pound and that will mean less stress on the rotating assembly

Fair enough. All I'm trying to figure out is which system will get the most air into the cylinders with the least amount of boost. I have a problem with your 3-car test because you are testing kits only without the supporting mods. I would never put heads and cam on a car without a commensurate upgrade in the exhaust system. You make a good point about the bang for the buck; however, your test is fundamentally flawed because the difference in exhausts invalidates the results.

[Granatelli]

Fair enough. All I'm trying to figure out is which system will get the most air into the cylinders with the least amount of boost. I have a problem with your 3-car test because you are testing kits only without the supporting mods. I would never put heads and cam on a car without a commensurate upgrade in the exhaust system. You make a good point about the bang for the buck; however, your test is fundamentally flawed because the difference in exhausts invalidates the results.


OK I hear you loud and clear but again these kits were as supplied by the manufactures. Even if you add headers and no cats the test shows me they will not catch the turbo in the 4 to 10psi range:yup:

[Zakar]

i agree... even if the exaust did flow better it still wouldnt be enough of a gain to overcome the advantage the turbo holds


Stonebreaker, most public librarys have a book called Maximum Boost by corkey bell.. check it out. its a good read

[stonebreaker]

OK I hear you loud and clear but again these kits were as supplied by the manufactures. Even if you add headers and no cats the test shows me they will not catch the turbo in the 4 to 10psi range:yup:
How does the test prove that? One car has a free-flowing exhaust and the other has a banana in the tailpipe...

[stonebreaker]

i agree... even if the exaust did flow better it still wouldnt be enough of a gain to overcome the advantage the turbo holds


Stonebreaker, most public librarys have a book called Maximum Boost by corkey bell.. check it out. its a good read
I'm not claiming one type of forced induction is better than another. All I'm saying is that Granatelli's test is biased in favor of the turbo system. Just because a kit doesn't have a vital component and does badly because of it, doesn't mean the kit is a bad choice. In the matter of exhaust, the choice is very personal - thus it would be counter productive for a kit to offer its own exhaust.

Considering that an LS1 has a 3.6" stroke, plus 48 square inches inches of piston area per revolution, each PSI of backpressure costs about 14 ft-lbs of torque. This is why it's so important for forced induction to have free-flowing exhaust. Granatelli mentioned earlier in this thread that his vette had 7 psi of backpressure even without the blower; Lingenfelter says that an efficient exhaust system should have no more than 2 psi of backpressure. Thus, his statement that the blower generates as much backpressure as a turbo is untrue, since an NA system with 7 psi of backpressure is overly restrictive even without a blower.

[Granatelli]

How does the test prove that? One car has a free-flowing exhaust and the other has a banana in the tailpipe...

Not sure why you are stuck on the "free flow exhuast thing" You keep saying that. They all have the same stock mufflers and the turbo is limited to 1 2.5" exhuast pipe as where the 2 blower cars have twin 2.5 exhuast. Why do you keep saying the turbo has the advantage. -

Respectfully you are like a broken record but you keep playig the wrong song:beer: