Shadowman's thoughts on forced induction.

[ChipBeck]

Gentlemen,

Occasionally an exceptionally interesting post is buried deep in a thread that many members have stopped following so they miss it. The following post by Shadowman in response to my request for information about what type of horse power modifications he has made to his personal GT is a great example. I'm certain the vast majority of our membership will find both entertainment and education here so I'm assigning this Shadowman post it's own thread.

Thank you for your insight Bill, we'll drink the Makers Mark Manhattan's when we get to Texas.

Chip

Bill,

Knowing all that you know, which is infinitely more than most of the rest of us know, what system do you have on your own Ford GT? If you were going to mod your GT today with everything available today including the Gen III Whipple and available Turbo systems, what would you use? I know everything is personal preference but you are the Ford GT High Dalai Lama so I believe a short dissertation on your personal selection and your reasons for choosing it would be of great interest to our membership here. If you accommodate my request for this information I promise to buy you at least three Makers Mark Manhattan's when we get to Texas! :cheers Thanks.

Chip

And the man responds......

Here you go

Let me begin by making very clear that I share the following only because I was asked to and in doing so these are my feelings and opinions based on 40 years of massaging and owning FI (forced induction gals); nothing more.

Having set the stages for the following I will now share that I have been a supercharger advocate since I was a little kid; there was always something captivating about the look, the sound, and (in the early days) multi V belts that were quickly replaced with large square cog and or the v groove metric equivalent of today. IMO nothing said/says power quite like a huge fricken supercharger.

Now as the years rolled by I continued to massage many gals within the FI (forced induction arena) both as supercharged and turbo charged gals; I like them both however I continue to be drawn to superchargers because no matter what the cost to operate one; meaning the calculated parasitic loss which frankly means NADA to me as it IMO is akin justifying the cost of admission to any arena; business, playing, etc. it is what is and to attempt to use this as a basis of how inefficient it is makes me smile; see you at the finish line and we can discuss it there because the net results regardless of the parasitic loss is always more power and if it is a roots style (not a centrifugal aka Vortex, Paxton, etc.) supercharger the grunt down low aka torque can be absolutely phenomenal. I am speaking of tire shredding torque which for the purpose of this example has nothing to do with the extrapolated number referred to as horsepower; a number that frankly too many toss around not truly understanding what it means other than if it is a bigger number it must be better; this sadly is not the case. I refer to this number as the lapel pin number and only one step away from something that PT Barnum would sell (smoke and mirrors) because it takes torque to move the machine and IMO the more the better and then at some point in time the calculated horsepower comes into play as she continues her quest while she is fighting off the wall aka head of air being creating in front of her.

I shared this with the following understanding; I spend the greatest portion of my time operating my gals from a static position up to 100 MPH and then there are those moments in time that I like to stretch their legs into the extreme MPH arena however the later is not where we live/play most of the time.

A supercharged gal presents me with raw, visceral, consistent power every time I operate the go-pedal however IMO the turbo systems as presently integrated into the Ford GT’s do not. In fact a turbo gal can and will surprise you because the increase in power is based on numerous operational variables of which all are not able to be controlled all of the time. For example; if traversing an area full of twisties in a supercharged gal you can anticipate what will happen next as you massage the go-pedal however in the turbo gals as designed today I dare say that you could very well be operating the go-pedal and then out of the fricken blue the turbos kick in and it becomes OMG; not exactly my idea of fun.

Let’s use another example; what I refer to as puddle jumping; meaning darting away from a stop light only to be met by another a block or two away. In this example when the light turns green I press the go-pedal and immediately at my disposal is huge tire shredding torque that is progressively building out of the proverbial gate; now whether I elect to use it is at my discretion however it is available whereas if in a turbo’d gal this torque is not available; this is unless I prepare myself for this moment in time by power braking the gal so as to get the turbos to spool up otherwise when I press the go-pedal she is IMO flat; in fact somewhat anemic.

So now I need to come back to center so as not to let this become a supercharger rallying call as it is not; I will make very clear that I enjoy boosted gals whether supercharged or turbo’d; and likely would also enjoy those where the packages have been combined however IMO each offers a completely different style of power and set the stages for a different driving style and furthermore my comments are based on the current offerings and not what I think could be if enough time and money was spent.

The supercharger is raw and visceral from low down up to maximum rev limit and once the pull is initiated the power will feel very linear because boost is constantly building; meaning there will be no surges in power but rather a strong pull all the way through however nearing the end of the pull sadly the supercharger will begin to show its age (after all by design it is not only old but being used to compress rather than scavenge air) as it will run out of breath and in fact over time will become over heated and be able to perform at the same level unless given time to cool down; this is the nature of the beast and even liquid intercooled has removed a component of supercharged gals. The supercharged gals use a by-pass valve to release pressure under deceleration so as to make the transition from boost to vacuum smooth rather as a device to control the amount of boost allowed; meaning the supercharger anabolic efficiency combined with the rotor spin rate will create a measurable result which can be altered by swapping pulley sizes hence changing the amount of air being moved at any given moment in time.

The turbo is IMO more sly; maybe even a bit silky smooth in the sense that unless as shared earlier one imitates a pull by power braking will give you a false sense of control over the go-pedal meaning if you simply initiate a pull by pressing the go-pedal it will take time for the power to build because this is a by-product of the impeller speed and the housing design as well as the relationship with the waste gate and then out of the blue the turbos kick in whether you are ready for them or not. When designing a turbo system one of the primary goals is to get the turbo to spool up as quickly as possible as such impeller size, weight, design, and housings are combined always attempting to find the “Holy Grail” and yet not so small so as to choke the system once the gal is in the big end arena of her power band or she will run short on air; sadly there are very few aftermarket tuners that successfully find this balancing act but rather an present their system as completed with an endless array of operational/performance compromises based on design flaws and then sold as normal. Now unlike the supercharger the pressure dumping device on a turbo gal is referred to as a waste gate; the term specifically states “waste” as the compressed air being generated by the turbo is not needed to maintain a predetermined boost level as such it is allowed to escape. Whereas a supercharger will build boost over time a turbo gal in the optimum situation will create a predetermined boost (hopefully very quickly) and then maintain the same level of boost throughout the pull; if one wants more boost (in the old days we used to shim the spring on the waste gate) today they use one of the many electronic devices that micro manage the waste gate. Now if one is successful when designing the system so that the turbo spools extremely quickly and then are large enough to still push sufficient air on the big end then mechanically speaking the “Holy Grail” will have been found however (I share this with no disrespect to the turbo systems presently integrated in the Ford GT’s) this is not the case. IMO the turbos are not properly placed, too far from the head, and the list goes on as such what all have are high horsepower gals capable of cutting through the air at extreme speeds more efficiently than any of the supercharged Ford GT’s and yet lack the low end grunt and torque through the lower and early mid section thus making them “less” fun to drive.

Now this brings me to the supercharger and turbo combination systems; now long before they were offered for sale Torrie, TonY G, and myself toyed with setup and tested it because on paper and then confirmed by real time dyno results as measured with Torrie’s gal we had stunning success however as with most success a price was to be paid. The discharge air temperatures created as the direct result of this combination were through the roof and IMO as well as the others involved with the testing agreed that the combination was good for little more that the ultimate puddle jumper; the scenario that I described above. Now I have to also say that I am a mechanical junkie and the mere idea of tossing open the clamshell to be presented with not only a supercharger but also a pair of turbos would make my legs weak however if the gal were to be used on the track, for a mile run, or for that matter anything more than brief gear blast it would become the law of diminishing returns and she will not survive; on this I have no doubt or I would have the combination on my gal as this IMO would be the ultimate statement of power. In as much as I share this and my enthusiasm for it; it was mechanically a patchwork quilt. It was taking the supercharger for it low end torque and then as it begins to run out of breath having a pair of turbos help it breath a bit more and longer however sadly and mechanically by this point in time the operational damage aka the excessive discharge air temperature had already been created by the supercharger as such the net benefit of the turbos IMO became little more than a moderately increased horsepower number; a number that means very little because in the end the gal will not survive in those conditions.

So what is the answer; this can only be shared after the following question is answered.

If you want to run the mile and have the most significant big end number then the edge goes to the turbo however for normal day to day driving you must then accept an anemic low end power band unless you either learn to and consistently power brake or always operate her in the sub 4000 RPM range.

If you want bodacious torque at your disposal from the moment you bring her to life whether you drive your gal on the street, moderate track usage, and at the mile knowing that a number not much greater than 200 MPH is what you can experience then the edge goes to the supercharger

If you are a mechanical junky and like myself enjoy the mechanics of the supercharger and turbo combination and clearly understand that in this configuration she will certainly be the ultimate tire shredder while also accepting her operations limitation based on the inefficient system design then the edge goes to the supercharger and turbo combination.

However if you want the “Holy Grail” then quit purchasing the systems as presented and force someone to create a system from a clean piece of paper not using space constraints and finances as key limitations and I dare say that the results would be out of this world.

Keep in mind; any gal designed to operate on pump gal will have combustion limitations as such even the “Holy Grail” will not greatly exceed the measured numbers as presently solicited but rather the power could become available sooner and remain available for a much longer period of time.

Now I am a huge fan of nitro Top Fuel gals even though today the rules are such that the real design envelope is no longer pushed; it is a tuners game with the playing field all but leveled except for the cash that one is willing/able to spend and these folks elect to spin the tightest most efficient superchargers in the world and the resulting power is beyond visceral however they only do so for 1000 feet so this brings me immediately back to the question “what is the best answer” to which you first have to define her usage and your expectations.

I encourage that you do not get sucked into a horsepower power sales pitch because it is “NOT” a reflection of how much power is being made but rather a measurement of an extremely small moment in time and even less how much fun she will be to drive. I know a few folks that have both supercharged and turbo gals and all have said the same thing to me; “my supercharged gal is more responsive and enjoyable to drive and yet when I want the ultimate top speed rush the turbo gal makes me smile”.

In closing let me reiterate that I truly mean not to offend anyone and even less I do not want discourage anyone from their quest but rather I have taken this time to share “my thoughts” and as I say; "if the shoe fits wear it" and if not I hope that you enjoyed the read and garnered something from it; even if only a little insight about the “Shadowman”

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[Superfly]

Shadowman's post was very informative and makes you pause and think about why we're doing what we do, and what we're trying to achieve. It's great info, and it really should be stickied.

 

[Joe Dozzo]

Thanks to both Chip and Shadowman! I was one who was anticipating the review but missed it in the original thread.

Shadowman, I agree completely and thank you for expressing it so eloquently!

 

[Shelby#18]

As Shadowman say's both are different animals, and thats why I've done both. I have spoken to Bill before about my experiences with the different set ups. And I personally like the TT set up the best. My experiences though may be a little jaded because on both cars I have the Stillen 3:90 gears. So I can still get off with a blast with either car. :biggrin

The other thing to keep in mind is that I'm not a straight line driver. I prefer the road coarse. And as long as your using your head around the corners the turbos do fine.

 

[dbk]

Bill,
I'm going to have to disagree with you big time on this one. Just for some background, here is why I wanted to get turbos. There are two primary reasons that I had to get rid of the supercharger. One is that the car intolerably overheated at the track and ran hot on the street. It was annoying, and honestly embarrassing, to go out on the track, make 5 laps, and then have the car limp back into the pits on an 80* day. This will happen to any Ford GT with a supercharger on it. If you have tracked your Ford GT on more than a quick lapping day, you have seen limp mode. This has been shown repeatedly to be exacerbated on many cars with Whipples on them, including wild variances in dyno runs from one pull to the next. The only real cure is removing your AC. This is not viable.

The second was because precisely what you describe as enjoying is precisely what I couldn't stand. If you plan on short shifting the car, or pulling it forward using prodigious torque in 2nd or 3rd gear from low rpm, the mass of torque it makes is great. Likewise, you can do this at a track. I've done "3rd gear only" track days with the blower where you just stick it in gear and pull yourself around because you can't go any faster, and if you throw it in 2nd, you will annihilate the tires. This can be viewed as either good or bad. Good because it makes you use your right hand and left foot less, bad because it makes tracking the car or driving twisty roads less involving (see 3.90 gear upgrade).

Which leads me to the point that yes, while instant torque can be useful in many ways, in others, it can be insanely eye-rollingly frustrating. When I had the p/t/e on my car, 1st gear was rendered useless at virtually all times. 2nd gear was useless on days less than 70*. Unless you are commited to switching tires to something stickier and wider, the immediacy with which a blower car delivers the torque will ensure that you would most likely get blown away by any number of lesser horsepower cars that don't annihilate their tires constantly. I challenge anyone with a Whipple on the street to beat a stock GT-R from 30-80 mph.

The combination of these two situations is why I think you have seen very little difference in 1/4 mile times out of a big power, supercharged Ford GT vs. ones with less. Soroush has delivered what I see to be by far the fastest at 10.7@140, and that was spraying the car as well. We've seen plenty of 130-135 mph Whipple cars that make huge power on the dyno. I ran 133mph in a pullied car with less than 600rwhp. Now obviously few people are going to drag race their Ford GT, but in every traditional measure of acceleration, the turbo cars, as presently constituted, absolutely destroy the blower cars. That is unless of course you are racing from 2k-4k rpm.

So with that intro on where I stand, it brings me to this:

(I share this with no disrespect to the turbo systems presently integrated in the Ford GT’s) this is not the case. IMO the turbos are not properly placed, too far from the head, and the list goes on as such what all have are high horsepower gals capable of cutting through the air at extreme speeds more efficiently than any of the supercharged Ford GT’s and yet lack the low end grunt and torque through the lower and early mid section thus making them “less” fun to drive.

That's like saying "No disrespect, but your mother is ugly." :lol Maybe "properly placed" should be rephrased. Now, the low end grunt portion and fun to drive equation is where we differ. Precisely because the car has less tire-melting torque at low rpm, the car is simply way more usable on the street, which in turn, makes it more fun. My car made 500rwtq at 3500 rpm. That, in my eyes, is plenty of available torque to get from stoplight to stoplight. And should I choose to mat it to the floor, in first I know it will not spin the tires running on wastegate springs, and if I choose to do so, the drop in RPM's keeps plenty of power available when shifting 1-2-3.

That is why the "lack" of torque makes the car so enjoyable now. I don't worry about the cars incessant desire to loop itself at any RPM with the huge pool of torque. In the graveyard of Ford GT's, a huge number have been wrecked because the owners have thought "well I'll just punch it here" and that tidal wave of torque sends them onto surfaces unintended for driving. This is irrefutable and everyone with a FGT knows the feeling. Right foot to the floor, tail end to the side. I've seen it first hand. Both as a passenger, and seeing a freshly pullied car wrecked the same day. This is in no way saying doubling the horsepower with turbos won't lead to the same result, but that split second your foot is down and the car isn't rocketing forward/sideways is very valuable for the brain/eyes/behavior relationship to reconcile.

I can envision no scenario in which you would shift 1-2-3 everytime shifting at 4k and care. If that is a concern to anyone looking to get more power, I would recommend leaving the car stock. The car is very entertaining under 4k rpm as is. As I've made the joke before, I understand people like torque, but you can yell out the window "But look at this torque cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurve." as any turbo car from any tuner, as presently constituted, goes flying past. This is in any realistic race situation. The only turbo car I ever went in that had what I would describe as significant lag was the original Stage 6 car.

I prefer not having the huge torque which makes putting your foot down a dicey proposition at all times. If the car made more power and torque earlier, I would be unhappy as I'd be back to square one being slower than cars with half the power on everyday roads. I explained this to Rick Saute before he tracked his TT car at Willow. Having tracked the TT's at MMP, it was clear that you could come out of corners with your foot down and have a nice window of opportunity to make sure you're placed correctly before you get sideswiped by your own torque.

So that's my opposing view. I don't think it's less fun at all to drive a car with a more forgiving powerband. And with that more forgiving powerband, the car is still crushingly faster in virtually every situation that you would ultimately care. If given the option to have a turbo system that spooled 500 rpm sooner, I would decline it. 500 more rpm before that and I flat out wouldn't want it. My last car made peak torque at 2k rpm. Entertaining at first, but old quickly. I had to drive the car everywhere on ET Streets or I couldn't get it to go anywhere (but I made lots of nice rubber stripes on the road).

It's important to remember that we're talking about cars that make 700-800-900 hp. When we say current turbo systems have lag, think of what that means. Peak's car went 0-100 in 5.73 seconds. It went 20-100 in 4.74. It went 60-130 in 4.55. You can take your car at 50 mph, punch it in 2nd and be going 130 mph in under 5 seconds. A very small moment in time indeed!

 

[BlackICE]

I challenge anyone with a Whipple on the street to beat a stock GT-R from 30-80 mph.

Dave, what is that time? I think I may be able to give you a Driftbox trace showing how a Whippled FGT can best that even with the no grip GY tires! Just put the hammer down in 2nd with the 3:90 gears! Right in the sweet spot! :biggrin!

Do I win a prize?

 

[Triheart7]

Is there any news about a Flux Capacitor?

 

[Shelby#18]

It was annoying, and honestly embarrassing, to go out on the track, make 5 laps, and then have the car limp back into the pits on an 80* day.

Dave, you got 5 laps! That's awesome!! I limped back after only 2 with the Gen 1 Whipple. Then I'd let the car cool down, and do it again. Spent a whole day doing that. :frown

Now with the TT, I haven't limped back yet!

 

[dbk]

Dave, what is that time? I think I may be able to give you a Driftbox trace showing how a Whippled FGT can best that even with the no grip GY tires! Just put the hammer down in 2nd with the 3:90 gears! Right in the sweet spot! :biggrin!

Do I win a prize?

I don't know but I'm sure we can find out. Whipple with 3.90s? Come on now, that's no fair! :biggrin

Obviously the point I was trying to make is that while prodigious torque is useful for just the reason you point out (the ability to worry less about gear and rpm) it can also be detrimental. In regards to the specific discussion, a twin turbo setup with significant power that brought on more torque 500-1000 rpms, which is likely 10-15 mph, sooner is not desirable for me personally.

 

[Joe Dozzo]

I hate all you folks who live at / near sea level!!!

At ~7,000 outside of Denver, the car is down very noticably in power. At ~3% per 1000ft, that's a 20% hit where I live. For my situation, the SC and the extra down low grunt would just get me back to where you sea-level folks are all the time!

 

[Empty Pockets]

I hate all you folks who live at / near sea level!!!

At ~7,000 outside of Denver, the car is down very noticably in power. At ~3% per 1000ft, that's a 20% hit where I live. For my situation, the SC and the extra down low grunt would just get me back to where you sea-level folks are all the time!

United or Allied Van Lines would be happy to solve the altitude problem for you...:biggrin

 

[lthlvpr]

So how do the 3.90s work with the TT application? I would have thought it would be too much and be nothing more than something that would work at the dragstrip. Can you actually get traction with the 3.90s and a TT kit on the street???

 

[dbk]

I drove Rick's 3.90 TT car in Vegas. Wheeeeeeelspin. But vegas is a terrible example because the roads are ridiculously greasy everywhere. He says it's awesome at the track.

 

[Shadowman]

So how do the 3.90s work with the TT application? I would have thought it would be too much and be nothing more than something that would work at the dragstrip. Can you actually get traction with the 3.90s and a TT kit on the street???

They by-product of the gearing is that it helps the turbos spool up much quicker; in fact when Rick and initially chatted about them this was IMO a wonderful means to make the turbo systems much more street friendly.

Rick has had track time with both of his gals; one a Whipple and the other a TT as such his comments are based in fact. Then add to this DBK sharing his comment confirms thie fact that as the result of the more aggressive gearing the turbos come on line aka spool up much quicker.

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[kmillen]

We have done a couple sets of 3.90 gears in vehicle's equipped with twin turbo systems. We did not actually work on Rick's car (just the gearbox) in person but we did work on another customer's TT vehicle at our facility and in my opinion, the 3.90's helped alot. However, with that being said, I believe this car was equipped with larger than normal turbo's as I spoke with the builder after the car left and he explained to me that they were considering going to a slightly smaller turbo to reduce some of the lag.

I think the biggest thing to consider is what you planning on doing with the car. When we hosted a meet during the So Cal. rally a couple of years ago I overheard someone say "I can't believe they didn't put twin turbo's on their race car." Which would be a perfectly normal question for someone who's goal was 1 mile events or even quarter mile races. But, for the type of racing/driving that we do. We believe that the smaller pulley, tune, and exhaust plus the 3.90 gear is the best setup (for what we do.) It supplies us with instant power at all times. Which is exactly what we need when racing around roads that we are unfamiliar with. With a turbo system we probably never would have reached any boost pressure, by the time the turbo's spool up we would be out of the gas and preparing for the next corner. But again, we don't know what to expect so we can't get on the throttle too early "knowing" what lies around the next bend.

It's just my opinion but I really think that in order to determine what form of forced induction is "best" you must really know what you plan on doing with your car.

 

[BlackICE]

It's just my opinion but I really think that in order to determine what form of forced induction is "best" you must really know what you plan on doing with your car.

Well said!

But, in the end all of this doesn't really matter. Get the system that puts the biggest smile on your face. With all of the great choice we have that isn't too hard.

Just think of the poor Prius owner, I can think of any mods that would make me smile after a drive in it.

 

[soroush]

all this back and forth disagreements................

Im kind of upset we have cut out the lone star(drag race) portion of the rally, or at least have made it a non sanctioned rally event, that would have been the ultimate proving grounds,

comon dave what do you say, I think the drag race and 60-130 will be much more fun and enjoyable for everyone drivers and spectators than doing the road coarse, or even the mile, I undrestand there is a big following that may want to track the car and run the mile but for true head up action you cant beat the drag race.

if you guys want to know which set up is better once and for all, lets go to the dragstrip and we can sort it all out there:biggrin


BRING THE DRAG RACE BACK:cheers

 

[lthlvpr]

Kyle-
Just sent you an email re the 3.90s and one of the TT cars you worked on. Looking forward to speaking with you.

 

[PeakCompletions]

Bill,
I'm going to have to disagree with you big time on this one. Just for some background, here is why I wanted to get turbos. There are two primary reasons that I had to get rid of the supercharger. One is that the car intolerably overheated at the track and ran hot on the street. It was annoying, and honestly embarrassing, to go out on the track, make 5 laps, and then have the car limp back into the pits on an 80* day. This will happen to any Ford GT with a supercharger on it. If you have tracked your Ford GT on more than a quick lapping day, you have seen limp mode. This has been shown repeatedly to be exacerbated on many cars with Whipples on them, including wild variances in dyno runs from one pull to the next. The only real cure is removing your AC. This is not viable.

The second was because precisely what you describe as enjoying is precisely what I couldn't stand. If you plan on short shifting the car, or pulling it forward using prodigious torque in 2nd or 3rd gear from low rpm, the mass of torque it makes is great. Likewise, you can do this at a track. I've done "3rd gear only" track days with the blower where you just stick it in gear and pull yourself around because you can't go any faster, and if you throw it in 2nd, you will annihilate the tires. This can be viewed as either good or bad. Good because it makes you use your right hand and left foot less, bad because it makes tracking the car or driving twisty roads less involving (see 3.90 gear upgrade).

Which leads me to the point that yes, while instant torque can be useful in many ways, in others, it can be insanely eye-rollingly frustrating. When I had the p/t/e on my car, 1st gear was rendered useless at virtually all times. 2nd gear was useless on days less than 70*. Unless you are commited to switching tires to something stickier and wider, the immediacy with which a blower car delivers the torque will ensure that you would most likely get blown away by any number of lesser horsepower cars that don't annihilate their tires constantly. I challenge anyone with a Whipple on the street to beat a stock GT-R from 30-80 mph.

The combination of these two situations is why I think you have seen very little difference in 1/4 mile times out of a big power, supercharged Ford GT vs. ones with less. Soroush has delivered what I see to be by far the fastest at 10.7@140, and that was spraying the car as well. We've seen plenty of 130-135 mph Whipple cars that make huge power on the dyno. I ran 133mph in a pullied car with less than 600rwhp. Now obviously few people are going to drag race their Ford GT, but in every traditional measure of acceleration, the turbo cars, as presently constituted, absolutely destroy the blower cars. That is unless of course you are racing from 2k-4k rpm.

So with that intro on where I stand, it brings me to this:



That's like saying "No disrespect, but your mother is ugly." :lol Maybe "properly placed" should be rephrased. Now, the low end grunt portion and fun to drive equation is where we differ. Precisely because the car has less tire-melting torque at low rpm, the car is simply way more usable on the street, which in turn, makes it more fun. My car made 500rwtq at 3500 rpm. That, in my eyes, is plenty of available torque to get from stoplight to stoplight. And should I choose to mat it to the floor, in first I know it will not spin the tires running on wastegate springs, and if I choose to do so, the drop in RPM's keeps plenty of power available when shifting 1-2-3.

That is why the "lack" of torque makes the car so enjoyable now. I don't worry about the cars incessant desire to loop itself at any RPM with the huge pool of torque. In the graveyard of Ford GT's, a huge number have been wrecked because the owners have thought "well I'll just punch it here" and that tidal wave of torque sends them onto surfaces unintended for driving. This is irrefutable and everyone with a FGT knows the feeling. Right foot to the floor, tail end to the side. I've seen it first hand. Both as a passenger, and seeing a freshly pullied car wrecked the same day. This is in no way saying doubling the horsepower with turbos won't lead to the same result, but that split second your foot is down and the car isn't rocketing forward/sideways is very valuable for the brain/eyes/behavior relationship to reconcile.

I can envision no scenario in which you would shift 1-2-3 everytime shifting at 4k and care. If that is a concern to anyone looking to get more power, I would recommend leaving the car stock. The car is very entertaining under 4k rpm as is. As I've made the joke before, I understand people like torque, but you can yell out the window "But look at this torque cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurve." as any turbo car from any tuner, as presently constituted, goes flying past. This is in any realistic race situation. The only turbo car I ever went in that had what I would describe as significant lag was the original Stage 6 car.

I prefer not having the huge torque which makes putting your foot down a dicey proposition at all times. If the car made more power and torque earlier, I would be unhappy as I'd be back to square one being slower than cars with half the power on everyday roads. I explained this to Rick Saute before he tracked his TT car at Willow. Having tracked the TT's at MMP, it was clear that you could come out of corners with your foot down and have a nice window of opportunity to make sure you're placed correctly before you get sideswiped by your own torque.

So that's my opposing view. I don't think it's less fun at all to drive a car with a more forgiving powerband. And with that more forgiving powerband, the car is still crushingly faster in virtually every situation that you would ultimately care. If given the option to have a turbo system that spooled 500 rpm sooner, I would decline it. 500 more rpm before that and I flat out wouldn't want it. My last car made peak torque at 2k rpm. Entertaining at first, but old quickly. I had to drive the car everywhere on ET Streets or I couldn't get it to go anywhere (but I made lots of nice rubber stripes on the road).

It's important to remember that we're talking about cars that make 700-800-900 hp. When we say current turbo systems have lag, think of what that means. Peak's car went 0-100 in 5.73 seconds. It went 20-100 in 4.74. It went 60-130 in 4.55. You can take your car at 50 mph, punch it in 2nd and be going 130 mph in under 5 seconds. A very small moment in time indeed!

Just finished a full day on Laguna Seca so I won't attempt to restate what Dave has done such a great job saying already... Agree 100%... great post...

I can say that Jason and I have experimented with many many different configurations over the last couple of years... another reason that I still don't have my yellow car home and another reason I have several Gts :willy
I find a system I like and put it in another car...

With that being said... the only Pullied SC car I have is the one I don't and won't drive for my collector... it looks so good and will remain that way...

for the street and track I couldn't agree more with Dave's assessment and the wonderful engineered systems that Heffner has put together from scratch, totally custom with no financial or spacial constraints...

with that being said I am having my "driver" setup with s SC/TT combination which for the purpose I want that car for, is the perfect setup for me... with Jason's breakthroughs and design I can dial in as much torque (or as little) as I want at any speed and at any gear... want a little more instant tire melting power in 1st and 2nd... no problem... going to the road course and want to bring the power in much later to ease drivability... no problem... supercharger only does not get you to this stage... plus I wanted something a little different :biggrin

am i using this on anything else?? no. On the yellow car I am going back to Turbos only because that is the quickest and most efficient system and will achieve our end goal easier... namely for the reasons DBK mentioned in his post...

overall I think those sitting on the fence should check out some of the amazing TT cars that will be at the next rally... should be a bunch from different tuners that will be great to experience... not for everyone of course but very well setup cars that in my opinion, are super super impressive.
:cheers:cheers:cheers

 

[Shadowman]

I was not going to add anything more because it would appear that I already stirred a hornets’ nest however considering this fact I decided what the heck a bit more could not hurt.

First of all I was not sharing my opinion in hopes of encouraging or discouraging anything. Then add to this, what I shared was based on personal experience most of which shared differences between the systems and yet being different does not mean less desirable.

Even DBK shared that he likes the turbo lag as it give him more control of his gal and then add to this the turbo system allows him greater time on the track; this is a perfect example of one knowing what they would like to get out of the ideal systems and having received it.

Ray then shared that all of his gals are to be turbo’d except for his investment gal because he has come to enjoy the manner in which they respond to his style of driving and desired usage. He also shared that he is combining a supercharger and turbos on one of his gal which will certainly give him the low end grunt as well as the opportunity for extreme top speed runs. Now I am also very well aware that one can learn how to spool turbo up while the gal is sitting still so as to create a strong tire frying launch however without this being done an element of lag based on the system that I have presently seen.

Both of these folks are great examples of having found their Ford GT Nirvana.

Now within my thread I purposely made no mention of names except those that I was intimately involved with however the thread quickly had shared experiences replaced company names which sadly IMO converted the thread from shared information into the marketing realm. My only goal was to share information based on personal experience and never to promote a company, a product, or a service.

In closing I will reiterate a comment that I made in the original thread; the present turbo systems that “I have seen” installed on the Ford GT are not designed for quickest spooling of the turbos. I have also seen and been told of clearance issues associated with the system integration. I also referenced that if time and money were not a component of the build then this could be improved; now this was not meaning to infer that the present systems are lacking in overall quality but rather IMO the path of least resistance was taken which is not uncommon and was not being presented as bad thing and yet the system design IMO has marked room for improvement.

Shadowman