- Aug 25, 2006
- 4,436
And yet one more comment as I have to get this off my chest.
DBK
I went back and read this reply from you which I have cut pasted at this end of this reply as a point of reference; now even though I enjoyed and appreciated reading your point of view/opinions and shared experiences your comment in association with my no disrespect comment continues to roll through my head as does your comment about me changing a phrase that I used within my post.
DBK; your comparison of no disrespect but your mother’s ugly does not mirror that which I was sharing. When I said no disrespect I was saying that in sharing my opinion it is was not my desire to critique any one system or a person’s methodology as used to create them but rather what I was sharing was solely my opinion of turbo systems in general in association with the Ford GT; which is exactly what I was asked to do and in this case my comments were based on facts.
I stated that the turbo systems as presently offered for the Ford GT community have the turbos improperly placed for optimum performance and the list goes on. Sadly I cannot come up with a better phrase to use because this is the truth.
Is it because it was easier, less expensive, and or for aesthetic reasons; certainly I do not know because I was not a component of the design team however if I were asked to speculate and share my opinion I would say that it was a combination of all three with the path of least resistance tossed in for good measure. I would also add to the mix that when Joe’s gal was presented a few years back as the initial extreme turbo Ford GT presenting numbers in the plus 1400 horsepower range that his system became the basis for others to create their own certainly with individual tweaks here and there however the basic premise and design layout changed very little because akin to bugs being drawn to the light folks were drawn with checkbook in hand to the dyno sheet that showed extreme results never questioning and for many simply not understanding just how inefficient the systems are and how much crisper they could be.
Having shared this it does not mean that the system available are bad systems but rather that a better mouse trap can be created; who knows maybe my saying this will inspire someone to pick up the proverbial ball and run with it. In my world I would consider this progress in much the same way that alternate supercharger systems are constantly being created. If I were not to share these facts and folks do not know that something more can be done then what compelling reason is there for anyone to continue the quest towards; in this case the “Holy Grail” of performance. Furthermore my knowing this and not sharing it would have significantly reduced the value of my post.
Now throughout my post I was very careful not to mention any names, I did not even differentiate the supercharger evaluation between OEM, smaller pulley, etc. What I did do was present what I thought was good information that would encourage folks to think about their personal goals and the manner in which they do or desire to exercise their gal and then compare this to the options available and maybe even look for more. Furthermore I also expected the thread to become more about shared experiences in the most general of senses never expecting it to become a marketing tool.
Lastly DBK; you share that you had to disagree with me when in fact there was nothing to disagree on; I presented a laundry list of opinions based on my personal experiences, I shared a few facts, and I also shared my personal preference and then in turn you did something similar. You shared what you like, what you dislike, and also a few facts as such both of our posts were very similar in the sense that personal opinions and experiences were shared.
In closing most know that I am very much a straight shooter not to mention as honest in that which I share as I am anal about that which I do and then add to this folks know very well that I leave my door open and lights on for all expecting nothing in return; to this there are no exceptions. I share this in hopes that no one was offended, troubled, and even more so took personally anything that I have shared because this was never to be the case; I simply shared a bit of the Shadowman.
Shadowman
“Posted by 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 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowman
(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." 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!”
__________________
DBK
I went back and read this reply from you which I have cut pasted at this end of this reply as a point of reference; now even though I enjoyed and appreciated reading your point of view/opinions and shared experiences your comment in association with my no disrespect comment continues to roll through my head as does your comment about me changing a phrase that I used within my post.
DBK; your comparison of no disrespect but your mother’s ugly does not mirror that which I was sharing. When I said no disrespect I was saying that in sharing my opinion it is was not my desire to critique any one system or a person’s methodology as used to create them but rather what I was sharing was solely my opinion of turbo systems in general in association with the Ford GT; which is exactly what I was asked to do and in this case my comments were based on facts.
I stated that the turbo systems as presently offered for the Ford GT community have the turbos improperly placed for optimum performance and the list goes on. Sadly I cannot come up with a better phrase to use because this is the truth.
Is it because it was easier, less expensive, and or for aesthetic reasons; certainly I do not know because I was not a component of the design team however if I were asked to speculate and share my opinion I would say that it was a combination of all three with the path of least resistance tossed in for good measure. I would also add to the mix that when Joe’s gal was presented a few years back as the initial extreme turbo Ford GT presenting numbers in the plus 1400 horsepower range that his system became the basis for others to create their own certainly with individual tweaks here and there however the basic premise and design layout changed very little because akin to bugs being drawn to the light folks were drawn with checkbook in hand to the dyno sheet that showed extreme results never questioning and for many simply not understanding just how inefficient the systems are and how much crisper they could be.
Having shared this it does not mean that the system available are bad systems but rather that a better mouse trap can be created; who knows maybe my saying this will inspire someone to pick up the proverbial ball and run with it. In my world I would consider this progress in much the same way that alternate supercharger systems are constantly being created. If I were not to share these facts and folks do not know that something more can be done then what compelling reason is there for anyone to continue the quest towards; in this case the “Holy Grail” of performance. Furthermore my knowing this and not sharing it would have significantly reduced the value of my post.
Now throughout my post I was very careful not to mention any names, I did not even differentiate the supercharger evaluation between OEM, smaller pulley, etc. What I did do was present what I thought was good information that would encourage folks to think about their personal goals and the manner in which they do or desire to exercise their gal and then compare this to the options available and maybe even look for more. Furthermore I also expected the thread to become more about shared experiences in the most general of senses never expecting it to become a marketing tool.
Lastly DBK; you share that you had to disagree with me when in fact there was nothing to disagree on; I presented a laundry list of opinions based on my personal experiences, I shared a few facts, and I also shared my personal preference and then in turn you did something similar. You shared what you like, what you dislike, and also a few facts as such both of our posts were very similar in the sense that personal opinions and experiences were shared.
In closing most know that I am very much a straight shooter not to mention as honest in that which I share as I am anal about that which I do and then add to this folks know very well that I leave my door open and lights on for all expecting nothing in return; to this there are no exceptions. I share this in hopes that no one was offended, troubled, and even more so took personally anything that I have shared because this was never to be the case; I simply shared a bit of the Shadowman.
Shadowman
“Posted by 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 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowman
(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." 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!”
__________________
op:beer2:
