same torque outputs?? I will put my money on the Centrifugal but I would definitely look at the gearing first. A centrifugal isnt the same without the correct gears but why build your car wrong anywaysprsrizdgt said:
same torque outputs?? I will put my money on the Centrifugal but I would definitely look at the gearing first. A centrifugal isnt the same without the correct gears but why build your car wrong anywaysprsrizdgt said:Mogs, I would like to get your answer on this question: If 2 cars have peak numbers that are the same, one a KB and one a Centri, which one would win a 1/4 mile race? Lets say they are both standard entry level blower kits making no more than 400 rwhp. Same suspension set-up, same tires, same tranny's, equally talented drivers.
Personally I do not think the top end charge of the centri would be enough to bring it back from the lead the KB would have.
mogs01gt said:same torque outputs?? I will put my money on the Centrifugal but I would definitely look at the gearing first. A centrifugal isnt the same without the correct gears but why build your car wrong anywaysActually I would still put my money on the Centrifugal type. Time and time again they perform better at the track.
Did you just say a stock any 5.0 can run the same times at as a stock 99+ 4.6?? and how much crack did you smoke this morning??Gearbanger 101 said:Not everyone wants to run 4.30 gears in their car to make up the difference though. Like I said, most stock cars with Centrifugal chargers that I have seen are usually dyno queens. Meaning they make lots of power on paper, but can't transfer it to the pavement.
If low-end torque isn't a big deal, for comparison, why do the old 2.73 geared 5.0L's run so close to the 99-up 3.27 geared 4.6's in stock trim? And don't come back with the weight difference excuse, because a couple of hundred pounds are only good for a tenth or two. Sure the later model SOHC 4.6L actually peaks a little higher than the OVH 5.0L, but the 5.0L comes in nearly 1000rpm lower and shows it at the track!
Which one of us is smoking the crack genius....read it again. I said that a stock 5.0L will run close to a '99-up GT, not run the same times. Are we illiterate now as well as narrow minded?mogs01gt said:Did you just say a stock any 5.0 can run the same times at as a stock 99+ 4.6?? and how much crack did you smoke this morning??
Again with putting words in my mouth!?! I didn't say that the KB's were “track gods”, I said that put more of their power to the pavement. Your average Centrifugal doesn't go anywhere near as fast as their numbers would indicate. I'll take a 400hp KB over a 400hp Centrifugal any day! Yeah, the fastest SOHC car is running a Centrifugal, but go take a look at what kind of boost is being run through it's huffer to make those numbers. It's a far cry from your average 9psi Paxton, ATI or Vortech in comparison to a 9psi KB! And the KB remains fully street able....can you still say that for the fastest Centrifugally blown car?mogs01gt said:If these precious Kenne Bell's are the track gods, then why isnt the fastest SOHC with a power adder car running one??
Because the 2.2L just came outmogs01gt said:If these precious Kenne Bell's are the track gods, then why isnt the fastest SOHC with a power adder car running one??
This is like trying to change peoples mind about politics man, and there is no need for you two to start insulting one another. Geez, nobody can have an argument anymore without getting all defensive, the two of you should be put in time outmogs01gt said:Did you just say a stock any 5.0 can run the same times at as a stock 99+ 4.6?? and how much crack did you smoke this morning??
If these precious Kenne Bell's are the track gods, then why isnt the fastest SOHC with a power adder car running one??
Whaddaya talking about…..I told him he was a genius.WhiteDevil69 said:This is like trying to change peoples mind about politics man, and there is no need for you two to start insulting one another. Geez, nobody can have an argument anymore without getting all defensive, the two of you should be put in time out
mogs01gt said:why doesnt it? Why do you guys think our cars need all this torque?? We do not have heavy cars. We have lighter cars that like to rev high. So this gives us the advantage of running higher gears which produces torque at the wheels and still allows to rev higher in our RPM band.
Just because forced induction may change our cars power out put, it does not change how our cars make the power.
SOHC like to rev, use gears to make up the torque difference.
read the article over. It states clearly that the 3000 and 6000 rpms, is the peak torque ratings for each motor. Not the max the motor car spin at.Laser-01-gt said:I just read the article you gave the link for. The reason it does not apply to this situation is that the article assumes that engine one has a max speed of 3000 rpm, while engine 2 has a max speed of 6000 rpm. not only that, but engine 2 makes twice the power ans engine 1.
:damnit:mogs01gt said:This is exacly why everyone that has any tech, left this site.
Go ahead and waste your money on the Kenne Bell. Every one with ATIs, Paxtons or Vortechs will have not problems handing you your asses at the track.
You people have yet to show any better performance from a Kenne Bell compared to a Centrifugal. Go ahead and go off dyno numbers, I will love to walk all over you will my all motor car.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?