http://www.dpccars.com/car-videos-08/01-07-08page-Ford-GT-with-both-supercharger-and-twin-turbo.htm



Ford GT with both supercharger and twin turbo on a dyno machine. Most people would be very happy with this cars stock abilities but the owner of this car just made this car twice as nice.



07 - VICTORY RED - LSD - GM STAGE 2 -FUJITA CAI - Ingalls ETD - SPORTLINES -
246whp 227wtq

Its cool i guess, but i still think just twin turbo is more efficient than both. But cool still



http://www.cardomain.com/id/oyyci
http://photobucket.com/albums/d170/Oyyci/

am i crazy or was there no BOV?

Why is the trunk open.

TT would be better w/o the s/c.

As far as being happy stock. Not when the z06 is nearly as fast for half the price.



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.523@111.30

Sappy96 wrote:Why is the trunk open.

You mean hood? Hoods are on the front of a car.

W/e you want to call the storage compartment in the front of the car.



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.523@111.30

Quote:

Its cool i guess, but i still think just twin turbo is more efficient than both. But cool still

Quote:

TT would be better w/o the s/c.

while it may be more efficient to run only the turbos, you won't have the throttle response of the supercharger, and running the supercharger allows the use of larger turbos (potentially providing higher hp, if the internals can hold up) with no lag.
In theory, if the system was designed correctly, including the use of an intercooler or two (which I didn't see on that GT) and, optimally, methanol/water injection, and installed on an engine that could handle extremely high levels of boost, this could be a motherf'kin' badass setup.

This was discussed extensively when a member of this forum (Josh F) twin-charged his 'Fire GT on stock internals. He was flamed b/c he "only" put out 275hp with 8psi (which can, of course, be achieved with a turbo only). However, he claimed to put out 280lb-ft of torque from just off idle all the way to 6000rpm. (the thread's been locked for other reasons)
One argument was that the s/c would become a heat sink at higher boost levels, but there is a way around this: if a valve is placed between the throttle plate(s) and the supercharger and an electromagnetic clutch used on the s/c pulley (like on an a/c compressor) allowing air from the turbo(s) to bypass the supercharger when turbo airflow exceeded the s/c's flow capacity (essentially, the point right before the turbo(s) would create positive pressure between the turbo outlet and the s/c inlet), it eliminates the issue of the s/c creating too much heat at high boost levels. Volkswagen has produced an engine using a system similar to this, but it's not available in the 'States. It's a 1.4L 4-cyl. that produces 170 hp and 177 lb-ft of torque... stock.
While adapting a system like this to a factory NA car isn't really practical for the average enthusiast tuner, it's not simply "better without the supercharger"

DAMN that motor sounds MEAN!


---

That car is in my town, that shop is in my town. That is by far not impressive. Reason I say that is they have (same people) gotten around 1200 whp out of a stock motor GT with twin turbo's not charger. The GT motor is a beast stock.



FU Tuning

toyotaz87 wrote:

Quote:

This was discussed extensively when a member of this forum (Josh F) twin-charged his 'Fire GT on stock internals. He was flamed b/c he "only" put out 275hp with 8psi (which can, of course, be achieved with a turbo only). However, he claimed to put out 280lb-ft of torque from just off idle all the way to 6000rpm. (the thread's been locked for other reasons)
One argument was that the s/c would become a heat sink at higher boost levels, but there is a way around this: if a valve is placed between the throttle plate(s) and the supercharger and an electromagnetic clutch used on the s/c pulley (like on an a/c compressor) allowing air from the turbo(s) to bypass the supercharger when turbo airflow exceeded the s/c's flow capacity (essentially, the point right before the turbo(s) would create positive pressure between the turbo outlet and the s/c inlet), it eliminates the issue of the s/c creating too much heat at high boost levels. Volkswagen has produced an engine using a system similar to this, but it's not available in the 'States. It's a 1.4L 4-cyl. that produces 170 hp and 177 lb-ft of torque... stock.
While adapting a system like this to a factory NA car isn't really practical for the average enthusiast tuner, it's not simply "better without the supercharger"

I agree with you saying a bypass system would make this set up better. Though correct me if im wrong it would be nearly impossible to do this with the type of sc used on this GT. (i dont know the different names if types of chargers, ive always read up on turbos.) I have never thought about employing a bypass system tothe SC like that. I was just stating that in this set up i think just one would suffice.



http://www.cardomain.com/id/oyyci
http://photobucket.com/albums/d170/Oyyci/

John Higgins wrote: Reason I say that is they have (same people) gotten around 1200 whp out of a stock motor GT with twin turbo's not charger. The GT motor is a beast stock.

Precisely



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, January 07, 2008 9:56 AM


05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.523@111.30

I didn't see any intercoolers...