Turbo vs. Vortech s/c
11-02-2006, 11:24 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo vs. Vortech s/c
Have any vortech guys ran against a turbo guy with comparable whp or vice versa? I'm curious as to how much faster a turbo car is than a vortech with hp and psi being the same.
11-02-2006, 11:47 AM
#4
IMO turbos will have higher peak torque
IMO from my findings, usually a high whp vortech setup has more power below 3000 rpms than single turbo systems, and more power below 2500 rpms than twin turbo systems
IMO turbos always have way more midrange power at the same psi
IMO the vortech will have about equal top end as a turbo at the same psi
IMO it is easier to get traction and manage it with the vortech because the torque doesn't come on so fast to overpower the tires, but it won't kick you back in your seat as much, so the fun factor isn't as high
IMO an equal psi turbo is roughly .5 sec or less faster in the 1/4 mile with everything else being equal
IMO the vortech is safer than a turbo and less likely to create head lift from having too much peak torque for what the stock headgaskets can hold
IMO I've seen some time slips with stock vortechs and exhaust/plenum on stock tires run 12.5-12.6's on good days and 12.8-12.9's on bad days
IMO I haven't heard of many people running slicks with vortechs in the 1/4 mile. Usually just street tires unlike the turbos guys running slicks
IMO the vortech is a different animal than turbos and more often than not bashed because of it's lack of peak torque and slower spool up and parasitic loss
IMO from my findings, usually a high whp vortech setup has more power below 3000 rpms than single turbo systems, and more power below 2500 rpms than twin turbo systems
IMO turbos always have way more midrange power at the same psi
IMO the vortech will have about equal top end as a turbo at the same psi
IMO it is easier to get traction and manage it with the vortech because the torque doesn't come on so fast to overpower the tires, but it won't kick you back in your seat as much, so the fun factor isn't as high
IMO an equal psi turbo is roughly .5 sec or less faster in the 1/4 mile with everything else being equal
IMO the vortech is safer than a turbo and less likely to create head lift from having too much peak torque for what the stock headgaskets can hold
IMO I've seen some time slips with stock vortechs and exhaust/plenum on stock tires run 12.5-12.6's on good days and 12.8-12.9's on bad days
IMO I haven't heard of many people running slicks with vortechs in the 1/4 mile. Usually just street tires unlike the turbos guys running slicks
IMO the vortech is a different animal than turbos and more often than not bashed because of it's lack of peak torque and slower spool up and parasitic loss
Last edited by sentry65; 11-02-2006 at 12:32 PM.
11-02-2006, 11:51 AM
#5
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bradenton/Sarasota
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be good to go compare track times with certain mods vortech vs. tt or ST.
I haven't researched much, but I can tell you on like 9psi, Taurran ran a 12.3 on 19" street tires with fujitsubo exhaust and a 5/16" spacer on the TN kit. I ran a 12.5 and I'm trapping in the mid-110s, basically had the same mods but running 8psi and on 18" street tires.
I haven't researched much, but I can tell you on like 9psi, Taurran ran a 12.3 on 19" street tires with fujitsubo exhaust and a 5/16" spacer on the TN kit. I ran a 12.5 and I'm trapping in the mid-110s, basically had the same mods but running 8psi and on 18" street tires.
11-02-2006, 12:26 PM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting perspective sentry. Yeah, it would be nice to actually see some track times comparing the different F/I's out there, or even having them run side by side. There are a couple of turboed g's in my area so when my 3.12 pulley is done and I'm boosting roughly the same psi as a TN, I'll ask one of them to run with me before the snow hits 
. I hope my 3.3 gears aren't slowing me down too much, and the AT shifts like a drunk in MM mode 
Shifts a lot faster if I let my foot off the gas, but I haven't figured out why or if it's bad for the tranny yet 
. I hope my 3.3 gears aren't slowing me down too much, and the AT shifts like a drunk in MM mode Shifts a lot faster if I let my foot off the gas, but I haven't figured out why or if it's bad for the tranny yet
11-02-2006, 12:46 PM
#7
One thing no one mentions is the alignment of the rear tires. Negative Camber is horrible for drag racing, its an inherit flaw in IRS. When the car is launching off of the line it creates more negative camber further reducing the contact patch. If you were able to put some postive camber in the rear it would fix this for drag racing. This is why solid axel cars hook up better.
Trending Topics
11-02-2006, 01:53 PM
#8
Registered User
iTrader: (154)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hills of Anaheim
Posts: 10,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rocks
One thing no one mentions is the alignment of the rear tires. Negative Camber is horrible for drag racing, its an inherit flaw in IRS. When the car is launching off of the line it creates more negative camber further reducing the contact patch. If you were able to put some postive camber in the rear it would fix this for drag racing. This is why solid axel cars hook up better.
11-02-2006, 02:48 PM
#10
there's been some magazine articles comparing 4 or so FI cars to each other, doing all the normal specs you'd see in a Car magazine, including lap times, but each car is so dragstically set up different that it isn't very scientific. You walk away with a rough idea and that's it
11-02-2006, 03:12 PM
#11
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen some out of the box hp comparisons side by side, but they didn't look very accurate. I guess I'll just have to take my car to the track and find out for myself 
11-02-2006, 04:29 PM
#12
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New hampshire
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never run a turbo will be I can tell ya a turbo will be faster hands down. Much higher tq. Our Vortech kicks in around 3500 to 4000g and builds boost till 6500. A turbo will be at Full boost at about 4000 to 6500.More boost for longer. Add yourself that 3:12 and you will be blown away. For me it feels turboish.
11-02-2006, 04:56 PM
#13
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a turbo is faster, but my question is...how much faster is it really? Peak torque down low isn't necessarily a good thing, especially with aggressive gearing. Not only do the turbo guys chirp their tires (slowing them down), but with shorter gears, they have to shift a lot sooner, otherwise when they shift, they won't be at their peak torque in the next gear. Peak torque up high, or linear torque would be much better IMO because you can take advantage of gear multiplication and stay in a gear much longer...please correct me if I'm wrong in my theory
The only advantage I see is that turbos have more torque, period. Although, I would think that even though they have higher torque numbers, because it peaks much lower than an s/c (linear throughout the band), it would make that 50 more torque not as usable because it is down low. I would think it would slow a turbo car down because they would struggle getting traction because of so much torque down low, which begins to dip towards redline not allowing them to stay in the gear for long, shift sooner, and not be able to take advantage of gear multiplication as stated earlier. Again, please correct me if my logic is faulty.....thanks
The only advantage I see is that turbos have more torque, period. Although, I would think that even though they have higher torque numbers, because it peaks much lower than an s/c (linear throughout the band), it would make that 50 more torque not as usable because it is down low. I would think it would slow a turbo car down because they would struggle getting traction because of so much torque down low, which begins to dip towards redline not allowing them to stay in the gear for long, shift sooner, and not be able to take advantage of gear multiplication as stated earlier. Again, please correct me if my logic is faulty.....thanks
Last edited by 617G; 11-02-2006 at 05:02 PM.
11-02-2006, 05:20 PM
#14
well most people with turbos are running regular street tires and not a whole lot wider - maybe 275's mounted on their big 19 inch rims. Yeah those guys spin the wheels out in 1st thru 3rd gear all day long and to them that's really cool - means "they have a lot of power" To me, it just means their car isn't very well thought out. The guys running slicks or competition or drag radial tires hook up pretty well and their car can move though
the nature of the vortech is going to help traction in the lower gears. For me, I'd rather have more traction than power cause then I know I can hammer the throttle in any gear at any rpm and it will predictably and consistently go vs having to give it 60-90% throttle in certain parts of the rpm range. This is especially important when you're dealing with turns. It's true a good driver can deal with the turbo's big torque and feel that they shouldn't give much more throttle than a certain point. But still it's nice to know you can stomp the throttle anytime with the vortech and the car won't do anything crazy. This is especially true of the single turbos who really do have more of a peaky spike of torque in the midrange - dynos always look like a pointy mountain
Some of the fastest production cars don't even have huge early torque. The car usually relies on strong lower gearing and good traction, then the bigger power comes in once the engine starts winding up. The Porsche Carrera GT for example has 435 crank torque (around 370 at the wheels) and Ferrari F430 has 343 crank torque (around 290 at the wheels). Aside from so many other things, one of the things that makes those cars as fast as they are is their ability to get such good traction. I see the turbo Z's as being more similar to vipers than those cars. And if viper people were making fun of F430 or Carrera GT people for their pitiful torque then that's their opinion.
There's lots of other things car engineers do to make cars fast other than the torque number. Let's not forget that up high, the vortech holds it's own fairly well in the torque department, and that's where you are usually when you're racing anyway.
the nature of the vortech is going to help traction in the lower gears. For me, I'd rather have more traction than power cause then I know I can hammer the throttle in any gear at any rpm and it will predictably and consistently go vs having to give it 60-90% throttle in certain parts of the rpm range. This is especially important when you're dealing with turns. It's true a good driver can deal with the turbo's big torque and feel that they shouldn't give much more throttle than a certain point. But still it's nice to know you can stomp the throttle anytime with the vortech and the car won't do anything crazy. This is especially true of the single turbos who really do have more of a peaky spike of torque in the midrange - dynos always look like a pointy mountain
Some of the fastest production cars don't even have huge early torque. The car usually relies on strong lower gearing and good traction, then the bigger power comes in once the engine starts winding up. The Porsche Carrera GT for example has 435 crank torque (around 370 at the wheels) and Ferrari F430 has 343 crank torque (around 290 at the wheels). Aside from so many other things, one of the things that makes those cars as fast as they are is their ability to get such good traction. I see the turbo Z's as being more similar to vipers than those cars. And if viper people were making fun of F430 or Carrera GT people for their pitiful torque then that's their opinion.
There's lots of other things car engineers do to make cars fast other than the torque number. Let's not forget that up high, the vortech holds it's own fairly well in the torque department, and that's where you are usually when you're racing anyway.
Last edited by sentry65; 11-02-2006 at 05:40 PM.
11-02-2006, 05:24 PM
#15
Originally Posted by chimmike
Might be good to go compare track times with certain mods vortech vs. tt or ST.
I haven't researched much, but I can tell you on like 9psi, Taurran ran a 12.3 on 19" street tires with fujitsubo exhaust and a 5/16" spacer on the TN kit. I ran a 12.5 and I'm trapping in the mid-110s, basically had the same mods but running 8psi and on 18" street tires.
I haven't researched much, but I can tell you on like 9psi, Taurran ran a 12.3 on 19" street tires with fujitsubo exhaust and a 5/16" spacer on the TN kit. I ran a 12.5 and I'm trapping in the mid-110s, basically had the same mods but running 8psi and on 18" street tires.
11-02-2006, 05:47 PM
#18
the stock ATI kit is more efficient than the stock vortech kit though. lb per lb of boost, it makes more power.
IMO the vortech seems to be the better choice if you're really wanting to go above 450whp because of being able to upgrade the blower, blades, pullies etc in so many ways and also that bit about the ATI's bracket bending
IMO the vortech seems to be the better choice if you're really wanting to go above 450whp because of being able to upgrade the blower, blades, pullies etc in so many ways and also that bit about the ATI's bracket bending