Supercharger performance
03-18-2007, 05:12 AM
#127
here's an interesting graph of a centrifugal sc set up for the s2000 supercharger graph .
it shows how boost would be developed on a low pressure ratio, high reving engine. notice that there is stuff all power increase until 3000+ rpm. I'm impressed that it starts this low. it's nice to see that a centrifugal sc can deliver a power increase (not much low down) over a wide rpm range.
the rotaries need for large amounts of air-flow may delay the power gain even more than this.
it shows how boost would be developed on a low pressure ratio, high reving engine. notice that there is stuff all power increase until 3000+ rpm. I'm impressed that it starts this low. it's nice to see that a centrifugal sc can deliver a power increase (not much low down) over a wide rpm range.
the rotaries need for large amounts of air-flow may delay the power gain even more than this.
03-18-2007, 08:04 AM
#128
Just so you can compare, here's my greddy turbo dyno graph.
Power is very linear, with max torque numbers being reached around 3,000 - 3,500 rpm, and held there through the entire rev range. It drops off when the greddy can't feed the engine enough air..
The red line indicates 200. The scale was adjusted, so I can't tell you offhand what the lines markers are. To give you an idea though, The chart peaks at 273 hp, and torque peaks at 213 lb/ft. ~20 hp gain over the stock tune that shipped with the int-x.
I haven't gotten the real graphs back from mazsport, so the best I have is screen capture off a video
The centrifugal sc for the S2000 dyno you posted ends up making about the same gains (hp/tq wise) as the greddy turbo does over the stock rx8, but it doesn't start making any real gains till 3,000 rpm - and no big gains till 6,000 rpm. So while it holds off on power till upper rpm, it's not nearly as linear as the turbo results.
Power is very linear, with max torque numbers being reached around 3,000 - 3,500 rpm, and held there through the entire rev range. It drops off when the greddy can't feed the engine enough air..
The red line indicates 200. The scale was adjusted, so I can't tell you offhand what the lines markers are. To give you an idea though, The chart peaks at 273 hp, and torque peaks at 213 lb/ft. ~20 hp gain over the stock tune that shipped with the int-x.
I haven't gotten the real graphs back from mazsport, so the best I have is screen capture off a video
The centrifugal sc for the S2000 dyno you posted ends up making about the same gains (hp/tq wise) as the greddy turbo does over the stock rx8, but it doesn't start making any real gains till 3,000 rpm - and no big gains till 6,000 rpm. So while it holds off on power till upper rpm, it's not nearly as linear as the turbo results.
Last edited by mysql101; 03-18-2007 at 12:12 PM.
03-18-2007, 10:31 AM
#129
What I wonder with boost coming on at such a relatively low rpm is how much boost might be needlessly applied while steady-state cruising at 70-72 m.p.h.(?) Any info on that?
03-18-2007, 12:14 PM
#131
Well, that's what I wondered; if a turbo develops boost at ordinary loads or not. I am far more familiar with S/Cs than I am turbos, although I am familiar with the concept, and I am just wondering about the details of such. I am still puzzled as to why many of us are so seemingly concerned with boosting the power at rpms as low as 3K when the engine is really designed to shine above 6K or when the aux ports open. I kinda scratch my head on that one so I apologize if I haven't yet gotten the point(?). I can sorta see the road racing perspective, on one hand, but any serious road racer isn't going to see lower than 6K if they know how to drive the 8 anyway. I know this because my car never saw below 6K at Road Atlanta 2 years ago and I hardly had a clue as to what I was doing. My nerve in keeping the revs that high and my fearlessness in sliding the car sideways at 50 mph through a decreasing radius turn were the only things that caused my instructor to think I had hope, since I told him at the start that I was a ham-fisted drag racer prior to the HPDE. BTW, he also commented on my progress over the 2 day event so I guess there is hope for me, after all, on the road courses. 
Last edited by Charles R. Hill; 03-18-2007 at 12:20 PM.
03-18-2007, 12:24 PM
#132
If I drive the car with only mild throttle, the car will never go into boost. It will drive exactly the same as stock.
If I depress more on the throttle, the boost gauge will go from -20 to -15, to -10, etc. Giving more throttle will give more positive pressure. So if my boost controller is setup for 11 psi max, and I give it 50% throttle, I might get 6 psi (I'm making up random numbers so you get an idea of what happens). Letting off on the throttle will let off on the boost.
If I go WOT, it will then spool up and I will see 11 psi as low as 3,000 rpm. Before 3k, there isn't enough exhaust to give me my desired pressure level.
I can also adjust my boost controller to control how much max pressure I want. My current low setting = 6 psi, my high setting = 11 psi. I click a button on the boost controller and it switches between high and low settings instantly.
Additionally, the boost controller can regulate the wastegate speed. I can have the wastegate open slowly... which would mean even when I go WOT, the engine will get that pressure at 4 psi, 6 psi, 8 psi, 10 psi up to the target 11. If I set it to open the wastegate quickly, I can go WOT and immediately get all 11 psi. This can cause traction problems.. so my high setting still has a bit of delay set.
With the stock car, you basically need to wait till 5500 rpm before you get real power. That's the thing some people hate, and why people immediately think of "SC", to get power down low. However, with this turbo setup, you can get peak torque, and a ton of power at 3k. And it keeps climbing linearly - there's no 5k sudden power surge. It keeps coming more and more... we just need someone to sell a drop in replacement for the greddy turbo so we can flow till 9k rpm
If I depress more on the throttle, the boost gauge will go from -20 to -15, to -10, etc. Giving more throttle will give more positive pressure. So if my boost controller is setup for 11 psi max, and I give it 50% throttle, I might get 6 psi (I'm making up random numbers so you get an idea of what happens). Letting off on the throttle will let off on the boost.
If I go WOT, it will then spool up and I will see 11 psi as low as 3,000 rpm. Before 3k, there isn't enough exhaust to give me my desired pressure level.
I can also adjust my boost controller to control how much max pressure I want. My current low setting = 6 psi, my high setting = 11 psi. I click a button on the boost controller and it switches between high and low settings instantly.
Additionally, the boost controller can regulate the wastegate speed. I can have the wastegate open slowly... which would mean even when I go WOT, the engine will get that pressure at 4 psi, 6 psi, 8 psi, 10 psi up to the target 11. If I set it to open the wastegate quickly, I can go WOT and immediately get all 11 psi. This can cause traction problems.. so my high setting still has a bit of delay set.
With the stock car, you basically need to wait till 5500 rpm before you get real power. That's the thing some people hate, and why people immediately think of "SC", to get power down low. However, with this turbo setup, you can get peak torque, and a ton of power at 3k. And it keeps climbing linearly - there's no 5k sudden power surge. It keeps coming more and more... we just need someone to sell a drop in replacement for the greddy turbo so we can flow till 9k rpm
Last edited by mysql101; 03-18-2007 at 12:39 PM.
03-18-2007, 12:36 PM
#133
My video here will show you this in action:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&hl=en#0h0m41s
The 9 o'clock position on the left gauge (boost gauge) is 0 psi. The markers are at 5 psi intervals.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&hl=en#0h0m41s
The 9 o'clock position on the left gauge (boost gauge) is 0 psi. The markers are at 5 psi intervals.
03-18-2007, 04:05 PM
#134
Thanks. I didn't realize that boost controllers could also control the ramping rate of the wastegate. So, it seems like with a properly sized turbo and the right hardware you could control every aspect of the boost curve. If that is, indeed, the case then how is there even a "SC vs Turbo" debate(except in very specific applications)? As a matter of fact, the advantages and competitiveness of turbo systems are actually being recognized by the IHRA in their Pro Mod class and they are supposed to, if they don't already, allow turbos to compete in that class alongside blowers and nitrous. It would seem to me that a well-designed turbo system would fulfill the needs of about 99% of those who would be apt to want F.I. What I plan with my own car is to get the nitrous up to the 150 mark and then go back down to a 50-75 shot and bring in F.I. to regain the rest. I just think it would be fun to have about 325 h.p. at the wheels for road racing with another 50-75 available with the shot for drag races. That's my ultimate objective. I guess we'll see if and how long it takes me to get there......
03-18-2007, 04:23 PM
#135
the turbo clearly has it's advantages down low in the rpm range.
still the advantages of having the extra power down low is good only if you want to tow or to dirve the car like a V8. yes the extra power down low would make drag racing starts, and low rpm rolling starts easier but when you look at the area under the curve between 6500rpm and 8500rpm a centrifugal supercharger should be very similar to the turbo.
on a supercharger set-up moving the throttle body before the compressor makes the set-up more efficient as your only compressing the air needed. you have to do this on a positive displacement sc but with a centrifugal sc you can keep it in the standard possition as air will leak back through the impeller (same thing on a turbo).
still the advantages of having the extra power down low is good only if you want to tow or to dirve the car like a V8. yes the extra power down low would make drag racing starts, and low rpm rolling starts easier but when you look at the area under the curve between 6500rpm and 8500rpm a centrifugal supercharger should be very similar to the turbo.
on a supercharger set-up moving the throttle body before the compressor makes the set-up more efficient as your only compressing the air needed. you have to do this on a positive displacement sc but with a centrifugal sc you can keep it in the standard possition as air will leak back through the impeller (same thing on a turbo).
03-18-2007, 08:17 PM
#136
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looked at a dyno run sheet from an old Buick GN with the 3800 Supercharged today. Its got a twin rotor lobe type. The thing has a ton of torque from 1200 RPM to 5500 - probably would have kept pulling but they were instructed to back off at 5500. Took a ride in it. Boost gage showed 12 PSI at 1500 and never dropped below 12 PSI all the way to 5500. Owner said it still reads 12 PSI at 6000 RPM, but rarely runs it there.
That kind of tells me the positive displacement pumps tend to work over a band of 400% of initial boost required. Given a peak RPM of say 9000, it would appear that full boost would be available at 2250 RPM. Nothing scientific just interesting to note.
It will be nice to see what Petit ends up with on the dyno. As sexy as the axial flow model appears it's probably still a few years out yet. I haven't seen anything that indicates a 400% range with a slinger or a fan even those used in jet engines.
That kind of tells me the positive displacement pumps tend to work over a band of 400% of initial boost required. Given a peak RPM of say 9000, it would appear that full boost would be available at 2250 RPM. Nothing scientific just interesting to note.
It will be nice to see what Petit ends up with on the dyno. As sexy as the axial flow model appears it's probably still a few years out yet. I haven't seen anything that indicates a 400% range with a slinger or a fan even those used in jet engines.
03-20-2007, 10:47 PM
#137
I think the issue is that people are looking at what the RX-8 needs:
1. Low end boost (Boost threshold)
Note- This is like the holy grail of the RX-8
2. Linear boost. No surge of boost, but constant and similar to NA characteristics
3. No lag
Note- Again this where people have issue with Turbos and the debate goes back and forth.
4. Maintain boost till higher RPMs, like 9000 RPMS.
5. Easy to install
6. Easy to maintain
Because the RX-8 is so high revving, you can get plenty of performance past 5000 RPMs. I know it's not said, but people want to see 0-60 and 1/4 mile performance increases. Past that point, the NA RX-8 actually does quite well.
The RX-8 top speed is 150 mph (and it may get some more with ECU flash taking out rev limiter and speed limiter). Not too many people have the ***** to take the RX-8 there, but the point is the RX-8 will go there. Past 100 mph, the NA RX-8 is a monster (for the price). Past 60 mph, the RX-8 does quite well for itself.
The RX-8 handles quite well and takes turn like a beast. Nobody questions the RX-8's maneuverability. So that brings you back to straight line performance.
The issue is start and stop or speed up and slow down performance (like in traffic). 0-60 to 1/4 mile performance, though people like not to talk much about this in relationship to the kits for the RX-8.
Who is going to bring that extra for the RX-8 down low? This is why I think people are on the Supercharger bandwagon.
But its not any supercharger that is going to do. Roots (Blitz) has not made the grade. Centrifugal does not give the lower end instant boost that many people want, so it does not appear to make the grade. The overall centrifugal characteristics also creates the arguments of why not go turbo?
It's really a matter of whether or not the AFSC and/or twin screw superchargers will deliver the goods. A couple of OTHER things that the AFSC has going for it is that you don't need an intercooler, they are talking about doing a flash for the ECU, and the price appears to be in the $4000 or so range. Pettit does have a stage 1 offering, but the twin screw is not as efficient as the AFSC. On the flip, Pettit supercharger is just about ready and will work with Automatic RX-8s. The only other thing that hurts Pettit is the cost of the Interceptor-X.
So, I'm saying the real issue is how does the AFSC and Pettit superchargers stack up and deliver what many RX-8 people want to see.
Lets not "beat around the bush".
How would those superchargers compare to turbo offerings that are out there for the RX-8? Note- I don't think its about just total HP, but also about boost threshold, straight line and short distance performance too, dollar cost per HP given, etc...
What makes a supercharger RX-8, so much better than a NA RX-8 or how about a modified RX-8 with RB Ram air intake and Agency pulley?
1. Low end boost (Boost threshold)
Note- This is like the holy grail of the RX-8
2. Linear boost. No surge of boost, but constant and similar to NA characteristics
3. No lag
Note- Again this where people have issue with Turbos and the debate goes back and forth.
4. Maintain boost till higher RPMs, like 9000 RPMS.
5. Easy to install
6. Easy to maintain
Because the RX-8 is so high revving, you can get plenty of performance past 5000 RPMs. I know it's not said, but people want to see 0-60 and 1/4 mile performance increases. Past that point, the NA RX-8 actually does quite well.
The RX-8 top speed is 150 mph (and it may get some more with ECU flash taking out rev limiter and speed limiter). Not too many people have the ***** to take the RX-8 there, but the point is the RX-8 will go there. Past 100 mph, the NA RX-8 is a monster (for the price). Past 60 mph, the RX-8 does quite well for itself.
The RX-8 handles quite well and takes turn like a beast. Nobody questions the RX-8's maneuverability. So that brings you back to straight line performance.
The issue is start and stop or speed up and slow down performance (like in traffic). 0-60 to 1/4 mile performance, though people like not to talk much about this in relationship to the kits for the RX-8.
Who is going to bring that extra for the RX-8 down low? This is why I think people are on the Supercharger bandwagon.
But its not any supercharger that is going to do. Roots (Blitz) has not made the grade. Centrifugal does not give the lower end instant boost that many people want, so it does not appear to make the grade. The overall centrifugal characteristics also creates the arguments of why not go turbo?
It's really a matter of whether or not the AFSC and/or twin screw superchargers will deliver the goods. A couple of OTHER things that the AFSC has going for it is that you don't need an intercooler, they are talking about doing a flash for the ECU, and the price appears to be in the $4000 or so range. Pettit does have a stage 1 offering, but the twin screw is not as efficient as the AFSC. On the flip, Pettit supercharger is just about ready and will work with Automatic RX-8s. The only other thing that hurts Pettit is the cost of the Interceptor-X.
So, I'm saying the real issue is how does the AFSC and Pettit superchargers stack up and deliver what many RX-8 people want to see.
Lets not "beat around the bush".
How would those superchargers compare to turbo offerings that are out there for the RX-8? Note- I don't think its about just total HP, but also about boost threshold, straight line and short distance performance too, dollar cost per HP given, etc...
What makes a supercharger RX-8, so much better than a NA RX-8 or how about a modified RX-8 with RB Ram air intake and Agency pulley?
Last edited by sosonic; 03-21-2007 at 12:06 AM.
03-20-2007, 11:47 PM
#138
Just to add a point - when you say so-and-so supercharger "doesn't need an intercooler", what you actually mean is it can't utilize and intercooler because of design restrictions.
If you compress air, no matter how, you will benefit from an intercooler.
Most S/C designs make it difficult to incorporate one, so the boost is kept low for that reason.
Its not because it doesn't need one.
Most of the design points you make in that post are misguided, though.
If you compress air, no matter how, you will benefit from an intercooler.
Most S/C designs make it difficult to incorporate one, so the boost is kept low for that reason.
Its not because it doesn't need one.
Most of the design points you make in that post are misguided, though.
03-21-2007, 12:06 AM
#139
Originally Posted by MazdaManiac
Just to add a point - when you say so-and-so supercharger "doesn't need an intercooler", what you actually mean is it can't utilize and intercooler because of design restrictions.
If you compress air, no matter how, you will benefit from an intercooler.
Most S/C designs make it difficult to incorporate one, so the boost is kept low for that reason.
Its not because it doesn't need one.
Most of the design points you make in that post are misguided, though.
If you compress air, no matter how, you will benefit from an intercooler.
Most S/C designs make it difficult to incorporate one, so the boost is kept low for that reason.
Its not because it doesn't need one.
Most of the design points you make in that post are misguided, though.
The jury is out (as far as i'm concerned) on whether the SCs soon to be offered will be plagued with problems or pretty much bolt on and run . I'm willing to wait because I do percieve they will be less hassle not to mention a lot cheaper than the only Turbo option I would consider (Mazsport)
03-21-2007, 12:48 AM
#140
All modifications can cause grief. Most will if you don't have the knowledge to "work wonders".
That is just the way it is.
You consistently assert that S/Cs are somehow "magical" in this regard. They are not in the least.
If they were, there would be dozens on the market by now.
Any power adder that is truly "plug-n-play" on this vehicle will produce very little power, which is not cost effective, IMO.
Power. Reliable. Inexpensive. Pick two.
That is just the way it is.
You consistently assert that S/Cs are somehow "magical" in this regard. They are not in the least.
If they were, there would be dozens on the market by now.
Any power adder that is truly "plug-n-play" on this vehicle will produce very little power, which is not cost effective, IMO.
Power. Reliable. Inexpensive. Pick two.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 03-21-2007 at 12:50 AM.
03-21-2007, 01:14 AM
#141
Asshole for hire
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Colfontaine, Belgium
Posts: 3,214
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I very much agree with MM's feelings on the subject, but I understand where Brettus is coming from. I am in a similar boat as Brettus and the drivers he describes as "most of us" That being, that for our application considering availibility, when the 2 big name SC's are finally released... they may be more what "most of us" are looking for. Reason is, for the price range and ability to self-install or cheapish install by someone else, the turbo "kit(s)" availible may not be able to compare to the power gains. Now this is only in a situation where one is considering; a self install without the know-how to do a turbo right, a 'professional' install by someone locally( ie not driving 1500 miles to get it done right) Now this doesnt consider other things like FI lifespan, maintinance etc..
Basically, the Pettit and AFSC are being seen as possible "holy grails" because for many of us, they look to be nealry true "bolt-on kits", it will be in our price range, it should be much easier to install or get installed, and it looks as if tuning may be slightly less of an issue to achieve the gains desired. by that i mean only that they should see the gains they want w/o professional tuning only with out-of-box tune or minor adjustments
Comments? from either side?
Basically, the Pettit and AFSC are being seen as possible "holy grails" because for many of us, they look to be nealry true "bolt-on kits", it will be in our price range, it should be much easier to install or get installed, and it looks as if tuning may be slightly less of an issue to achieve the gains desired. by that i mean only that they should see the gains they want w/o professional tuning only with out-of-box tune or minor adjustments
Comments? from either side?
03-21-2007, 03:42 AM
#142
Londons Yellow Peril
I also think a lot of people who love the 8 also think it is SLIGHTLY underpowered and a small but significant improvement will perfect it.
They are not looking for monster power and therefore a plug and play sealed and reliable unit is what they are looking for......
They are not looking for monster power and therefore a plug and play sealed and reliable unit is what they are looking for......
03-21-2007, 05:36 AM
#144
Originally Posted by paulmasoner
I very much agree with MM's feelings on the subject, but I understand where Brettus is coming from. I am in a similar boat as Brettus and the drivers he describes as "most of us" That being, that for our application considering availibility, when the 2 big name SC's are finally released... they may be more what "most of us" are looking for. Reason is, for the price range and ability to self-install or cheapish install by someone else, the turbo "kit(s)" availible may not be able to compare to the power gains. Now this is only in a situation where one is considering; a self install without the know-how to do a turbo right, a 'professional' install by someone locally( ie not driving 1500 miles to get it done right) Now this doesnt consider other things like FI lifespan, maintinance etc..
Basically, the Pettit and AFSC are being seen as possible "holy grails" because for many of us, they look to be nealry true "bolt-on kits", it will be in our price range, it should be much easier to install or get installed, and it looks as if tuning may be slightly less of an issue to achieve the gains desired. by that i mean only that they should see the gains they want w/o professional tuning only with out-of-box tune or minor adjustments
Comments? from either side?
Basically, the Pettit and AFSC are being seen as possible "holy grails" because for many of us, they look to be nealry true "bolt-on kits", it will be in our price range, it should be much easier to install or get installed, and it looks as if tuning may be slightly less of an issue to achieve the gains desired. by that i mean only that they should see the gains they want w/o professional tuning only with out-of-box tune or minor adjustments
Comments? from either side?
the pettit sc sound like this. a not too extreme install, a engine management pre-programed, and a moderate gain in power.
03-21-2007, 12:19 PM
#145
No one wants a small power boost, especially at $4k+.
Once you spend that money and sit in your garage for 6 to 12 hours bolting everything on, you will already be questioning it.
Two weeks down the road, you will already be used to the additional power and you want more.
Horsepower = crack
Once you spend that money and sit in your garage for 6 to 12 hours bolting everything on, you will already be questioning it.
Two weeks down the road, you will already be used to the additional power and you want more.
Horsepower = crack
03-21-2007, 12:20 PM
#146
Originally Posted by california style
I also think a lot of people who love the 8 also think it is SLIGHTLY underpowered and a small but significant improvement will perfect it.
They are not looking for monster power and therefore a plug and play sealed and reliable unit is what they are looking for......
They are not looking for monster power and therefore a plug and play sealed and reliable unit is what they are looking for......
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...=1#post1790988
I have still not yet had a chance to go down there and check it out, but as soon as I do, I'll probably start doing some homework and poking at the MM. It's not that I am impatient for the AFSC, but I do enjoy flexibility...in all things...
*cough* MM's avatars *cough*
03-21-2007, 12:22 PM
#147
Originally Posted by MazdaManiac
No one wants a small power boost, especially at $4k+.
Once you spend that money and sit in your garage for 6 to 12 hours bolting everything on, you will already be questioning it.
Two weeks down the road, you will already be used to the additional power and you want more.
Horsepower = crack
Once you spend that money and sit in your garage for 6 to 12 hours bolting everything on, you will already be questioning it.
Two weeks down the road, you will already be used to the additional power and you want more.
Horsepower = crack
Originally Posted by eviltwinkie
Haa I know...it always happens to me too...its a matter of your brain "adjusting" to the characteristics of the car...once your comfy w/ the juice it no longer gives you that giddy feeling inside...you know...fear+adrenaline+ego+love (the type you clean up with a mop and bucket)...then you crank it up a little more...get your fix...rinse...repeat...
It's an addiction...dont even get me started on hitting the track-pipe...
I'm eviltwinkie...I've been speed free for 3 hours...on scouts honor...haa haa
Anywho, this is ultimately why I think screw it yourself is a good thing especially if you have extra capacity to upgrade into. It's alot like selling crack...get em hooked (cheapest price)...let em come back for more for the premium...
no matter what there will always be people who figure thier own things out, but for the remaining 80% of the addicts...they will simply come back to you...they need thier fix now and are willing to pay for the convenience...
anything in life can be compared to crack...and THAT'S what's whack...
It's an addiction...dont even get me started on hitting the track-pipe...
I'm eviltwinkie...I've been speed free for 3 hours...on scouts honor...haa haa
Anywho, this is ultimately why I think screw it yourself is a good thing especially if you have extra capacity to upgrade into. It's alot like selling crack...get em hooked (cheapest price)...let em come back for more for the premium...
no matter what there will always be people who figure thier own things out, but for the remaining 80% of the addicts...they will simply come back to you...they need thier fix now and are willing to pay for the convenience...
anything in life can be compared to crack...and THAT'S what's whack...
03-21-2007, 04:46 PM
#149
I'm not looking for the ultimate drag racing machine , but something that will put a stock STI or EVO to the sword seems about right for this car . Lets say around 270 - 300 whp . At this level it seems that you are not having to upgrade every other system (spark,fuel,brakes,drivetrain etc ) on the car . As soon as you start with doing all that stuff you are getting into some big $ and you have to ask why you didn't just go out & buy a M3 - maybe a 2nd hand Porsche 911 .
So the question I would like to ask is :
What FI system will be the easiest to install with closest to OEM like reliability in the 270-300 whp range ?
I'm less concerned with the characteristics of the power curve because
I always knew the 8 was a torqueless wonder & still love it . But anything that delivers 270-300 peak is going to be quick enough for me & not be over the top for type of driving I enjoy.
So the question I would like to ask is :
What FI system will be the easiest to install with closest to OEM like reliability in the 270-300 whp range ?
I'm less concerned with the characteristics of the power curve because
I always knew the 8 was a torqueless wonder & still love it . But anything that delivers 270-300 peak is going to be quick enough for me & not be over the top for type of driving I enjoy.