Oh shut up! You're just sucking posts!

The other interesting note when looking at the specs between the two blowers is the blower rpm at max boost. 2000 less for the M90. That should loosely translate into less wear, less heat an longer lifetime.

The other interesting note when looking at the specs between the two blowers is the blower rpm at max boost. 2000 less for the M90. That should loosely translate into less wear, less heat an longer lifetime.[/quote]

So when you spin an M90 faster, always more fun but off the top of my head spinning an M90 faster than I think 15,000 rpms it gets way too ineffecient and doesn't really create more boost.

-Hector

Yes and no. You can slightly improve the blower by smoothing out the surfaces, coating the rotors in Teflon, etc. But each supercharger has it different purposes so you have to use it to its specs. Roots makes boost all the time so you get torque immediately which is good on a V6. But top end is killed somewhat. A centrifgal works on the high end but is good on the L36 since that'* where the L36 heads accelerate in and it doesn't kill the tranny because of torque. I could go into more detail but that would take a long long time. Maybe we can start a thread so everyone can benefit from this and we can lower the amount of */C questions.

-Hector

Up to a certain point, spinning it up faster helps. There'* no way Pontiac was gonna put these things in our cars at max boost. Not when they have warranties. There'* always the safety margin to push back a bit. The M90 is more conducive to undrdriving simply because it has a larger pulley turning at a slower RPM level to begin with. If you underdrive the M62, you end up running on the nosedrive shaft!

Another way to keep the efficiency up is to keep heat down. An intercooler is great for cooling the air entering the lower intake, but I'd bet water injection before the TB would help this. Sorry, couldn't resist

It'* ok, we understand.

My original objective was to create the fastest NA bonnie, but no can do....thank you very much turtle!

LOL

So I guess I'll have to settle with a nitrous injected NA Series I that can run 14'*.
I'm not gonna get past this nitrous idea I have because I do not have the resources to do much internal work...mainly I'm restricted to "bolt on" equipment. Such as efficient headers for the Series I as well, hopefully!

Will; nice times ,( for a SC ) :P i`m really looking into the turbo, seems to be the best way for me to go......as for 145mph........ now been clovked at 147mph, 0-60 beat time so far 5.6sec ..just can`t seem to break the 13.5@117 yet ...damn i`m getting too old to continue playingwith TOYS .........NOT, NEVER,this is my only vice, one day i`ll slow down..yeah right after we TURBO the Beast,

I may be a nut, but you're NUTS! Just be careful, Dad. That Camaro was doing 150 and you were pulling away.....or had you forgotton that one already?

haven`t forgotten that ..waas unreal...tomorrow is suppose to be in the low 60`* here ....hmmmmmmm real good time to try out the 150hp nozzles from Venom.....Now folks can he beat :P the 13.5 barrier and the low 5`* stay tuned to this station for further boardcasts as for topend i`m happy ahere she is :?: :?: lol

1/4 mile track times don't include reaction time, either. If you go to the track, have 2 identical runs, but for one of them you are sleeping at the light, your time slips maylook like these:

run 1 run 2
RT .550 1.023
60' 2.40 2.40
...
1/8 9.78 9.78
1/4 15.32 15.32

That'* a big ricer misconception at the track, to subtract your RT from your ET to see how fast your car is. I guess the ricers need that ... alot of them will actually sit there on the line after the light is green bouncing off the rev limiter, leave two seconds later, run a 16, and brag in the pits that they ran a 14! Funny bunch, those ricers

Anyway, G-techs in general are pretty good for ET as long as you're on a nice level spot of road. However, the mph of the G-tech typically reads about 2 mph high or so, and here'* why: The G-tech gives you the exact mph at 1320 feet for your 1/4 mile mph. In real life, the track actually has 2 beams, one at 1280(?) feet, and the other at 1320 feet, and measures your mph over them - essentially averaging your mph over the last part of your run. How fast you're going at the 1320 is always going to be a *little* quicker than what you average over the last 40(?) feet (because you're accelerating), hence the G-tech reads a little high. Other folks that use the G-tech (actually even at the track) in the 14-15 second region seem to report that the ETs are very close, but the mph is about 2mph higher on the G-tech than on the timeslip.

So, realistically, if you went to the track that same day, you probably would have run about 15.1-15.2 at maybe 91mph or so. Which is pretty good!

I am a little bit surprised that with the new chip your mph didn't go up. Typically the mph increase is more telling of the actual power that you are making than the ET ... the ET is typically more reflective of how well you launched, given the same mph.

The launch really does make a big difference - this little rule of thumb works pretty accurately - a 0.1 second improvement in your 60' time will yield a 0.2 second improvement in your 1/4 mile ET.

For FWD street tired cars, a 2.2 60' time is very good, a 2.1 is outstanding, and a 2.0 or 1.9 is a once in a lifetime God-must-have-lit-a-fart-behind-you-as-the-lights-dropped event. Realistically, a 2.3 or a 2.4 is probably the launch you will get without too much wheelspin and good traction, and a crappy launch will be as bad as a 2.9 or a 3.0!

But anyway, comparing a 2.7 launch to a 2.4 launch, you'll be cutting 0.6 seconds off of your ET!!! That'* why mph is generally more reliable for indicating what kind of power you have.

Sorry so long!

Dan