My wife has told me that my truck is my vehicle and I can do with it what I want. I guess the biggest thing right now is having the cash to put on the SC. I figured it would be easier to just buy one that has a turbo or a SC on it around the same payments. I love my '04 F150 FX4 SCrew that I have right now. The truck handles great through turns, has decent acceleration, and is comfortable to ride in. So, if I have to save my pennies for an SC I will, but even if I do my wife will probably give me grief on spending that money on an SC. Can you all see the dilemma I am facing????

I guess I will have to give :santa: in order to get. It is jewelry time!!!!!

 

If someone were to say pick a truck, I would pick the 03 two tone silver and black Harley!!! I already have a Lightning, 4x4 Screw, and 73 bronco. I would like a PSD but I don't pull heavy things that often or that far to justify it. And Lord knows everyone and there fathers have one I could borrow if need be.

I like the PSD but I think most get them for the "fad" trend. To justify that much money I would have to keep the truck for 15 years.

I guess even if it was given to me it comes down to money. It costs big bucks to get those barges moving quick!

It all comes down to what you want to do with your truck.

 

lethal,
What dilema? You are married and maybe with children

 

You are not kidding there!!

I was checking out ebay and was looking tha the Harley Davidson trucks. What years did those trucks come with SC on them. I wish the newer trucks would have the SC on it, I would definately consider getting one of those. Now that gas prices have dropped I would more likely lean towards an HD truck, especially since diesel is not coming down at all.

But, I know my dad's truck gets pretty good milage with his diesel.
Our local ford dealer has a nice '04 250 diesel that is a supercrew and 4x4 and bright red, my wifes favorite!!!

Decisions, decisions, decisions!!!!!

 

I own a supercharged gas truck, if I had to do it all over again, I say go diesel! Upgrading for power is easier and if you actually do tow there is no comparison. The drop is gas prices is only temporary and you will own the truck through many up and down price cycles.

 

Kenne Bell or Whipple hands down. Here are a few reaons why.

1. install is simple
2. Both are intercooled
3. Zero problems
4. accecability for other under hood maintance
5. unsurpassed torque and HP
6. Full boost at any rpms.
7. Both kits come with all the supproting mods if any are needed.
8. Awesome customer service
9. retains the stock look from the outside of the truck, some kits you can see the intercooler and the whine, whistle,etc
10. KILLER POWER!!!!!!!!!!!

Rusty

 

After much thought, I think I know why the relatively low pressures on these s/ers are somewhat effective which was bothering me from the outset.

I only partially agree with Brahmus in that it is not so much CFM but rather volume. The CFM can also be misleading and here is why. If one takes Boyle's law (PV=nrT), then larger volumes automatically translate into the same result of the equation at lower PSI. The increase in CFM is required because there must be very large plenums (or holding chambers) for the charge. High CFM's are necessary in order to replenish the plenum in the s/cer at a lower pressure.
No matter how great the technology, even the super output $500k Formula One engines can not fill the combustion chamber of the NA engine 100%. S/Cing does this as a function of "ramming" a charge with resultant back pressure (translated into PSI). Lower back pressure is required given the higher volume of charge of the "modern day" s/cers.

So the long and the short of this theoretical discussion is.
1.) Which is the comparitvely superior s/cer based on the most economical running (people want power when needed- towing for example- not all the time they don't need it) ?
2.) Which is the s/cer that has a good balance between PSI and volume of charge and therefore more efficient ( higher CFM translate into a larger unit and more work for the engine)?
3.) Which s/cer runs the coolest, thereby translating work into energy rather than heat (the s/ers out there must belong to one category or another)- adiabatic efficiency?
4.) Which has the fewest moving parts and the simplest and most intelligent design which translates into reliabilty?

I think when one can answer these questions, the "better" brand of s/cer will surface. Looking at power output alone is not useful. What good is power if you are consuming 8 GPM as opposed to another s/cer that gives 80% of the power but is consuming only 14 GPM or stresses the engine the least ( let's face it- s/cer WILL stress your engine).

 

Talking about which one runs the coolest..........how cool does the water get in these external intercoolers?

Seems to me it would be much easier to plumb them into the existing cooling system, that runs at about 180 degrees. Plus, it includes the antifreeze and no need for a separate water pump.

Does this external cooling system run at a much lower temperature?

 

Kenne bell has an intercooled kit now?
Thats news to me!

Phil

 

Well after looking at there site I see that they do make an intercooled kit for the 4.6 Mustang but can not find a kit for the trucks that is intercooled.

Phil

 

It has not been released yet, I have seen on svtperformance.com under the
F150 and Lighting forums. It is still being tested for the final release. All the pics and info came from Kenne Bell. I belive it is going to be somewhere in the size of 2.2-3.0(up to 24-27lbs of boost). If I run across any more info I will post it.

Rusty

 

Dogedoc touched on an important point about stressing the engine with the S/C's. The reason I decided to go with the Procharger P1-SC centrifugal blower for my towing needs is that the positive displacement blowers put out so much low end torque that I might over stress my stock internals resulting in a blown motor possibly sooner than with the cents. I pull a 9000# boat & trailer combo with my 01 SCAB 4x4, 5.4. I've never had a problem getting the weight moving in first gear but I felt I needed more power in the mid to high range such as the highway. Even though I'm still having some issues with my set-up performance wise, I believe I feel more comfortable with my decision to go with the Procharger cause I don't feel I'm stressing the internals too much, especially since I don't feel the need to drag race anyone with my boat in tow. I've read what others have posted about S/C's for towing and I'm going on record by saying my Procharger has definately improved my towing capabilities greatly so don't discard them completely when researching S/C's. Once I get my fuel pump and 12# pulley installed my performance will increase dramatically. Thanks for listening, have a great day.

 

ADT,
I respect your intelligent choice to go with a centrigugal sc/er. From a standpoint of efficiency, it is the most effecient form of s/cing from an adiabatic standpoint. The problem with centrifugal superchargers in automotive applications is that there is a VERY narrow band where boost occurs, not so in the aero engined planes. This is OK because you have made a concious decision on your power boosting requirements; i.e in the mid range on a highway. It is the right s/cer for you and your needs, and this is what I was driving at from the outset.

On another note. our discussions touched on but never delved in on an area as why s/cers are the ultimate for the aero industry. The higher one goes in altitude, the less O2 available for the charge. S/cers are "the great equalizer" the higher you go because of the filling effect. This is where volume is secondary compared to PSI. I have personally driven the Stelvio hill climb between Northern Italy and Austria ( 12k feet altitude) and the NA automobile ( yes even fuel injected) is no match for the s/ced engine. I have also heard first hand a WW II Mustang fighter take off. I was at a Jaguar car show at the West Caldwell airport in Essex county New Jersey (where John J junior's fatefull flight took off from) about 7 years ago. All the "modern day twin and four engine aircraft were taking off that day and all of a sudden, I heard this unique, ear deafening and core rattling sound. It was an historic airplane. It made altitude in literally 1/3 the runway of the rest of the planes; almost straight up. My mouth dropped and I felt very priveledged to actually see this. My back straightened and I said to myself what a country to make such a beautiful engineering marvel such as this. No wonder the Germany and Japan of the 30's and 40's were never a match for us (modern day is another story but this is not a political forum).

ADT, thank you for sharing your experience.

 

Just keep this thought in mind with the ProCharger. I'm not saying that they are bad. They are killer blowers for drag cars and truck. But I would not put one on a street driven vehicle. The reason why is b/c Prochargers are self contained. I have rebuilt 7 of my customers engines due to the seals in the Head Unit of the ProCharger blowing out and contaminating the engine oil. The main reason why they are intercooled is due to the fact that they are self contained and make lots of heat. The engine oil is cooler that the temps created by the self conatined head unit. Another reason is their customer service. I'm speaking for those 7 customers engines that I have rebuilt. They did not warranty the head units. They claim owner abuse. This is with less than 20,000 miles on the head units. But this is my opnion.

 

How did a self contained procharger contaminate the engine oil? It has been tested and proven, even a test in MM&FF that the self contained oil remained cooler than the engine oil, so that is not an arguement against the ATI unit. Most of those who have had seal issues are due to thrown belts and/or overfilling the head until, initially the self contained units had some issues but those seem to e a thing of the past. Needless to say I am thrilled with my Procharger at 12psi and think it is an outstanding blower for our trucks.