Good supercharger for 07 F150 5.4 4x4 crew cab

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 19, 2012 | 10:41 AM
  #16  
mikeford's Avatar
Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Have any of you compared the Rousch v. Edlebrock SC's? I am a big fan of Edlebrock but haven't seen anyone running with this setup?
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2012 | 11:12 AM
  #17  
twinskrewd's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,427
Likes: 1
From: North Carolina
Cause its a Eaton (like Roush) in a fancy looking but poorly engineered setup producing the same numbers as the Roush for thousands more. Many extra parts not needed on better engineered kits jacks the cost up plus they want you to pay for their name. Edlebrock really screwed up on this one. At least the truck kit anyway.
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2012 | 11:44 AM
  #18  
Windsor's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 2
From: The Bayou State
The Eaton TVS supercharger in the Edelbrock kit is nothing like the Eaton M-112 in the Roush kit. While it's not a twin screw, it has an improved 4 rotor lobe design and 28% more displacement. It is the standard supercharger on the Corvette ZR1, the Camaro ZL1 and the 2013 Shelby GT500. Guys are making 650 rwhp in the GT500s with only the installation of the TVS, myself included.
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2012 | 12:25 PM
  #19  
twinskrewd's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,427
Likes: 1
From: North Carolina
Yes it does contain the tvs rotors and they are more advanced in design. However at the low boost levels you can run on these trucks the added cost of this still lacking technology is useless. The TVS rotors still produce high heat, require huge power to turn, and like the old rotors can't hang with a twin screw. And thats why I say its a fancy Roush in a very expensive package. No offense intended. The use of the TVS on the upcoming 2013 SC is very disappointing to me. I want that car some kind of bad! Anyway I just don't see justifying a purchase of a tvs verses a twin screw for a buyer looking to go with forced induction. Really enjoyed this article...
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...s/viewall.html
 
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2012 | 01:23 PM
  #20  
Windsor's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 2
From: The Bayou State
Originally Posted by twinskrewd
Guess they left out the part where the KB is twice the cost, you have to drop the engine a 1/2" and need to cut bracing out of the factory hood. The TVS with VMP's elbow and 2.5" pulley puts out 17 psi of boost. Any more boost than that and you better find a lot more octane than you can get with pump gas, not to mention upgrades for fuel delivery. 800 rwhp is great bragging rights, but unless you can put the power down, it's pretty much useless.
 
Reply
Old Feb 20, 2012 | 07:09 AM
  #21  
FATHERFORD's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,102
Likes: 0
From: Waco/Houston
Originally Posted by Windsor
800 rwhp is great bragging rights, but unless you can put the power down, it's pretty much useless.
60-80mph roles 800rwhp isn't useless.

I've had a hankering to get a new base model GT auto and slap a 3.6L KB on it.
 
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:42 PM.