|
|
Thread: help me out here
|
micah
Hauling
Posts: 167
|
posted July 10, 2007 08:40 PM |
|
help me out here
guys i need advice. getting either a turbo or a camden supercharger installed, i llike the idea of the camden supercharger that is ready to go on the holley 650. Please also consider that the 13b is bridgeported. Im listening!
|
|
bwaits
Hauling
Posts: 119
|
|
posted July 11, 2007 05:18 AM |
|
IIRC, A supercharger would make more torque than a turbo.
-billy
____________
ACT . Accufab . AEM . APEXi . AutoMeter . B&B . B&M . BBK . BORLA . Bosai . Brembo. Center Force . Earl’s . Eibach . Energy Suspension . Fluidyne . Goodridge . Greddy . HKS . INJEN . Innovate Motorsports . INTRAX . K&N . KONI . KYB . Magnacore . MOMO . MSD . NGK . NOLOGY . NOS . NX . Pace Setter . Power Slot . Prothane . ReSpeed . Rotora . Sparco . Suspension Techniques . Tanabe . Tokico . TurboNetics . Unorthodox Racing
ReSpeed Online Catalog
|
|
Klaus44
Redlining
Posts: 365
|
posted July 11, 2007 07:01 AM |
|
Depending...
...on your priorities, of course...
I'd chat with Dave or Dan Atkins about the details -- after all, they build the Camden.
I'd chat with the oldschool experts at Racing Beat about Turbo's, etc., as well.
*(Caveat: I have *zero* direct, personal experience with turbo's, SC's, and B-ports.)
That said...: Turbo's = heat, (possibly more than SC's ?), and typically have a bit of 'lag'; Bridgeporting is all about top-end FLOW.
What transmission/rearend gear combinations will result in *driveable* (streetable) performance, by the time you're done?
Would the Camden be good for 'picking up the slack' at lower RPM's on your B-port motor?
What about life expectancy/reliability? Was your engine *purpose-built* for boost? If not--why not?
|
|
sparky
Redlining
Posts: 299
|
|
posted July 11, 2007 11:18 AM |
|
|
Why not both? I've had a crazy idea to go with compound charging. Seen it done on a LS-1 V-8 for a sandrail application. Pipe outlet from turbo to inlet of supercharger. Best of both worlds. Although, I have spoken with guys that think the idea is wacked. Anyone else out there ever thought of this?
|
|
Klaus44
Redlining
Posts: 365
|
posted July 11, 2007 12:44 PM |
|
...and you could've had...
...a 20B.
|
|
micah
Hauling
Posts: 167
|
|
posted July 11, 2007 02:12 PM |
|
to supercharge or not to supercharge
Leaning hard on the camden, I have 4.11 gears at the moment, picking up the 4.625 gears that were posted here and getting it put in soon to make up the low end due to brideporting. I think my answer is the camden cause of boost I have right away.I think that its not really a super charger vs turbo question, I think it suits the application better. Ankins rotary (dan) said he knows of one on a brigeported carbed system. Said it works fine.
|
|
Brad
Rotorhead
Posts: 1672
|
|
posted July 11, 2007 04:13 PM |
 Edited By: Brad on 11 Jul 2007 16:14 |
Supercharger would not require changing exhaust system but since the motor is s/u as n/a and you're prolly not going to install an intercooler less boost is necessary.
Mazdatrix got a Camden to work great on their 3 rotor bridgey drag car. How much can a T2 trans handle?
And will it come out to auto-x with my green REPU?
|
|
Klaus44
Redlining
Posts: 365
|
posted July 11, 2007 05:47 PM |
|
Just a guess, but...:
...won't those low, low REPU gears turn out to be *too Low* to really take advantage of what the B'port has to offer...?
Even if you get a limited slip setup... sure hope you can snap shift it *each and every time* 1st/2nd/3rd, before over-revving!
|
|
repumax
Redlining
Posts: 427
|
|
posted July 11, 2007 08:38 PM |
|
I agree. I think maybe you've got it backwards. With the 4.62 rear, you will have to shift sooner than with the 4.11. Is that what you are looking for? If not, you want to go taller, not lower on the gear ratio. Since you already have a 4.11, the only other option would be a 3.90 out of a 77' repu. I do believe that some of the couriers had taller gears than that but I'm not sure.
____________
1974 Mazda Repu
1986 Yamaha RZ 500
1988 Yamaha YSR 50
1991 Suzuki RGV 250
1992 Yamaha TZR 250 SP
1996 Aprilia RS 250
2003 Ford F-450 6.0 Diesel
2004 Mazda RX8
2006 Yamaha Banshee
2014 18' Eclipse Toy Hauler
|
|
RotaryRob
Revvin Up
Posts: 53
|
posted July 11, 2007 09:15 PM |
|
|
You guys are driving me nuts! A bridgeported engine doesn't develop any signifigant horsepower before about 6,000 RPM. I don't know why you would put one in a truck anyway, but if you do you need the lowest gear possible. My gosh, a stock '74 is running about 3700 RPM at 60 MPH.. That would be only 7,200 at 120 MPH! If you put a 5 speed and a 3.90 behind it the thing will never even .get to the power band. A 5.12 would be better. BTW .... automatic trucks came with 4.37 gears.... If he has a 4.11 it came from a Courier.
|
|
Klaus44
Redlining
Posts: 365
|
|
posted July 11, 2007 10:05 PM |
Edited By: Klaus44 on 11 Jul 2007 22:08
|
Well, I *did* post a (*Caveat:) ...
...so if I'm 180 degrees off, well... ;p
On the other hand, I do have a list here of US spec driveline ratios, and it does indicate that in 1975 the automatic REPU came with 4.111 gears, (which with the automatic was also it's net final drive ratio) -- as did the *manual* 1976 version -- though with the 5-speed it's final drive ratio was 3.544 .
Come to think of it, being right in the first part of the serious powerband at 120, in top gear, doesn't sound all that bad... unless, of course, being in 4th at that point sounds... better. Heh, heh, heh. ;)
|
|
Jeff20B
Moderator
Posts: 661
|
|
posted July 12, 2007 11:40 AM |
|
Go with an SC on a truck. The extra torque really helps. Don't bridgeport because they suck for this application. Don't do a turbo unless you really want to do one.
____________
'74 REPU
'76 Cosmo
'77 MG Midget 13B
'81 RX-7
|
|
|
|
