Give us the torque!!
Give us the torque!!
Here is the power chart the way pickles wants it....or as close as I can get it.
The 2 superchargers are in 4th gear. The stock line is power in 3rd gear. I just laid the stock 3rd gear pull over the 4th gear pull and its pretty much the same line till the spot where the 4th gear pull hits the speed limiter.
So this should be pretty close to accurate. BUT THESE TRUCKS ARE NOT ALL IN THE SAME GEAR.
Torque is coming.
Thanks for appeasing meOriginally Posted by JeepLab
I like how the stock dyno pull started down near 1000 RPM. All the "I need loads of torque off-idle or else it's useless for me" people are going to complain that we can't see the torque gains in the 1000-2000 RPM range. Then there will be conspiracy theories about how you purposely avoided charting that area with the superchargers because of the lack of gains there.
Guess you have to start over :-p. When you get your hands on the Prodigy turbo, can you try to start that dyno pull as low as possible?
YES!
Looks like the Magnuson might not have as big of an advantage over the RIPP at low rpms as people seem to assume based on the centrifugal vs roots-type generalizations. Although, it's impossible to know what the story is below 2000 rpm with certainty based on this chart. But as I've already shown thanks to the magic of math, 2000 rpm looks to be a low enough rpm to be useful for general off-roading: http://jeeplab.com/showthread.php?33...full=1#post802
True, I am surprised that the RIPP pulls that well at the bottom, however, the Magnuson seems to have more power where i generally use it between 2,000 and 4,500 RPM. I drive a manual, and generally do not spin the motor up to redline when shifting. Daily Driver purposes, the Magnuson appears to be the winner; on paper anyways.
Just curious as to whether Sweet Pea and Black Beauty have had MPG recorded regularly since their respective supercharger installations? I use Fuelly myself, and am really curious to figure out not only which is better $ per torque/hp, but also which has better overall fuel economy.
I would guess that RIPP would win the MPG battle. Has anyone been keeping decent hand-calculated MPG records?
Great stuff Ross. And Pickles that is also right on math. The only thing I would add is that it is available power, It comes in as needed. If you don't have your foot in it you not going to get much if any increase in power. Which you might not want all the time. But if you need to suddenly scrabble up a loose hill then it is all right there. I assumed that the Maggie would have the edge in low speed and feel. I am surprised at just how close they are at low speed. The Maggie has the smoother curve of the two at low speed, which should be fuel and spark curve management. I love to crawl but I also love blasting across the lake beds. This is just some great stuff. Having had some experience with building turbo motors I am really looking forward to the third installment. Done right it should beat both of them across the board.
They really turn out to be close to even. What you gain with RIPP high, you gain with MAG low. Hard to pick a winner.
There is one loser... the hemi. I dont think the hemi's powerband would touch either of these.
We should work out a dollars per horsepower ratio and see who comes out on top.....Dollars per lb/ft torque?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us