Extreme4x4 Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Dave, If you talk to them again, ask them if they have any plans for an intercooler. I know that they have one for the 8.1 engine. So hopefully a whipple, exhaust & headers, intake might get around 500 hp. That would be pretty sweet. I did read on another forum that a guy with a supercharged C3 did lose a tranny and was in the process of having it rebuilt. Anybody know of any C3 sites out their? We could probably learn a lot from them and not have to make some of the same mistakes. Lingenfelter claims his C3 puts out 475 hp and only runs 13.3 which will get beat by a modded Lightning(sp) at the track, but it would be interesting on the street. He does have an optional trany upgrade with the package. Just a point of reference here. A bone stock '01-02 Lightning can run 13.2-13.5 at a good track. Add a chip and filter and it is 12's. While many think that Lightnings are hard to launch, that is not really true. They actually launch very easily with the correct technique (they are much easier to launch than say..... pony cars). Also, I would definitally worry about the trans with more power. Rated capacities on auto trannies usually allows for about a 10% leway. Meaning, if it is rated for 380lb ft...... it should (not everything is equal with all trannies) be able to handle about 420lb ft reliably. Anything over that, and you are working on borrowed time. The Lightning uses the diesel version of the 4R100, and with quite a few mods, they have trans problems also. However, there are Lightnings running in the 10's currently...... so I guess trans problems can be expected. As for the rated hp and what the truck can run. Yes 470hp is alot, while a 13.3 doesn't look good. However you have to remember that an AWD system has a great deal of drag. So, where a regular auto trans may only deduct 20% from flywheel hp....... and AWD system may do 30% or more. The extra traction at launch cannot make up for the extra drag of the system, or the extra weight of the truck. If you wonder how I would know these things, I am a lifetime auto mechanic who has built many..... many race engines. I also currently own an '01 Lightning. The SS interests me because I like all things performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcairns Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Jared- "Because the compression of the engine doesn't cater to supercharger manufactures it isn't recommended to keep the vehicle reliable as a daily driver. " Are you saying that the Silverado SS engine, supercharged, is not recommended if it is to be used as a daily driver? -Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 Dave, When I went deeper into answering the post of Boycers, he asked if he could run more boost. The answer is................ NO!!!! It is not recommended to run more boost if you want to keep this vehicle reliable. I'm sorry if I misled anyone that read that post. The Whipple kit is set a 5 lbs of boost to keep the vehicle from experiencing any detonation or pinging. If GM made the engine with less static compression, it would allow to run more boost. I think that GM built a very solid motor and could take 1-2 lbs more boost. I can say that most superchargers are preset with a certain amount of boost to work with a minimum of 91 octane fuel. In some parts of the country people are able to fill up with 93, 94 and even 95 octane fuel. For those of you that are so privilaged, you may be able to run 1-2 lbs more boost. To make sure that you have no problem with the reliablity of the motor, you should stay with the preset boost. If you wanted to hit the track every once and awhile, and you want to see how she reacts to more boost then try it. Whipple feels that running more boost than 5-6 lbs on a daily basis could cause too much cylinder pressure. The main thing to keep the vehicle reliable is to not run more boost than what is recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcairns Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 Jared- Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure. I think the stock boost will be enough for me At least for a little while... -Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcairns Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 Extreme4x4- Scrolling back a bit in this thread...It sounds like the transmission will be a trouble spot if the truck is supercharged and raced alot. Here in Southern California, the pickings are easy with so many ricers But there are a fair amount of exotic cars with real performance too. I can't wait to talk my friend into taking his Porsche to the drag strip and see how he fares. -Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boycer Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 there are ways, but trying to honestly compete with a Lightning is pushing it for this truck. Where I live I do have 93 octane gas and you can always run a very small shot of N2O or do water injection. Possibly even lower the compression ration, which I think Lingenfelter did. I used an alcohol injection kit on my typhoon. It would kick in when the boost got to 12 psi. I will be interested to see if Lingenfelter does anything special, but I still think that is will be had to compete with the L until we get a regular cab, which I don't really want(the reason I would not buy a L). I want the extra space. If I want to go really fast I'll buy a vette or as much as I hat to say it, that 03 cobra is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotrod Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted September 25, 2002 Report Share Posted September 25, 2002 Having a Lightning makes me really want to have a Cobra. These factory supercharged engines are just plain fun. Mild mannered until you get on the throttle...... then watch out !!!! For me, the Lightning was a no brainer. I had a 94L before that was just an excellent truck up until the time I sold it (it had 116,000 miles). It is only me, the spouse, and our 7-month old, so we all fit fine. We do use it as a truck very hard. It is used for heavy towing (will tow well over the 5000lbs if you use a weight distribution hitch), and we regularly haul upwards of 1000lbs of steel from 180 miles away. Currently we are getting ready for a 3-day camping/fishing trip. Try fitting all the stuff for that (especially with the baby) in a Vette. Love Vettes (I still have a '69 tri-power 427 engine for one), just can't justify owning one. Now, this Cobra with the 390hp (underrated)........ hmmmmm....... 4-seats......... ;) My problem is I have too many vehicles. Just added a new project (1968 C10 LWB), that was a one owner truck. Bad thing is, the woman had a thing for black primer. Anyway...... I can see how the SS is more practical than the L, I just don't thing it should have carried an SS badge at this point. I do love that blue though. The price is also a bit prohibitive to me....... especially after I would add all the performance I would want. I paid $29,100 for the L brand new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcairns Posted September 26, 2002 Report Share Posted September 26, 2002 You guys are starting to depress me here . I was thinking that the Whipple would at least put me close to an Lightning, if not better. So I decided to try some number crunching. According to manufacturers data: Weight SS.............5298 Lightning....4670 SS weighs 628 lbs more, or +13% Horsepower SS...........470 Lightning..380 SS has 90 HP more, or +24% A net of 11% Torque SS.............518 Lightning....450 SS has 68 lb/ft of Torque more or +15% A net of 2% While I realize that it is an over simplification to say that an X% increase in weight will require an X% increase in power to retain the same performance, I think it will be close enough within the 'small' range begin considered here. Also, these figures don't take into account drivetrain losses, which will be higher for the SS. How much higher, remains to be seen. Hopefully not as much as the 10% more that, Extreme4x4 was suggesting. But if we use that 10% figure, the Horsepower figures become roughly even and the Torque figure goes 8% in favor of the Lightning. Will the extra traction of AWD make up the difference? Perhaps in the 0-60 times. One thing is apparent, Ford SVT has done a great job on the Lightning in terms of performance, my hat is off to them. I wish I could find some figures on the F-150 Harley to run against the virtual SS here Anybody with more real world experience want to challenge my virtual race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boycer Posted September 26, 2002 Report Share Posted September 26, 2002 I think that on the street, it would be a good race, especially if it is a short one and from a stop. At the track, you might get killed. You could make it 2WD and put slicks on the back and make it more interesting, but I wouldn't go through the headache. I think it would be a lot of fun with a supercharger. Heck if I owned a L. and got beat by the SS I would be a little upset. Also I know 20in wheels look good, but going with 18in lighter wheels will also probably help decrease the rotating weight a lot. I am interested to see how much these wheels weigh compared to some HRE. I think it was whitetyphoon.com they had a formula for how the weight of the wheels and tires affected 1/4 mile times and hp. Also remember, if anybody is buying any aftermarket wheels, all 4 must be the same size because of the AWD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregRexAdams Posted September 27, 2002 Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 On the trannies, the 60 and 65 are strength ratings. The 4 is the number of forward gears. The E means electronic. The 65 means that the motor is modded heavily for more strength. The HD means that also, but I wouldn't know which was stronger? I stick with the 4L80E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5SilverBullet Posted September 27, 2002 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 Cobras UNDERRATED at 390! PLLLLLLLLLLEASE! I have embarrased several new Cobras, I believe they weigh in around 4250. (?) The new Cobra is quick, but it is not THAT fast. From the slips I have seen, and the stories I have heard, stock they run anywhere from a 13.9 - 14.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted September 27, 2002 Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 '03 Cobras are rated at 390hp, they are typically dynoing anywhere from 350 to 375 at the rear wheels. This puts the actual hp at anywhere from 410-425 at the flywheel. Ford learned from the '99 Cobra fiasco. As for weight, they are 3660. Yes they are heavy, but they have a very flat torque curve. The biggest problem with them is the drivers. The Ford IRS is a pain to launch properly and for the most part, the drivers at this stage suck. Remember, the cars have only been out for a few months. Stock times are varying anywhere from 12.6-14.0 depending on driver, track, and conditions. There are currently many '03 Cobras running 11's..... some on the factory F1's. There will be a Cobra shootout in Oct, and I expect to see some 10's. Not bad for a car that has only been out for a few months. You can go to LS1.com and look in the Fords, Foreigns section at a post from an '03 Cobra owner who just ran 11.74@121 at Atco, for example. Go to svtperformance.com in the '03 Cobra section and you will see the times. Most of these guys post timeslips and dynos also, since there are so many disbelievers. I don't disbelieve because I have a Lightning, and I know what these factory supercharged engines are capable of. I love Vettes, F-bodies, Mustangs, and all forms of fast trucks..... as well as classics. However, I have personally been witness to the fact that 99% of Vette owners I have seen can't drive either........ and most of them wouldn't even dare try. As for Lightnings, like most supercharged vehicles, they are greatly affected by heat. Also, even though they are pretty easy to launch, there are many who even mess that up.......... just like any vehicles. Goodness knows I have seen alot more poor drivers out there, than good ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregRexAdams Posted September 27, 2002 Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 One more thing to consider, a twin-screw supercharger, compared to all others, produces very little heat per pound of boost. That means that the supercharger is much less required on a Whipple or Kenne Bell than others. Still a good idea if possible, but not essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted September 27, 2002 Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 Here's alittle information that I picked up. There is a company in SoCal that uses a Whipple Twin Screw compressor to replace the Eaton Roots compressor on the new Lightnings. I have seen the truck in person and it's fast!! The guy is running 18 lbs of boost and making 509HP at the rear wheels on 91 octane. He is doing this only with long tube headers and an exhaust system. I wouldn't have beleived it if I dodn't see it myself. He has problems hooking up, but once it does....... All he!! breaks loose!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.