Gen III N/A -vs- SC build

[ACPERFORMANCE]

All so tough. Having built both it's a tough call. Add a supercharger and tune it "right", car runs hard, and safe. Best drive ability and highest hp. NA Setup is definately more money. Maybe not if you do just heads cam. But even NA engines have broken the crappy pistons in a gen3. Once you throw this in to the NA build, it gets high. BUT when set up correctly, big fat torque curves on the NA setup. Greg has some amazing head work. This is such a 50 50 toss up. For track, I'd be all NA. For street, Supercharger has a bigger rush IMO.

And unfortunately, most people say they only want 600rwhp, but after a while get used to it. I would say plan for the big picture. It's nice to go NA, but truth have it, it is much harder to get the driveability out of a big cammed higher compression NA car, then a supercharged car. I'd flip a coin! Both turn out so good when I do them it's hard to chose!

Todd

 

[Twister]

where to begin...ive had a sc nsx and a sc camaro as well as a hc vette and my current mild cam viper.

there is simply no comparison...hc set ups are easily ten times better. with the sc setups you are now concerned over two seperate systems working in harmony.....is your engine well oiled . is your belt tight..how bout running to lean...is the pipeing secure, why is my psi down? why is my power down?supercharger heat or bad engine or a tuneing issue.....ect...in short my camaro and nsx engine failed on average psi of 6 pounds. if youve ever tried to find a replacement nsx engine than you know my pain and after 6 months i finally found one and 10k later it was on the road again....

hc setups are totaly opposit... you choose your path, have it installed and tuned and listen for any weird sounds for about 20 miles and then just enjoy the same engine that now has an extra 150 rwhp...

imho the gen 3 with hc and bolt ons is the best it gets in the viper world. gen 3 vert is 3380 pounds and 445 rwhp and will

 

[Twister]

11.9 at 122 mph with a decent driver . gen4 is 3450 pounds and 545 rwhp and will run a 11.3 at 128 mph with a decent driver.

deleting the cats and cross pipes plus ported heads and cam on a gen 3 will put you at 3300 pounds and 600 rwhp and 650 rwt. that stock 11.9 at 122 mph gen3 is now a 10.7 at 135 mph car....gen4 is awesome but with the mods available would only drop to 3400 pounds and match the 600 rwhp but be short on tq at 580 and run a 10.9 at 133 mph

gen3 hc all the way

 

[Nine Ball]

Twister, your first mistake was buying an NSX. Admitting you owned and modified one is your second mistake. LOL!

NA setups still have issues too. I've built NA setups that cleared 600 rwhp on other cars. High lift cams have a habit of causing valvesprings to fail, dropped valves, and busted pistons. You can also detonate on NA setups too, with a bad tank of fuel. Lets face it, there isn't a 100% safe way of adding 100+ hp to any OEM engine.

 

[Twister]

as far as the gen3 paxton it simply isnt a proven system .in decent reliability perhaps. but as far as power the paxton at its base 630 rwhp is a joke. that stock 445 rwhp 3380 pound gen 3 that ran 11.9 at 122 mph now has a 630 rwhp paxton and runs a 11.4 at 128 mph...vieos have proven it will beat a stock z06 by a length and be a car behind a stock 2008 viper in a 50 to 150 race..with 630 rwhp. 190 more than the stock z06 and 80 more than the stock gen4. again this is laughable and you need atleaste 700 rwhp to take advantage of the paxton and beat those cars by a few lengths...of couse after a few runs heat soak will kick in and youll be back at 630 rwhp....to top it off most of us dont have the ballz to push 700 plus on the stock bottom. so the point is mute.

my nsx had a paxton at 330 rwhp. the sraw that broke my back was when a friends stock 2005 nsx with 270 rwhp was able to run dead evev over and over..my 91 started at 230 rwhp and with extra 100 rwhp from the peaky rpm paxton i couldnt beat it

 

[Twister]

nine ball...thats the beauty of the 8.x liter vipers. these things are detuned from the factory...floor a stock viper from 0 to 150 mph and the engine always sounds like its half asleep.lol...adding 150 rwhp to a 8.3 liter gen 3 for 600 rwhp is no where near the stretch of a 7.0 liter v8 veete adding 150 or the thousands os ls1ers adding 200 rwhp for 500 in a iny 5.7 liter...youd have to add 250 rwhp in heads and cam to a viper before id be concerned

 

[Red Snake]

FWIW I had a heads cam N/A Ram SRT10 Reg cab built with a big fat torque curve (535/575). My neighbor had a Paxton Ram SRT10 Reg cab making 630 peak rwhp. I beat him EVERY time we raced. He never beat me once. The moral of the story is that I'd go N/A over Paxton any day.


TT's on a built motor would be a different story.

 

[Camfab]

You get more power with forced induction for cheaper than an N/A build. Any reason people are wanting to go N/A?

I spent a **** ton of money on a Mustang I have trying to make N/A power. I gained maybe 100 rwhp all motor then said screw it, and for 1/6th of the price I spent on going all motor, I doubled my gains with NOS. If I would of went supercharger it would of cost half the price of going N/A for similiar results as the NOS but I'd have it all the time and not have to refill a bottle.

I keep having to stop myself from buying N/A mods, twin turbo is my goal.[/QUOTE

The one mistake your making here, and I do understand your logic, is that your comparing a Mustang to a Viper. I screwed around with small and big block Chevys for years. Parts are cheap (like Ford stuff) and none of it really works. You can spend a fortune on all the fairy tales just about every magazine article (ADVERTISEMENT) tells you. Most are complete fabrication and the net result of changing every part is 100 extra FWHP. The Viper has only a small aftermarket, good and bad. The bad is the price, the good is that the only set of aftermarket heads avail for the Viper which cost about the same as five mustang heads actually make real power.

Yes tuning a NA Viper for street drivabillity is really tough, but if you don't want to saddle a bunch of extra weight over the front wheels of an overweight car AND you want your car to sound like a beast at idle...................well there's no other option.

 

[DholiRaja209]

I am with TWISTER on this one. All motor power will always beat supercharged power. The Paxton numbers are PEAK numbers and against a Heads/Cam Gen 3 it wont have a chance. Two reason first one being the extra 100lbs that the system adds and the fact that centrifugal style chargers build power as they go up in the RPM range, hence the reason why they produce so much peak power but they wont hold that power for more than a second. know this is because my AA Supercharged M3 that puts down 424rwhp vs my buddy with his NA Mach1 motor that puts down 350rwhp are dead even from 40-140 and both cars weigh almost the same.

Does anyone here know if a Heads/cam Gen 3 Viper will beat a Heads/cam C6 Z06? I know viper motor puts down more torque than z06 but the z06 has the weight advantage on us.

 

[DeceptioN]

Hmm, this sorta makes me double think my build plan. What about N/A vs Turbo build?

 

[JLorello]

Well, there is a big difference between 600-700rwhp and 1000+ rwhp. I would THINK the majority of turbo vipers are built that way for 1 reason, to make as much power as possible.

I do not need or desire that much power. I want a fast enough car to beat pretty much everything on the road at a minimal cost and good reliability. I don't want to have to worry if a Z06, ZR1, or supercharged C6 pulls next to me

Reason why I brought up this discussion is I think a N/A 600rwhp car will be a much more enjoyable and reliable car to drive compared to a SC setup.

 

[britospeed]

Here is my Stock motor gen3 with my TT system.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Twister]

Actually a 600 rwhp head and cam gen three will walk away from a 600 rwhp gen four. It will have 620 torque compared to the gen 4s 570 and be a hundred pounds lighter. Not to mention broder power at low rpm bs the gen fours cam in cam desighn. As far as the Paxton if you hit a solid 720 rwhp you may be able to run with the 600 na gen three

 

[Red Snake]

...........Reason why I brought up this discussion is I think a N/A 600rwhp car will be a much more enjoyable and reliable car to drive compared to a SC setup.

Your reasoning is kind of flawed. If your idea of enjoyability is a comfortable smooth running engine and dead nuts reliable, then you need a supercharged car running low boost. It will be as smooth and reliable as stock but it won't be the fastest.

If you want a 600 rwhp N/A car it is going to be Nasty, thumping and violent. It is not going to be as reliable as stock and it won't be real comfortable to drive. But it will be BadA$$ and it will be fast.

You can't have smooth and comfortable plus fast as hell unless you go twin turbo and spend the big bucks. Even then, with the proper build it will be reliable but not as reliable as stock.

 

[redtanrt10]

I do not need or desire that much power. I want a fast enough car to beat pretty much everything on the road at a minimal cost and good reliability. I don't want to have to worry if a Z06, ZR1, or supercharged C6 pulls next to me

Jon, if this is what your looking for, get a Paxton. You're shooting for 600 rwhp and good reliability and drivability, lower boost S/C is the way to go. Cost to get to that power level NA is more than a S/C. (To get to 600rwhp in my Gen IV it was over $7,500 in parts)

Down the road if you want more power, you can build the motor. If you want to change vipers, (Gen IV-V) you can pull the S/C and get 50% back reselling.

Good luck, Mike

 

[Nine Ball]

FWIW, I've run a few C6 Z06's making 600-620 rwhp all-motor. My C6 Z06 has a blower on it, stock engine, 619 rwhp. It has no problem putting 1-2 car lengths on the NA setups. When I shift my car at 7K rpm, it is still making over 600 rwhp at 6K rpm in the next gear. The NA setups do not have the broad HP or torque curves that my car has. My car also weighs about 80 lbs more than theirs.

Summary: You cannot assume NA is always better, or supercharged is always better. The only way to find out is to run them. Only the naive will make such blind assumptions that one way is always better than the other.

 

[V10lover]

Actually a 600 rwhp head and cam gen three will walk away from a 600 rwhp gen four. It will have 620 torque compared to the gen 4s 570 and be a hundred pounds lighter. Not to mention broder power at low rpm bs the gen fours cam in cam desighn. As far as the Paxton if you hit a solid 720 rwhp you may be able to run with the 600 na gen three

I have to disagree with you on that one.
In my opinion,
Gen 4 will dominate the Gen 3 if both are modded NA.

Why?

100 hp more to start with,
Better heads,
Better intake manifold,
Better throttle bodies, dual vs single,
I also believe the engine has a bit more compression than the gen 3 too.

Lighter wheels and tires than Gen 3= less rotating mass on gen 4 for 6 spoke and acr wheels and tires and brakes.

Mod both to the max in NA form and I truely believe that Gen4 wins again because is possible to achieve 680rwhp. with those gen 4s. Remember that most guys on the 600 rwhp mark on gen 4 only have full exhaust with cats, ported intake and ECU!!!!

Porting the heads(not the basic port, a more agressive one) combined with increased compression thru the combustion chamber to get close to 11:1 + 1.85 jesel roller rockers+ valves, titanium retainers, etc.. + better pushrods + better spark plugs and spark plug wires + larger injectors + porting the throttle bodies + deleting cat. converters, etc..

Gen 4 has more potencial N.A. and if I had the gen 3 which I also love , would go with a TT Roe kit. Cant go wrong with that at 7 psi + SCT tune.

 

[Viper23]

What do you guys mean by putting a gen 4 top end on a gen 3 bottom? Is that possible?

 

[Twister]

nineball....please never compre a vette to a viper again.....differant everything.

i mean if we wwere talking a gen2 roe at 600 rwhp id say 133 mph trapps all day....

but we aint talkin gen2 roe..we talkin gen3 paxton and sadly at 600 rwhp that would be 127 mph trapps all day..luckily the base kit is 650 rwhp but thats still only 129 mph all day...

theirs the probem...
450 rwhp stock is 120 to 122
480 rwhp from a few bolts ons is 123 to 125
510 from all bolt ons and tune is 126 to 128
540 by adding a cam to that is 128 to 130
590 by adding heads to that is 132 to 134

so why on earth to 650 rwhp paxtions have a hard time hitting 130 mph in the quarter or mathing stock 550 rwhp gen 4s in the mile?

 

[Twister]

v10 lover...sorry

at 500 rwhp and 540 rwt at 3300 pounds ive ran door to door with a 500 rwhp c6z06 and beaten a lp570 superlegerra.....

could I have done the same in a stock 3450 pound 550 rwhp 510 rwt gen4????

I dont think so....

 

[Twister]

keep in mind the lp570 was clocked to 60 in 3.0 seconds and the quarter in 11.1 at 129 mph and 150 in 15.5 seconds...it is as fast or slightly faster than a stock gen4

stock 550rwhp and 510 rwt gen 4 verses lp570 also stock

http://www.youtube.com/xl

 

[Twister]

IVE GIVEN UP ON EDITING THE ABOVE POST

stock 3450 pound gen 4 at 550 rwhp and 510 rwt vs stock lp570

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szyAXETAz1Q

my modified gen 3 at 3300 pounds and 500 rwhp and 540 rwt vs stock lp570

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGcheZuxSnw

could a gen3 with just a paxton at 3480 pounds and 630 rwhp hang with the stock 11.1 at 129 mph quarter mile lp570????

id guess for a run or two till it heat soaked..

 

[Twister]

sorry....got the vids mixed up the yellow vert is the gen3

 

[Nine Ball]

nineball....please never compre a vette to a viper again.....differant everything.

i mean if we wwere talking a gen2 roe at 600 rwhp id say 133 mph trapps all day....

but we aint talkin gen2 roe..we talkin gen3 paxton and sadly at 600 rwhp that would be 127 mph trapps all day..luckily the base kit is 650 rwhp but thats still only 129 mph all day...

You were comparing a Viper and using NSX modifying experience. Fail.

My Paxton Gen III runs 133-135 mph trap speeds. 650 rwhp, and on 20" Nitto Invo tires. Again, your magazine bench racing stats are off. 127-129? Maybe with your mediocre driving skill?

I find your info relatively useless, and the way you spout your findings as fact here really makes me laugh. You might be the biggest bench racer on the site, seriously. Aren't you in Hawaii? You guys don't even have a spec of a car culture there, especially compared to Houston. We race weekly down here, and most of those "fast car" vids you come across on the net are Houston area street cars.

 

[Twister]

your the first ive herd on a base paxton gen3 claim 133 plus...very well if their was one then their may be more..but even you must admit 127 to 129 is the norm ...

and most complain about the experiance????

bottom line is if everything i had read painted the same picture as yours id already have one

 

[AbsolutHank]

your the first ive herd on a base paxton gen3 claim 133 plus...very well if their was one then their may be more..but even you must admit 127 to 129 is the norm ...

and most complain about the experiance????

bottom line is if everything i had read painted the same picture as yours id already have one

I trapped 132mph on my 630rwhp Paxton, on 20" Invo's...

 

[Nine Ball]

your the first ive herd on a base paxton gen3 claim 133 plus...very well if their was one then their may be more..but even you must admit 127 to 129 is the norm ...

and most complain about the experiance????

bottom line is if everything i had read painted the same picture as yours id already have one

The "norm" is that most Viper owners do not visit drag strips. And those that might give it a try, may not even discuss results. What you'll find most of the times is that people who do poorly will tend to complain about the situation and be more vocal about it. It isn't like there are dozens of Paxton SRT10 Gen 3 Vipers hanging out at drag strips each time you visit. There is no "norm" to really base things off of. I'd want to see 100+ examples before you or I start making solid estimates on how they really run.

120s with over 600 rwhp in a 3400 lb car tells me one thing. Piss poor driving skill. I've built/raced manual trans cars that weighed more and put down 500-525 rwhp on motor alone that would trap 129 all day. 600 would have been that much faster. Of course, I did log over 1,500 passes in that particular vehicle. No kidding.

 

[Twister]

OK....I get where your coming from...No differant than the whopping 10 reports a year we get a stock gen 3's running a 12.3 at 118 mph when we all know that properly driven a 11.9 at 121 is within grasp and well driven an 11.7 at 123 can be achieved..

Ill admit defeat on this one since someone claiming 630 rwhp has claimed a 132 mph trap with the paxton.

Its just that after seeing vids of stock 620-650 rwhp paxton gen3's haveing their hands full with stock z06's or then gen4's trapping higher in the mile its just really hard for me to wrap my mind around 130 plus mph trapps. But timeslips dont lie..

It could simply be inexperienced drivers giving the system a bad rap. The paxton is highly powerband specific. tyring to start at 70 mph in third gear in a paxton is suicide.

My nsx of course is completely differant. But I swear from 1000-6500 rpms it was sad. Then for a short burst from 6500-8000 rpms the paxton kicked in. NO BS my 330 rwhp paxton nsx ran dead even with my friends naturally asperated 270 rwhp nsx. For me that was the decider that the system was worthless.

Still IMHO roots style blower or NA or TT is the way to go. But based on the trapp speeds you two have claimed at 132-135 mph with just 620-650 rwhp I will give it another look. Ive seen some nice used gen3 paxtons going for 5k...Cant beat that. And yes as far as resale I sold my used nsx system and used camaro system both for 3-4K. So that is an advantage over H/C

 

[DrumrBoy]

I disagree. 650 rwhp all-motor setup will always have more drivability issues than a 650 rwhp forced induction setup that is still running the stock engine. My supercharged cars all drive identical to stock, until you floor it. Aggressive cam specs and all that is required to make big NA power, all contribute to a worse drivability experience.

I agree with the above. Mine makes 630RW and it doesn't behave on the street. I like it, so I've learned to drive it in a manner that avoids the bucking and AEM weirdnesses, but it ain't anything like stock for smoothness and driveability. A five hour cruise is out of the question for me, though I know low-boost SC guys who do it all the time.

 

[plumcrazy]

14psi here and drove it to and from florida to NNJ. drove like stock till i put my foot in it.