How much longer for Gen3 Roe SC ?
- Thread starter Vipermann
- Start date
1TONY1
Enthusiast
I will see if there is an answer on that right now. I will tell you that Roe purchased a gen3 from Ringgold Dodge two months ago to do the s/c work on.
1TONY1
Enthusiast
Sorry for the delay...I have had the answer, just forgot to post it.
Hi Tony,
Now that the truck kits are in full production, I'm back on the car.
We bought an '03 to R&D with.
The manifold and engine management are done.
Just working on the top plate assembly now.
Trying to keep it under the hood, but a new hood is probably going to be the answer, like the Corvettes have to do.
It won't be much longer until we release results.
A timeframe is hard to stick to.
Regards,
Sean
Hi Tony,
Now that the truck kits are in full production, I'm back on the car.
We bought an '03 to R&D with.
The manifold and engine management are done.
Just working on the top plate assembly now.
Trying to keep it under the hood, but a new hood is probably going to be the answer, like the Corvettes have to do.
It won't be much longer until we release results.
A timeframe is hard to stick to.
Regards,
Sean
Finally got it !
Viper Owner
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- Posts
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
Hmm. Will Roe produce the hood? Don't need the elite hood debacle again.
Thanks for the update.
Bummer on the 'new hood' idea ... I have painted stripes on mine, and I ain't gonna be changing it ... wish there was a modification kit for the under-hood liner to make a bit more room (if that would help)
Bummer on the 'new hood' idea ... I have painted stripes on mine, and I ain't gonna be changing it ... wish there was a modification kit for the under-hood liner to make a bit more room (if that would help)
Flash1034
Enthusiast
Whats the functional difference between the two?
Flash
Flash
SnakeEye
Viper Owner
Really there's no need to be lulled into (forever) waiting in line to get supercharged. Paxton has been delivering fantastic proven results for nearly two years on the Gen3 platform. Do yourself a favor and search thoroughly on this topic for a dose of reality. Paxton and the Corsa Track with a strong tune should provide you nearly 700rwhp. Good luck.
"Paxton" is the best there is after they were bought by VORTECH. It is a Vortech in a Paxton label, it was confirmed to me by a Vortech/Paxton rep at SEMA.
I have no experience with Roe (except caspian caviars
) but in general centrifugal SC's are better performers than roots/whipple type (is that what Roe offers? I am pretty sure from my memory)
I have no experience with Roe (except caspian caviars
) but in general centrifugal SC's are better performers than roots/whipple type (is that what Roe offers? I am pretty sure from my memory)Not sure that is true. As Roe points out on their website, all auto manufacturers use the same type of SC that Roe offers due to simpler operation and better reliability over time. No manufacturers use a Paxton type of supercharger. The Roe SC replaces your intake manifold, and thus each SC design is mostly unique to each type of car. The Paxton unit is more universal, with some car-specific add-ons. The Roe SC takes it's own oil every 15K miles or so. The Paxton unit is installed with a 'tap-in' added to your motor oil system. That oil 'tap-in' will always be there. The Roe can be reversed by putting you stock intake manifold back on.
All that being said, I ain't gonn be buying no new hood ... so Paxton it may be.
Ah, he shoulda called me, he didn't need to buy an 03 to test, I would've lent him mine, as long as he left everything on it when he returned it
Vipermann, I hear what you're saying quoting the ROE site (but remember he's marketing his stuff too), but Paxton has been installed by car manufacturers for about 40 yrs that I know of, probably longer. I think one of the keys to using the twin screws & roots styles nowadays is the ease for a manufacturer to accomodate it in the engine compartment, hood issues aside. A centrifugal (and I've installed 6 on different cars I've owned, including two Paxton's, my first in 1988) generally requires moving things around, notching things, etc. Not something you want to get into on an assembly line. The screws & roots are more of a pull the manifold and bolt on, including great water intercoolers that integrate right into the manifold, very clean and easy install.
My experience with both is; centrifugal ramps the power up with RPM, better traction control - especially in higher psi; screw type max psi at lower RPM.
On the street I've found I enjoy the screw setups I've done more, but it's a tough call, both are great & have been compared to death with no "real" winner per se, just 2 great different approaches.
A new hood would be a drag though & I'm sure that'd be a limiter for folks, it would for me, I wouldn't want to change any body panel on my SRT, she's perfection. But a screw/roots blower sitting on top of the engine is a truly beautiful picture. Apples to Apples, I might lean toward the Screw/roots style, but considering Paxton's proven success on Viper's & across so many applications in the industry, and if there's a hood replacement ... it'd be Paxton hands down. Now if I could only put the $ together to get one!
Dave
03 SRT
Vipermann, I hear what you're saying quoting the ROE site (but remember he's marketing his stuff too), but Paxton has been installed by car manufacturers for about 40 yrs that I know of, probably longer. I think one of the keys to using the twin screws & roots styles nowadays is the ease for a manufacturer to accomodate it in the engine compartment, hood issues aside. A centrifugal (and I've installed 6 on different cars I've owned, including two Paxton's, my first in 1988) generally requires moving things around, notching things, etc. Not something you want to get into on an assembly line. The screws & roots are more of a pull the manifold and bolt on, including great water intercoolers that integrate right into the manifold, very clean and easy install.
My experience with both is; centrifugal ramps the power up with RPM, better traction control - especially in higher psi; screw type max psi at lower RPM.
On the street I've found I enjoy the screw setups I've done more, but it's a tough call, both are great & have been compared to death with no "real" winner per se, just 2 great different approaches.
A new hood would be a drag though & I'm sure that'd be a limiter for folks, it would for me, I wouldn't want to change any body panel on my SRT, she's perfection. But a screw/roots blower sitting on top of the engine is a truly beautiful picture. Apples to Apples, I might lean toward the Screw/roots style, but considering Paxton's proven success on Viper's & across so many applications in the industry, and if there's a hood replacement ... it'd be Paxton hands down. Now if I could only put the $ together to get one!
Dave
03 SRT
SD SRT Coupe
Viper Owner
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Posts
- 33
- Reaction score
- 0
Do we really need more bottom end torque? I mean, getting max boost and a lot of extra torque at 2500 ropm is really helpfull on a 4.6 liter ford motor, but I would think that having 8 lbs of boost at 2500 rpm would just complicate an already difficult launch in a Viper.
Do we need more torque? Is that answer ever no? LOL
IMHO the centri's do afford a more controlled or smoother power delivery as they build boost with engine RPM making for potentially better traction at launch and the lower mid-range. As you say, especially for the viper motor, the centrifugal design may indeed be the "better" choice.
D.
I've installed Vortech blowers before, the "tap in" is as simple as drilling a hole in the pan and tapping it (I rather weld).
If you need to reverse, just close the hole as you wish... chewing gum included
My point is, it is very simple.
I've only heard good things about Roe, but if I ever had to choose I'd take the gear driven vortech centrifugal any time. They've proven themselves to me repeatedly. I go back as far as having an "A" trim Vortech on a 94 Z28
If you need to reverse, just close the hole as you wish... chewing gum included
My point is, it is very simple.
I've only heard good things about Roe, but if I ever had to choose I'd take the gear driven vortech centrifugal any time. They've proven themselves to me repeatedly. I go back as far as having an "A" trim Vortech on a 94 Z28
Kai SRT10
Enthusiast
Roe's problem is that he's waited so long, that he may find that he's missed the boat. Paxton pretty much is the proven answer at this point.
He may come out with a supercharger solution only to finid that he's got the answer to a question nobody is asking anymore.
He may come out with a supercharger solution only to finid that he's got the answer to a question nobody is asking anymore.
VIPER D
Viper Owner
well put!!!
vd..
Just remember... anything over 5psi is on a roe is just blowing hot air. and thats just one of the problems! Then you need "bandaids" such as water/**** or No2 to cool the intake and stop detonation. pm me for all the issues with screw types on our cars... I don't want to upset our "supporting" vendors...
=)~
=)~
1TONY1
Enthusiast
"Paxton" is the best there is after they were bought by VORTECH. It is a Vortech in a Paxton label, it was confirmed to me by a Vortech/Paxton rep at SEMA.
I have no experience with Roe (except caspian caviars
Roe uses a screw type blower. Looks like a roots but is different internally.
Below are two links with a lot of information (good general info on a lot of stuff too) The gen2 Roe kit uses an Autorotor s/c, it is the same one Kennebell uses. I "think" Roe is using a Whipple on the truck kit. Both are screw type.
http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/content.asp?PageID=79
http://www.kennebell.net/techinfo/techinfo-general.htm
One thing I'm missing is seeing drag et's and mph on the gen3 Paxton kits. I know of one impressive DLM package (drag runs) and that's it. Are there any numbers out there ?
I can't speak for the road course or drag strip (on the gen3) for lack of numbers, but I can promise you that on a gen3 with tires a screw blower would beat a Paxton car like a drum on an autocross course.
I believe the Paxton kit does well on the gen3 (maybe not so well on the gen2) but I wouldn't discount the Roe s/c just yet. If the hood deal is going to be true it may not be a good thing....unless....there is a cool hood that favors the 2008 hood but with a bump. There will probably be lots of 2008 hoods sold to gen3 owners anyway. Have you guys seen the replacement gen2 hoods ? Pretty awesome and they seem to be real popular. Luckily for Roe, if he needs a hood it will not be near as expensive as the gen 2. Will I be going Roe on my 2004...don't know, I am waiting to see what Roe comes up with and then look at that vs the Paxton. If it is dyno numbers you are looking for the Paxton will win, that doesn't mean it will win a race or be a better all around driver. Check out the replacement gen2 hood:
http://www4.forum.viperclub.org/showflat...true#Post739021
SylvanSRT
Enthusiast
Roots style blowers(whipple, Eaton, Roe) produce torque and hp imeadiately(low rpms) and are more affected to the power lose of heat soak. The Centrifigul style(Paxton, Vortech) produce their power further up into the revs, but this style is not prone to the loses that roots style are, and have higher power outputs if tuned properly. The roots style generally cost less to purchase than their centrifigul brothers.
1TONY1
Enthusiast
Could you possibly read the very first line I posted ?? <u>IT IS NOT A ROOTS BLOWER</u> !!
Neither Roe (Autorotor) or Whipple are roots.
Here are quotes from magazines about the different s/c styles. Yes it's from KB so still form your own conclusion:
http://www.kennebell.net/techinfo/general-info/confused-about-superchargers.pdf <u>IT IS NOT A ROOTS BLOWER</u>
SylvanSRT
Enthusiast
From my understanding there are considered to be two types of superchargers(three if you count turbos). Rootes(displacement), Centrifigul(belt or gear driven turbos for all practical purposes) and turbos(exhaust driven superchargers). then may we agree that it is a roots style?based? if it is not a centrifigul and it looks like a roots style externally but the main difference being that it has screw style vanes on the rotors instead of straight vanes on a conventional rootes. or we may just agree to disagree.
Plusses and minuses re: Gen III - Paxton vs. Roe
1. I believe the Paxton kit was developed in collaboration with Dan Cragin and Woodhouse. Paxton is a company that will survive the death, disability or retirement of any one of its employees. Sean developed his kit in conjunction with the supercharger company and spent time overseas with them during its development. There is an old, detailed post by Sean where he describes the development process. It is very interesting.
2. The Gen III Paxton kit, in its stock form, is as reliable as an OEM factory installation when installed by a knowledgeable mechanic. It also allows for great, every day driveability without detonation issues. I will defer, for an overall view, to Sean and Chuck Tator for comments on the driveability of the Roe system. I had an 8lb Roe on my 1999 GTS. It was fun but required more attention and had some eccentricities: (a)Until the plugs heated up ( about 1.5 miles out of the driveway), it would act up a bit.(b) The plugs had to be changed on a more frequent basis - particularly one of them that was in the cylinder that ran richer than the others, ( This problem may have been fixed by a program update on the VEC II and/or III.) (c) It was necessary to change cards depending on the outside temperature. ( I assume that a Gen III will have a better fuel management system.)(d) The Roe, for some of us, even with work on grounding, interfered with radio AM reception. ( I never could get mine to work properly again even after all the changes suggested by everybody and taking it to a specialty car sterio installation shop.) I realize that for many people this issue is meaningless.
3. The Paxton driveability is produced, among other factors, by power coming in at about 3000 RPM instead of about 1800 with the Roe application. ( I am assuming that the Gen III Roe, if it is ever produced, will have a similar power curve as the Gen II Roe.)
4. The looks of the Roe on top of the engine win hands down. It is just awesome. It causes people to drop their jaws when they see it. It is unmistakeably a supercharger. Many people do not even realize the Paxton is a supercharger.
5. The peak torque of the Roe Gen II blown application on my former GTS ( It was installed by Sean) was at about 3500RPM. The peak HP was at 5475 RPM.( 546.9 on a Dynojet) (These are the numbers from the dyno done by Sean on my 8 pound Roe 1999 GTS ) The peak torque on my Gen III Paxton is at about 5500 RPM. The peak HP is at 6000 RPM ( 653.93 on a Dynojet ) and it would have kept going up if it was safe to go higher.
6. The power curve of the two units is different. The Roe's torque peaks and drops off at about 3500. The HP climbs steadily from 1800 until 5475 and then drops off. ( Torque: Drops from 614 at 3500RPM to 540 at 5500 RPM.) ( Once again from the Dyno run done by Sean on my GTS.) The Paxton Gen III Torque rises until 4485 RPM and then basically levels out until 5500 and then drops off.( Torque: From 4200 on it's above 590. It drops from 598 at 5500 RPM to 560 at 6000 RPM.) ( The Roe produces more HP and torque at lower RPM levels. This makes it very hard to properly launch on stock tires. Although it was fun, after heating the tires up, to do some dramatic takeoffs.)
7. The Roe, because its pumping more air through the system at lower RPMs, is much louder at lower speeds. ( Most of my neighbors were not pleased.)
8. The Roe requires high flow cats to function well. Another recent thread discussed the legalities of changing out the stock cats. The stock Paxton kit operates well with the stock cats.
9. Reversability - no significant difference. If anything less work for the Paxton because the stock plenum is not removed to install the stock Paxton kit. Plugging the oil supply tap hole is a small amount of work as stated above.
I hope that the above is helpful to those of you trying to compare and contrast. The numbers are from my former Gen II and my current Gen III. Keep in mind the differences in the engines.
Bob
1. I believe the Paxton kit was developed in collaboration with Dan Cragin and Woodhouse. Paxton is a company that will survive the death, disability or retirement of any one of its employees. Sean developed his kit in conjunction with the supercharger company and spent time overseas with them during its development. There is an old, detailed post by Sean where he describes the development process. It is very interesting.
2. The Gen III Paxton kit, in its stock form, is as reliable as an OEM factory installation when installed by a knowledgeable mechanic. It also allows for great, every day driveability without detonation issues. I will defer, for an overall view, to Sean and Chuck Tator for comments on the driveability of the Roe system. I had an 8lb Roe on my 1999 GTS. It was fun but required more attention and had some eccentricities: (a)Until the plugs heated up ( about 1.5 miles out of the driveway), it would act up a bit.(b) The plugs had to be changed on a more frequent basis - particularly one of them that was in the cylinder that ran richer than the others, ( This problem may have been fixed by a program update on the VEC II and/or III.) (c) It was necessary to change cards depending on the outside temperature. ( I assume that a Gen III will have a better fuel management system.)(d) The Roe, for some of us, even with work on grounding, interfered with radio AM reception. ( I never could get mine to work properly again even after all the changes suggested by everybody and taking it to a specialty car sterio installation shop.) I realize that for many people this issue is meaningless.
3. The Paxton driveability is produced, among other factors, by power coming in at about 3000 RPM instead of about 1800 with the Roe application. ( I am assuming that the Gen III Roe, if it is ever produced, will have a similar power curve as the Gen II Roe.)
4. The looks of the Roe on top of the engine win hands down. It is just awesome. It causes people to drop their jaws when they see it. It is unmistakeably a supercharger. Many people do not even realize the Paxton is a supercharger.
5. The peak torque of the Roe Gen II blown application on my former GTS ( It was installed by Sean) was at about 3500RPM. The peak HP was at 5475 RPM.( 546.9 on a Dynojet) (These are the numbers from the dyno done by Sean on my 8 pound Roe 1999 GTS ) The peak torque on my Gen III Paxton is at about 5500 RPM. The peak HP is at 6000 RPM ( 653.93 on a Dynojet ) and it would have kept going up if it was safe to go higher.
6. The power curve of the two units is different. The Roe's torque peaks and drops off at about 3500. The HP climbs steadily from 1800 until 5475 and then drops off. ( Torque: Drops from 614 at 3500RPM to 540 at 5500 RPM.) ( Once again from the Dyno run done by Sean on my GTS.) The Paxton Gen III Torque rises until 4485 RPM and then basically levels out until 5500 and then drops off.( Torque: From 4200 on it's above 590. It drops from 598 at 5500 RPM to 560 at 6000 RPM.) ( The Roe produces more HP and torque at lower RPM levels. This makes it very hard to properly launch on stock tires. Although it was fun, after heating the tires up, to do some dramatic takeoffs.)
7. The Roe, because its pumping more air through the system at lower RPMs, is much louder at lower speeds. ( Most of my neighbors were not pleased.)
8. The Roe requires high flow cats to function well. Another recent thread discussed the legalities of changing out the stock cats. The stock Paxton kit operates well with the stock cats.
9. Reversability - no significant difference. If anything less work for the Paxton because the stock plenum is not removed to install the stock Paxton kit. Plugging the oil supply tap hole is a small amount of work as stated above.
I hope that the above is helpful to those of you trying to compare and contrast. The numbers are from my former Gen II and my current Gen III. Keep in mind the differences in the engines.
Bob
ILLSMOQ
Enthusiast
Joseph Dell
Enthusiast
you sure about that? I heard a rumor that it was developed by a reputable viper tuner, but I didn't think that DC performance even existed when the first Paxton SC for the GenIII came out.
but that isn't really important. The bolt-on paxton kit for genIII is pretty solid. It can be installed by anyone and unless paxton/vortech goes away, it will be a viable option.
The single-point-of-failure argument on ROE is partially valid... partially not. What happens if one of the super-tuners (g-d forbid) gets hit by a bus? Who will service their vehicles? same challenge... some call it an acceptable risk.
My .02... I'm a fan of both set-ups. so get whatever you feel like and let's go racin'!
Joseph
"you sure about that? I heard a rumor that it was developed by a reputable viper tuner, but I didn't think that DC performance even existed when the first Paxton SC for the GenIII came out."
My understanding is that the system reached its current state of reliability due mainly to collaborative feedback from Dan and Woodhouse. This really should be no surprise in view of Dan's extensive knowledge about the programming of the OEM computer and his and Woodhouse's friendly relationship with Chrysler. However, the point was the "single point of failure" that you noted. But I think this post was not intended to address anything but stock kit applications, so monster applications were not a consideration of my post. I think that the EPA compliant nature of the stock Paxton application is important to many people. But as you said, they are both interesting applications.
My understanding is that the system reached its current state of reliability due mainly to collaborative feedback from Dan and Woodhouse. This really should be no surprise in view of Dan's extensive knowledge about the programming of the OEM computer and his and Woodhouse's friendly relationship with Chrysler. However, the point was the "single point of failure" that you noted. But I think this post was not intended to address anything but stock kit applications, so monster applications were not a consideration of my post. I think that the EPA compliant nature of the stock Paxton application is important to many people. But as you said, they are both interesting applications.
VIPER D
Viper Owner
LOL
I had one of the first paxtons on a gen 3 car. (It was in the first batch sent out) and was very lucky to be the one of the first to have one installed and as usual TECH SUPPORT even on saturday NIGHT came from the godfather of paxtons him self
D O U G L E V I N. (thanks again pal)
I was even told from paxton that he helped write the install manual.
sorry but when it comes to paxton's Doug Levin is the man!!!!! not saying that other bolt on tuners are not good but to try to distort it would be an injustice to all viper owners.
vd..
Joseph Dell
Enthusiast
I don't doubt that collaborative feedback from the many people who install the kit improved it. But was that DC Performance? Again, i didn't think they existed back then... did they?
1TONY1
Enthusiast
I guess we will disagree then because they are different
I could care less which one anyone buys but lets stay with the facts. Read this:
http://www.kennebell.net/techinfo/general-info/twinscrew-vs-roots-fromcatalog.pdf
An orange and a grapefruit look basically the same on the outside, but.....
