Paxton vs Roe vs Twin Turbo

[Zan186]

Quetion is are all three of these considered to be bolt on without major modification's?
I know Roe is just a bolt on system.
Is the Paxton a simple bolt on as well? What are the benefits of the Paxton over the Roe and vice versa.

Is their a Twin Turbo system that is considered a bolt on? I don't want to do any major cutting or major changes to the car.

I have read a ton of information on this site but I haven't really read much on the Paxton.
Tator seems to favor the Roe, but I would like to hear the pro's and con's of each.

 

[Kevin D]

First off, what year/gen viper do you have?

 

[Zan186]

Just bought a 2002 FE, but it had the engine sent to Aero and Zero'ed. It now has Forged pistons, 708 lumpy cam, new roller rockers and a Vec 2 with Elderbrock headers and Corsa Exhaust.

 

[Kevin D]

Good stuff, that reworked motor of yours should be good for huge HP (900+) easy with the right blower set-up...even more turbocharged...


Roe Blower; - Pro's = Great quality, good customer service, direct bolt-on that's entirely reversible. Really clean and OEM looking power adder. Under $8K installed and tuned**

- Con's = Efficient positive displacement style blower till about 6.5-to-8PSI (or around 600-to-650RWHP) then efficiency drops like a rock** Non-intercooled (need **** injection for higher boost pulley's), wining sound under boost (which some find annoying)

Conclusion = In my opinion if all you're looking for is between ~550-to-650RWHP it's the best solution. It's efficient, instant full boost from low rpms to redline, direct bolt-on, easy to tune and clean looking.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Paxton Supercharger; - Pro's = Lot's of horsepower potential (well over 900RWHP from it's Novi 2000 head unit), relatively quiet S/C'er, linear power delivery which helps with "street" traction, intercooled** Also reasonably priced at under $9K installed and tuned.

- Con's = Air-to-water intercooler undersized and not efficient enough to support over 700RWHP or being runned back-to-back without being heat soaked (this can be addressed), split-second engine management unit garbage for tuning (VEC II much better), blower placement is in front of the motor and front axle which "could" affect handling.

Conclusion = The most bang for the buck in the relm of "F/I" if well OVER 700RWHP is what you're looking for.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turbocharging; - Pro's = The best F/I solution period. Efficient, intercooled, and more horsepower potential than any tire in production could ever handle.

- Con's = Money $$$. It's generally the most expensive F/I solution of the three and is not a direct bolt-on.

Conclusion = If money is no object I wouldn't hesitate to turbocharge !


...hope this helped ;-))

 

[Bobpantax]

Look at post entitled "How much longer for the Gen III Roes SC?" in the SRT Forum. It contains some detailed data comparing the two systems. Their power curves are different. I have had both. For every day driveability the STOCK Paxton application is better. Once you go beyond the stock application, things get a bit more complicated. As Sean noted in his post, his Gen I and Gen II Roe kits have certain fuel management issues regarding the rear running richer than the front cylinders. In fact he mentioned retrofitting the Gen I and Gen II kits in his post. On the other hand, I found the eccentricities of his kit manageable and tolerable and nothing beats the looks of the Gen I and II kits on top of the engine. There is an old post dedicated to photos of same. Many of the photos are the equivalent of gearhead *****.

 

[GTS Bruce]

Another paxton con.Removing the upper side to side frame stiffening tube. GTS Bruce

 

[InjectTheVenom]

Another Roe pro: if your hands can work magic you can even slap it on a 1:43 Viper, just look in my gallery for the pics

 

[Kevin D]

...As Sean noted in his post, his Gen I and Gen II Roe kits have certain fuel management issues regarding the rear running richer than the front cylinders. In fact he mentioned retrofitting the Gen I and Gen II kits in his post...

Had Roe ever addressed this in the Gen II kits...or are they still sold with this issue?? Thanks.

 

[Bobpantax]

...As Sean noted in his post, his Gen I and Gen II Roe kits have certain fuel management issues regarding the rear running richer than the front cylinders. In fact he mentioned retrofitting the Gen I and Gen II kits in his post...

Had Roe ever addressed this in the Gen II kits...or are they still sold with this issue?? Thanks.

Since Sean just posted what I quoted a couple of days ago, the kits for both the Gen I and Gen II Vipers would appear to currently have the issue. However, you should email or call Sean to confirm.

 

[KenH]

The new Gen I/II kits have slightly different intake manifolds and VEC2 firmware that pretty much takes care of the fuel distribution problem. I think Sean was actually referencing the Gen 3 truck kit which had a similar or worse problem that caused him to drop the kit before production.

 

[Bobpantax]

"That’s why our truck kit did not end up being produced with the “sidewinder” version I built for one guy. I just wasn’t happy with the front cylinders running leaner and the rears richer. Went through that enough on the Gen1 and Gen2 kits, which I plan to go back and retro fit with improvements."

The above is the actual wording used by Sean. The last sentence is clearly referring to the Gen I and Gen II Viper units. If I am not mistaken, my GTS had the newer intake. The 8lb sytem was put on in early 2005. I still had the rich condition in the rear and the number ten spark plug had to be changed more frequently. But it was still alot of fun even with some of its eccentricities.

If you do not mind the warm up period jerkiness; the need to change cards under certain conditions; the richness issue with the attendant need to change plugs more frequently; and, the lack of an intercooler or, in the alternative the need to refill the water/**** unit depending on the amount the vehicle is driven; and, you want an incredibly good looking application and massive torque starting at 1800 RPM, go for the Roe. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, the Roe requires more air flow than the stock cats allow to function well. With high flow cats and a Roe, a Gen II Viper is loud enough to scare off the dead. Lastly, if you like listening to AM talk radio,you might find that AM reception is impaired and that there is no way to remedy same.

 

[Joseph Dell]

The #10 plug issue happened with the non-firmware-updated VEC2's that were both N/A and SC. In fact, I had both N/A and paxton SC'd cars have that issue. but the firmware fixed it.

Not to ding any particular tuner or vendor, but i find it to often be the case that there is up-sell of parts when power-adders are involved. and we, as power junkies, figure "oh, while i'm there, i'll just add the headers, port the heads, exhaust, throttle-bodies, clutch, roll-bar, half-shafts, tranny, etc..." you get the idea. "what else do i need". And the answer is lots!

But product vendors will always tell you that you need more stuff. Almost as much as tuners will always say "there is more left in that car" when they tune it. I've even had vendors try to sell me one thing over another just because they either a) have more inventory that week or b) make more $$ selling the different part.

But back to our story...

I had a 700rwhp paxton car with STOCK headers, STOCK cats, STOCK throttle bodies... and it ran like a dream. Adding TB's showed no HP gain. The car was bone stock EXCEPT for rocker arms and a borla cat-back. 700rwhp and 700tq.

Anyway, my point is that all cars with more air IN will run better with more air OUT. but a paxton flows more CFM than a ROE, so something doesn't add up.

One can easily spend lots and lots of $$$ on parts... But I like AM radio. They don't broadcast hockey on FM around here.

JD

 

[Bobpantax]

Hi JD. The following are from Sean's web page in the FAQ section regarding the supercharger kit for Gen I and Gen II. You raise an interesting point about the air flow. It appears that the Roe system could work with the stock cats but excessive heat generated by the stock cats in this air/fuel environment would cause "damage to nearby components" based on Sean's FAQ answers. Perhaps someone will jump in and explain why the stock Paxton kit works perfectly with stock cats.

"What modifications or upgrades do you recommend with the Supercharger?

We recommend smooth tubes, high flow air filters, no cats (or high flow cats at the least), a new fuel filter and a good set of spark plug wires for best results. Beyond that, it depends on how much power you want to make."

"Is the Supercharger emissions certified?

No."

"Will the stock catalytic converters be ok?

The stock cats have 4 substrates and are designed for the stock car. With higher exhaust volume and richer air/ fuel ratios, they can overheat causing heat damage to nearby components. We recommend no cats or high flow cats."

 

[kwkshift]

Anyway, my point is that all cars with more air IN will run better with more air OUT. but a paxton flows more CFM than a ROE, so something doesn't add up.

JD

Power under the curve. A centrifugal car may make more peak power, but a roots or screw car will make more average power. So, it's very possible for a "700 rwhp car" to lose a race to a "600 rwhp car."

 

[Zan186]

Is'nt their an SVS Turbo that is considered a bolt on? Aka no extra modifications needed?

 

[black mamba1]

Anyway, my point is that all cars with more air IN will run better with more air OUT. but a paxton flows more CFM than a ROE, so something doesn't add up.

JD

Power under the curve. A centrifugal car may make more peak power, but a roots or screw car will make more average power. So, it's very possible for a "700 rwhp car" to lose a race to a "600 rwhp car."

With the above quote in mind, anyone have an idea what kind of power curve say a Heffner twin turbo looks like? I believe the Paxton operates similar to a turbo. If that is true then will say a 650 rwhp Roe give a 900 rwhp twin turbo fits in a 1/4 to 1/2 mile dogfight?

 

[kwkshift]

No, the turbo's spool and hit full boost usually at a lower rpm than centrifugals, if they're sized properly. You could have full boost by 1500-2000 rpm or so with a properly sized turbo setup. Centrifuglas are rpm dependant.

 

[Shelby3]

JD

[/QUOTE]
If that is true then will say a 650 rwhp Roe give a 900 rwhp twin turbo fits in a 1/4 to 1/2 mile dogfight?

[/QUOTE]

Not even remotely....................

 

[Joseph Dell]

Here is a graph of my old paxton SC dyno graph mapped to my TT dyno graph. Up to about 3700rpm, the paxton has more power than the TT. at 3700 RPM, the graphs cross and the TT takes off. and that is the SAME boost level on the TT as the paxton.

Note that the TT was later found to have a boost leak (in that old set-up) so the car might spool a little sooner now...

 

[plumcrazy]

nice !!!

 

[Casey]

TT wins hands down! They can be installed without cutting, etc.

 

[Joseph Dell]

With the same boost, the power levels are as i'd expect them to be. it takes power to make power with the SC, and the paxton takes ~150hp to spin the blower. plus any belt slippage that might occur and you end up with about a 200hp delta between SC and TT.

If someone had a 16psi ROE dyno graph, i'd overlay it on these as well!

JD

 

[Earl_H]

Joe, are you running the JM Stryker Heads? Which Turbos?

Also, how does the car feel on the street. I have been contemplating moving to a T4 setup, but my Vette tuner and I have been debating the merits of a T76 gts on a Viper (lag vs powerband).

 

[Joseph Dell]

the dyno graph above is a CPE turbo set-up with 2 T76's with greg good heads. I recently replaced the greg good heads with Stryker heads (not for the flow as the GG heads flowed almost the same as the stryker heads) but for the cooling. the strykers, being a new casting, cool better.

no dyno numbers with the strykers yet but i was out cruisin' today and let me tell you... it is a blast!

JD

 

[Landman]

If both drivers are equal, and heat soak isn't a factor, a 700hp NOVI2000 will beat a 600hp ROE. When you take off from a roll, you're at a higher rpm anyways so the NOVI will be right at home. In the 1/4 it's possible for the 600hp roots to win, but that will still depend on the driver.

 

[1TONY1]

Just bought a 2002 FE, but it had the engine sent to Aero and Zero'ed. It now has Forged pistons, 708 lumpy cam, new roller rockers and a Vec 2 with Elderbrock headers and Corsa Exhaust.

Arrow .... not Aero

 

[black mamba1]

It seems the TT is the way to go for overall max performance, but the costs are formidable. On that note, I am sure many of you have heard of the new SVS/DYI turbo charging system claiming 900 to 1000 hp and systems starting at about $12,500 if I am not mistaken. Anyone looked into this? And is SVS a reputable tuner w/ reputable systems?

 

[99 R/T 10]

Yes, SVS is a well known and respected tuner. Lots of turbo experience.

 

[Joseph Dell]

Yes, SVS is a well known and respected tuner. Lots of turbo experience.

SVS is a well known tuner... yes. As for their set-up, i think they have 1 customer (from almost 3 yrs ago) so i'm not sure if it is any good or not. I believe their 12.5k doesn't include computer or fuel system, though.

JD

 

[KepRght]

JD isnt your TT CPE? how ya like it? would you have done anything different?