TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences?)

[ChicagoGTS]

I would like to know the real world diferences good and bad, between TT & SC setups. "By real world" I mean everyday drivabilty, reliabilty, and controlability on the street. I know the common crap: Dyno, track, and physical differences. I want to hear from people that have ridden in or owned both.

~Matt~

 

[PRVT JET]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

Matt, you should go visit paolo and see his new twin turbo kit he is building. He is by St. Charles, he will tell you everything you need to know about both. I'm planning on visiting him soon, I want to see how far he's gotten on the beast.

Isaac

 

[Doug Supercharged Vipers]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

Both have advantages and disadvantages. I'll take either one if their on a Viper! This one does not provide traction.

 

[Qualitywires.com]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

Is that a paxton blower on that beast?

 

[Vic]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

This one does not provide traction.

Heh heh! good one!

 

[ChicagoGTS]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

Wow looks nice doug! But I would like to hear some details from those that have put some miles on both setups. I know Paolo is building "The Beast", but he hasn't already driven a TT for 6 months (yet). I don't think I will get the answers I'm looking for ("Advantages and disadvantages") but it never hurts to ask. TT's on vipers are still on the "bleeding edge" of being commercially viable in my opinion, but if there are any accolades or complaints I'd like to hear them, obviously from a comparative perspective.

~Matt~

 

[FE 065]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

I'll take a guess...turbos are adjustable on the fly, quieter, use less gas/easier to drive in traffic/around town, at low throttle openings when there isn't much heat being generated.

 

[MaxedGTS]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

50,000 miles. quiet and the most street able car ive ever had. No heat at your feet, no black oil or oil pumps no exhaust leaks. the car makes power with no lag and VERY right foot controllable. i have my opinions good and bad about any forced induct car. i'll stay with the sc car for another 50,000 miles.
Max

 

[Joseph Dell]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

With SCs, the boost is somewhat linear (and proportional to RPM), whereas you are at full boost much sooner w/ a TT. This is good and bad... the area under the curve (on a dyno chart) is often bigger w/ a TT, but it also means that the boost comes on more suddenly. Talk to the owners of SC cars that move to TT... it takes a while to learn to drive them!

part throttle, the cars are all the same. TT's might be a little quieter b/c you don't have the whistle of the belt driven SC... but using less gas I'm not so sure.

All the major auto manufacturers use both SC and Turbo set-ups in some of their production cars... most don't have TT b/c they can get away w/ one. Heck, Volvo's turbo car is a turbocharged inline 5 cyl motor... making ~210 hp. And it is pretty peppy in a 3800lb car.

That DLM pic looks like it has a cog driven procharger on it... I'd be scared to drive _that_ beast... It is also on a yellow car... and as of late, we've seen that yellow cars really _are_ faster!

Just my .02...

JD

 

[CHAD]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

That might be Treynor's old setup.

Turbo cars are MUCH quieter as the exhaust gas passes through the turbo which seems to muffle the note greatly. This is either a positive or a negative depending on the owner.

S/C cars have a nice whine. Again, up to the owner on preference.

Turbos are much more flexible as you can turn the power up and down on the fly.

S/C cars may be a little easier to modulate the throttle due to the linear curve but you can drive a turbo car off the boost gauge rather than rpm and do the same thing. It does take a little more practice. You can also turn the turbo car down if traction is an issue.

Turbos have much less load on the engine at part throttle and have no side load on the crank.

Lots of pros and cons to weigh.

Chad

 

[Moundir]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

here is one, no f#cking belt issues would be the biggest con with the sc setup!!!!! and TT make more power lb for lb As far as sound is concerned, you cant beat the hot rod sound of the sc with a nice lopey cam

 

[MbnViper]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

real world differences ? i will tell you soon

 

[ChicagoGTS]

Re: TT Vs. SC (What are the real world differences)

real world differences ? i will tell you soon

Cool!

 

[BigDane]

here is one, no f#cking belt issues would be the biggest con with the sc setup!!!!! and TT make more power lb for lb As far as sound is concerned, you cant beat the hot rod sound of the sc with a nice lopey cam

Turbos generally make more power lb to lb than a blower on any car. You also don't have the parasitic loss with the turbos as you do the blower. If this was a big single turbo car I would say it would not be street able, but do to it being twin turbo the tq curve should be quite linear. I've driven turbo cars that felt like they were all motor due to having such small turbos and the effect and driveability was great, hell my STI was that way. In my experience with cars when it comes to forced induction I wouldn't go any other way than turbo, even though they are more maintenance and cost more for a kit. The fact that you can switch power on the fly(for street or race applications) and the fact turbos make more tq than superchargers are the biggest selling points to me. If you have the money and are somewhat proficient with a car go TT you wont be sorry.

 

[Torquemonster]

power wise - a certain sc car just had a TT fitted and on the exact same motor - no other changes other than what was necessary to go from SC to Turbos the car dropped from 10.3's to 9.5's at 156mph. Even allowing for differences in boost pressure and track, the TT car has the speed edge if it will get traction and not break driveline parts.

The TT itself should be super reliable, the drivetrain needs upgrading due to immmense torque.

Both systems have their good points. SC is cheaper and that alone sets it apart for most, but the only way you'll really appreciate the difference is to drive or ride in both that operate at the same basic power range...

 

[ChicagoGTS]

What is the "feel" like? I've heard the boost of the TT being compared to Nitrous in that it hit's like a freight train. That sounds great but does it ever happen when you don't want it to like around an on ramp. I do like the linear power of my Roe and quite honestly it runs so well I'm having a really hard time with the decision. But, the numbers and Awe of the TT setups are soooo attractive! Very hard decision!

~Matt~

 

[Jason Heffner]

The power of a Roe blower is not linear, it makes full boost at 2500 rpms.

 

[ChicagoGTS]

It feels pretty linear to me almost like N/A no spikes or steep climbing, here's my last pull from 3k to redline compared to your TT setup on ViperTT's car:

Roe Dyno
TT Dyno

P.S. - Congrat's on breaking the record!

 

[Moundir]

power wise - a certain sc car just had a TT fitted and on the exact same motor - no other changes other than what was necessary to go from SC to Turbos the car dropped from 10.3's to 9.5's at 156mph. Even allowing for differences in boost pressure and track, the TT car has the speed edge if it will get traction and not break driveline parts.

The TT itself should be super reliable, the drivetrain needs upgrading due to immmense torque.

Both systems have their good points. SC is cheaper and that alone sets it apart for most, but the only way you'll really appreciate the difference is to drive or ride in both that operate at the same basic power range...

Not always cheaper Torque, not always I do have a feeling that will change with all these TT kits out

 

[Jason Heffner]

It feels pretty linear to me almost like N/A no spikes or steep climbing, here's my last pull from 3k to redline compared to your TT setup on ViperTT's car:

Roe Dyno
TT Dyno

P.S. - Congrat's on breaking the record!

You're not exactly comparing apples to apples.

 

[2MANYTOYS]

Turbos vs. S/C make the car sound very different. Both are excellent systems. I prefer the S/C personally. It makes all the power I could ever use and the car sounds badazzzz.
I respect the turbo cars because they make stupid power but I hate the way they sound. Just too quiet for me.

 

[Chuck B 98 GTS]

Torquemonster says:


power wise - a certain sc car just had a TT fitted and on the exact same motor - no other changes other than what was necessary to go from SC to Turbos the car dropped from 10.3's to 9.5's at 156mph. Even allowing for differences in boost pressure and track, the TT car has the speed edge if it will get traction and not break driveline parts.

Torquemonster,
Am I reading this correctly? Your saying ALL THAT WAS DONE to this car was to remove the supercharger components then add a turbo system and go from 10.30's to 9.50's?



Cheers,
Chuck

 

[ChicagoGTS]

It feels pretty linear to me almost like N/A no spikes or steep climbing, here's my last pull from 3k to redline compared to your TT setup on ViperTT's car:

Roe Dyno
TT Dyno

P.S. - Congrat's on breaking the record!

You're not exactly comparing apples to apples.

That's why I started this thread.

 

[RedGTS]

I respect the turbo cars because they make stupid power but I hate the way they sound. Just too quiet for me.

Amen brother. I might get me one of them superchargers.

 

[Miles B]

The power of a Roe blower is not linear, it makes full boost at 2500 rpms.

2500? That high? But being a screw it makes "almost full boost" off idle, right?

 

[Moundir]

Turbos vs. S/C make the car sound very different. Both are excellent systems. I prefer the S/C personally. It makes all the power I could ever use and the car sounds badazzzz.
I respect the turbo cars because they make stupid power but I hate the way they sound. Just too quiet for me.

YOU MADE 1033RWHP!!! UNREAL, awesome power, details please, how much boost, and what does it do on pump? Sick #s!!!

 

[ChicagoGTS]

Regarding sound: do the TT setups have the same high pitched "dog whistle" sound when the turbos hit?

~Matt~

 

[DLTARNU]

Am I reading this correctly? Your saying ALL THAT WAS DONE to this car was to remove the supercharger components then add a turbo system and go from 10.30's to 9.50's?

In the video, it looked like the TT car was running slicks when it got the 9.5

When the car was SC'd and got a 10.3, was it running slicks at the time? A 10.3 seems slow for a car that had 840 RWHP.

Any other mitigating factors? (air temp, humidity, elevation, track conditions, etc.)

I'm not sure this is a completely accurate pristine apple to pristine orange comparison.

 

[Dr Roof]

When the car went 10.30's it had a 3.55 gear and the peak horsepower is not the only factor on ET it is how and when and where the power is coming in.

All I know is this. I have the Quickest Blower car and Have one of the fastest Twin Turbo's and if I had my choice of which one to drive I am gonna drive the Twin Turbo becuase I like the reduced Noise of the TT.

Both cars are sick fast! both cars will impress most car enthusiast so the bottom line is your personal choice.

in a few more months or another year the TT will be dialed in and I feel we will be running low 9's on the track with 6 speeds. The TT has really just started heating up.

 

[Jason Heffner]

Torquemonster says:


power wise - a certain sc car just had a TT fitted and on the exact same motor - no other changes other than what was necessary to go from SC to Turbos the car dropped from 10.3's to 9.5's at 156mph. Even allowing for differences in boost pressure and track, the TT car has the speed edge if it will get traction and not break driveline parts.

Torquemonster,
Am I reading this correctly? Your saying ALL THAT WAS DONE to this car was to remove the supercharger components then add a turbo system and go from 10.30's to 9.50's?



Cheers,
Chuck

Chuck, while this is essentially true, it is not exactly true. In all fairness to the tuner who originally built the car, I would not say that this is a fair comparison. There were small changes made to the engine and we are running more boost and better tires. Like I said, not exactly a fair comparison.