FA20CLUB Vortech vs. Turbo Kit Comparision
 

Wanted to share with you a quick plot i saved for those looking to compare the popular Vortech kit to one of our turbo kits. Mods are as follows.

Vortech Run BLUE

• Stock Header
• Nameless Over/Front Pipe
• Manual Transmission
• HKS Exhaust
• 9 PSI

FA20CLUB 57 Trim Kit RED

• Stock Front Pipe
• Custom Exhaust
• Automatic Transmission
• 7 PSI

Nice comparison.

Turbo is going to have the midrange, while the SC will have the transient feel of an NA setup.

One thing to consider is that the turbo kits have an aftermarket header (by design). I'm curious what the vortech can do with a good header installed!

Nice work! Its good to see some new results from different trims. Any chance you can overlay the 57 trim with the previous 60 trim? I am assuming both of these were on 93...

will do that once we get back on the dyno later this week with the 60 trim

is this your base kit or also with boost solenoid and fueling upgrades?

EDIT: nevermind, just opened another thread and see it's just a stiffer spring

Base kit goodies get added when we do e85

This! But hey ya gotta promote your product. I'd be damn happy with either your turbo kit or the SC kit on my car.


Via my Note 2

Fuel, meet the fire lol.

exactly, ^^^this, the product at such a low price point does include the header, has more power and on top has great potential if you need more power. looks to me like it promotes itself :party0030:

Also, the turbo is running less psi and an automatic tranny. If there was less powertrain loss with a manual and the car was running 9psi you'd see higher numbers.

the 57 trim is our recommendation for active road racers and the 50 for most autocross guys. if youre @Element Tuning swing with the 60 trim. simple productive old school turbos can never be forgotten. they work and work well. this motor has allot of engineering behind it that really shines with some power thrown at it.

whos 60 trim? Bradons with more boost or elementals?

Brandon's

Pretty expected results. The turbo gives more power, especially in the midrange but is a lot more unstable in power deliver. The graph is all over the place. The S/C puts down a little weaker numbers especially in the mid range but provides a very nice smooth curve. Keeping in line with a linear NA feel.

Any reason for the wildly different fuelling between the two packages?

SC dont have to be run as rich as the turbo you can if you want to but youll be wasting fuel. not to mention this particular turbo owner is really young and drives like it so i added extra .3-.4 afr for his own safety. im sure ill see youtube and facebook videos of his burn outs any day now. if i ran the same targets on both tunes the turbo would have made a bit more power through the band as well, that should be considered

there's nothing about a turbocharger that makes a dyno graph more 'spikey'. this is just one example that happens to be. the supercharger has a more 'na' feel, but not for this reason. it's due to the ramping of boost being more linear, whereas the turbo makes it's boost much quicker. above 3.5k rpm or so (depending on turbo size, i'm basing this off of my gtx2867r) this is pretty much negated and the boost from the turbo is just as instant. for example, above 3.5k, from off throttle vacuum to 7.5psi happens faster than you can look down at the gauge. centrifugals behave very much the same way. under 3.5k there is a bit of spool, but not enough to warrant giving up 200 additional potential horsepower. centrifugals generally aren't making much boost under 3.5k either.

curve is less spikey when afr targets are closer to 12:1

Looks good. Would like to see some more PSI on the 57 trim kit.