Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLT1
I was just saying on a stock car with a stock fuel system(which the thread is based on) the 2300 looks like a better suited charger. The 2650 has to spun too low and the power curve shows it. 2300 delivers a better power curve at low boost.
You are wrong if you would want to give up that much torque across the rpm range at the power levels being discussed here. You also have to think about time spent at X part of the rpm range and shift extension. Dropping 90whp on a shift isn't ideal.
It's the same principal as putting a F1a-94 on a stock car and only spinning it 8psi. It's going to make all peak power. There is a reason why there are different size Chargers for different applications. The 2650 is a unit that likes to be spun harder. Look at the curve Mike posted. Even making 15psi, it still produces slightly less power under 4k rpm compared to a 2300 @ 12 psi. That tells me this unit needs to spin 15psi minimum.
Nothing wrong with that. On a application like yours, the 2650 makes sense. On a stock internal car running 10psi or less, I think a 2300 is a better choice.
|
I think Mike said there was still some tuning he could do in the mid-range, no? Also - converters and transmissions are different between cars these blowers are going to be on, so shift extension is going to be different anyways, isn't it? I believe the power/torque curves also effect extension if I recall. My point is, is that this isn't final and perhaps tuning might boost the low-end. If not, it is what it is. It's a big blower for an application like this anyways, isn't it? It gives a lot of room to grow, but if the car were going to stay in this configuration, it's probably better suited to a 2300 or the like. I can see the point that a little softer low-mid range might be slightly better for traction, but for those that like a top-end that doesn't stop pulling, that small sacrifice on the bottom to get the bigger hit on the top is better. Some people will give that up. Who cares? It's their money
