I agree, I think if I were to take the S/C route I'd rather have a Eaton. On the othe side of the coin, if a turbo kit is ever developed (not a cat back version) that is tuneable and can run at relativley safe boost on a stock motor I'd rather start there. The one advantage to a turbo is no parasitic loss. Also the turbo kits available for cars today nearly equal an S/C in terms of when the system begins to develop power. Turbos are producing great hp and tq at low rpm's now. Just my 2 pennies.:smoke:A friend of mine mentioned this as well. APS engineers their products very well. I would love to see an Eaton supercharger for the 6.1. That would be some serious low end torque.
All you need to make it bullet proof is a forged bottom end and a blower/turbo friendly cam to maximize the power potential.
Why not a "cat back version"? I know of two "underhood" units that were built, one was removed in fairly short order as they could not get the underhood temps under control, and the other one was a one off that was nearly $20,000 due to all the mods required to the vehicle structure.On the other side of the coin, if a turbo kit is ever developed (not a cat back version) that is tuneable and can run at relativley safe boost on a stock motor I'd rather start there.
Why not a "cat back version"? I know of two "underhood" units that were built, one was removed in fairly short order as they could not get the underhood temps under control, and the other one was a one off that was nearly $20,000 due to all the mods required to the vehicle structure.
A single "might" be fitted low behind the front fascia, but a new set of manifolds would need to be developed, and then getting the exhaust routed back under the engine would be a major obstacle as there is just no room under there.
If the "cat back" issue is a perceived slow response, my 300C spools between 2000 and 2400 rpm depending on how I load it. I am currently running 8 - 9 psi, and we have seen the setup easily produce 16+ psi of boost (definitely need a forged engine for that!).
My EGT's run near stock, and AFR's are controlled and nearly flat line across the RPM range, so successful tuning is possible and not an issue at this point.
With high flow heads on the GRIP 5.7 Charger and 6 psi, we saw a torque peak of over 500 RWTQ at 1750 rpm. Not bad for a single "cat back" turbo system.
Prior to the current tuning, at 5.5 psi I peaked at over 400 RWHP and 460 RWTQ, 30 more HP and 90 more torque than a new stock 6.1 on the same dyno right before mine. Now I am running 8 -9 psi so I know the numbers are going to be higher now.
However, as the exhaust gas cools, it's density increases as it contracts. As such, it will slow it's velocity. If you size the exhasut in a logical fashion along the length, you can maintain the velocity and impinge the turbine blades with a denser molecular structure. This negates a vast majority of potential losses.A degree of thermal efficiency is lost with a catback turbo system since the expanding exhaust gas can cool significantly as it makes its way from the exhaust manifold to the impeller housing. The only way around this is to actually make the exhaust more restricive to the turbo - slowing down exhaust flow lessens heat loss.
Also, catback turbo systems are more prone to damage from the road debris and the elements and theft is pretty easy considering its location.
Also 400 rwhp is low considering that you are running 5 psi of boost. Was it measured on a Mustang dyno?