If you read the description, those were used on an industrial application, coupled to an electric motor.What is that from, a '63 Studebaker?
Yep......that would be an optimal setup on a 3800 vs a turbo.
If you read the description, those were used on an industrial application, coupled to an electric motor.What is that from, a '63 Studebaker?
My links were random cscs under $1k that I snagged in response to you scoffing at the idea of a $1k CSC. And they'd be better than Chinese knockoff turbos lol
No they wouldn't. I have NEVER seen a successful Paxton application that would make more power than a low dollar/low boost turbo set up and those were kits DESIGNED for the motor and not random Sc's bolted on a 3800 V6.
The amount of Horsepower required to spin a Paxton is relatively huge. The Electric motor used for the industrial application was probably 40 HP and it probably wouldn't make 6psi feeding a V6. Since 6psi might only give you 60 HP, that is a net 20 HP the hard way and the Power in/Power out equation doesn't get better as RPM increases.
Physics is not a Paxton's friend. The Paxton Supercharged R2/R3 Studebakers, that were legendary for having "1 HP per Cubic inch" (Gross) really had only about 30-40 Net HP more than an Un-supercharged Studebaker 289.
You're wasting your time. You just can't reason with a 17 year old kid who has "20 years of experience".
GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.