600 HP TVS Kit for the new 5.0

[JTB]

http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/images/2011supercharger/SHM-006.jpg

http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/

[CH53Driver]

Very nice! If I was on the market for one of the new 5.0s this would definitely be going on the car.

[68fastback]

Nice, but that looks like the Magnusson TVS ...SC inlet looks small. I'd prefer the FRPP (Roush-packaged) TVS for 5.0. (http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=12402) 624 HP -- NMRA Race Pages editor Jason Reiss seems to really like it. (http://207.97.218.244/?p=360)

[Birdman]

Nice, but that looks like the Magnusson TVS ...SC inlet looks small. I'd prefer the FRPP (Roush-packaged) TVS for 5.0. (http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=12402) 624 HP -- NMRA Race Pages editor Jason Reiss seems to really like it. (http://207.97.218.244/?p=360)

My thoughts exactly Dan, thats not an Eaton and the inlet is 'funneled down'....:nonono: Plus I believe you can put the L&M 66 on the Roush set up...:weg:

[68fastback]

lol - for sure, George ...looks like they actually wanted to reuse the stock round TB :doh2: ...maybe L&M will eventually address that too.

...and where the inlet meets the rotors is small/narrow too ...what a shame.

I hope Magnusson doesn't show such design engineering insensitivity on any future TVS rotorset packaging :shades: -lol.

[JTB]

I thought the SC Belt looked a little pedestrian too, how long is a Supercharger belt the width of a fan belt, going to last at those RPMs?

[68fastback]

...I think both kits use the 6-rib -- probably to not have to swap-out the other stock pulley(s). Because of the 11:1 compression it only needs 9# to make 624HP (FRPP tune), so stock 6-rib should be ok.

[Gr8snkbite]

Nice, but that looks like the Magnusson TVS ...SC inlet looks small. I'd prefer the FRPP (Roush-packaged) TVS for 5.0. (http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=12402) 624 HP -- NMRA Race Pages editor Jason Reiss seems to really like it. (http://207.97.218.244/?p=360)

correct..not an Eaton....tho the mag was the option for my current truck....decided against....

[JTB]

Nice, but that looks like the Magnusson TVS ...SC inlet looks small. I'd prefer the FRPP (Roush-packaged) TVS for 5.0. (http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=12402) 624 HP -- NMRA Race Pages editor Jason Reiss seems to really like it. (http://207.97.218.244/?p=360)


FYI.

Sean developed this SC option for the 5.0 months before the FRPP (Roush) option even existed.

[68fastback]

Likely he used a derivative of the tune FRPP did for the Whipple GT350 and just substituted the Magnusson incarnation of the TVS since it uses the same physical interfaces -- dunno but it took FRP and Roush almost 18 months to perfect that tune for the GT350's TiVCT 5.0, so I'm doubfull SHM whipped one up on their own -- especially since no one even knew where all the many-fold new claibration parametrics are even located im the new ECM -- TiVCT is many-fold more complex than the 5.4. If he did manage to hack into the tune and tweak it himself from scratch (unlikely to any extent beyond timing and fuel trims) I would not want it on my 5.0 vs the FRPP tune. Realize that the FRPP tune would work equally well for the FRPP 2.9 Whipple, FRPP TVS, and SHM's Magnusson TVS so long as the torque tables provided enough headway for all (they do) ...with the W/B O2, etc even headers intake variations shoul dnot upset it and the brand making the boost is really irrelevant -- the competence of the tune itslef is what's all-important.

[JTB]

Likely he used a derivative of the tune FRPP did for the Whipple GT350 and just substituted the Magnusson incarnation of the TVS since it uses the same physical interfaces -- dunno but it took FRP and Roush almost 18 months to perfect that tune for the GT350's TiVCT 5.0, so I'm doubfull SHM whipped one up on their own -- especially since no one even knew where all the many-fold new claibration parametrics are even located im the new ECM -- TiVCT is many-fold more complex than the 5.4. If he did manage to hack into the tune and tweak it himself from scratch (unlikely to any extent beyond timing and fuel trims) I would not want it on my 5.0 vs the FRPP tune. Realize that the FRPP tune would work equally well for the FRPP 2.9 Whipple, FRPP TVS, and SHM's Magnusson TVS so long as the torque tables provided enough headway for all (they do) ...with the W/B O2, etc even headers intake variations shoul dnot upset it and the brand making the boost is really irrelevant -- the competence of the tune itslef is what's all-important.


Seriously Dan, how in the hell can it take 18 months to come up with an efficient safe tune, with the combine resources of FRPP, Ford, Roush and modern computers. That's a joke. IMO

[68fastback]

...no joke.

[JTB]

...no joke.



Extraordinary.

[CH53Driver]

Extraordinary.

These aren't the good ol' Holley Carb days. You must live in a 4053

[Joe G]

These aren't the good ol' Holley Carb days. You must live in a 4053

:spitcopy:

[65SC]

http://stangsunited.com/showthread.php?1287-2011-Mustang-GT-5.0-Supercharger-Kit

:waiting2:

[Birdman]

Likely he used a derivative of the tune FRPP did for the Whipple GT350 and just substituted the Magnusson incarnation of the TVS since it uses the same physical interfaces -- dunno but it took FRP and Roush almost 18 months to perfect that tune for the GT350's TiVCT 5.0, so I'm doubfull SHM whipped one up on their own -- especially since no one even knew where all the many-fold new claibration parametrics are even located im the new ECM -- TiVCT is many-fold more complex than the 5.4. If he did manage to hack into the tune and tweak it himself from scratch (unlikely to any extent beyond timing and fuel trims) I would not want it on my 5.0 vs the FRPP tune. Realize that the FRPP tune would work equally well for the FRPP 2.9 Whipple, FRPP TVS, and SHM's Magnusson TVS so long as the torque tables provided enough headway for all (they do) ...with the W/B O2, etc even headers intake variations shoul dnot upset it and the brand making the boost is really irrelevant -- the competence of the tune itslef is what's all-important.


Seriously Dan, how in the hell can it take 18 months to come up with an efficient safe tune, with the combine resources of FRPP, Ford, Roush and modern computers. That's a joke. IMO

I agree with Dan's accessment on this 100%. SHM's Shelby American connection allowed them access to FRPP's development tuning for the new SC GT350 which did in fact take 18 months and a couple of blown engines in the process to perfect due to the complexity of this new patented Tivct engine management and it's 11:1 compression ratio.

The Roush TVS 5.0 SC package and the Whipple SC package's (found on the 2011 scGT350) are both a more superior design over the SHM 5.0 SC package IMO because of their better intake design which allows the use of a twin blade TB over the restrictive stock single blade tB like the SHM kit uses and for that reason alone I would stay away from the SHM kit.