Roe vs. Paxton

[RTTTTed]

Just found the Whipple site and figured I'd post the comparison graph. Here's the link to the page.
Whipple Industries

I don't know why this graph hasn't been posted before, but ...

You must be registered for see images

Ted

 

[plumcrazy]

doesnt look like any paxton curve ive seen..................

 

[OKViper]

Just found the Whipple site and figured I'd post the comparison graph. Here's the link to the page.
Whipple Industries

I don't know why this graph hasn't been posted before, but ...

You must be registered for see images

Ted

That looks like a "made up" graph - That's probably why it hasn't been posted before...

 

[99 R/T 10]

please delete this thread now, all we need is ANOTHER PAX vs ROE, rught?

 

[mjorgensen Woodhouse]

That is obviously a BOOST graph not a dyno graph.

 

[RTTTTed]

That is obviously a BOOST graph not a dyno graph.

You got it. Engines make hp even at idle and the graph starts from zero.

I think the main point of the graph is to illustrate the power curve. That nearly flat power curve is the difference in power output.

That's what's scary about the new ZR1. 620hp right off idle is intimidating.

Ted

 

[Bobpantax]

I have had both applications. I much prefer the Paxton. The boost on the Roe does come in full down low - too low. It's fun but traction, without drag radials, is almost impossible. The Paxton surges after about 3000 RPM like a high performance aircraft. It keeps surging all the way to redline. I can mainatin traction with less driver input with the Paxton. On the other hand, the appearance of the Roe sitting on top of the engine is a thing of beauty. Bottom line - if you have a Gen III with a Paxton, PS2's at the proper air pressure; you launch at the right RPM and shift properly, you should be able to blow the doors off the new ZR1. If you have a Gen IV with filters and Belanger headers, etc, the same result should occur. The new ZR1 is about the same weight as the Viper.

 

[Kenneth Krieger]

Had both Roe (Gen 1), and now a Paxton (Gen3), and I had a great time with both. I too prefer the Paxton for the same reasons as Bobpantax. Plenty of power......plenty of torque, and pulls scarey hard to redline.......it's a thrill.......no regrets with the Paxton at all.

 

[RTTTTed]

I bought a set of PS2s. Amazing traction! I think that now that I can actually use all that torque under 100mph ... I'll instal my Nitrous Bottle.

Yahoo!

Ted

 

[mjorgensen Woodhouse]

One other thing to consider is all that boost down low takes it's toll on the engine and driveline much more often stressing the motor etc. more that the Paxton will over the long haul.

 

[Steve 00RT/10]

One other thing to consider is all that boost down low takes it's toll on the engine and driveline much more often stressing the motor etc. more that the Paxton will over the long haul.

The flip side to that is my 5 pound Roe can run the 11 turn Gingerman track in 4th gear all the way around with enough grunt to break loose on any corner exit in 4th gear. With my 3.45 gears and Fidanza flywheel, RPMs run from 1800--5000. I can pull a stock GENII/III Viper that runs 3rd gear all the way around this track. That would seem a lot easier on the engine than winding to up redline in 3rd all the time and/or shifting to 4th.

Is there truth to the fact that stock Viper valve trains are a little weak at high RPM...which centrifugal blowers like. I seldom go over 5500 when shifting. Typically 5000-5500 when running hard. My thought is this keeps wear and tear down on the valve train. As for the driveline, my stock tires are my shear pin, the same as it was when bone stock.

Do these assumptions make sense? I do have some back up in that I have almost 80K of our miles on the car -- over 24K on the Roe SC since 5/06. Zero issues. 11K Roe miles on the other car. No issues there either.

Steve

 

[RTTTTed]

My car got the 10# boost at 10K mi. It got trophies at the V10 Nats in Ohio and ran in several other events. I bought it in Aug last year and have put another 14,000mi. on it since then. Now it has 34,000mi. and 24,000mi. were at the 10# boost level.

I love that it makes so much power down low that I can pass, climb mountains, etc. even at 50mph in 6th gear (with 3.08 gears).

Only problem with the huge torque is that I could never lend my car to anyone to drive, it is dangerous.

Ted

 

[mjorgensen Woodhouse]

Well I'm not disputing the facts about the quality of the Roe and it's attributes, the reason I believe what I do is that under normal driving the Paxton car sees no real added wear and I think that even under normal driving the Roe will "stress" the engine etc. more thats all I think. it's just MY opinion.

Thank you,

 

[RTTTTed]

Well I'm not disputing the facts about the quality of the Roe and it's attributes, the reason I believe what I do is that under normal driving the Paxton car sees no real added wear and I think that even under normal driving the Roe will "stress" the engine etc. more thats all I think. it's just MY opinion.

Thank you,

If whatyou're saying is that more torque and hp put more stress on the engine I'll agree with that.

I'm not saying that the Roe is everyone's choice. There are a few posts that state that near stock bottom end power is what some people want and I agree that the Paxton will allow that and provide big power at higher rpms. I like the flat power curve is all.

It's great that there are options for us.

Ted

 

[plumcrazy]

id still like to find 2 bone stock cars.
1 gets a roe (we can give it an 8 or 10lb pulley)
1 gets a paxton base kit.
let the same experienced (unbiased) driver go down the 1/4 and see the differences.

I nominate 1TONY1 by the way.

 

[DEADEYE]

I barely ever get into boost on my Roe GTS. 99% of the time I'm running under vacume pressure. If you drive normaly, the motor has more than enough torque to pull you. I've had my Roe at 10 lbs for about 2.5 years so far. I've refilled the methanol bottle about 3 times and it sprays when I boost.

 

[Steve 00RT/10]

Well I'm not disputing the facts about the quality of the Roe and it's attributes, the reason I believe what I do is that under normal driving the Paxton car sees no real added wear and I think that even under normal driving the Roe will "stress" the engine etc. more thats all I think. it's just MY opinion.

Thank you,

I'm always reading your opinions. You are one of the authorities here. I think I undestand what you're saying about normal driving. Being positive displacemt, those twin screws are turning all the time pushing air in -- even with no boost.

My temp gauge (170F) this last track day -- 75F -typical -- only goes about a needle and a half past the 3rd bar. One cool down lap and I'm back on the 1st/2nd bar after getting to the parking place. Based on speedo readings on the straights, I evidenced no heat soak over the 20 minute sessions. I also used only a 1/4 qt of oil over the 1100 mile run down to the event (100 track miles). These things and the longevity so far (knock on wood) make me quite satisfied with this set up. The low down street grunt is what I like the best. I don't drag race at all so that's not a factor for me.

Steve

 

[black mamba1]

Traction is hard enough w/ my cream puff 528 rwhp. Having 600 to 700 rwhp at 1800 rpm is just craaaaaazy to me. Torque is already monstrous in Vipers, which I think is one reason for the 3.07 rear end. From what the Paxton guys tell me, of the two Paxton is the way to go. Now, if TT enters the picture, that is a totally different story.

 

[SquadX]

Sean mention that the Roe puts less wear and tear on the engine because it makes such huge power down low (2krpm) that the engine doesn't have to turn high rpms just to make power and therefore causing wear and tear.

I was/am a little tore by this as higher rpms puts more stress on engine/drivetrain but does huge power actually put more stress on the engine at low rpms? Hard to tell. I've only heard good things about reliability on the Roe and mixed about the paxton.

The paxton, since it makes more power the higher the rpms would be prone to breaking tires loose unexpectedly then the Roe as the Roe is an instant hit apposed to the build up of the paxton. I do like the fax that the paxton does have a intercooler as apposed to the water/**** for the Roe.

Just my thoughts.

 

[plumcrazy]

ive seen first hand what a ton of torque (nitrous) can do to the cylinder walls

 

[RTTTTed]

I'm always reading your opinions. You are one of the authorities here. I think I undestand what you're saying about normal driving. Being positive displacemt, those twin screws are turning all the time pushing air in -- even with no boost.

My temp gauge (170F) this last track day -- 75F -typical -- only goes about a needle and a half past the 3rd bar. One cool down lap and I'm back on the 1st/2nd bar after getting to the parking place. Based on speedo readings on the straights, I evidenced no heat soak over the 20 minute sessions. I also used only a 1/4 qt of oil over the 1100 mile run down to the event (100 track miles). These things and the longevity so far (knock on wood) make me quite satisfied with this set up. The low down street grunt is what I like the best. I don't drag race at all so that's not a factor for me.

Steve

You're thinking of a Roots blower. The Roe PD does spin according to the crankshaft, same as the Paxton, but the Power Valve releases the extra air back into the non-pressurized side of the intake making the blower "idle" and allowing vacuum to the intake runners. The screws spin, but don't actually make any boost or use any hp to turn until boost is built.

Ted

 

[RTTTTed]

Sean mention that the Roe puts less wear and tear on the engine because it makes such huge power down low (2krpm) that the engine doesn't have to turn high rpms just to make power and therefore causing wear and tear.

I was/am a little tore by this as higher rpms puts more stress on engine/drivetrain but does huge power actually put more stress on the engine at low rpms? Hard to tell. I've only heard good things about reliability on the Roe and mixed about the paxton.

The paxton, since it makes more power the higher the rpms would be prone to breaking tires loose unexpectedly then the Roe as the Roe is an instant hit apposed to the build up of the paxton. I do like the fax that the paxton does have a intercooler as apposed to the water/**** for the Roe.

Just my thoughts.

My opinion is that the Paxton spins so fast (100,000rpm) that it heats the air more than the twin screw - that's why it needs an intercooler. The Roe spins much slower and that's why it doesn't need oil changes every 6,000mi. like the Paxton.

Ted

 

[00prowler]

The Roe Looks Nicer...Al...

 

[RTTTTed]

ive seen first hand what a ton of torque (nitrous) can do to the cylinder walls

I have installed Nitrous on every muscle car I've built since back in the early eighties when I melted a piston doing some research on Nitrous and blowers (NOS and B&M sc). Turned out that Holley used to make the fuel holes in their regulators too small to support enough fuel for the bigger Nitrous systems (I had a Proshot fogger). Now they're super reliable so I instal a kit on all my cars. Not for constant use, just when you meet that guy in the vette that's "soooo fast" and you need a "little more" to put him in his place, you know?

It also has the advantage of chemical intercooling supposedly worth an extra 50rwhp at 10psi boost.

I spoke to Larry Macedo about the stress of the extra hp on my bottom end and he assured me that his engine will have no problems with it.

Ted

 

[Bobpantax]

Sean mention that the Roe puts less wear and tear on the engine because it makes such huge power down low (2krpm) that the engine doesn't have to turn high rpms just to make power and therefore causing wear and tear.

I was/am a little tore by this as higher rpms puts more stress on engine/drivetrain but does huge power actually put more stress on the engine at low rpms? Hard to tell. I've only heard good things about reliability on the Roe and mixed about the paxton.

The paxton, since it makes more power the higher the rpms would be prone to breaking tires loose unexpectedly then the Roe as the Roe is an instant hit apposed to the build up of the paxton. I do like the fax that the paxton does have a intercooler as apposed to the water/**** for the Roe.

Just my thoughts.

500 ft lbs of torque at 1800 RPM means a bigger explosion in the cylinders at 1800 RPM. A bigger explosion means more stress on the components. If you look at the boost curves above, you will see that there is, therefore, far less stress on a Paxtonized engine. With that said, the Vipers before 2000 had forged pistons and were/ are very strong engines. 2000 to 2002 things got weaker with cast pistons. The Gen III and Gen IV engines are not as strong as the pre 2000 Gen II engines. If someone disagrees, please jump in.

 

[RTTTTed]

I agree.

Larry Macedo put 9-1 Ross pistons in my engine back in 2003. I recommend all cream puffs get a piston change for sc and Nitrous just for longevity and reliability.

Ted

 

[dun4791]

My opinion is that the Paxton spins so fast (100,000rpm) that it heats the air more than the twin screw - that's why it needs an intercooler. The Roe spins much slower and that's why it doesn't need oil changes every 6,000mi. like the Paxton.

Ted

The Autorotor (Roe) actually does need an aftercooler/heat exchanger, but there is no room for an aftercooler on the Viper engine. Space constraints are why there is no aftercooler on the Autorotor, not because it doesnt need it.

Also you are wrong the Autorotor need oil changes every 5-6000 miles. The Paxton uses oil from the crankcase.

 

[dun4791]

You're thinking of a Roots blower. The Roe PD does spin according to the crankshaft, same as the Paxton, but the Power Valve releases the extra air back into the non-pressurized side of the intake making the blower "idle" and allowing vacuum to the intake runners. The screws spin, but don't actually make any boost or use any hp to turn until boost is built.

Ted

The speed of both blowers is determined by the pulley size, not just the engine rpm. If the engine is turning the screws, they are using HP. Neither blower builds boost at idle. Load determines boost.

 

[RTTTTed]

The Autorotor (Roe) actually does need an aftercooler/heat exchanger, but there is no room for an aftercooler on the Viper engine. Space constraints are why there is no aftercooler on the Autorotor, not because it doesnt need it.

Also you are wrong the Autorotor need oil changes every 5-6000 miles. The Paxton uses oil from the crankcase.

Really? Here's a copy/paste from Roe Racing Performance Parts

What kind of maintenance does the Supercharger add?

Next to none. The oil in the unit does not come from the engine oiling system, which gets contaminated from blowby and the combustion process. Therefore, the compressor oil stays cleaner and in better condition longer. We suggest the case oil level be checked at each engine oil change. The oil color will be the first indication that a change is due, which should be at approximately 50,000 miles.

Ted

 

[RTTTTed]

The speed of both blowers is determined by the pulley size, not just the engine rpm. If the engine is turning the screws, they are using HP. Neither blower builds boost at idle. Load determines boost.

The Paxton Novi also uses gears and shafts to up the impellor speeds so that it can spin fast enough to boost. Most centrifugal sc's use a belt and gears inside the case.

Horsepower used to spin rotors while not making boost is insignificant and doesn't even affect mileage.

Ted