Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

Just put a 150 shot kit on the car and forget having to spend several grand on either kit. I should have done it a long time ago. This way you get all the reliability of a stock engine and the power when you need it.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Indeed.

Superchargers in general do have their following, and if executed correctly, a positive-displacement supercharger system can be tolerable to live with. Some folks even prefer the howling noise that they make over the serene power of a comparable turbocharger system.

But the FFS system in particular, well...

Mechanically it's not bad. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they did a pretty nice job with the machined parts, and all the little accessory brackets and such. It's a very pretty kit.

Unfortunately, the electronic / engine-control portion of the package was designed by someone who doesn't really have a very good grasp of thermodynamics and modern engine management as compared to, say, a degreed mechanical engineer with several decades of experience building race engines and aircraft components. There have been a lot of over-blown claims, some blown engines, and in general, a lot more hype than substance.

MartinezA92

iTrader: (4)

Bullshit. This has been covered. Probably multiple times.
90% of the **** I've wanted to know about I've found by searching here. That is a TON of info.

flier129

iTrader: (7)

235rwhp(max)on E85 @ 17psi from a coldside MP62, cools air with gasoline, terrible piggy-back system. Keep in mind this number was put down on one of FFS's co-owner/founder/employee's(?) car. Extensive tweaking of the kit in general and problems with the second injector. Standard kit may net you 190rwhp @ 12psi

250rwhp on 91 @ 10psi from a gt2560r at stupid high Denver elevations. One of the BEST stand-alone systems you can have for a miata, bigger injectors, cooled by an A/A FMIC on a standard kit that anyone can install, load the tune FM sends you.


You pick.....

18psi

iTrader: (76)

Seriously.

I wonder how many supercharger vs turbo debates we've had on here over the years

OH WAIT but we didn't specify THAT EXACT kit vs THAT OTHER EXACT kit therefore the whole search function is void and a new thread is to be made


Anyways, I'm done here lulz

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

There's a thread labeled "The FFS crew is at it again..." for ****'s sake.

golftdibrad

I actually have an engine in my garage that someone gave me that had a FFS on it. #3 has low compression. The hardware is good but the fueling sucks....

richyvrlimited

iTrader: (1)

Hey! Coldsides aren't that bad.

Though I have 2 in the family, 1 MP62 and one M45, neither with 'e-cool' and both with decent engine management , I'm kinda bored of mine now and am hankering after a turbo. I've had the car too long and am now bored easily.

As long as you're aware of their limitations, they're fine IMO.

Better is a subjective thing, it really depends upon what you want. Though in this instance I really think the OP is better off with a turbo kit.

P.S. can I still stay on this site? Please?

revlimiter

iTrader: (1)

Didn't someone once say that "boost just looks better on the coldside"?

-edit: found it!

D.dutton9512

I'm in the same boat. At least I went ahead and got the engine management, injectors, etc that I can reuse with the turbo.

BTW, cxmoney, wake up this morning in the mood for a baptism by fire? Told ya, don't search don't learn. The biggest difference in the guys who are successful in this stuff and the one's who fail is whether or not you're willing to do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

So, let me get this straight:

You have an MP62, presumably a coldside.

You have proper engine management.

You wish to add a turbo.

I see no reason why the MP62 has to come off in order to accomplish that.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Ya, don't be a bitch just, add the turbo and have a twincharged car.

MartinezA92

iTrader: (4)

^I see nothing wrong with this. Do it.

eafy

richyvrlimited

iTrader: (1)

One has to go to pay for the other otherwise it'd be a done deal, tho on a technical side, don't you need to bypass the charger at higher rpms?

Unless Faeflora wants to donate his old parts that is

slidder

^ This is a good idea!

91NA

you dont have to. you could run the S/C at lets sat 6 PSI then you could have your turbo at lets say 10PSI so you will have 16 PSI total and rediculus amount of power threw the whole rev range... the problom is what would blow up. there is an write up about it in mustangs and other fast fords where it made 1188 rwhp and 1015 rwtq.... but i would prob say it wouldnt be that streatable

91NA

also what is wronf with 6 psi and no intercooler? i do admit the 5th injector will work for that low boost but anything more than 7 psi i would look to other options to cool. every one here is so anti-supercharger but to take care of the other wise very good design eleminate the 5th injector go with water-meth injection loose the stupid PC go with a standalone that will work with bigger injectors and use a snow performance controler to handle the meth injection... i dont see why everyone thinks a air-air ic is needed. but i guess that what people think when they think turbo.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

What the **** are you talking about?

91NA

its aparent that the 1st post was in response to the compound turbo super that as above my first post... and the second was i was just saying every one was saying that it was stupid not to have an intercooler on something thats FI i was just pointing out the fact that an air-air isnt needed with low boost applications IE the ffs supercharger at 6 PSI.... and then i posted the way around the Air-Air if one so happend to like the setup of a coldside S/C so clearly thats what the **** i was talking about...