As many people are aware, Accessible Technologies (ATI) is currently involved in a lawsuit with Vortech Engineering.  A great deal of information, some true and some not, has been made available to you. The main issue in this lawsuit is simple:  what performance gains are reliably produced by an Intercooled ProCharger system vs a Vortech Gearcharger system?  ATI has proposed independent comparative testing to verify the facts. Vortech has declined to test. Why?

Many separate tests have already proven that ATI's performance claims and ads are absolutely true, and that an Intercooled ProCharger system will outperform a Vortech Gearcharger system by a substantial margin. What has been missing is direct head-to-head testing of the products. The following dyno test was recently performed by ATI on a 5.0 engine running pump gas, and ATI has proposed to Vortech that this test be repeated by an independent third party.  The specific purpose of this test would be to verify the accuracy of ATI's dyno test, as well as to verify that a calculated model previously created and distributed by Vortech is highly inaccurate and misleading.



Please note that the above performance results were produced from an actual dyno test, while Vortech's previously distributed "5.0 Comparison" was simply a calculated spreadsheet "model", not an actual test, and this model was severely flawed.  ATI welcomes anyone to replicate the above dyno results for themselves. Full test specifications can be found at http://www.ProCharger.com.


The above dyno results explain why Vortech introduced their own intercoolers after stating for years that intercooling was not necessary; proper intercooling substantially increases both performance and engine reliability.  Yet it appears that Vortech still does not fully understand the physics of intercooled supercharging, as evidenced by the poor efficiency (15-45% without ice, vs 65-80% for ATI) of their street intercoolers, and the fact that they still do not offer an intercooled supercharger system; they sell intercooling only as an expensive and relatively ineffective upgrade.  Furthermore, the SAE standard which Vortech repeatedly refers to specifically does not apply to intercooled supercharging.  As stated within the standard itself, SAE standard J1723 http://www.sae.org/ PRODSERV/stds is "a method to compare superchargers without the affects of engine dynamics and intercooling".  The correct measure is reliable horsepower gains, and ATI actually guarantees the best hp gains.

Vortech is attempting to portray themselves as a victim, while the fact is that ATI and supercharger consumers in general are the victims of yet another attempt by Vortech to stifle and twist the truth.  Vortech apparently objects to the truth being told, including a Chevy High Performance test of a Vortech LT1 system (Jan '98, pg 94) which produced only a 27% increase in hp and damaged the motor.  ATI's Intercooled ProCharger system for this same application produces a 55% hp gain, while a Vortech customer must buy a separate intercooler and use icewater to achieve the same gain on pump gas.  ATI has earned its position in the market by providing superior supercharger systems, and through the support of customers and dealers has provided competition to Vortech.

Vortech has decided to make this lawsuit public rather than having the facts decided in court.  While ATI has been forced to set the record straight regarding Vortech's misinformation, we all know that talk is cheap.  Why won't Vortech agree to third-party head-to-head testing?

First proposal for testing as follows, for ATI and Vortech to resolve their differences through quarter mile track testing performed under the following conditions:

1.  That the Supercharger kits used by the parties shall be those sold to the public.
2.  That the fuel used shall be "pump gas" not to exceed 91 octane.
3.  That both parties shall use a 1993-97 GM F-body with a stock LT1 engine.
4.  The test shall be monitored by a mutually agreeable independent third party.

This proposal was declined by Vortech.

While ATI is of the opinion that such a track test is the most realistic measure of comparative performance, ATI also proposes the following alternative test:

ATI and Vortech will submit to dynamometer testing in order to replicate and verify Vortech’s “model” created 3/96 and the recent testing submitted by ATI http://www.ProCharger.com

This test would be conducted using ATI’s Intercooled P600B ProCharger system against Vortech’s non-intercooled S-trim system on a stock ‘86-93 5.0 Mustang engine.  ATI proposes once again substituting an air-to-water intercooler for the air-to-air intercooler which is standard in an Intercooled ProCharger system to address the lack of airflow across an air-to-air intercooler in a dyno test.  Boost loses and temperature drops can be verified for the performance of an air-to-air intercooler on an actual 5.0 Mustang.  This testing should be performed by a mutually agreeable third party.

Testing should be performed on unleaded pump gas, as this is not only the fuel utilized for approval by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), http://www.arb.ca.gov but also the fuel utilized by supercharger customers for street use.  “Stock” engine means stock mass air electronic fuel system, stock injectors, and stock exhaust emission system, as prescribed by the CARB.  A minimum of two (2) engine block spark knock sensors should be employed, as reliable engine tuning is at least as important as power output.