[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(named: ) turbo/super



Sport Compact Car ran a great series of articles a little while ago,
ranging from building up a bottom end to the turbo vs. supercharger
debate.  I learned alot from these articles, and came away more
impressed with turbos than I had been in the past.  It's clear from
those articles that turbos are the way to go.  They're simply more
efficient.  Modern technology has solved alot of the lag issues of the
past, and dollar for dollar, turbo technology looks to me to be the
clear winner.  Now as far as complete kits for our cars go, there
doesn't seem to be any "polished" systems out there.  But I think
that'll change in the near future.  More and more companies are coming
out with turbo and supercharger kits - one of them is bound to be a
well thought out, quality kit...

Mark.


--- Larry <rocco16v@netzero.com> wrote:
> Noah-
>   There's not much I can add to Neal's excellent outline.
> Superchargers generally are less "stressed" than turbos, and
> longevity may
> be in the SC's favor.
> Heat build-up in the engine compartment is another factor.
> I've heard plenty of TC horror stories (even lived through one), so
> SC's
> don't have a monopoly on that issue.
> 
> The main reason TC's are popular is because they are cheap.  Cheap to
> buy
> and cheap to install, compared to SC's.
> You want big, far-ranging horsepower?   No contest.  How many
> 2000-4000hp
> drag cars have turbos?  They need power from a standing start right
> on up.
> Don't come back with turbo F1 cars either, they are built to a
> formula
> (that's where the F in F1 comes from, remember) and need the most
> efficient
> boost they could get. (They give up flexibility for pure top end.) 
> And
> turbos are more efficient, no argument.  But I don't care about
> efficiency,
> I care about usable power, the more the better.
>  A supercharger will be easier to install (and more satisfying to
> drive)
> than a turbo simply because not every corner 'tuner' can throw one
> together
> and market it. EVERYBODY seems to have a turbo for sale and some
> aren't even
> close to being fully developed.  Anyone who markets a supercharger
> probably
> has big $$ invested because it takes a great deal of machine and
> casting
> work to produce the kit (charger, pulleys, brackets, manifold, etc). 
> These
> are not items you or I are going to piece together in our garages
> with a
> hacksaw and a MIG welder.
> 
> My biggest problem with a supercharger is that no one seems to make
> them for
> my 16V.  :(
> 
>  This is only my position and others of you will certainly disagree
> as to
> which is best for you.
> I'd be interested in hearing more from you....
> (I was thinking of mounting a centrifugal supercharger on the BACK of
> my
> engine, gear-driven off the flywheel teeth, since that's the only
> area that
> has any room and it would somewhat simplify intake plumbing.  Lot'sa
> machine
> work to do it...so it's mainly a mental exercise...)
>  Larry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Neal Tovsen <nealtovsen@yahoo.com>
> To: Noah <pchandyman@intrex.net>; <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: (named: ) turbo/super
> 
> 
> > >     I'd love to hear any arguments you might have in
> > > favor of a
> > > supercharger, particularly with regards to our cars.
> >
> > 1) instantaneous throttle response (no lag)
> > 2) perfectly linear throttle response
> > 3) easier plumbing (no manifold changes necessary)
> > 4) easier CARB certification (if you're a mfgr)
> >
> > Personally, I would generally recommend a turbo for
> > nearly any real forced-induction project. You're right
> > about the majority of situations. Here are two cases
> > where there are exceptions to your argument.
> >
> > 1) Superchargers are easier to deal with and support
> > as a manufacturer. I would argue that Neuspeed or
> > Jackson racing has far fewer "customer complaint"
> > (what I might call "customer stupidity") issues than
> > Greddy. The fact that boost levels are not directly
> > related to crankshaft speed creates a LOT of issues
> > that the average person can't deal with and tune for
> > properly. Wastegates, fueling, timing, etc. are all
> > more difficult to manage when you cannot directly tie
> > air consumption to engine speed. Couple that with the
> > millions of stupid people out there, and you see why
> > there are relatively few mass-produced turbo kits.
> >
> > 2) The reason I personally am going with a
> > supercharger is due to the intended purpose of my
> > vehicle: autocrossing. The nature of autocrossing
> > means that instantaneous throttle response and a
> > linear torque curve are FAR more important than
> > efficiency and maximum power potential. I'm wondering
> > how in the world I'm going to get 200whp hooked to the
> > ground...300whp in a 1900lb car on an autocross would
> > be completely unmanagable and slow me down. I also
> > need to be able to apply power whenever I want, *NOW*.
> > There are people who are pretty successful at planning
> > in advance for turbo lag on an autocross, but it is
> > definitely not an ideal situation. If they make a
> > slight mistake in their timing, it costs them several
> > tenths of a second to correct, then potentially a
> > second or more to get the boost back up. That's the
> > difference between an easy 1st place and 10th at a big
> > event.
> >
> > Additionally, having a direct relationship between
> > throttle position and power output is a huge
> > advantage. I've talked to enough Supra drivers to
> > understand the issues created when you're navigating a
> > long-ish sweeper or a slalom at part throttle in a
> > big-boost turbo car. Just about the time you've set
> > the car up nicely for the turn, and balanced the
> > brakes, throttle, and steering on the head of a pin,
> > 20psi of boost comes rushing in to mess it all up! At
> > 3500rpm a Supra might make 150whp...but 1/2sec later
> > at 3600rpm it could be doing 350whp! There is NO
> > in-between. Managing that situation definitely takes
> > time/attention away from driving faster.
> >
> > And on top of it all, my rough calculations indicate
> > that, presuming the same intercooler size/location, a
> > G60 setup is probably at least 15-30lbs lighter than a
> > turbo. The G60 itself is only about 15lbs, there's
> > much less plumbing, no extra manifold weight, no
> > wastegate (well, the bypass valve on the TB weighs a
> > few ounces, I suppose), etc. When you rely on light
> > weight to beat 600hp AWD cars, 30lbs does matter.
> >
> > Just another perspective on life... :)
> >
> > Neal
> >
> > =====
> > ~Neal
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
> > http://games.yahoo.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l


______________________________________________________________________ 
Only a few days left to file! http://taxes.yahoo.ca