(named: ) turbo/super

[koabi@seeohdee.com (koabi)]

What about the benefits and disadvantages to turbos in our cars
specifically?  Are there any differences?  Im mostly referring to stock
engine management.

Koabi
scared of computers in cars and dumb about forced induction

-----Original Message-----
From: scirocco-l-admin@scirocco.org
[mailto:scirocco-l-admin@scirocco.org] On Behalf Of Noah
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:16 PM
To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
Subject: Re: (named: ) turbo/super

>   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.

That is completely incorrect. How many supercharged transfer trucks and
bulldozers are there? How many supercharged cars give troublefree
service
for more than about 80k miles? You can go to the junkyard right now and
dig
around in Audis, Saabs, and Volvos and find turbos in junk cars that are
still operable. That alone speaks volumes about turbocharger longevity.
I
have three turbocharged cars with 180k, 280k, and 150k that all have the
original turbos on them. They are from 84, 86, and 87. Presumably they
have
gotten even better in the last 18 years. Heck, the one on my Urq is not
even
water cooled. Nevertheless, I've run it at as much as 22lbs of boost.

> 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.

I definitely agree that you can blow up your engine with a turbo very
quickly, simply because you have the ability to adjust the boost. It's
not
foolproof - you're right.

>
> The main reason TC's are popular is because they are cheap.  Cheap to
buy
> and cheap to install, compared to SC's.

Neither is cheap, but a supercharger costs a lot because of the greater
number of moving parts that are all required to be very carefully
balanced
and machined. This is a disadvantage - not an advantage. Turbochargers
are
popular because they are the better solution. People who think otherwise
are
just being eccentric =)

> 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.

Completely irrelevent - and even incorrect I bet. Nevertheless, we are
talking about our cars, not F1 or Drag cars.

>  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.

Yeah, it would be great if they made a wonderful package of everything
that
I could need, with all the components I would choose, and all set up
with a
chip or ecu that would run my car, unfortunately that really doesn't
exist
and if it did (or does) I probably wouldn't buy it anyway... well ok
maybe I
would, it does sound nice. But the point is that you need to know how
the
stuff all works together anyway, otherwise you will just destroy
everything
you payed for.

>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.

Tell me more about the manifold...?

>
> My biggest problem with a supercharger is that no one seems to make
them
for
> my 16V.  :(

If I recall correctly I've seen some pictures of a momentum 16v g60
setup.
It really looks cool together.

>
>  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...)

Why would it simplify intake plumbing? You still have to run to the IC
and
back.


I know I shouldn't have responded to this thread, but I couldn't help
it.
Comparing turbos to superchargers is sort of like discussing religion or
politics. I feel passionate about it, and I feel like I have to change
peoples minds.

Turbo is your friend, give him a chance =)

PS - here's a link to my old website I made a long time ago when I still
had
my Callaway rocco. That was what got me hooked. Also check out the link
to
Montz Auto Renditions. I really don't know these guys from snot, but
they
sent me some really cool pictures of their turbo stuff. If I weren't on
the
east coast I'd check em out.
http://pchandyman.tripod.com/mars/turbos.htm
(I apologize in advance for my spammy webhosts - you get what you pay
for I
guess)


-Noah
-86 Audi 5ktq
-84 Audi Quattro (just a big ole scirocco with 4wheel drive and a turbo)
-82 Chevy Rollback wrecker! 454cu yeehaw!
-Yard full of VWs that will become one car soon




_______________________________________________
Scirocco-l mailing list
Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l