#2933556 - 08/20/08 11:49 AM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: HoWheels]
|
ResisterGo
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 12/07/04
Posts: 14594
Loc: Buffalo NY
|
Oh, sweet Jesus... this is going to be fun.
*Grabs popcorn and waits for Johnso*
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2933683 - 08/20/08 12:17 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: FCobra94]
|
CommonGutterTrash
This user is more useless than a half-baked compost pile.
Post Master Sr
Registered: 09/16/02
Posts: 6437
Loc: Boston MA
|
DUD
y not duble charge it?!
u wud make twice the pwr if u wr 2!
Even tho my boy sez that twin-charge cancils each one out.
i dot beleve him. he thinks his probegt is fast, but it duznt even have vtech.
i hav vtech and i beet him evry time we race!!
im putting a nsx moder in my crx and putting 2 superchargers. one for each eckshost bank. it shud bete every1 on my block!!!!
Then I get the muney AND the respect!
_________________________
Craig R. 2000 9-5 Gary Fisher Wagon 1995 850 T-5R 1996 Galant  AIM = gclipse96
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2933784 - 08/20/08 12:43 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: CommonGutterTrash]
|
FCobra94
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 10/22/01
Posts: 19689
Loc: MD
|
Then I get the muney AND the respect!
It's the key to life lol skeleton
_________________________
'07 335i
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2936038 - 08/20/08 10:26 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: FCobra94]
|
aerosaaber
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 06/29/02
Posts: 16004
Loc: Pittsfield, MA
|
twin charge for the win!
_________________________
2006 Subaru WRX Wagon (I'm back on boost!) 2001 Subaru Legacy Outback Wagon Limited (sold) 1994 Saab 9000 Aero (gone) http://www.saabrally.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2936570 - 08/21/08 12:59 AM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: Euphoricuck]
|
UglyValiant
Post Master Sr
Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 6364
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
|
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Turbo's totally hurt ur engine, totally. That's why it makes more power. It works by "turbo-ing" your engine, so it makes sense that it hurts your engine. Turboing your engine helps it make more power. The weird thing is though, that the more turbo's you use, the less it hurts your engine...but it doesn't help you make MORE power than one turbo does, since whether it's with one or 5 turbo's, it's still working by turboing your engine.
Supercharging, ACTUALLY does make more power...but takes more power to run. We see dyno test where the supercharger adds only 100hp to an engine, but in reality, it's making 200hp more. But, it takes 100hp to make that extra 200hp, so there is only a 100hp gain. So instead of being like a turbo and adding 200hp (in theory...real world would be 192hp) and thus more harmful, the 100hp taken away in supercharging makes things easier for the engine
Tell me, have you ever been in a cockpit before?
_________________________
1979 Dodge Lil' Red Express Truck
1989 Shelby CSX (#500/500)
The most powerful production minivan money can buy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2936765 - 08/21/08 02:47 AM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: A_Mantis]
|
PRsblkSi
Post Master Sr
Registered: 02/08/02
Posts: 4884
Loc: LSA Anaconda Iraq
|
God, I dont know whether to LMAO at the entire thread or take meds for the headache it induced
_________________________
M6 Sebring Silver C5 *murdered* 07 GSX-R http://www.dityautorepair.comDo-it-Yourself Auto Repair, LLC Where YOU are the Mechanic!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2936789 - 08/21/08 03:14 AM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: PRsblkSi]
|
Lost^
Lost^
Unregistered
|
why settle for just one? turbo and supercharge it!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2937456 - 08/21/08 10:28 AM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: ]
|
theraven
Poster
Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 283
|
Trick question, the correct answer is clearly NOS dude!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2937740 - 08/21/08 11:33 AM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: Brockstar]
|
65_289
Post Master Sr
Registered: 04/19/01
Posts: 4052
|
A+ thread, would read again!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2937993 - 08/21/08 12:18 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: orangegrey]
|
w1kk3d
Jr Member
Registered: 09/22/03
Posts: 527
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
|
Successful troll is successful.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2938203 - 08/21/08 01:05 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: w1kk3d]
|
ResisterGo
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 12/07/04
Posts: 14594
Loc: Buffalo NY
|
I figure, if it's really a good troll, he'd put up a fight.
SUCK A RICE DICK, FAGS I'M OUT!!!!!111oneoneone
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2940749 - 08/21/08 10:57 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: Brockstar]
|
LS1Formula
Post Master Sr
Registered: 03/23/01
Posts: 8272
Loc: Northwest Minnesota
|
send me a pic of twin charger
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
_________________________
"Weather is impossible to control without some balloons and hoses." - CoyoteSi
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#2943528 - 08/22/08 02:55 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: ResisterGo]
|
FCobra94
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 10/22/01
Posts: 19689
Loc: MD
|
is like 4 pounds boosted on blower 8 if turbo but intercoolered with water sometimes 100 shot but wet then 2 step off the 8 71. I really wish I could remember the original quote you're parodying. That was a classic thread.
Was it the one where DopeSi was explaining OB1's knowledge behind buying his truck?
_________________________
'07 335i
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8624878 - 04/15/16 09:27 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: Brockstar]
|
96lapis coupe
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 08/20/01
Posts: 15654
Loc: acquiring satellites.....
|
what would u prefer turbo or super charger.
Turbo hurts ur engin but i think it give u more power dose it????
Yes
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8626017 - 04/17/16 10:25 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: Brockstar]
|
A_Mantis
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 22939
Loc: Valley of the Sun
|
what would u prefer turbo or super charger.
Turbo hurts ur engin but i think it give u more power dose it????
No gym from home...
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8632482 - 04/22/16 08:56 AM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: A_Mantis]
|
g96nt
Jr Poster
Registered: 03/17/11
Posts: 132
Loc: Annapolis MD
|
I don't have a lot of confidence in those T5/T6 engines.
I get it: lower emissions, lower displacement...
I wholeheartedly think Volvo is the right group of engineers for the job, but man.... I don't know how this is going to go. Look at the S/C...sitting directly over the manifold/turbo, and likely right up against the firewall. It's like heat/failure city in there!
_________________________
2000 Saab 9-5 wagon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8636261 - 04/25/16 10:02 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: Impulsive]
|
scootergeek
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 07/24/00
Posts: 46248
Loc: East of St. Louis
|
I'm curious, though I always wonder why engines would have issues in this day and age with all the testing done. I mean, Ford bragged about torture testing the ecoboosts, yet I've heard they aren't very reliable.
It's harder to simulate time and neglect than companies are will to admit.
Manufacturers should test their cars with just random used oil from Jiffy Lube changed at completely random intervals to better imitate the suffering cars owned by non car people experience.
_________________________
Still pissy after all these years...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8659240 - 05/15/16 02:28 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: scootergeek]
|
DomesticPower
Post Master
Registered: 02/15/00
Posts: 2008
Loc: USA
|
A turbo is MUCH easier on parts than any other power adder and you can even make the argument with NA thrown in at high specific outputs. It's the idiots who do not know how to tune that give turbocharging a bad name.
Supercharging is the same damn thing, both are glorified air compressors but the turbo relies on exhaust energy for "power" and that doesn't necessarily mean backpressure, especially once under full boost with the wastegate partially or mostly open. For the same measured hp, a supercharged engine will have to actually make more hp and more stress on the bottom end because the supercharger eats up some of that power. For a given RWHP, the supercharged car will require slightly more fuel which has to be accounted for when designing the setup. So at the same rwhp, a turbo car is easier on engine internals than a supercharger.
You can throw in the fact that the compressor side of a turbo is usually lots more efficient than a supercharger with only a "laggy" centrifugal blower matching a turbo's compressor efficiency with comparable charge air temps but you still have that pesky belt zapping power and most make boost according to rpm where a turbo makes boost according to load. In other words, the turbo car will likely have much more power "under the curve".
IMO, one of the biggest advantages to a modern turbo car is that the turbo completely shapes the power curve and determines where peak torque will be made. You now have small engines making tons of torque and some are doing so at very low rpm. Where ever the turbo can hit full boost, you're at full torque. If you prefer the naturally aspirated-like powerband you can shape the boost curve to kill the wonderful bottom end torque and have it ramp up more like a NA car but with lots more power.
My GN makes a peak of 620lbs to the tires at 2,800rpm which happens to be the stall speed of the converter, I'm sure peak torque would be even lower if it had a lower stall. It holds that torque for a few thousand rpm. The only way to make good low rpm power is to make tons of low rpm torque. It drives like a 600 cube big block, not like a high strung 6 banger. My 4 banger '14 328 is even more impressive with 290lbs to the wheels at 1,500rpm yet pulls hard to 7k. You will never, ever, get that kind of torque and power from a 2.0L without a turbo. It drives like a healthy non performance V8 car, not like a laggy high boost 4 banger that makes full boost right before it's time to shift.
The low rpm power can be hard on bearings but as long as you run an oil with a high enough HTHSv and don't have toothpick sized rods like my TL does, you'll be fine. I knew back in the mid '90s that one day most cars would be turbocharged and one day the V8 guys would begin applying the same technology that I've enjoyed all of these years and that time has come. Now you have fully streetable LSx cars that idle smooth and near stock quad cam Mustangs making an easy 750hp that drive just like a stocker with the help of an air compressor.
Direct injection is partially responsible for the explosion of forced induction from the factory scene lately. Now manufactueres can run respectable boost levels on 91 octane while maintaining the same compression ratio as they had without boost. Compression means little for power production but what makes it very important for a manufacturer is the much larger effect it has on MPG. With DI, you can have your cake and eat it too, overlooking the toothing problems they've had with it.
I'm going off topic now. Supercharging and turbocharging are both using air compressors to get more air in the cylinders. The turbo will usually do it at a lower temperature since the compressor is more efficient at a given boost and CFM over a blower and most turbos are accompanied by an intercooler while only some supercharged cars are intercooled (but more and more are being added to the list).
Nitrous tends to be harder on parts but to be fair, a lot of that is also a lack of tuning.
Even compared to naturally aspirated, at the same power and at the same displacement, a turbo car does not require that it be revved to the moon to make respectable hp, while to get that NA car to be in the same ballpark, you've likely got the best heads money can buy, a huge cam, a built bottom end, and you're revving it to the limits of the valve train and bottom end.
In the end, people need to stop romanticizing turbocharging and understand it better. When naturally aspirated, the engine has to suck air into the cylinders. Your range of throttle is ~20" vacuum to nearly 0" vacuum at full throttle. A turbo car expands this range. Now you can go from -20" at idle to +30psi at full throttle. That's it. But for some reason when you cross over from vacuum into positive manifold pressure people lose all common sense and reason and think something magical and unexplainable happens. You're just shoving more air into the cylinders and going from a vacuum to a positive pressure. Mine hits zero vacuum/zero boost at around 1/4 throttle. This would be full power if I was NA. Luckily I have another 30psi to go and luckily the turbo starts assisting by 1,500rpm, giving a big, fat, wide powerband and the cam/heads allow it to pull to 6,200rpm which is too much for the stock bottom end anyway.
Last, with today's awesome turbo choices, if you run into a car that uses a blower and a turbo and it's not a 2 stroke diesel, it's all for looks/marketing/cool factor. Today's turbos spool so well while supporting the top end so well, the blower is just dead weight. It's not like the late '90s when in order to make 600whp on a V6 and not run a Supra-like 13 sec 1/4 or pull a 3.3 60', a 50shot was needed to make it spool that would shut off at 10psi on a Hobbs switch. I forgot the original question lol.
One last thing about the Ecoboosts, while I have very little experience with them, I've had to change plugs in some family members' cars. Most had a tiny crack in the porcelain that would short to ground once cylinder pressure and the accompanying additional resistance across the gap would make it ground at the spark plug tube. In other words, they ran fine until they went under boost. Others just needed a smaller gap and I've never liked iridium plugs or even platinum plugs for boosted engines. Regular $2 plugs have always worked the best for me. Driving around with a misfire for long periods of time is obviously bad for fuel dilution (rings/cylinders/oil/catalytic converters/fuel trims based off of a false reading from the 02s. This might be partically to blame for failures. The ECU sees a false rich condition from the misfire and leans the whole bank (or whole engine) out until it sees the right AFR but in real life, one cylinder is sending raw fuel through the exhaust while the others are running lean. Even with DI, preignition (and to a lesser degree, detonation) can occur especially on the misfiring cylinder and preignition is the much worse condition. I'm sure the water in the intercooler doesn't help things either.
_________________________
T-66 256" 84 GN- Toy
06 Acura TL- DD
87 Celica GTS- Beater
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8659243 - 05/15/16 02:29 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: DomesticPower]
|
DomesticPower
Post Master
Registered: 02/15/00
Posts: 2008
Loc: USA
|
Just realized my sig is a decade out of date lol.
_________________________
T-66 256" 84 GN- Toy
06 Acura TL- DD
87 Celica GTS- Beater
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8978865 - 03/20/17 10:00 PM
Re: what would u prefer
[Re: FCobra94]
|
ypMs
Jr Poster
Registered: 03/20/17
Posts: 80
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: auxilary, Professor Paki
|
|
