Power AdderGetting a Supercharger or Turbocharger? Thinking about using Nitrous? All forced induction and N2O topics discussed here.
Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!
probably all ready posted, but whats the big hype on turbos. All the research ive done showed that the new self contained prochargers are your best bet. For half the price and not nearly the temperature. Why go with a turbo.
__________________ 1984 Camaro
350 bored .30 over
Edelbrock Victor Jr. heads, 11.5 forged pistons, crane roller rockers, Crane roller cam, Edelbrock Shorty headers, Edelbrock Performer RPM fuel injection Pro Flo, flowmaster 80 series catback exhaust with electric cutouts, TCI super streetfighter 700-R4 rated for 600hp, B&M 3500 stall converter. Good for 430rwhp and 450rwtq.
There is no hype about turbos. Go to the supercharger websites and the FAQS will show why a supercharger is better. Go to a turbocharger website and read the FAQS of why a turbocharger is better. It is all a matter of opinion mostly and what type of engine characteristics you seek.
I believe that turbo's are the best power adder. Performance, adjustability, less parasitic loss, efficiency, blah blah blah. Unfortunately, no one makes a ready-to-install kit. BBS Designs used to make a kit until SSAUTCHROME came along, stole BBS's kit, and started making cheap imitations of BBS's turbo kit. SSAUTOCHROME = JUNK! Get out your welder and start fabricating!
Prochargers are easier to install, cheaper (I think), and are readily available for the 88-92 F body cars. You dont need to fabricate your headers or anything.
- Restrict exhaust gas
- Develop LOT of heat under the hood as well for the air charge
- Need to spool the turbo to have the power (may need a trans brake, depand what you wanna do)
Supercharger ;
- No exhaust restriction, keep tuned exhaust
- Less heat
- More stable power
- No need to Rev to 5000rpm at the start line to spool it.
- Less part, less exhaust tubing, heat, fabrication
- Cooler air charge
- near 80% efficienty, try this whit a turbo...
By each 1 deg. less on air temp you get a 5% incrase in power.
I have a F1 on my car currently to 10-15 psi on pump gas and love it.
Will goes to 25 psi this year
You cant go wrong whit a procharger, select it carfully btw.
It still cost around 5000$ to 6500$ for you to setup it correctly
theres no real advantage that makes one that much better than the other, besides price difference and the amount of custom work to install one, turbos require a considerable amount of custom work, even with a kit thats pre-fabbed, but unless you're running a self contained supercharger the time and work is almost the same. Now dont get me wrong, you could probably piece together a turbo system for less than a bolt on S/C kit, but that could take a lot of time, and some people dont want to do it. but the most advice i can give, is do a lot of reading and research before you make your decision and make sure you know what your intensions with the car on, and have supporting mods for the added power, because doing it twice costs a lot more than doing it right the first time. but dont forget there's always nitrous....Pill it till you kill it
- Restrict exhaust gas
- Develop LOT of heat under the hood as well for the air charge
- Need to spool the turbo to have the power (may need a trans brake, depand what you wanna do)
Supercharger ;
- No exhaust restriction, keep tuned exhaust
- Less heat
- More stable power
- No need to Rev to 5000rpm at the start line to spool it.
- Less part, less exhaust tubing, heat, fabrication
- Cooler air charge
- near 80% efficienty, try this whit a turbo...
By each 1 deg. less on air temp you get a 5% incrase in power.
I have a F1 on my car currently to 10-15 psi on pump gas and love it.
Will goes to 25 psi this year
You cant go wrong whit a procharger, select it carfully btw.
It still cost around 5000$ to 6500$ for you to setup it correctly
Gee, biased much?
I can tell you have experience with superchargers, and not with turbos, so i'll at least fill in a few of the blanks here:
There are many different types of superchargers, ie, roots, screw, etc. Roots will hit you with mind boggling torque off the line, great, but an astonishing 50% efficiency or so. Hooboy, hold on for that 450hp and 4mpg. Stellar.
Most of the other styles still need to spool up, like a turbo. A piss-poor designed turbo setup may need the motor up at 5000RPM to get full boost, but thats either a poorly setup style or a race designed turbo setup for 5000-7000RPM powerband.
Correctly done turbo setups will have the same powerband as a supercharger, but without the 60++HP drag loss on the supercharger, just some backpressure to feed the turbo - substantially higher efficiency.
Intercoolers work on either to increase the efficiency, so they're a moot point for comparisons sake.
Each have their own use, dragsters typically run blowers, road race cars with smaller displacement motors typically run turbos. The car coming to mind now is an orange 3rd gen camaro featured in a few recent car mags like a super chevy I have nearby. Runs something like a 9.x in the quarter with a single turbo and carb. That's a small block chevy, 350 I think.
Also there are a bunch of members on here running 350's and in the 10's with a single turbo.
A blower is a package deal, say $3-5k for the blower, intake, and that's pretty much it.
Turbos are much cheaper for the turbo, but the install bits add up and bring the price up.
Turbo(s) are just a heck of a lot more work to install, yet, they are still quite popular... hmm eh?
The biggest thread I ever remember contributing to here was a Centrifugal vs. Root vs. Turbo vs. Nitrous. You might be able to find it. What a total shitfest that was.
Anyways, there is a guy that runs a company called Nelson Racing Engines. He is a procharger dealer and he builds simple custom turbo setups as well. He sells very expensive top to bottom engine packages with blowers or turbos on them.
Well a procharger P1SC for my car will fun me $4500 thats with bigge injectors, pump, and intercooler. I can run it with 14PSI and push 600hp. Plus they both rob power. The procharger by being belt driven and the turbo by causing back pressure and a hotter air charge. My uncle works for Procharger and he said the only use around 10-15hp to turn. If you ask me thats a fair trade off.
Oh yeah, btw I'll take three of the blower that takes 10-15hp to turn and makes 600hp. If you pull your accessory belt off it's worth more then 15hp, and I've never seen or even heard of accessories shear a crank snout or require double keyways, huge belts, a BBC snout etc. etc.
Well a procharger P1SC for my car will fun me $4500 thats with bigge injectors, pump, and intercooler. I can run it with 14PSI and push 600hp. Plus they both rob power. The procharger by being belt driven and the turbo by causing back pressure and a hotter air charge. My uncle works for Procharger and he said the only use around 10-15hp to turn. If you ask me thats a fair trade off.
Your best bet is to buy a book on Physics and run the numbers for creating an air pump with X amount of volume at Y PSI. You will quickly see that it is true that the SC will take about 10-15 HP at idle when not producing boost. At boost, it will require must more HP. As an example, just look at how big a garage air compressor engine is to make 150 PSI at a very small CFM. Ask your relative how much HP it takes to turn the SC at 600HP and compare it to the value you calculated from the Physics book or ask your relative to show you the equation he used. A "just because" answer is not an equation.
In terms of engine HP in general, 1/3 goes to the crank, 1/3 goes out the exhaust, and the other 1/3 into engine heat. Superchargers get their power from the crank. So you pull from the wheel 1/3 HP. Turbos pull from the exhaust so it pulls from the exhaust 1/3 AND the crank 1/3. So the turbo has a gain because it uses exhaust heat also (heat is energy).
In some cases a supercharger is better. In some cases a turbocharger is better. From a cost point of view.......I could buy a welder, all the parts/accessories, turbo for half the price of a supercharger setup/kit if it cost $4500 for the complete SC.
Most people go with the supercharger because the don't understand Physics and how to size a turbo properly or build exhaust or intake properly. Or are just too lazy to actual fab. stuff. Or only do bolt-on stuff.
Again, a turbocharger is no better than a supercharger. A supercharger is no better than a turbocharger. The context of where it is used matters.
BTW, it sounds like you are asking a question that you think you already know the answer to.
I won't add to the performace debate but I can offer some first hand knowledge about the cost and practicality of both prochargers and turbos, having switched from a D-1 to a single turbo system. Keep in mind this is not a fair comparison, it's just how it worked out for me. With the procharger system, I couldn't run power steering with their generic SBC kit. They'll sell you a poorly designed bracket kit for a type II GM pump but don't have a clue what part number or application the pump is from. The way around this would be to run an F-body serpentine kit and accessory drive but I found that out after the fact. The turbo system I fabbed doesn't interfere with PS in any way. The larger headers required for a hi po supercharger are a BIG PITA to install and work around. Plug changes were a whore. Depending how you make your system, a turbo header can be easier to work around, as is mine. The cam spec'ed by comp for my procharger setup wasn't that big but because of the long exhaust duration combined with the motors low compression, the motor idled rough with about 9" of vaccum. The cammotion turbo cam I have now idles with 18" of vaccum with a little less duration and more lift. The procharger itself as well as the exhaust was extremely loud also. It was cool at first but it got old quick especially on a street car. The turbo system with a 5" downpipe split into dual 3.5" and bullet mufflers is quieter at idle than my friends IROC with a ZZ4, headers and a cat-back. That is all the first hand stuff. I never exprienced belt slippage or a crank snout failure, but I didn't run the procharger long either, nor did I get it tuned right or push it very hard to give a performance observation. I will say that with the turbo system, it is the fastest thing I have ever been in, and turbo lag in almost nonexistant with a properly sized turbo. Labor and TIG welder not included, the turbo system cost about what I payed for my used D-1 kit, and the welder more than payed for itself with a little side work. In the end I found myself happier with the turbo setup. Your results may vary.
__________________ 90 IROC convertible, 305TPI and TH700R4, Kenny Brown SFC's, catco N10 dual cat Y-pipe, Edelbrock cat-back ///// FOR SALE! /////
79 Malibu, blow-through 383, GT42
By each 1 deg. less on air temp you get a 5% incrase in power.
Thanks guy, I needed a laugh tonight!
So what you're telling us is that when the temperature in your neighborhood drops from 75* to 55*, your engine's power DOUBLES?? Maybe you can go to "twistedphysics.com" or somewhere similar, & find some kind of bizarre monkey-math that'll make that almost make sense...
Reality > You
In my mind, junkcltr has it right - there are some situations where a blower is the better choice, & some where a turbo is better. In either case, improper application can make a perfectly good power-adder perform like crap. Anyone who's thinking of adding a turbo or blower needs to make the effort to learn a little bit for themselves - or be at the mercy of those who do.
The biggest thread I ever remember contributing to here was a Centrifugal vs. Root vs. Turbo vs. Nitrous. You might be able to find it. What a total shitfest that was.
I remember that thread. Thats why I kept my answer short and sweet. I also made sure I said that it was MY personal opinion.
I hope this thread doesnt end up like the one that B4Ctom1 was referring to...
You can try it Whats the use of an intercooler you think ?
Whats the use of air/water intercooler !
Did you ever run a ski-doo at 0deg outside then try the same ski-doo at -30deg ! The performance diff. is awesome !
That apply to car too... More cooler is the air charge, more power your going to have ! i write 5% but its somwhere in the 3-5% if what i read was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8Rumble
Thanks guy, I needed a laugh tonight!
So what you're telling us is that when the temperature in your neighborhood drops from 75* to 55*, your engine's power DOUBLES?? Maybe you can go to "twistedphysics.com" or somewhere similar, & find some kind of bizarre monkey-math that'll make that almost make sense...
Reality > You
You can try it Whats the use of an intercooler you think ?
Whats the use of air/water intercooler !
Did you ever run a ski-doo at 0deg outside then try the same ski-doo at -30deg ! The performance diff. is awesome !
That apply to car too... More cooler is the air charge, more power your going to have ! i write 5% but its somwhere in the 3-5% if what i read was right.
You have it the other way around it's like 10* less on air temp you get a 1% increase in power or something like that I don't feel like looking it up.
I guess i'll jump in this. I've run a procharger as well as a single and twins on a built LQ9 and to be honest, the twins were a blast, fast response, insane power, sounds awesome, BUT! We had a ton of issues since one friggin pipe was at the wrong angle and length and caused one side to spool slower than the other which would result in a very unhappy engine past 3k rpm. Twins require a TON of fabbing as both side of the piping have to be 99.9999% equal or you will run into issues. The single was a lag issue mostly, but the goal of the motor was to push over 1000hp so the turbos were sized accordingly. The twins would be at peak around 3.7-4k and the single would be reaching peak after 6 so we had to install a 100-250shot dual stage to help it off the line. The supercharger would reach peak at roughly 5k(Centrif) and we would use the same dual stage system to help with that as well. So in terms of pure HP, twins, if youre more budget minded but want good hp, supercharger. For a bit more money, turbo. But if you want more power, swapping out a pulley is a bit cheaper than having to buy a new turbo. And buying a HUGE turbo right off the bat will still have its drawbacks if youre engine isnt built to flow that much air. So size accordingly. Just some food for thought.
I guess i'll jump in this. I've run a procharger as well as a single and twins on a built LQ9 and to be honest, the twins were a blast, fast response, insane power, sounds awesome, BUT! We had a ton of issues since one friggin pipe was at the wrong angle and length and caused one side to spool slower than the other which would result in a very unhappy engine past 3k rpm. Twins require a TON of fabbing as both side of the piping have to be 99.9999% equal or you will run into issues. The single was a lag issue mostly, but the goal of the motor was to push over 1000hp so the turbos were sized accordingly. The twins would be at peak around 3.7-4k and the single would be reaching peak after 6 so we had to install a 100-250shot dual stage to help it off the line. The supercharger would reach peak at roughly 5k(Centrif) and we would use the same dual stage system to help with that as well. So in terms of pure HP, twins, if youre more budget minded but want good hp, supercharger. For a bit more money, turbo. But if you want more power, swapping out a pulley is a bit cheaper than having to buy a new turbo. And buying a HUGE turbo right off the bat will still have its drawbacks if youre engine isnt built to flow that much air. So size accordingly. Just some food for thought.
How did you determine that unequal length on the twin setup was the problem. I have never seen a case of that causing a problem nor does any theory support it. What was the real problem?
The single turbo was sized for 1000 HP and you had to hit it with that much nitrous. Something is very wrong there.
Buying the proper turbo for the intended application from the start is the only way to go. Buying the proper supercharger from the start is the only way to go. Not trying to pick on you, but the info you posted seems false OR you need to back it up with more info about the engine size, turbo sizes, supercharger size, exhaust layout & pipe size, intercooler size (if any). Overall, both turbo setups sound like they were not built properly. This is the very reason that they get the "unreliable" attribute.
383 TPI, siamesed plenum/SLP runners with hogged out base. AFR 180cc Eliminators. Looking for around 450-500 rwhp. I already know I'm going to have gobs of torque off the line, and since I'm going TPI I want something that will help it make power up top as well, since this is going to be mostly a street car with a trip or two to the drags each year. I also don't want to run an intercooler, I had a procharger previously and I don't want to screw with the heating issues it causes. I plan on using meth injection instead. Now, having said that...
I'm looking at a Vortech V-2 system compared to a turbo setup. I plan on running around 8 psi max. In terms of pricing alone, I don't see how a single turbo setup is going to come anywhere close to the $3500 most places want for the Vortech kit. A Garrett T-70 would run me about $1200, I could have a header/exhaust system fabbed for less than a grand, and the BOV/wastegate you figure another $400-$500 for. Now, since I'm not building a race car, I could choose (and probably would choose) to go Master Power on the turbo and save myself another $600. With installation help I'm coming up with around $2000-$2500 max. What am I missing here? And would the S/C simply be better for my application?
__________________ 1988 Trans Am 355. 33,000 original miles.
355ci 10:1, Holley 750DP, Summit Stage 2 intake, AFR 180cc Street Eliminators, Comp Cams XR282 HR10, MAC shorties, Mufflex 4" exhaust, Circle D 3500 stall
Best ET: 12.26@108.44, 1.67 60ft
Best MPH: 12.57@112.5, 2.0 60ft
You can try it Whats the use of an intercooler you think?
Well, you're absolutely right about the theory. I believe that Tony89GTA is somewhere in the ballpark "numbers-wise", but nonetheless the basic principle is the same.
I just happened to read your post while I had something else going on that had me aggravated, & my post was a bit more harsh than I'd ordinarily allow, so I honestly apologize for that.
And no, I have never had the opportunity to ride a snowmobile at any temp, so I'll take your word for it.
One last thought if I might be so bold:
All of us can sit around here & debate the "turbos vs. blowers" issue until we can't type anymore, & it wouldn't amount to anything - but it might be interesting to look at the rules for racing classes like the NMCA, etc. just to see what kinds of weight penalties are given to cars with different setups. Considering the fact that they try to equalize things as much as is practical, and that they're intimately involved with the "hardcore tech" part of racing, I'd think that it would be instructive if one type of power-adder was given more of a "handicap" than another...
You can try it Whats the use of an intercooler you think ?
Whats the use of air/water intercooler !
Did you ever run a ski-doo at 0deg outside then try the same ski-doo at -30deg ! The performance diff. is awesome !
That apply to car too... More cooler is the air charge, more power your going to have ! i write 5% but its somwhere in the 3-5% if what i read was right.
Actually, the cooling of the air itself doesnt increase power for crap. Its the ability to run more boost and to allow more ignition timing without detonation is where the power is made.
And spooling a turbo at 5000 RPM's is almost non-existant on a streetable SBC turbo.
well i havent had any experience with either turbo nor supercharger nor nitrous.. but i say go straight motor.. its the best way.. or if you absolutely need more power, go bigger.. haha.. less problems, alot cheaper, doesnt rob any power.. well cheaper considering that if you are going to run boost you still would want to build up the internals.. get the same crank, same rods, just different heads, pistons, and cam.. to myself, you gain more respect if you run 11's on the motor alone then to run 11's on a supercharger or turbo or even nitrous.. anyone can go fast with turbo, supercharger or nitrous.. but it takes knowledge to do it straight motor.. thats the way i'm doing it.. its been a long and expensive road for me but i gain my knowledge while doing it.. and i'm soon to get there.. 12.41@110.. motor starving for compression, clutch problems, spinning DR's.. i'm working on it.. already uped compression, fixed the clutch, and will get slicktype tires after dr's wear out.. should be at least 11.8
anyone can go fast with turbo, supercharger or nitrous.. but it takes knowledge to do it straight motor..
Quite the opposite...anytime you introduce another variable into the tuning equation (turbo, blower, or N2O) you just complicated the tuning process. It takes experience and knowledge to tune with a power adder. It's not as easy as slapping on a turbo or blower and going racing....well, if you want your motor to last more than a couple of passes anyway. I know trying to tune an NA motor can be a pain sometimes if the rest of the motor is not up to par.
Having any sort of power adder motor properly set up will be more streetable then an engine of the same displacement making similar power in many if not most cases.
In the end, engines effectively have three weapons in their arsenal to make power, RPM, compression and displacement. You change one or more of these you change the overall performance of the engine.
While both RPM and compression are necessecary in any engine, a power adder gives one room to "fudge" the dynamic compression significantly. Because of this, one can have better performance on tap through dual fuel systems, alcohol injection or similar ways of adding octane without needing to run race gasoline all the time. The use of tamer camshafts, lower static compression and less displacement to make similar power becomes plausible.
Another point to consider is that a turbo is not as hard on the motor, for the same amount of given output. For example, if you've got a 500hp goal on boost, your turbo motors going to need to make 500hp, your supercharged motor's gotta make 560hp, because your gonna burn a lot of that power just driving the supercharger. Defintely makes more work for the motor.
Now, the response on a roots type blower is hard to beat, even a well tuned turbo system isn't anywhere near that responsive. Turbo's do build more heat, but to a point. Trying making 24psi with a supercharger, and you'll see crazy intake air temps. Its all trade-offs.
Now, whoever said colder air doesn't make more power is crazy. Simple physics, colder air is denser, and carries more oxygen. More air, more fuel, more bang. More spark timing certainly helps as well, and cooler combustion chambers defintely are less likely to detonate.
You really can't go wrong with either. They both give more power. The things that kill the turbo for ME in a third gen is first they are not emissions legal in my area. Second is all the piping that they require. Makes it hard to get to stuff in a already crapmed emissions car. Third is the heat. It already gets pretty hot under the hood and all the stuff under the hood likes to deteriorate as we all know. The turbo with the added exhaust pipes just helps that along.... Now if you are crafty then a turbo set up can be made for less $$ than a super kit and be very competitive as long as you do all of the fab work or it gets done for free... each really has it's own place.
Any opinions on the STS rear mount Turbos. Heres a vette running one.
Make your own rear mount setup, STS is too expensive for what it is. Put header wrap from the manifolds/headers back, use stock manifolds if you can, if not use shorty headers. Lots of info on rear mounted turbos on ls1tech.com. I'm really considering the rear mount - no headers to make, less heat under the hood - those are nice advantages over front mount turbo for a street car.
As far as the supercharger vs turbo debate, The #1 thing I like about turbos is that they like lower rear gear ratios. This will make them have better highway mpg for a street car and still be able to hit high top speeds.
Now, whoever said colder air doesn't make more power is crazy. Simple physics, colder air is denser, and carries more oxygen. More air, more fuel, more bang. More spark timing certainly helps as well, and cooler combustion chambers defintely are less likely to detonate.
You are taking what I said out of context. A general rule of thumb is 10*f less intake temps is something like 1% more power? On my VW, I dropped inlet temps some 15*c going from a small side mount to a small front mount. Lets just say for arguments sake thats 30*f, I dont know exactly, but we'll just guess.
Car made ~175whp before FMIC. 3% of 175 is 5.25. 5.25whp gained. After FMIC, car made 203whp. Does that mean the FMIC increased power 28whp? No. But it sure as hell helped. The car was slightly detonating as it was with the stock side mount making 18psi of boost. With the FMIC, it went to 0*. I increased timing some, and the boost up to 21psi. THATS what made the big difference in the car. I tuned it to the edge of detonation on one of the hottest days of the year. No fudge factor.
Well, you're absolutely right about the theory. I believe that Tony89GTA is somewhere in the ballpark "numbers-wise", but nonetheless the basic principle is the same.
I just happened to read your post while I had something else going on that had me aggravated, & my post was a bit more harsh than I'd ordinarily allow, so I honestly apologize for that.
And no, I have never had the opportunity to ride a snowmobile at any temp, so I'll take your word for it.
One last thought if I might be so bold:
All of us can sit around here & debate the "turbos vs. blowers" issue until we can't type anymore, & it wouldn't amount to anything - but it might be interesting to look at the rules for racing classes like the NMCA, etc. just to see what kinds of weight penalties are given to cars with different setups. Considering the fact that they try to equalize things as much as is practical, and that they're intimately involved with the "hardcore tech" part of racing, I'd think that it would be instructive if one type of power-adder was given more of a "handicap" than another...
I believe that turbo's are the best power adder. Performance, adjustability, less parasitic loss, efficiency, blah blah blah. Unfortunately, no one makes a ready-to-install kit. BBS Designs used to make a kit until SSAUTCHROME came along, stole BBS's kit, and started making cheap imitations of BBS's turbo kit. SSAUTOCHROME = JUNK! Get out your welder and start fabricating!
Prochargers are easier to install, cheaper (I think), and are readily available for the 88-92 F body cars. You dont need to fabricate your headers or anything.
I could go on and on but I wont...
I dont care for ssautocrap but bbs designs stuff was expensive.. I wouldnt have paid that kind of money for their kit...I paid about the same for my twin kit which is much better designed then theirs and was fabricated for my car. What drove BBS out of business is a cheaper price. Alot of people on this site have junkyard setups and dont feel like spending $1000-$1600 on a set of turbo headers. If I was doing the DIY/low budget thing, I'd buy SSAutochrome and just modify it to where it will be more durable. All turbo headers will end up needing to be replaced..so if SSAutocrap stuff gives out after 3 years (after modifying it) then the $300 spent seems worth it to me for a DIY/low buck setup.
As for turbo vs. whatever.. I've seen procharger's pamphlet..they do the comparison and basically procharger is the way to go according to them. I was going to go that route, but everybody and their grandmother has a supercharged camaro...not many w/a twin turbo setup rolling around on the street.. so I did it to be different and also because I knew it was going to put out some big #'s.
EDIT:
The RMT....I'm starting to like that stuff... there was a guy on a LS1 forum I believe and had either a black or green Firebird w/a RMT... that thing sounded mean.. it was a very clean install... let me see if I can find it..has vids also... bad a$$ car.
Keep in mind that the videos are of cars that already make a lot of HP before the turbo spools. If the car is lifting the tires then it doesn't take much more (turbo) to send them sky high. Remote mount is both good and bad from a HP point of view.
1) Heat is energy. Losing heat in the exhaust pipe before the turbo means energy is lost to spin the turbo. That is why RMTs like small turbine A/Rs.
2) Air moving quickly has less time to lose energy to the pipe it is contact with. So high RPM should yield similar results to an engine mount turbo. I think the small A/R trade-off vs. engine mount after turbo EBP probably comes out to a wash.
3) The good thing is minimal after turbo pressure.
Overall, RMT is better than no turbo. Engine turbo is better than RMT. It is all about heat. Heat is energy. Energy is what spools a turbo. It is that simple. Using thick pipe or heat wrap on the RMT setups is the way to go. I like the RMT stuff. I would even try it if I could get an oil pump that handles heat & oil for a reasonable price.
BTW, that pic of the ?STS? kit with the "cheated" turbine inlet pipe looks like amateur work. I would have expected better from a "commercial" kit.
You are taking what I said out of context. A general rule of thumb is 10*f less intake temps is something like 1% more power? On my VW, I dropped inlet temps some 15*c going from a small side mount to a small front mount. Lets just say for arguments sake thats 30*f, I dont know exactly, but we'll just guess.
Car made ~175whp before FMIC. 3% of 175 is 5.25. 5.25whp gained. After FMIC, car made 203whp. Does that mean the FMIC increased power 28whp? No. But it sure as hell helped. The car was slightly detonating as it was with the stock side mount making 18psi of boost. With the FMIC, it went to 0*. I increased timing some, and the boost up to 21psi. THATS what made the big difference in the car. I tuned it to the edge of detonation on one of the hottest days of the year. No fudge factor.
I don't think its that far out of context, your results prove everything I said, you're able to run more timing, more fuel as the result of more boost, with the better controlled combustion temperatures the cooler air is allowing. I think we're after the same point, and saying it two different ways. Boosted or NA, cooler air allows for more boost, or more compression, more fuel, and more time, which all results in more power.
BTW, 15% increase in power with a FMIC, thats gotta be a great $/hp mod!
don't you get better fuel economy with a turbo setup? I know fuel economy doesn't really belong in a thread about going really fast, but I figured since the SC is always putting a drag on the motor that it would be using more gas while just cruising.
don't you get better fuel economy with a turbo setup? I know fuel economy doesn't really belong in a thread about going really fast, but I figured since the SC is always putting a drag on the motor that it would be using more gas while just cruising.
from a pratical, real-world standpoint... in daily driving... with stock or near stock motors, on modern EFI cars, you see no diff between them.. or between them and N/A for that matter...
That whole turbos in the engine compartment is for people racing in the "Stock" specification class. As in competing in an NHRA sanctioned event in the "Stock" class.
Its not a "safety" rule requirement for all classes at every NHRA track.
Last edited by B4Ctom1; 01-06-2007 at 12:27 AM.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
don't you get better fuel economy with a turbo setup? I know fuel economy doesn't really belong in a thread about going really fast, but I figured since the SC is always putting a drag on the motor that it would be using more gas while just cruising.
Probably not too much difference if you keep your foot out of it. BUUUUTTTTTT. The beauty with turbos over SC and NA is there could be a alot of power on tap, but if you keep your foot off the gas you should get amazing gas mileage for what it is.
I request you provide some citation or proof as to this claim or retract it.
I don't want to hear "well thats what they told us" or "it was in my tracks news letter" etc.
well i have officially been proved wrong...tech inspector i know just verified with her instructor that there will be nothing to worry about...sorry bout that
Whats the use of an intercooler you think ?
