(named: ) turbo/super

[nealtovsen@yahoo.com (Neal Tovsen)]

I feverously read all those SCC articles. VERY good
articles with respect to turbos, but realize that that
author has a known history as a turbo nut. Again, I
agree that most of the time a turbo is a better
choice, but my point here is that that author
definitely has a big bias and didn't do SC's justice.

Neal

--- Mardak <maardak@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> 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


=====
~Neal

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/