Turbo VS TT VS SC

[[ion] C2]

The tune works even if you don't have the supercharger attached. People take off their superchargers sometime and can run perfectly fine with it, it just has the capability to read boost and compensate fuel for it (up to 14.7 PSI or something, 2 bar map) as long as you use the same injectors. Obviously tuning is necessary since once you get to or higher than 8-9 PSI you'll require bigger injectors and that will need another tune. But, yeah, smaller pulleys and increased boost is compensated.

I'm clueless about tuning, but this is as far as I know from what I've read and others' experiences.

[BigStribS]

We are currently almost ready for fully ready to go Turbo setups here at Milzy Motorsports! It will come with everything you would need! If your interested contact mikem@milzymotorsports.com

[[ion] C2]

The 3400 guys are going to LOVE that, good job Milzy!

[bigdaddyD]

about how long before you guys a milzy are fully ready, i just got a pay raise and a nice fat bonus check, and i need to spend it on something?

[AleroB888]

Originally Posted by BlackJack

I haven't had a modern version of an S/C, but from what others tell me, when you change the pulley, doesn't that change the powerband progression at a scalar rate? If so, that would require a retune (or reflash) every time you change pulleys.

Not to say that either one is better, but I like the fact that once I tune for 15psi, I can turn down the boost without changing my tune.

I think the situation is similar between my SC and a Turbo in that once I tune for the small pulley (high boost) I can go to the larger pulley with no change to the timing tables, and still have a safe tune. But, the transition from idle to max boost would be slower for the large pulley, and might need more timing, especially on the low end, for optimum performance.

Assuming that there is not a drastic difference in the two pulley diameters, it is not too much of a hassle to change them, unless you have to change the belt. (I'm getting lazy in my old age)

[Spilner521]

I'm a little biased, but as far as boost control goes, I'd rather turn a knob than change a pulley.

[AleroB888]

Originally Posted by Spilner521

I'm a little biased, but as far as boost control goes, I'd rather turn a knob than change a pulley.

Yeah, that's easier, but it's even easier when you have all the boost available at low rpms, and use your right foot to control how much it gets.

[bluesmobile00]

i am just wondering, I am also new and have never done much to a car until now and never got into it before until after I graduated. But i found a s/c with a switch so it won't run all the time,

[Spilner521]

Originally Posted by AleroB888

Yeah, that's easier, but it's even easier when you have all the boost available at low rpms, and use your right foot to control how much it gets.

I'm at full boost between 2500-3000rpm. How much sooner do you need it?

[[ion] C2]

Originally Posted by bluesmobile00

i am just wondering, I am also new and have never done much to a car until now and never got into it before until after I graduated. But i found a s/c with a switch so it won't run all the time

FAIL. The only thing remotely close to what you speak of are those retarded "electric superchargers" that DON'T DO SHIT.

[Kilroy]

Originally Posted by [ion] C2

FAIL. The only thing remotely close to what you speak of are those retarded "electric superchargers" that DON'T DO SHIT.

What if you had an airconditioner type clutch on the supercharger? I've always wondered if something like that would work??

[Spilner521]

Originally Posted by Kilroy

What if you had an airconditioner type clutch on the supercharger? I've always wondered if something like that would work??

What's the point of having a clutch on a supercharger pulley? At part throttle, air is routed through the bypass valve so the supercharger doesn't make boost all the time, which is a pretty simple way to add power yet retain fuel economy. Why complicate things more with a clutch?

[b-spot]

Originally Posted by AleroB888

Yeah, that's easier, but it's even easier when you have all the boost available at low rpms, and use your right foot to control how much it gets.

Misconception. Turbo cars have way better low end than supercharged cars, just a little bit of lag when you hit the throttle in some cases.

Going back to the original question, sequential Turbos are the most "driveable" setup with more potential power than supercharging (which is also very "driveable"). Programming is complex and so is the build, so way to expensive and not practicle for something not from the factory.

I'd go Turbo for sure. More power potential, better fuel economy, more tuning options.

As for gas, going from 87 to 91 is like $3 or $4 a tank. No big deal.

I have to run 94 unless I turn my car off to drop it down to the 91 program.

I was out skiing this weekend and they only had 91 out there and I paid $1.38/Litre which is the same as ~$5.70/Gallon.

[BlackJack]

Originally Posted by b-spot

Misconception. Turbo cars have way better low end than supercharged cars, just a little bit of lag when you hit the throttle in some cases.

Going back to the original question, sequential Turbos are the most "driveable" setup with more potential power than supercharging (which is also very "driveable"). Programming is complex and so is the build, so way to expensive and not practicle for something not from the factory.

I'd go Turbo for sure. More power potential, better fuel economy, more tuning options.

As for gas, going from 87 to 91 is like $3 or $4 a tank. No big deal.

I have to run 94 unless I turn my car off to drop it down to the 91 program.

I was out skiing this weekend and they only had 91 out there and I paid $1.38/Litre which is the same as ~$5.70/Gallon.

True, and I don't even start making boost unless I intend to by hammering the throttle, so my tune only delivers the extra fuel when it's needed.

Jeez, $5.70 per gallon....is that in CD or did you convert to US equivalent? either way, sounds like they tear you guys' heads off on gas prices.

[b-spot]

Originally Posted by BlackJack

True, and I don't even start making boost unless I intend to by hammering the throttle, so my tune only delivers the extra fuel when it's needed.

Jeez, $5.70 per gallon....is that in CD or did you convert to US equivalent? either way, sounds like they tear you guys' heads off on gas prices.

US and CDN dollars are equivalent right now.

The best part is my city has the most Oil and Gas head offices in Canada, and is probably only beat out by Houston in North America... lol.

[AleroB888]

Originally Posted by Spilner521

I'm at full boost between 2500-3000rpm. How much sooner do you need it?

You don't need it. At first. Then you don't want to give it up... it's power, it's addictive. Better to have it and not need it..

But seriously, some overkill is "needed" at this altitude and climate, lower altitudes with the same setup/tune could spell disaster for the stock drivetrain. In fact, it's living on borrowed time right now....

[AleroB888]

Originally Posted by b-spot

Misconception. Turbo cars have way better low end than supercharged cars, just a little bit of lag when you hit the throttle in some cases.

That is way too general a statement. There are different types of superchargers and turbos (configurations).

I would say that turbos, in general, are more complex systems, therefore inherently less reliable, needing more safety override features than Roots or twin screw SC's. Much more attention to detail, and technical knowledge is needed to implement an all-out turbo design that is also street legal.

[BlackJack]

Originally Posted by AleroB888

That is way too general a statement. There are different types of superchargers and turbos (configurations).

I would say that turbos, in general, are more complex systems, therefore inherently less reliable, needing more safety override features than Roots or twin screw SC's. Much more attention to detail, and technical knowledge is needed to implement an all-out turbo design that is also street legal.

Not to start an argument or something, but I disagree. You say turbo's are more complex systems. However, how many different methods of boost cooling are available for the popular S/C's? Wasn't there a discussion not too long ago that someone had no choice but to go with alch/meth/water injection because no other method of intercooling was available for their S/C? I think it's the flexibility of the turbochargers that make it desireable.

Not to mention, that almost sounds like saying people who run S/C's are too stupid to figure out a turbo and need the simplicity to get any kind of boost.

I've gotten so comfortable with turbo's and know as much as I need to know to get them to work properly for me, and I'm as dumb as a bag of hammers. What would that say about the S/C crowd?

Anybody wants to prove to me that their S/C setup is better than a turbo, just bring an S/C and come line up with me at the tree and we'll get it on.

This isn't meant to start shit. Well...yeah it is

[b-spot]

Originally Posted by AleroB888

That is way too general a statement. There are different types of superchargers and turbos (configurations).

I would say that turbos, in general, are more complex systems, therefore inherently less reliable, needing more safety override features than Roots or twin screw SC's. Much more attention to detail, and technical knowledge is needed to implement an all-out turbo design that is also street legal.

This applies to absoulutely every supercharged setup, both positive displacement and dynamic, except for one with it's own CVT. Peak boost relies on revs, where as for turbos they depend on exhaust gas pressure and velocity.

[AleroB888]

Originally Posted by BlackJack

Not to start an argument or something, but I disagree. You say turbo's are more complex systems. However, how many different methods of boost cooling are available for the popular S/C's? Wasn't there a discussion not too long ago that someone had no choice but to go with alch/meth/water injection because no other method of intercooling was available for their S/C?

Not sure which setup you mean, but if you mean the Magnuson M62 kit, it was not originally designed for intercooling, or even max performance. Even so, I think a front mounted intercooler could be done with it.

But if designing for more power from a clean slate, you might start with an M90, design large inlet / outlet ports configured to work with a big throttle body and front intercooler. (I had actually decided to do that at one point, but instead I refinanced the house... .... still might do it...)

Originally Posted by BlackJack

I think it's the flexibility of the turbochargers that make it desireable.

That's true, I am not arguing that turbos won't make more power once all the bases are touched.

Originally Posted by BlackJack

Not to mention, that almost sounds like saying people who run S/C's are too stupid to figure out a turbo and need the simplicity to get any kind of boost.

Are you saying I'm saying I'm stupid? I am not a mechanic, and I work slow, I like the simplicity.

Originally Posted by BlackJack

I've gotten so comfortable with turbo's and know as much as I need to know to get them to work properly for me, and I'm as dumb as a bag of hammers.

I'm not buying the "dumb as hammers" part, not at all.

Originally Posted by BlackJack

What would that say about the S/C crowd?

You ought to see me fumble around at the track.

Originally Posted by BlackJack

Anybody wants to prove to me that their S/C setup is better than a turbo, just bring an S/C and come line up with me at the tree and we'll get it on.

Talk to me when you have over 200 timeslips on that rig, and it's street legal.

kwhauck will be your competition, not me..


But hey, I am on your side, I would like to see SpyhunteR have to change his signature line...

just do it.