Supercharging question
Discussion
Apart from an MX5 parts stainless exhaust, an airfilter and strutbrace, my 1.8 Mk2 is completely standard.
Now, were I to supercharge it, would the standard suspension and brakes cope with the extra performance? I haven't found the brakes wanting yet, and I find the standard suspension to be a decent compromise for the road. For reference, the car hs only just hit 60k, and everything feels nice and tight.
I should say, the car is purely for road use - no track work at all.
Now, were I to supercharge it, would the standard suspension and brakes cope with the extra performance? I haven't found the brakes wanting yet, and I find the standard suspension to be a decent compromise for the road. For reference, the car hs only just hit 60k, and everything feels nice and tight.
I should say, the car is purely for road use - no track work at all.
Edited by ApexJimi on Sunday 4th July 12:19
Depends on what power it ends up producing.
At the very least I'd run uprated pads to counter the fade, but having cooked pads on mine I'd be wary on standard brakes.
Suspension will come down to driver preference i guess. No real reason why you'd have to uprate it.
If you've not got one already, a limited slip diff will help putting down the power.
Hope this helps.
At the very least I'd run uprated pads to counter the fade, but having cooked pads on mine I'd be wary on standard brakes.
Suspension will come down to driver preference i guess. No real reason why you'd have to uprate it.
If you've not got one already, a limited slip diff will help putting down the power.
Hope this helps.
Petrol Only said:
What sort of 0-60 times are you looking at with a SC or turbo?
IIRC there was a magazine test a few yrs ago involving laser timing and 5 or so modified MX5'sI'd expect a std SC'd car circa 180bhp to be 6.5 - 7secs.
The big power guys circa 250bhp really are limited by grip, sticky tyres might get a sub 5 second time.
Who cares what the 0-60 is? It's a pointless statistic in real world driving! Acceleration through the gears are much more important.
I believe mine will be around 5 seconds but I'm never likely to actually do that other than the odd trip to Santa Pod - it's not the sort of thing I want to subject the drive-train to on a regular basis.
I believe mine will be around 5 seconds but I'm never likely to actually do that other than the odd trip to Santa Pod - it's not the sort of thing I want to subject the drive-train to on a regular basis.
So, just for my own curiosity (and not needing to start a new thread)
am i right in thinking a "standard" s/c setup... eg a mini m45 and no intercooler should be around 180bhp on a 1.8?
After that what options are there... intercooler and smaller pulley?.. is there a sweet-spot power output vs cost for supercharging before it makes more sense to go turbo?
Cheers.
am i right in thinking a "standard" s/c setup... eg a mini m45 and no intercooler should be around 180bhp on a 1.8?
After that what options are there... intercooler and smaller pulley?.. is there a sweet-spot power output vs cost for supercharging before it makes more sense to go turbo?
Cheers.
NeoVR said:
So, just for my own curiosity (and not needing to start a new thread)
am i right in thinking a "standard" s/c setup... eg a mini m45 and no intercooler should be around 180bhp on a 1.8?
After that what options are there... intercooler and smaller pulley?.. is there a sweet-spot power output vs cost for supercharging before it makes more sense to go turbo?
Cheers.
Pretty much. The smaller pulley on an MP45 can give 10psi which I reckon would be around 200bhp maybe a little more. But if we're talking dollars I reckon you'd already have reached the point where a turbo would make more sense. Until someone more knowledgable corrects me.am i right in thinking a "standard" s/c setup... eg a mini m45 and no intercooler should be around 180bhp on a 1.8?
After that what options are there... intercooler and smaller pulley?.. is there a sweet-spot power output vs cost for supercharging before it makes more sense to go turbo?
Cheers.
If you want an SC then it's better to plan how much power you want from the start. A 250bhp MP62 SC car needn't cost any more than a 250bhp TC car. The expense is usually caused by people buying a basic SC and the slowly upgrading it to the spec they want rather than just buying it at the full spec in the first place. A TC will always be cheaper to upgrade for more power but for any given power it needn't be that way.
For example, a 250bhp car whether it's SC or TC you will ideally need the charger, an ecu to control fuel & timing, an intercooler, MAP sensor, WBO2, AIT sensor etc. so the only difference in cost is the price of the charger itself.
One important thing to keep in mind... Powerful, reliable, cheap - choose 2 only.
For example, a 250bhp car whether it's SC or TC you will ideally need the charger, an ecu to control fuel & timing, an intercooler, MAP sensor, WBO2, AIT sensor etc. so the only difference in cost is the price of the charger itself.
One important thing to keep in mind... Powerful, reliable, cheap - choose 2 only.
People tend to prefer the power delivery from either Turbo or SC.
I far prefer SC as it drives like a bigger engine.
I regularly get far faster turbos in stock which I enjoy driving for a change but I've never been tempted to keep them.
The problem is that you really need a long and fast test drive in both to decide and that simply won't happen.
If I test drove both back to back for 20 mins I'd probably have bought a turbo as it feels far faster due to its power delivery and greater torque.
I far prefer SC as it drives like a bigger engine.
I regularly get far faster turbos in stock which I enjoy driving for a change but I've never been tempted to keep them.
The problem is that you really need a long and fast test drive in both to decide and that simply won't happen.
If I test drove both back to back for 20 mins I'd probably have bought a turbo as it feels far faster due to its power delivery and greater torque.
well in my mind this is how it stacks up
TC Pros:
Easier to tune/tweak for more power
More low rpm Torque
TC Cons:
Higher initial cost outlay than a mini SC
More work required to fit (new exhaust manifold/oil feed etc)
SC Pros:
The noise!
Easier to fit
basic mini SC setup relatively cheap.. more second hand kits around
SC Cons:
more costly than TC for incremental power upgrades.
The above are just my (probably misguided)thoughts.. and my experience with FI'ed '5s are limited to a pax-ride in a light-pressure TC 1.6
TC Pros:
Easier to tune/tweak for more power
More low rpm Torque
TC Cons:
Higher initial cost outlay than a mini SC
More work required to fit (new exhaust manifold/oil feed etc)
SC Pros:
The noise!
Easier to fit
basic mini SC setup relatively cheap.. more second hand kits around
SC Cons:
more costly than TC for incremental power upgrades.
The above are just my (probably misguided)thoughts.. and my experience with FI'ed '5s are limited to a pax-ride in a light-pressure TC 1.6
Well... I know money/cost is an important factor. The most important factor though, is matching the kind of power delivery you are looking for with the style of driving that you are aiming at. Perhaps some discussion on the merits of both might help a bit.
SC:- produces a more linear delivery, as mentioned above, like an increase in engine size, perhaps not as exciting as TC but, esp with RWD, could be more "manageable" putting power down in the corners. IMO for a car like the mx5 its not necessarily about absolute power.
TC:- More bang! you get most of your power in a lump, more exciting- you get the shove in the back & feel the sensation of power more strongly. However, & this my personal rambling. turbo lag! then power coming on strong- fantastic in a straight line, but less controllable in the twisty bits when your giving the beans. TC owners please note before flaming me to death, this is only an opinion
SC:- produces a more linear delivery, as mentioned above, like an increase in engine size, perhaps not as exciting as TC but, esp with RWD, could be more "manageable" putting power down in the corners. IMO for a car like the mx5 its not necessarily about absolute power.
TC:- More bang! you get most of your power in a lump, more exciting- you get the shove in the back & feel the sensation of power more strongly. However, & this my personal rambling. turbo lag! then power coming on strong- fantastic in a straight line, but less controllable in the twisty bits when your giving the beans. TC owners please note before flaming me to death, this is only an opinion
NeoVR said:
So, just for my own curiosity (and not needing to start a new thread)
am i right in thinking a "standard" s/c setup... eg a mini m45 and no intercooler should be around 180bhp on a 1.8?
After that what options are there... intercooler and smaller pulley?.. is there a sweet-spot power output vs cost for supercharging before it makes more sense to go turbo?
Cheers.
Wouldn't this vary on what setup you opt for? Afraid I'm not familiar with MX-5's particularly, but a blower has the potential to make good power and more importantly good road use power delivery and power curve.am i right in thinking a "standard" s/c setup... eg a mini m45 and no intercooler should be around 180bhp on a 1.8?
After that what options are there... intercooler and smaller pulley?.. is there a sweet-spot power output vs cost for supercharging before it makes more sense to go turbo?
Cheers.
Sure a turbo is more efficient in terms of head line figures and how much "power" is required to make it work, so offering up higher net gains.
But I'd have thought there are plenty of supercharger out there that could offer more than enough cfm flow rate to make very high hp on a 1.8 motor (although might not be the most cost affective I agree).
tuttle said:
Well... I know money/cost is an important factor. The most important factor though, is matching the kind of power delivery you are looking for with the style of driving that you are aiming at. Perhaps some discussion on the merits of both might help a bit.
SC:- produces a more linear delivery, as mentioned above, like an increase in engine size, perhaps not as exciting as TC but, esp with RWD, could be more "manageable" putting power down in the corners. IMO for a car like the mx5 its not necessarily about absolute power.
TC:- More bang! you get most of your power in a lump, more exciting- you get the shove in the back & feel the sensation of power more strongly. However, & this my personal rambling. turbo lag! then power coming on strong- fantastic in a straight line, but less controllable in the twisty bits when your giving the beans. TC owners please note before flaming me to death, this is only an opinion
That is true.. i would assume a SC setup would be less likely to spit me off the road backwards with my ham-fisted driving skills lol.SC:- produces a more linear delivery, as mentioned above, like an increase in engine size, perhaps not as exciting as TC but, esp with RWD, could be more "manageable" putting power down in the corners. IMO for a car like the mx5 its not necessarily about absolute power.
TC:- More bang! you get most of your power in a lump, more exciting- you get the shove in the back & feel the sensation of power more strongly. However, & this my personal rambling. turbo lag! then power coming on strong- fantastic in a straight line, but less controllable in the twisty bits when your giving the beans. TC owners please note before flaming me to death, this is only an opinion
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff