?????SUPER CHARGER + TURBO?????
Discussion
stevieturbo said:
Mines a Vortech....
And seriously, why would you bother with the hassle of turbos and superchargers, when a decent twin screw will more or less offer the best of both worlds.
And dropping the CR to 8.0:1 would be even dafter. Unless you are peeing in the fuel tank.
And seriously, why would you bother with the hassle of turbos and superchargers, when a decent twin screw will more or less offer the best of both worlds.
And dropping the CR to 8.0:1 would be even dafter. Unless you are peeing in the fuel tank.
whats wrong with 8.0-1?? alot of the US guys thinks thats a good comp. ratio if you looking for big BHP on normal fuel? what comp. ratio are you running steve?? i know you have very good numbers for moral fuel. also the lower comp lets you run more boost. you do end up chasing your ownb tail but it could help a turbo application push 20psi on pump fuel! (with meth and a very goood intercooler).
and to answer your other question of why, i dont really know, maybe just cos they can! lol people have to remeber that you are not going to get the best of both worlds. you are allways going to be sacrificing some of the +s points of one system to reduce the -'ve points of the other. but i think the Manarnos look to be a great piece of kit! put a intercooler on there to and i think it would ba amazing. but then they are havier than your car right steve??
thansk Chris.
Im on 8.7:1, and making 19psi at 7000rpm.
Obviously mid-range, Im not seeing that much boost.
But considering there are guys using say 10psi on a stock 10.4:1 CR engine...8.0:1 is pretty damn low.
Monaro's are heavier cars. Havent weighed one yet, but book says 1690kgs. I assume thats unladen.
Mines 1600kgs as I race ( ie me+fuel etc on board )
Using low compression used to be the thing to do, but with modern engine management, it really isnt the way forward.
Hell, the Yanks drop the CR, and still use C-16 !!!! If you're going to do tat, what was the point in the low CR?? How safe do you want to make it ??
Also consider this. When I joined LS1tech, there were guys "lifting the heads" at anything over 12psi, 15psi or so. You need this gasket, bigger studs, race fuel, and all sorts of other crap.
I queried this phenomenon, as it was something Ive never heard of before, especially in such a low state of tune.
Funny now, that doesnt happen, and its "all in the tune" to avoid it.
In otherwords, these guys had been detonating the shite out of them before. Same with cams.
I recall suggesting a cam I wanted to use initially for my turbo build. And many said it would be rubbish. Again....a couple of years down the line, guys are using it for both turbo and blower, with good success, and now some are even reccomending it !!!!
When I ordered it, I even learned it was what Lingenfelter used in their TT motors ( they only told me that when I was ordering it, and told them what I intended to use it for, although those plans changed )
No dont get me wrong, There is a wealth of useful information over in the US. But those guys are learning too, and still have a lot to learn, as do I. So dont think they know everything, and what they do, is the correct way to do things.
In terms of performance, my car is exceeding most manual cars over there, with a much much milder build, smaller tyres, and on regular pump fuel. And I'm just a numpty from Northern Ireland working from my garage at home in my free time, with little money, and no access to a dyno to do any proper testing !!! Its the road or nothing !!
There is no right or wrong when it comes to tuning. But some methods work better than others
Obviously mid-range, Im not seeing that much boost.
But considering there are guys using say 10psi on a stock 10.4:1 CR engine...8.0:1 is pretty damn low.
Monaro's are heavier cars. Havent weighed one yet, but book says 1690kgs. I assume thats unladen.
Mines 1600kgs as I race ( ie me+fuel etc on board )
Using low compression used to be the thing to do, but with modern engine management, it really isnt the way forward.
Hell, the Yanks drop the CR, and still use C-16 !!!! If you're going to do tat, what was the point in the low CR?? How safe do you want to make it ??
Also consider this. When I joined LS1tech, there were guys "lifting the heads" at anything over 12psi, 15psi or so. You need this gasket, bigger studs, race fuel, and all sorts of other crap.
I queried this phenomenon, as it was something Ive never heard of before, especially in such a low state of tune.
Funny now, that doesnt happen, and its "all in the tune" to avoid it.
In otherwords, these guys had been detonating the shite out of them before. Same with cams.
I recall suggesting a cam I wanted to use initially for my turbo build. And many said it would be rubbish. Again....a couple of years down the line, guys are using it for both turbo and blower, with good success, and now some are even reccomending it !!!!
When I ordered it, I even learned it was what Lingenfelter used in their TT motors ( they only told me that when I was ordering it, and told them what I intended to use it for, although those plans changed )
No dont get me wrong, There is a wealth of useful information over in the US. But those guys are learning too, and still have a lot to learn, as do I. So dont think they know everything, and what they do, is the correct way to do things.
In terms of performance, my car is exceeding most manual cars over there, with a much much milder build, smaller tyres, and on regular pump fuel. And I'm just a numpty from Northern Ireland working from my garage at home in my free time, with little money, and no access to a dyno to do any proper testing !!! Its the road or nothing !!
There is no right or wrong when it comes to tuning. But some methods work better than others
ok steve you have me! lol
you are right about the whole lifting heads thing. i was lucky enough to be on there when that happening and i thought it funny that a 4g63 could be run at 45psi and hold the heads down but a 5.7 LS1 couldn't at much over 10! guess even the "exsperts" have to lurn?
so what would you say is an ideal comp. ratio for a boosted engine steve? i know its very much dependent on the engine. 2.0 ltr turbo units are normally running about 8.5 to 9-1 so is that a good target point?
thanks Chris.
you are right about the whole lifting heads thing. i was lucky enough to be on there when that happening and i thought it funny that a 4g63 could be run at 45psi and hold the heads down but a 5.7 LS1 couldn't at much over 10! guess even the "exsperts" have to lurn?
so what would you say is an ideal comp. ratio for a boosted engine steve? i know its very much dependent on the engine. 2.0 ltr turbo units are normally running about 8.5 to 9-1 so is that a good target point?
thanks Chris.
The detonation aspect was really obvious especially when you realise the stock c/r is ove 10:1 but it was so common because there were so many of them doing it, lol.
My take is that the highest c/r you can get away with which meets your goals is the best but if the targets are high you have to go lower c/r sooner or later. Which means inefficiency if you drive off boost.
Boosted.
My take is that the highest c/r you can get away with which meets your goals is the best but if the targets are high you have to go lower c/r sooner or later. Which means inefficiency if you drive off boost.
Boosted.
Xaero said:
The Nissan March (micra) super-turbo was a 1litre engine (might have been 660cc) with 100bhp I think, there is a couple in the UK, weird looking things, but a bit overestimated due to the twin charging, it doesn't get any more power then a single turbo charged engine of similar capacity, just better power delivery I guess.
Again sorry for digging up an old post. I own two of these cars, stock 930cc, 110bhp @ 0.9 ish bar. Makes this boost from 1500rpm to the red line thanks to the supercharger + turbo) 0.60 stock of 7.7 and 15.5 1/4 stock. (though best I managed stock was 15.9 @ pod) I now have stock engine (bar headgasket) GT28R turbo, 8K rev limit and make about 200bhp +25bhp nitrous. Not quite finished the project so no new times. But yes quite odd looking things when you have not seen them before, but if you like small unusual and pretty rapid cars, they are quite fun. I just love them for the technical aspect of them.Ed
Fusion-Ed said:
Xaero said:
The Nissan March (micra) super-turbo was a 1litre engine (might have been 660cc) with 100bhp I think, there is a couple in the UK, weird looking things, but a bit overestimated due to the twin charging, it doesn't get any more power then a single turbo charged engine of similar capacity, just better power delivery I guess.
Again sorry for digging up an old post. I own two of these cars, stock 930cc, 110bhp @ 0.9 ish bar. Makes this boost from 1500rpm to the red line thanks to the supercharger + turbo) 0.60 stock of 7.7 and 15.5 1/4 stock. (though best I managed stock was 15.9 @ pod) I now have stock engine (bar headgasket) GT28R turbo, 8K rev limit and make about 200bhp +25bhp nitrous. Not quite finished the project so no new times. But yes quite odd looking things when you have not seen them before, but if you like small unusual and pretty rapid cars, they are quite fun. I just love them for the technical aspect of them.Ed
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff