5ltr or Turbo my 4ltr
Discussion
That's an odd Q - do you really do banzai 0-60s very often?
Very different approaches to the 'problem' regardless - and loads of scope with a turbo to put the power exactly where you want it, if you really do want to scorch off the line (even if it costs up where the real fun begins).
But the inevitable answer is normally aspirated cubes every time for instant torque
Very different approaches to the 'problem' regardless - and loads of scope with a turbo to put the power exactly where you want it, if you really do want to scorch off the line (even if it costs up where the real fun begins).
But the inevitable answer is normally aspirated cubes every time for instant torque
Pupp said:
That's an odd Q - do you really do banzai 0-60s very often?
Very different approaches to the 'problem' regardless - and loads of scope with a turbo to put the power exactly where you want it, if you really do want to scorch off the line (even if it costs up where the real fun begins).
But the inevitable answer is normally aspirated cubes every time for instant torque
Ok not so much 0 - 60 but not really interested in doing 150mph if that makes sense , Very different approaches to the 'problem' regardless - and loads of scope with a turbo to put the power exactly where you want it, if you really do want to scorch off the line (even if it costs up where the real fun begins).
But the inevitable answer is normally aspirated cubes every time for instant torque
Pupp said:
That's an odd Q - do you really do banzai 0-60s very often?
Very different approaches to the 'problem' regardless - and loads of scope with a turbo to put the power exactly where you want it, if you really do want to scorch off the line (even if it costs up where the real fun begins).
But the inevitable answer is normally aspirated cubes every time for instant torque
Ok not so much 0 - 60 but not really interested in doing 150mph if that makes sense , Very different approaches to the 'problem' regardless - and loads of scope with a turbo to put the power exactly where you want it, if you really do want to scorch off the line (even if it costs up where the real fun begins).
But the inevitable answer is normally aspirated cubes every time for instant torque
Top speed is as much about gearing as horsepower / torque.
A custom gearbox and rear diff rebuild would give you the different driving characteristics.
I'm not sure turbo charging is 'right' for the RV8. That said, well thought out and installed conversion with sensible mapping should be good.
Personally, supercharging is more in keeping with the RV8s personanlity.
That said, the larger capacity RV8s have their own reliability issues. So maybe a blown 4.0lt is the best?
A custom gearbox and rear diff rebuild would give you the different driving characteristics.
I'm not sure turbo charging is 'right' for the RV8. That said, well thought out and installed conversion with sensible mapping should be good.
Personally, supercharging is more in keeping with the RV8s personanlity.
That said, the larger capacity RV8s have their own reliability issues. So maybe a blown 4.0lt is the best?
Seandenyer said:
I one day I intend to upgrade, should I go for a 5ltr or turbo my 4ltr, looking for 0 - 60 times more than anything so what would be quicker, also has anyone got any timings etc
A Turbo Or Supercharged 4LTR is going to get you 350-370BHP if done right - and you would only get that out of a 5LTR if you then spend another 4-5k (the price of the Turbo/Supercharger on your 4LTR) to get Stage 3/4 + all the extras to get to the same point. So for pure ££ per HP the FI route is cheapest. My 2 cents (being biased Supercharged owner see http://tvrengineer.co.uk/customer-work/orange-4-0-...) - the Supercharged cars are much more tractable for launch (for your 0-60) as the BHP/Torque curve stay much more inline with standard engine.
We only tend to hear of the problems on here. It feels to me like we hear of more problems per 100 cars with the forced induction cars than with the naturally aspirated cars.
To pick up on Mk1 Fan's point, whilst the larger stock engines are supposed to be weaker, I don't remember actually hearing of a broken 5 litre NA engine (snapped crank?) since 2012.
I like the torque of my NA V8D 5 litre. Loads of performance and driveability, with no reliability issues to date.
To pick up on Mk1 Fan's point, whilst the larger stock engines are supposed to be weaker, I don't remember actually hearing of a broken 5 litre NA engine (snapped crank?) since 2012.
I like the torque of my NA V8D 5 litre. Loads of performance and driveability, with no reliability issues to date.
QBee said:
To pick up on Mk1 Fan's point, whilst the larger stock engines are supposed to be weaker, I don't remember actually hearing of a broken 5 litre NA engine (snapped crank?) since 2012.
I like the torque of my NA V8D 5 litre. Loads of performance and driveability, with no reliability issues to date.
Several in 2013 IIRC.I like the torque of my NA V8D 5 litre. Loads of performance and driveability, with no reliability issues to date.
I like the torque of my NA V8D 5.4 litre. Loads of performance and driveability, with no reliability issues to date.
mk1fan said:
I'm not sure turbo charging is 'right' for the RV8. That said, well thought out and installed conversion with sensible mapping should be good.
Personally, supercharging is more in keeping with the RV8s personanlity.
Eh? Oh this myth surfaces again does it? Assuming you're not suggesting an old-school positive displacement blower (there's a good reason you've seen one packed into on a Chim or Griff), then care to elaborate why it matters how the rotary compressor is driven, save that the turbo is way more configurable and uses 'free' energy? Personally, supercharging is more in keeping with the RV8s personanlity.
Not this again, anyone's welcome to come and have a trip in my absolutely undriveable and unreliable car 
Be warned though, you wont be impressed at all it's a bag of crap, that is of course if nothing has fell of it, or even if it starts.
Be warned though, you wont be impressed at all it's a bag of crap, that is of course if nothing has fell of it, or even if it starts.
Edited by macdeb on Tuesday 18th August 09:05
Edited by macdeb on Tuesday 18th August 09:10
Edited by macdeb on Tuesday 18th August 09:14
Edited by macdeb on Tuesday 18th August 09:14
Edited by macdeb on Tuesday 18th August 10:29
Maybe cost might be the deciding factor? The figures quoted in this post are certainly nothing like what has disappeared from my bank account.
I chose the turbo although supercharging was a close second. Had I known just how much the whole job was going to cost at the start then probably wouldn't have done it. The problem is you cannot just bolt on a charger or turbo without knowing how good/bad the engine is which means a strip down. Now the costs escalate and once you are in, there's no going back.
So, you see a price of £6k for a turbo but once everything is factored in you can double it. Easily.
I chose the turbo although supercharging was a close second. Had I known just how much the whole job was going to cost at the start then probably wouldn't have done it. The problem is you cannot just bolt on a charger or turbo without knowing how good/bad the engine is which means a strip down. Now the costs escalate and once you are in, there's no going back.
So, you see a price of £6k for a turbo but once everything is factored in you can double it. Easily.
macdeb said:
Pupp said:
mk1fan said:
I'm not sure turbo charging is 'right' for the RV8. That said, well thought out and installed conversion with sensible mapping should be good.
Personally, supercharging is more in keeping with the RV8s personanlity.
Eh? Oh this myth surfaces again does it? Assuming you're not suggesting an old-school positive displacement blower (there's a good reason you've seen one packed into on a Chim or Griff), then care to elaborate why it matters how the rotary compressor is driven, save that the turbo is way more configurable and uses 'free' energy? Personally, supercharging is more in keeping with the RV8s personanlity.
edited after re-read
Edited by macdeb on Tuesday 18th August 09:05
Secondly, the way a turbo works in its delivery of power is not, imho, well matched with how the RV8 delivers its power. I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said it wouldn't be my choice of forced induction on an RV8.
Supercharging, with its instant and flat torque delivery, suits the RV8 better. Again imho.
Aren't the 4ltr and 5ltr blocks the same ie, both small journal? The only issues with either of these engines is that they are balanced using the crank pulley and on a few occasions, this has caused a snapped crank, no doubt due to the additional torque of the 5L. Even then, I think a couple of the unfortunate owners to have experienced this may have also added trigger wheels when fitting aftermarket ECUs without rebalancing the offset of the crank pulley. However, I did read that TVR selected the ultrasonically tested blocks for the 500 (red marks in the valley) for the thicker water jacket. I think there was an article from David Vizard describing this.
Many consider the large journal 4.6 to be the better block, with its cross bolted big end. Others (and some experienced others) seem to feel that the cross bolting isn't strictly necessary with the RV8. So I guess you could find a compelling argument whatever side of the fence you sit.
370HP in a Chimaera or Griffith is plenty. Having sat been in Phased's car, I can say it is very, very fast. At the end of the day a turbo charged 4ltr with aftermarket ECU be great and plenty fast. However, I think a turbo charged 5ltr with aftermarket ECU would be better
As George Orwell wrote.... "Four legs good, two legsbad better"
Many consider the large journal 4.6 to be the better block, with its cross bolted big end. Others (and some experienced others) seem to feel that the cross bolting isn't strictly necessary with the RV8. So I guess you could find a compelling argument whatever side of the fence you sit.
370HP in a Chimaera or Griffith is plenty. Having sat been in Phased's car, I can say it is very, very fast. At the end of the day a turbo charged 4ltr with aftermarket ECU be great and plenty fast. However, I think a turbo charged 5ltr with aftermarket ECU would be better
As George Orwell wrote.... "Four legs good, two legs
mk1fan said:
Firstly, my point about larger capacity engines was referring to enusuring they are either converted correctly or checking they have been strengthened properly during the build. Which I am sure a recent JE build for example would be. Plently of documentation online about it so no need to parrot it here.
Secondly, the way a turbo works in its delivery of power is not, imho, well matched with how the RV8 delivers its power. I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said it wouldn't be my choice of forced induction on an RV8.
Supercharging, with its instant and flat torque delivery, suits the RV8 better. Again imho.
Fair enough but all you have to do is 'match' the turbo to the engine to achieve how/where you want the power delivery. You can do similar with a s/c. The rv8 is perfect for a turbo because it isn't a peaky engine. As for strengthening inside, even the crappiest sd1 could handle 5/6 psi with it's slotted pistons. Later engines esp the 4.0/4.6 have plenty of strength in them to allow a reasonable level of boost. The torques exhilarating.Secondly, the way a turbo works in its delivery of power is not, imho, well matched with how the RV8 delivers its power. I didn't say it wasn't possible. I said it wouldn't be my choice of forced induction on an RV8.
Supercharging, with its instant and flat torque delivery, suits the RV8 better. Again imho.
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff