ZUKIWORLD Online | Suzuki 4x4 Editorial and Forum
ZUKIWORLD Discussion Forum => Suzuki 4x4 Forum => Topic started by: zaggy on July 27, 2005, 07:58:46 AM
-
Hey guys
I've seen lots of discussion on this board about Superchargers and Turbochargers, but never in one place and never at the same time....let's try it!
I personally prefer turbocharging but lets look at the pro's and con's of each...as I understand them in simple terms.
Supercharging is a mechanically driven "air pump". In other words like a power steering pump it is directly linked to the engine and the "pump" delivers air to the engine
Pro's
- By adjusting the ratio of the drive you can place boost anywhere you want it.
- As it is mechanically driven there is no "Turbo" lag
- Accepted as been able to produce more boost at lower rpm's
- Looks toooooo cool pokin through the hood
- Neat belt whine
Con's
- Installation "often" quite complex because of drive system
- Usually heavier than a turbo system of equal complexity
- Directly "TAKES" horsepower from the engine to produce more
- Expensive
- Generally difficult to adapt to exsisting designs
- Accepted as "generally" not being able to produce as much boost at high rpm's
(as with many things automotive there are always exceptions ie Top Fuel drag cars)
Turocharging is an exhaust gas driven "air pump". In other words there is no direct connection for the "air pump" to the engine...it is driven by the force and heat of the exhaust gas.
Pro's
- Easily adaptable (comparatively) to exsisting designs
- Lighter weight (comparitively)
- Easier packaging
- Easier availability (new and used) because of OEM use and current popularity
- Inexpensive (comparitively)
- By mixing and matching compressor/turbines you can tune your power range
- Very high boost levels attainable
- "No" direct power draw, actually recovers lost power to run it and produce more power
- Sound really coooool
Con's
- Accepted as not having as good low level boost ability
- Turbo lag
- Concentration of underhood heat
- Increased oil system demands
- Complexity of plumbing
And I've no doubt missed a bunch on both sides......
But in the old days the rule of thumb was....
- Low rpm to mid range....Super
- High rpm.........................Turbo
It's changed alot over the years though.
I personally prefer Turbo....why?
- Availibity
- Cost
- I like the idea that I am recovering lost power
- I tend to run engines at mid to high range...where the old rule of thumb says they work best.
That's my understanding and opinion FWIW.....what's yours?
-
In preference, Supercharging is my choice. Turbo is probably easier, definately cheaper. Im not a fan of heat, in anyway. More heat = more trouble. Alot of people have found ways around hot air intake, (intercoolers). But its still beats up the motor. Supercharging is always cooler air in, which if Im not mistaken = more HP. Its definatley more expensive, but cooler motors, exhauast, just seems like a safer bet to me. Theres ways to make turbos run very well, but if you ever get one hot, jump in a lake.... Snap crackle pop. Ur done for a while. Unless you have your own junk yard.
-
I see your points with one correction....
Both Super and Turbo heat the incoming air, anytime you compress air it gets heated. As I understand it it's not even how you compress it, it's how much so I don't think there is any advantage to the Super there...."Wild" probly has more detail on that than me.
Zag
-
Mine is turbocharged, and sometimes the lag sucks... Like when you need power instantly and it just isn't there. That is the one big con I see in Turbo.
I love the recovering lost power bit. A friend o mine has his turbodiesel GV with no silencer nor catalizer, only the turbo to reduce noise level and it isn't very noisy. So the turbo definitley reduces noise quite a lot. With a supercharger, for the same effect, you would need the silencer and a higher boost pressure to account for the silencer.
About that rule of thumb, I don't doubt it, but I would like to make a remark/question. I'd say 95% of forced induction diesels here in Europe are turbocharged. The only ones I have doubt on whether they use turbo or super charger are the Mercedes diesels. Other than that, they are all turbocharged, and diesels run at low rpm, wouldn't it be better to use a superharger?
-
if you ever get one hot, jump in a lake....  Snap crackle pop. Ur done for a while. Unless you have your own junk yard.
Thats why I wouldn't have one. The turbo would seem to use 'free' energy to drive it but I wonder what effect it has on exhaust flow, I guess that off load there isn't so much flow but what about header lengths and configurations? From what I've read at low to mid rpm a supercharger and a well designed 4-2-1 would be better. A small turbo will spin up well at low rpm but will become a restriction at high rpm.
I always thought that diesels run turbos to extend their rpm range, diesel good at low rpm, turbo good at high rpm. Trucks have big turbocharged diesel engines but they also have 18 gears. The Turbo Diesel Vauxhall Vectra has to be the best argument ever for not using a turbo, a power band akin to a badly tuned RD250.
-
As I said there are exceptions to every rule....
   I don't have a huge amount of experience with non stock turbo's but...
- Diesels have come in both Super (big trucks/heavy equipment) and Turbo (automotive/Now
 more Big trucks). The engineers maximize the system for the application (sometimes not successfully).
  ÂÂ
   I have a little I-Mark turbo I used to drive, 1.5 Turbo, much like a truck the system is optimized for mid range power...."0" lag big torque and a real kick in the butt. But the engine "system" runs out at about 6000rpm. Great unit, does exactly what it's designed to do.
   A well engineered "boost" system is a wonderful thing and a joy to behold. A bad one sucks...Super or Turbo.
  Also bear in mind engineers will often make the decision Super/Turbo based on economics / marketing and packaging considerations...I think that is a big part of the Turbo on automotive diesels.
   From everything I've read the power to drive a Turbo, while not free, is by and large recovered from the lost heat and exhaust gas velocity....minimal if any power required from the crank of the engine. The reason stuff like the I-Mark runs out of breath at high rpm is that it is optimized to the intended operating range and the compressor is too small to feed the beast at the top end....a compromise.
Zag
  ÂÂ
-
alright, a have a few points that have never been touched on.
1. what about putting the turbo farther back in the exhaust so you wouldn't have to build a turbo header?
1. There are a few types of S/C's being used today. i don't know there correct names but you have one that is a whole intake manifold, you put a carb on top of it(what Zaggys talking about) but what about one of these:
(http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modules/phpBB2/download.php?id=8226&sid=b9b016984a65eb96a0c228d1d3da7da5)
then you could plumb a intercooler if you wanted and wouldn't have to build a custom intake.
link to a Subaru super charger stuff:
http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=42606&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=supercharger&start=0
and here are my turbo links:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=315025 very long well written artical
http://foo.is/gallery/ alot of pics of this guys turbo setup
Stu
-
Good stuff Stu...
The rule of thumb (from what I've read) is the closer to the exhaust gas source (head) the more effective the Turbo and the less "lag" I think thats the main reason you see most turbos close to the head.
Exceptions.....older Indy cars had the Turbo well back in the chassis..special headers, heat wrap etc to keep the velocity and exhaust temp up...they were after maximum boost at high rpm and aerodynamics...because they ran at a consistantly high rpm...on the boost they didn't give a rats a** about lag.
Aircraft tend to use the same philosiphy, the P38 Lightening was twin boom because to aerodynamically contain the Turbo system they needed a lot of room, by the time they packaged it all they were where the tail should be! Then they used an exhaust system that was carefully flowed and insulated to keep the efficency up...but they didn't care about lag and the engine ran at consistantly higher rpm (for an aircraft).
I was thinking of the Supers like the pic you showed and the Camden , Paxton and Judson, they also work well but the extended length of the pressure side to the intake can cause the same lag as a Turbo system...unless you engineeer it out like a Turbo system.
I also don't think that getting water on a Turbo is as big a deal as is implied...with proper shields and stuff splashing isn't an issue. I would think if the turbo is mounted high and you get deep enough in a river or lake to shock cool it...you in trouble anyway. A number of military off road vehicles..ie: Mercedes G Wagon, use Turbos for extreme conditions inc fording water and I have never heard of a Turbo problem....but maybe somebody has more info...
Neat stuff...don't ya think?
Zag
-
Hmm...
Raven Rotorcraft, in Boulder, Colorado modifies Suzuki Engines for Aircraft applications.
For everything up to the 1.3, they used turbochargers, but evidently, for the 1.6, they used a Supercharger. They do NOT Talk about this a lot on their web site, http://www.raven-rotor.com/ but I've spoken with them on the phone a few times. I would LOVE to get a 1.6 Supercharger!!!
-
I will say this in general on automotive engines in aircraft.....
After working on the Suzuki conversion myself since 1991, reading every piece of information I can find on auto engines in aircraft for the same length of time, talking first hand to a bunch of guys who have converted everything from Fords to Volkswagens, building 5-6 for my personal testing and blowing up a few on the dyno.
In My Humble Opinion!
" Anyone that advocates installing a bone stock, used auto engine from an autowrecker into an aircraft without extensive modification and rebuilding is asking for an engine failure"
   A stock automotive engine is designed to spend 80-90% of it's life operating at 30% or less of it's maximum duty cycle and power.
   An aircraft engine MUST spend 90% of it's life operating at 75 to 100% of it's maximum duty cycle and power.....if you run an bone stock automotive engine in this same profile there will be problems and there ain't no place to pull over when it breaks!
   I fully realize that when you start putting automotive engines into aircraft you are building and working in an experimental enviroment....and people are free to do what they wish and believe within the FAA and TC air regulations and I wish all that experiment well.
But that is my personal opinion based on my research/work and coming from a family that has been involved in aviation for over 50 years. FWIW I've been a pilot since I was a kid...25+ years
Nuff said let's get back to Super and Turbo chargers....
Zag
-
   I also don't think that getting water on a Turbo is as big a deal as is implied...with proper shields and stuff splashing isn't an issue. I would think if the turbo is mounted high and you get deep enough in a river or lake to shock cool it...you in trouble anyway. A number of military off road vehicles..ie: Mercedes G Wagon, use Turbos for extreme conditions inc fording water and I have never heard of a Turbo problem....but maybe somebody has more info...
Neat stuff...don't ya think?
Zag
Over here we tend to run quite deep through water, up to the hood isn't unusual, thats why most of us run snorkels. The real problem is when entering water, often down a relatively steep slope when the entire front end up to the windshield can be immersed. Usually in pretty cold water too. You're only really in trouble when you start to float, cos thats not good for grip ;D
-
Now that's extreme...
Zag
-
I was once tempted to buy one of the old 413 turbos and swap the turbo onto the Vit. It sold for a lot of money though (around £1800) and it was far too good to break. A while back I heard of a 410 turbo languishing in a barn in Norfolk, that would make a cool toy for laning, if only for its novelty factor.
-
I'm not familiar with all the goodies you got in the "Mother Country" Rhinoman. Were those factory units or aftermarket?
Zag
-
Now that's extreme...
Zag
Yes, yes it is
(http://www.omghi2.us/april05/tracker%20water.JPG)
Stu
-
Mine is turbocharged, and sometimes the lag sucks... Like when you need power instantly and it just isn't there. That is the one big con I see in Turbo.
I love the recovering lost power bit. A friend o mine has his turbodiesel GV with no silencer nor catalizer, only the turbo to reduce noise level and it isn't very noisy. So the turbo definitley reduces noise quite a lot. With a supercharger, for the same effect, you would need the silencer and a higher boost pressure to account for the silencer.
About that rule of thumb, I don't doubt it, but I would like to make a remark/question. I'd say 95% of forced induction diesels here in Europe are turbocharged. The only ones I have doubt on whether they use turbo or super charger are the Mercedes diesels. Other than that, they are all turbocharged, and diesels run at low rpm, wouldn't it be better to use a superharger?
Diesel turbo's are designed for quick spool up. This doesn't work quite as well on a gas engine, because if the turbo spooled quickly, boost would be LARGE. But on a diesel, it can reach 15-20-25 lbs of pressure at 1500 rpms, because by the time you hit redline at 3K-3500 you aren't pushing that much more, maybe 25-30-30 lbs. If you hit those kind numbers in something like a kick gas motor...... :o
-
I'm not familiar with all the goodies you got in the "Mother Country" Rhinoman. Were those factory units or aftermarket?
Zag
As I recall they were a bit of both. Built by aftermarket suppliers I think some were built on new vehicles and sold through Suzuki dealers. The 410 turbo was dropped when the 413 was launched ( Probably made about the same power) I'm not sure how long the 413 turbo was produced for. Both versions blew threw the stock carbs. Below is a scan of a part of a contemporary road test, B registration indicates August 1984 to August 1985, roadtest is dated Jan 1985
(http://www.rhinoman.org/sj_turbo.jpg)
Edit:
That comes up smallish on my PC, save it to disc for full size.
-
Yes, yes it is
In Sweden you have to drive with your lights on all the time. I drove through one section followed by several Landrovers. Never thought to turn off the lights first, fortunately the Vit has polycarbonate headlights ;D. The LRs all had broken headlight glass, oops.
-
You guys ever hear of boats? lol
Zag
-
OK, here's some thoughts as to why I'd probably prefer a supercharger on my rig. I can pick one up relatively cheaply AUD$200 - 300. I don't need to need to fabricate a heavy-duty exhaust manifold and the front section of the exhaust or oil and water feed and return lines. Just need a custom mounting bracket and a new belt and a re-routed induction system and ECU mods. They are reliable at the levels of boost I would look at running and if it dies it isn't a big issue to keep driving in the middle of nowhere. It will give boost right from the bottom and you can have them with a clutch to turn it on and off when you want. I have a VW Passat Turbo so I'm not against Turbos it's just that I think for relative lack of complexity, ease of install and cost, that for use in an offroad situation it's probably the way I'd go although I must admit that Jardumath's build on Pirate4x4 keeps tempting me. I'm waiting to see how it goes when he finally pulls it out this winter (he killed the clutch and has stored it for the summer but will start back on it in the Fall) and fine tunes it and puts it on the dyno.
Probably the the supercharger I would use would be the SC12 of the Toyota 1.6 4AG-ZE with the electromagnetic clutch as they are pretty plentiful and cheap enough here in OZ. They run 10psi standard but are good for upto 14psi but after that they can have heat related failures. The pic 1bigtracker posted is a Subaru blower on a 1.3 but the original vehicle it came off is a 660cc car and it is really too small for a 1.6
If I was building a car for the street I reckon I'd go turbo though as they are pretty hard to beat in the bang for buck race and their potential to run higher boost is better.
-
About the water and turbo problem, I live in southern Europe, where almost all modern 4x4 are turbodiesels (I'd say way over 80%). The temperature shock problem is always feared. However, i have never ever heard of anyone actually having a problem relating to this. I am no expert in this area, but if noone has the problem I don't think it is much of a problem at all.
I'd say againthe only problem I see is the lag.
-
DONT think your turbo is free hp. you are using exhaust gas to drive a compressor, which takes hp. It adds more exhaust backpressure, which the piston has to overcome on the exhaust stroke. To compress air to 10psi |removethispart|@ 400cfm (or whatever) it will take the exact same amount of work, wether it's turbo or supercharged. Depending on the efficiency of the specific unit, ie roots or centrifucal supercharger and the turbine design, similar efficiency units will require similar power input for similar power output.
The real difference is at idle and part throttle operations, when the turbo is not running and the supercharger is, one obviously will put load on an engine while the other one does not.
The reason Turbos are so close to the head is that hot exhaust gases will travel faster then cold exhaust gasses, hence spin the turbine faster. You can relocate a turbo further away from the engine, but different blades will have to be used.
-
Please enlighten me,
How do you control air/fuel mix when using a carb with turbo/supercharger. I've been helping a buddy with his home turbo set up on a Daytona, so I get it when you have the computer and a gauge to watch
How would you tune something for all RPM ranges that is not up to the second acurate (to lean/ to rich?)
Signed not a Mechanic ??? ??? ???
Steve.
-
Hi Guys
FWIW...the Turbo is driven by hp going out the tailpipe...the heat and exhaust gas velocity are power wasted from the combustion process, by taking that energy and turning making it spin the turbine section of the turbo you are recovering lost energy. will it add back pressure? Yes, but you can also run a less restrictive exhaust which lets the Turbo run more efficently and reduce back pressure to near pre Turbo levels. Of course there are part throttle and steady state rpm benefits as well.
doesn't necessarily make the Turbo better, just different.
Zag
-
Hi Praire
Is the Turbo a blow through or suck through system, what kind of carb...to many varibles for me to try and give a reasonable solution. E-mail some details and I will kick it around with some of the blower types I know.
Zag
-
Turbo lag is caused by a mis-matched turbine
size, too small and high RPM suffer with reduced
CFM, too large and lag and low RPM suffer, so most
OEMs use a conservative turbo size, to get quick
spool up, and get it where most people drive, which
is on road between 2500 and 5000 RPM.
Those of you that want to get more performance do
so at the loss of low RPM drivability for the top end
performance.
I find a well matched turbo has plenty to use in offroad
driving, and in fact I could have 5 PSI boost across a 30
foot intersection, even faster in low range.
The problem with a remote mounted turbo is the oil needs
to flow down freely from the bearings, or you risk blowing
the seals and oil begins getting blown into your intercooler
and eventually into the engine.
A carb needs only to match the size of the application and
be jetted to supply the right mixture.
-
Just buy one of those over unity turbo's and be done with it. ;D
-
There is a nice supercharged Escudo (Tracker) from New Zealand in this months Overlander 4WD (Australia) .Features 1.6 Suzuki engine, Toyota Supra supercharger, Subaru WRX fuel pump,diesel Vitara steel front diff with Mitsubishi Pajero axles and CV joints plus strut front suspension conversion.
I am impressed.
Regards Charlie
-
Mmmm...... sounds good, I might have to check it out tomorrow.
-
bandit86, of course turbo isn't free hp. An advantage it has is that it reduces noise levels quite a lot, so as zaggy explains, you can use a less restrictive silencer. With the same boost from a supercharger, you loose hp for the supercharger and more hp for the silencer. For the turbo, only on the turbo and a little bit on the silencer.
As I said before, a friend of mine has a Grand Vitara with no silencer nor catalizer, only the turbo to reduce noise levels. It is a little bit noisier, but not enough to get the police to stop you. And the sound is much more gruntier ;D.
-
There is a nice supercharged Escudo (Tracker) from New Zealand in this months Overlander 4WD (Australia) .Features 1.6 Suzuki engine, Toyota Supra supercharger, Subaru WRX fuel pump,diesel Vitara steel front diff with Mitsubishi Pajero axles and CV joints plus strut front suspension conversion.
I am impressed.
Regards Charlie
For those of us who aren't down under how about a few details of that front suspension?
-
Personally, I would prefer turbo over supercharger, lag isn't that big a deal if you choose the right turbo, turbo's are generally a little cheaper new, and you can fab one yourself for less than $500 from a junkyard. AND: I love the look of a BIG intercooler in sight behind the grill....
For my civic, I had a mazda MX6 turbo rated at 8lbs.
-
I personaly want to due a supercharger because it would be easier to fab up vortec style supercharger then it would be to build a header from scratch. I have a 1.8 And there is no support for my engine in any way of after market like the 1.6 or 1.3. I think it would be easier to fab a bracket up to hold the supercharger and get a belt as compared to making a custom header. Pluse i would rather have the off the line boost instead of the lag boost like turbo.
-
 AND: I love the look of a BIG intercooler in sight behind the grill....
You can still have an intercooler with a supercharger. The one Charlie is refering to in NZ is using a Subaru intercooler with a Toyota supercharger.
-
For those of us who aren't down under how about a few details of that front suspension?
The article is not 100%. It talks about doing a front strut conversion, getting rid of the upper control arms and using struts for more travel but as we all know there are no upper control arms to begin with and it already has struts ::) From the pics it looks like it's running a Calmini 3" with Old Man Emu struts and shocks so I'd say it's rear end won't be flexing much. It does say that he has replaced the stock CV's/axles with those of a Pajero/Montero but there are no pics. The article is very light on detail. The interesting thing is that he replaced the head studs with some heavy duty studs after a leaky injector caused the engine to hydraulic and stretch the originals.
-
turbo....super..... they do the same job differently......put more air in the engine. that said generally you need hp to make horsepower on a super and little hp to make large hp on a turbo....hence the reason why manufacturers make turbo cars cost vs effective i like super but turbo is more efficient and better on gas.....the intercooler which is for both will create lag and cools the compressed air to a useable temp since compressing the air actually creates the heat. both unit make heat becuz when you car is at 2000 rpm both units are at something like 10000 rpm......but a turbo will spool up higher than a super....and both are hard to fab if you never done it b4 but would be easier if you were carbed unless there is a ecm reflasher among us...
see yah
-
;D
(http://www.nitromax.nl/SamAccelFull.jpg)
8)
Nice and torqey at low revs, where I need it in the dirt ;)
-
i'm partial to the electric superchargers like you can buy on ebay cause they dont rob h.p. from the engine and just use the electric that the engine is allready......o god i cant do this, just kiding guys ;D figured a little humor would break the tension of such a serious discussion ;D lmao
so many good opinions and ideas, so here is mine
I think that they are both as good as there application is !
i'm not really a h.p. junkie but i do think that h.p. should be increased as much as possible without turbo or super, before that option is explored.
too much heat or to much stress is the after product which neither of is good for the life of the motor
turbo's are designed for long, hi speed runs such as indy
supers are designed for short spurts such as drag's
neither of which we come close to
building a motor to perform without a turbo or super IMO will out perform(in one way or another) and out live ones with.
and work a lot better for what we are doing!
my .02
jason
-
Tell that to the Jeep guys with the
hot rod engines that I out climb in
the dirt at Tierra Del Sol ;D
These guys build high output engines
and put them into tubed Jeeps and Fords
and still have trouble in the dirt when the
hills get loose and steep.
Fact is, you cannot build the same HP in
a NA motor that can be obtained from a
Forced Induction motor, and the life of a
Forced Induction engine will be equivilent
of the NA counterpart if built right, and tuned
right.
The time spent at the high HP levels is short
when looking at the life of an engine, and it
could even be argued that the increase of
power saves the engine from working as hard,
like on a hill with a headwind.
i'm not really a h.p. junkie but i do think that h.p. should be increased
as much as possible without turbo or super, before that option is explored.
If you drove my Turbo Kick, you would never look at your Zuke the same,
I can't enjoy driving myy Kick now without the Turbo, it's just too slow, that
and beating up on the Ricer Boys ;)
Wild
-
Great thread...so many different opinions
I think it depends on what the individual wants, can fabricate, and of course can afford.
As a horsepower junkie with pretty decent mechanical skills I lean toward Turbo and trying to get it right. But I can sure see the argument for superchargers.
For the moment I am going to stick with relatively boring going for bigger displacement, but I've really gotten the itch to build a Turbo when business gets back on track.
The time is comig "Wild" where I'm going be asking for advice.
Thanks
Zag
-
Advice: 10 PSI boost, forged 8.5:1 pistons
and 35 PPH injectors on the MegaSquirt
;)
-
Well team, another interesting thread,
Turbo's - they work fine on Diesels because diesels do not produce as much heat. Turbo's on Petrols get real hot and water WILL kill them - that you can guarantee.
To anyone who has heard of a Ford RS500 Cosworth ( thats you Rhinoman ) knows the sort of power a turbo can produce - 350 Kw from a 2 litre motor ( Thats is aprox 500 Hp ). We took this thing for one VERY fast blast up the port hills here in ChCh NZ and when we got to the top we poped the bonnet - the turbo was glowing red hot!!! ;D
We also S/Ced a Tomotor Hi lux 2.2 petrol using a Yota MR2 supercharger. It worked awesome and you could pull almost any gear in soft gravel river beds ( standard gearing and 33's ). The only thing that took time to sort was the ignition timing - it needed advancing in the midrange and retarding at the top end ( needed a recurve ). It was set up to blow through the carb'.
Me - I would supercharge an off roader any day, turbo's and water do not mix :'(, but that is the only reason ;D
That rig in NZ is probably the guy in Hastings, he has got a lot of Calmini gear bolted to it I believe ;)
-
That rig in NZ is probably the guy in Hastings, he has got a lot of Calmini gear bolted to it I believe ;)
Palmerston North, AutoKraft has had a bit to do with it.
-
Your argumebents about water are valid....but
I was re-reading my Road and Track collection (1962-1989) and a couple things popped out at me.
- Turbo cars have been killer in the WRC since the mid 70's and they deal with a tremdous
amount of water etc much like the off roaders and never seemed to have an issue. Now they
were not fording streams over the hood, but it seems to me except for extreme examples
(good morning Rhinoman, 1bigtracker) it would not be a concern for most off roaders.
- Toyota in the mid 80's had a version of the hilux p/u over here that came turbo'd in gas or
diesel. Did a quick check on the internet and couldn't find anything relating to turbo problems
from water on them.
- Gas or desiel turbo's get red hot...seen it on Maserati Bi-Turbos and Detroits 8V72TT's, as I
understand it the EGTs are not all that different under load....it's what makes them work.
Zag
Oh yeah...don't have to be from abroad to know all about the Cosworth Escort Rally stuff, a few guys over here road raced and rallyied them..RS500's, RS2000's, XR4TTI's with full Cossie engine systems...neat stuff.
-
Oh yeah...don't have to be from abroad to know all about the Cosworth Escort Rally stuff, a few guys over here road raced and rallyied them..RS500's, RS2000's, XR4TTI's with full Cossie engine systems...neat stuff.
I'm not abroad ;D ;D
-
For those with the Supercharger itch
Check out Camden Superchargers...re-releasing a kit for the Samurai $2495.00 USD
www.camdensuperchargers.com.....
Zag
-
It looks great and for an off the shelf kit I would say its not that expensive (not in UK terms anyway), especially when you consider how many hours of fabrication a diy kit would require. But....... and its a big, but........ thats right where my brake servo and and possibly my steering column are :'( :'(
-
Well Rhino, you are just going to have
to settle for a Turbo, sorry dude ;)
And ya, he's adude, not abroad
Wild
-
He could just convert....the steering and brakes that is!
Then he could have his supercharger and drive on the correct side of the road! LOL
Zag
-
Ok so if one were looking for a supercharger, with a little DIY "not gona spend 2500.00 on a car that ended up free" i have been looking at the belt driven chargers from a yota or a subie how much boost could i get away with keeping the stock ECM and Injector" it is a 1.6 8V TBI. i will have to make an intake cap for the TB but that is not that hard. i would like 5 - 10 lb boost
what do you guys think?
-
"Wild" will have better hands on info than me...but IMO
The 1.6 has a 8.9:1 cr stock, the early Mustang Turbos (79-80) had a 9.0:1 stock and ran 5-6 pounds boost...so I would think that would be fairly safe.
You may still run into ignition problems so I would be thinking of a simple water injection as well. Also in my opinion run an intercooler, even one of the little sprint turbo ones.
Really think about where (what rpm band) you want your power in as that will affect your drive ratios for the supercharger.
Be careful and good luck.....I would still go turbo cause I think it would be easier and simpler.
Zag
-
The stock ECU can only handle 2-3 Max
PSI boost, not much but you will feel it.
Stock CR is 9.1:1 not 8.9:1, I found this
out after I did the turbo, I got the same
info as Zaggy has, so it might be a difference
of Japan built and Cami built, I don't know.
Max boost for stock pistons is 5 PSI, because
they are cast, this is the reason I lost the engine
on the way to Moab, I would say get forged pistons
if you want to boost hard, like 10-12 PSI
Also the Turbo 2.3 Ford engines had 10 PSI
waste gates, I don't know how they got away
with that and no intercooler, but they did
Have fun, but Zaggy has good advice, be
carefull, and don't run lean under boost,
Lean + Boost = Boom ;)
Wild