Meme vs meme

Tarbo for less parasitic loss, supercharger for DAT WHINE.

Probably a turbo if I have to, less heat soak.

Daily reminder that lmp1 cars use turbochargers.

Superchargers a shit

>>15912161
Supercharger. It's like na it just moves all points on the graph higher. Dat whine too.

>>15912161
Turbo.

File: image.jpg (67KB, 639x462px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 639x462px

Yes

File: carburator.png (126KB, 304x320px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 304x320px

>>15912161
Nice picture of an alternator, dummy. This is a turbo.

File: Blw7GT0.png (927KB, 1134x1214px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1134x1214px

>>15912212
The meme still lives on

Turbo, easy. Turbochargers make good midrange and top end, which is where I like the power band. Making a ton of power below 3k rpm is kinda pointless to me, especially since my car revs to 7 and has pretty short gears. I'd rather make more power from 4-7k.

>>15912206
What engine is this?

>>15912217
kek

>>15912246
http://www.speedhunters.com/2013/02/the-triflux/

NOS

Supercharger for THAT TORK

File: vortech_kits_v20-1.jpg (24KB, 300x269px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x269px

Centrifugal supercharger desu. I don't like turbo whine and I don't like what turbos do to exhaust notes, but I also don't like the space demand and boost profile of Roots or screw superchargers.

That ecoboost

>>15912161
Tarbo for the whistle, and the kick.

My car is only a 1.6 but it feels more torquey than most larger engines cars I've driven because of the SC, plus the whine is intoxicating

File: FB_IMG_1474719101610.jpg (28KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 540x540px

>>15912212
>>15912217
You preped your self to use the meme you cunt
Kys. Same fag

>>15912260
Wow, that is awesome.

>>15912323
>actually believing this

>>15912319
What 1.6 engine has a supercharger?

>>15912456
AW11

File: Screenshot_20160929-125244.jpg (214KB, 1368x425px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1368x425px

>>15912323
What?

>>15912206
You know that engine isn't supercharged, right?

supercharger if a V8 to preserve the exhaust note otherwise turbo

you could say n/a is the most meme...

>>15912456
Mini r53 works.
I know a turbo might've been more practical, but I love the way it drives

Also why is every diesel nowadays a turbo but supercharged diesels pretty much don't exist?

>>15912314
Centrifugal supercharger is the worst of both worlds. It'll give you the supercharger whine along with the BOV woosh, and instead of generating more or less constant boost pressure like a positive displacement supercharger or a turbo (over the boost threshold, at least), it increases boost pressure linearly with RPM, making your power band much peakier.

>>15912533
Centrifugals give you much more power at high RPM, whereas positive displacement superchargers give you more low end power.

>>15912161
electric turbo.

File: Lancia-Delta-S41.jpg (180KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1024x768px

Beyond the realm of having to choose.

>>15912528
Because Diesel engines have higher temperature exhaust gas compared to gasoline engines, making turbochargers even more efficient.

>>15912170
Wastegates can also whine.

>>15912176
>heat soak
That's detemined by your intercooler, not your compressor (although it helps if you've got an efficient compressor).

>>15912181
Daily reminder that most racing series, including LMP, have a hellish amount of rules that make drawing conclusions from them both an impossibility and a fallacy in and of itself.

>>15912243
You can gear a supercharger to make boost up high too. See: Centrifugal.

>>15912308
Turbo's also add torque you doofus.

>>15912304
Bottles run out.

>>15912314
Wastegate on a centrifugal will also whine, and unmuffled centrifugals simply make your ears bleed - might as well muffle it a bit with a turbine.
Roots/twinscrew blowers are actually really space efficient in V engines. Boost profile exceeds that of centrifugals, offering more of a boost plateau (and thus consistent power) than centrifugals.

>>15912511
V8 + antilag + BOV noise +wastegate whine = GOD

whats the point of turbos on a DD? if im driving to work i want my engine to be more responsive at lower RPMs because of the traffic lights etc.who cares if im losing top end power and i dont want the turbo because im going to have to rev up to 3k+ to use up more gas when im trying to drive as economically as possible

am i retarded or what?

>>15912603
>>15912528
Also, diesels essentially work by knocking. Knock is bad in a gasoline engine - it kills it. Turbo's are more efficient at adding boost and thus knock, and they outflow superchargers while not drawing any power from the crank.

>>15912546
>Centrifugals give you much more power at high RPM
Pound for pound (of boost), they give just as much power. They only have a good peak boost, while positive displacement units actually produce a wide amount of boost.

>>15912622
Because manufacturers nowadays make turbo's that work efficiently in the low RPm powerband - choking it up top, but making the engine responsive at lower RPM.

Also, you can drive a turbo engine more economically by staying out of boost.

>>15912193
this

>>15912634
how is that possible? from my understanding you need to reach a certain amount of exhaust gasses for the turbo to kick in which just arent there at low RPMs?

also whats the point of the turbo then if you drive out of boost to save gas?

Turbos offer vastly superior power and delivery over stupidchargers
They are also cheaper and easier to make power with

>>15912650
A small compressor will spin up quickly because it doesn't require a lot of gas flow to spin up, but at higher RPMs it'll choke the engine.

>>15912668
>but at higher RPMs it'll choke the engine.
what do you mean by this? its small so eventually the exhaust gasses will be too much and it will start pumping air into the engine in amounts the engine cant handle?

>>15912618
Your recommendation of centrifugals is also exactly why I mentioned centrifugals in the first place. Far better profile for street cars. Civilized low down, boost when you actually want it. A blower will either make shit boost the entire time or too much boost far too early because it's meant to only go in a straight line at full throttle.

>>15912546
Centrifugal superchargers will make a little bit more peak power than a positive displacement supercharger due to reduced parasitic loss and increased compressor efficiency, and a little bit more peak power than a turbo because of reduced reduced backpressure. The amount of extra power they make over either is negligible, and the area under the curve they give up is unacceptable.

>>15912667
In broad strokes, you're right.

However, they do not offer a superior powerband over positive displacement superchargers. They offer more power, and less heat with it.
Also, some positive displacement superchargers are cheaper for certain V engines, and may be easier to build if you don't want EFI because of nostalgia.

>>15912679
No, the turbine wheel will impede exhaust flow, which hurts power. The engine would be exhaling through a straw.

>>15912679
It's so small that eventually it'll restrict the engine from breathing freely, like a too small set of headers would. It won't completely stop the engine obviously, but it will reduce top end power output.

>>15912161
why not strap a refrigerator compressor to the intake?

>>15912679
Air in amount the engine can't handle (causing a lean condition) are to be fixed with wastegates and BOV's.

>>15912687
Or you select the right size blower, and it augments your entire powerband, while still having decent cruising behaviour.

>it's meant to only go in a straight line at full throttle.
An engine isn't meant to go straight our around corners - that's the chassis' job, and the supercharger engine will simply provide a good throttle response so you can get around that corner predictably.

>>15912692
They do offer a superior powerband

>>15912690
>a little bit more peak power than a turbo because of reduced reduced backpressure
Wrong. Whether you take the energy directly from the crank, or take it from the exhaust gasses, it takes a fixed amount of energy to spin an identical compressor to an identical RPM for an identical airflow. Theoretically, that makes peak power exactly equal.

However, this is not the case. Exhaust energy is spare energy, and if your turbo does not choke the fuck out of your engine, a turbo will make more peak power, with a better torque curve, than a centrifugal.

>>15912193
This desu. Consistent torque and power, no lag, it's a nice upgrade.

>>15912713
If you don't like power down low - you've got a throttle for that.You shouldn't see the deficiency of a centrifugal (lack of boost down low) as an advantage, because there's other systems that can fix that.

>>15912622
How fucking long does it take your engine to get to 2krpm?

By that point, you're making power with a turbo.

>>15912505
twincharged nigger. read a book.

>>15912161
supercharger.
install can be done in a day or two
no taking forever to get the set up just right
no big boost spikes
no kits from china

>>15912733
Twinturbo, not twincharged. You're confusing the Triflux with other Lancia engines that were, in fact, twincharged.

>>15912734
>no kits from china
Really?

>>15912734
Turbocharger
install can be done in a day or two
no taking forever to get the set up just right
no big boost spikes
Everything comes from china

>>15912716
That's wrong, though. Putting a restriction right in the way of the exhaust increases backpressure and costs power. Do you think your turbo manifold really flows as well as a tri-Y? Do you think the exhaust turning 90 degrees at the turbine housing has no impact on the engine performance. The "strap a turbo to your engine and magically gain power with no increase in fuel usage" bullshit has long been disproven.

Having a centrifugal supercharger with a well-designed header will net you slightly more peak power than a comparable turbo system, on the order of maybe 5 HP. However, instead of reaching peak boost at ~3000 RPM and holding it out to redline, you have a compressor that's only making maybe 30-40% of peak boost at 3000 RPM and doesn't reach 100% until after your shift point unless you enjoy living life on the edge.

>>15912692
As the other guy mentioned, turbos absolutely do absolutely provide a broader, thus better powerband. Not being of fixed ratio to the crankshaft gives a turbocharger the capacity to provide superior boost levels at individual RPMs.
As previously noted however, you still have to "fill" the exhaust turbine at low RPM or coming back onto throttle from a closes position.
Interesting to note Vortec is working in a CVT driven centrifugal blower.
>>15912722
>If you don't like power at an arbitrary rpm
That could be a problem if you either have a torque converter with a stall speed of 1000rpm, or don't know how to operate a manual gearbox. If your idea of motoring nirvana is mashing on the throttle from idle and up shifting at 1500, then perhaps you should be driving a semi truck... Which is turbo anyway :P
A turbocharger provides boost a you demand it (ie, throttle position), not just as RPM allows (provided you "fill" the exhaust turbine of course).

>>15912949
You can spool your turbo whenever you want with a little bit of nitrous. A 25 shot blended from 0% at half throttle to 100% at WOT will spool the fuck out of any turbo. Post-turbo water injection works wonders, too.

>>15912622
i make peak torque in my cars twin scroll tarbo at 1.8rpm. pretty neat.

>>15912734
Only if you're fitting a kit. If you're starting from scratch I'd prefer to weld up (or more likely have someone else weld up) a turbo exhaust manifold than a supercharger intake manifold.

>>15912489
its acutally the 4AGZE but thats none of my business <sips tea>

>>15912988
One of the reasons I'm going a water/meth injection route on my TD 4x4. Other benefit of course is cooler EGTs with a little more boost and a cleaner intake tract.

File: turnkey.jpg (35KB, 323x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 323x300px

Turbo

>>15913015
The problem with water/meth injection is that it only benefits you if you tune your car to run with it, and then it's incapable of running without it. With a small nitrous shot at high load, low RPM, you're only using your auxiliary injection a tiny fraction of the time. With WMI, you're using more WM50 the harder you push your car, which means you'll run out more quickly and you're more likely to explode your engine when you do.

If you have a nitrous wet shot and something goes wrong, you add no additional nitrous or fuel and nothing bad happens. If you have a nitrous dry shot and something goes wrong, you run a bit rich. You'll use more fuel and get less power, but it won't break anything. If you have WMI and something goes wrong, your EGTs spike through the roof and you melt your exhaust valves and detonation bends your rods into bananas and your piston rings turn into boa constrictors and snap your pistons in half.

>>15912170
But what about that PSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>15912161
How about building a better powerful engine than being a lazy yuropoor and slapping on a meme device.

>>15913062
Also sexy. Honestly they're both sweet in their own ways.

I still don't understand why turbos have "lag". Why would putting a turbo on your car suddenly make the throttle unresponsive in low RPMs? It only has an affect on your car above a certain RPM so why isn't the level before that RPM just like normal.

>>15913100
Cause it's pulling in less air than without a turbo at low rpms.

>>15912521
I dont like the way the turbo mini's drive desu
the R53 is bae because no turbo

>>15913100
If you wanna run big boost you gotta reduce the compression.
There's also a bigass turbine blocking the path of the exhaust gases.

>>15913108
But why? Isn't the exhaust turbine only connected to the exhaust, with the other end of the turbo simply feeding into the intake?

>>15913116
So big turbo = lag because low compression is necessary otherwise the engine will kaboom under boost. Right?

>>15912618
Wastegate whine..... Cool story bro.

so at which point does the wastegate whine, its it when you only have a low or high % of duty cycle???????

>>15913100
>I still don't understand why turbos have "lag"
A turbo is a turbine and doesn't do anything for you if its not spinning or "spooled up"

>>15913100
It's only a thing when you have a huge intercooler with a lot of piping to fill up. You get poor transient response when you're feathering the throttle and the BOV vents all of your boost and your compressor has to build up pressure again.

But mostly, when people talk about turbo lag, they're talking about the spool threshold. The turbine requires a certain amount of exhaust gas to spin up, and boost pressure will go very quickly from 0 to 100% once it hits a certain RPM. This can feel like lag if you're hitting the throttle at low RPM.

>>15913127
That, and a big turbine = more energy needed to get it up to speed, so it needs enough exhaust flow to spin up.

>>15913059
>The problem with water/meth injection is that it only benefits you if you tune your car to run with it, and then it's incapable of running without it.
While that might be true for a performance application, for my turbo diesel 4x4 with nothing more than a slight decrease in waste gate operation and slight increase in fueling, there's the obvious benefits of maintaining EGTs in long drawn out load situations (ie; towing uphill which I often do), where as if I was to find myself with an empty water reserviour, I'd simply monitor EGTs and adjust driving style to suit.
For my application, nitrous isn't really an option.

Why not both?

Turbo v8, easy 600hp and still enough power/tq in the low end

>>15913191
twinturbo inline 16 is better

>>15913196

Twincharged V24 is faster.

>>15913203
>not gas turbines

>>15913196
CRANK
WHIP

>>15913100
it's because no matter what power your engine is making, the turbo adds more or you wouldn't have it there. the lag just refers to car not making all the power it can with an the help of the turbo.
>Why would putting a turbo on your car suddenly make the throttle unresponsive in low RPMs?
it woudln't. it just makes it less responsive relative to the car's full potential. if you put a turbo on your car then flooring it at certain rpms will be at least as responsive as when it was NA, but you'll get a kick once the the turbo spools so it'll feel like there's a delay.

Turbo

>blah blah blah back pressure
What is wastegate?

>fuel efficiency meme
Yes, a turbo costs more fuel than na, but not as much as sc

>lag
Negligible on any street-able turbo. If you have a massive turbo, then yeah there's lag as your exhaust tries to spin it

>power loss
A turbo costs power by adding back pressure. This isn't a terrible loss (muh 0.1 mpg loss), a sc costs power by literally draining it straight from the engine (muh 5 mpg loss)

After all that, I will say, for an engine without efi, or an exceptionally weak one (less than 100 horses), I would go sc.

>>15912161
Supercharger. Because retard brute strength and that exhaust sound

>>15912181
And yet the most powerful vehicle on earth run superchargers. Get a new argument

>>15913546
Only because by rules they cannot run turbochargers

>Still not as powerful as 2 stoke turbo diesel ship engines
Superchargers btfo!!!

Get a more relevant argument

>>15913112
Yeah, it's great. It feels torquey, linear, still revs pretty high and makes that delicious whine and has the exhaust crackle and pop

>>15912603
Diesels actually have lower exhaust temps compared to gasoline engines, due to the longer expansion stroke - more of the heat of combustion is turned into mechanical energy, thus less is lost out the tailpipe; it's the primary reason behind their efficiency.

>>15912618
why do people make these posts where they feel they need to respond to everyone

>>15912546
>Centrifugals give you much more power at high RPM
But typically still less than a turbo

>>15912618

>Wastegate on a centrifugal will also whine

Take another look at what you've written here.

A wastegate.

A device that bypasses exhaust drive gas away from the turbine, to reduce enthalpy acting on the turbine.

On the turbine.

For a PTO driven supercharger.

Which has no turbine.

Fucking really?

And no, you will not get a poppet wastegate of any dimension to sound remotely like a gilmer drive and interference rotors interfering with the housing.

Did all of this come from Forza?

>>15913059

Load of shit. Water and alcohol will reduce charge air temperature and clean the intake tract regardless of any adjustment to the fuel delivery. Alcohol flash evaporates due to the low boiling point of alcohol and the rapid decompression of the alcohol after the nozzle. Same thing happening in the TX valve of the refrigeration system.

If you are using a water injection system to add additional octane and rely on this additional octane to prevent piston in the exhaust pipe then sure, that's the outcome when you run dry.

But water and alcohol injection will deliver benefits out of the box.

And I don't think you've ever used Nitrous before. Last time my wet fogger went wrong, nitrous was delivered and fuel was not. Care to guess how that ended for me?

You cannot assume a Nitrous system will always fail safe, as it won't. How can you assume if the fuel deliver solenoid's wiring failed, that the Nitrous delivery solenoid senses this and does not open? I'll tell you right now, short of a Fueltech that's not happening.

>>15913342

Even the best wastegate will have EMP/IMP 1:1 at peak power. Forty in the inlet manifold, forty in the exhaust. Best case scenario, 1.5:1 more common. Should never exceed 3:1. Yep, you'll be better than 1:1 building power but sure as shit not at peak.

>>15914165

So you'd rather they samefag for eight posts? Fuck up.

>>15912949
>Vortec is working in a CVT driven centrifugal blower

I'm surprised that this hasn't already been made by someone - it seems obvious to me. It fixes the issue of low boost at low RPM, while retaining the superior efficiency. I'm assuming it's a matter of building in a way that it will fit properly in the engine bay.

File: 1475062935735.jpg (8KB, 262x312px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 262x312px

>>15913559
Thousand liter engine is more powerful than a 8 liter

No shit dumbass. Go be assmad somewhere else

Turbo every time.

>>15914312
8 liter engine designed to run for four seconds before welding itself shut is more powerful than 2l engine designed to run at full throttle for 24 hours

Go he ass mad somewhere else

>>15914312
Thousand litre engines that have the choice of any form of supercharging in the world. Therefore, they choose the superior option :,)

File: !Cuntswe.jpg (95KB, 769x606px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 769x606px

>>15914821

Not so. A mechanically driven compressor would not;

Fit the packaging constraints faced by low speed marine diesel
Operate efficiently due to the large overdrive required to achieve shaft speed. Crankshaft speed is 90-110RPM at full.
Address the potential energy in the exhaust stream and therefore cost the vessel owner in fuel consumption versus specific output
Make efficient use of crankshaft output power

In a world that splits hairs over three percent loss of efficiency from propeller shaft stub vortex generators, the mechanical supercharger cannot offer the consumption per specific output that the industry requires. This does not make it bad, or good. Simply not suitable.

Therefore, power addition is made by use of turbosupercharger. Exhaust system heat is reduced increasing thermal efficiency and the remainder used in the exhaust boiler. The system packages easily and requires no PTO and are far quieter than mechanical air pumps. While the whole vessel is a very noisy place if you have ever been next to an aspirated EMD or screaming demon aspirated Detroit's you will understand the invasive sound blowers create. Even then, the turbochargers are augmented by auxiliary electrically driven blowers when there is not enough drive for the turbine wheels.

Be aware that without a blower the two cycle process is little more than a very expensive and loud Rube Goldberg machine. The blower is required to pressurise the scavenge air space. Without it, the space is equal in pressure to the exhaust tract and scavenging does not occur and as a result the engine does nothing more than make noises and belch smoke from the inlet.

There is no best, worst or superior. Only applicable in a particular situation to achieve a particular goal. There are applications for roots blowers, applications for vane pumps, applications for turbosupercharging and applications for naturally aspirated systems. Horses for courses.

>>15914953
And the best horse are turbo horses thanks for helping clear that up

>>15915034

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but I suppose there is no accounting for brain power.

Tell me, how does one net Killowatt, or one net Horsepower at 745.7W vary based on how the induction air came to be at the face of the valve?

>>15915059
The air for the turbo kw will be useful after its gone through the combustion cycle :^)

>>15915072

I'm sorry, it seems you either cannot read or are retarded. This answers nothing.

Tell me, how does one net Killowatt, or one net Horsepower at 745.7W vary based on how the induction air came to be at the face of the valve?

>>15915079
The turbo air made the kw the cooler and cheaper and more reliable way :^)
Output isn't the only thing bruhs

File: 0606dc9e03f7bd8f603e121d2d8f9bb36b98fb7a8a2540ff35757bd10a91d8c0.jpg (46KB, 548x420px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 548x420px

>>15912161

>>15915093

That's right. Output isn't everything Mr Simpleton, that would be why I vomited >>15914953 up.

As for your dribble;

Lubricating oil temperature increases dramatically with the addition of a turbosupercharger. More so than a self contained mechanical unit. Both methods, the scavenge air space is aftercooled and charge air temperature is a non-issue. It is not the cooler way.

Large scale roots blowers are much, much cheaper than large frame turbosuperchargers by a magnitude. My ancient old Chebby with a blower cost less to build with a Weiand than it did with a Garrett. It is not the cheaper way.

The turbosupercharger is no more reliable and in fact is less so than the mechanical blower. You may take any Detroit 53,71,92 or 149 as an example. Each unit will consume a pair of turbochargers before the Roots blower element is replaced or refurbished. It is not the more reliable way.

I suppose with this knowledge you must be on your fifth or sixth night of Forza Horizon 3?

>>15915121
Two $500 turbos push a 4.8 vortec to over 1000hp
No 1k super unit will do that

The over abundance of commercial turbo diesels compared to the non existent amount of super diesels suggest that turbos offer superior reliability
Also every major team in le mans prototype have praised the superior reliability offered by turbo chargers

>>15912716
>Exhaust energy is spare energy
there is no such thing

taking energy out of the exhaust makes the engine work harder to push it out

it's only a virtue of the fact that a turbo can push air (much) more efficiently than an engine that they're worthile

>>15915157
>implying manufacturers don't use them just because they're the cheaper alternative

>>15915170
Cheaper to produce the engine and cheaper to maintain over the life of the warranty
Sounds good to me

File: making_bulk_bacon.jpg (50KB, 489x458px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 489x458px

>>15915157

Off target now, this is purely about the incorrect notion that the largest of engines being two cycle low speed marine diesel choosing turbosupercharging over mechanical supercharging as it is unquestionably superior as per >>15914821, which is unquestionably stupid.

I have limited interest in Le Mans prototypes or truck engines when one cylinder of the Main Engine is about equal to the combined specific output of the entire track summed.

I can find an 871 in useable condition tomorrow for the price you quote. An 871 with poor seals will push four litres swept displacement burning petroleum to 800kW net, so yes, a $1000 blower will indeed do exactly what you claim it will not with more than four litres swept displacement.

The abundance of turbocharged commercial diesels suggests that the focus of the reciprocating diesel engine is to extract maximum efficiency from the fuel flow, nothing more and nothing less.

Again Detroits, Commer Knockers, Grey Marine, even Volvo four cycle diesel engines are outfitted with PTO roots blowers that last the life of the cylinder head at the very least. Larger units like ABC and EMD, the blowers are known to outlive the life of the Power Assembly.

So no, it does not suggest what you are suggesting. You have made up information to suit your own stance. This does not make it factual.

>>15915170
That completely contradicts the post that guy was responding to.
>supercharger cucks mental gymnastics

>>15915161

To a point. You must understand, it is not just the pressure of the exhaust gas that drives the turbosupercharger. It is enthalpy, the combined factors of heat, velocity, pressure, mass and the pressure gradient between the drive and exhaust sides of the turbine unit.

This heat will be generated regardless. The heat side of the equation is not free, but without a turbine to perform power recovery this heat is indeed wasted.

Otherwise you are correct, there is no such thing as a free lunch. It takes power to make power, turbosupercharging is no different. It takes pressure, velocity and mass to drive the turbine and as a result the engine must now put an increased amount of work into the exhaust cycle that was not otherwise present.

>>15915183
the point is that the abundance of turbocharged cars over supercharged cars doesn't "suggest that turbos offer superior reliability", it's simply due to it being cheaper to manufacture, it speaks nothing of durability.

>>15915098
You should work for Volvo

>>15912839
>Do you think your turbo manifold really flows as well as a tri-Y?
Actually, a tri-Y style manifold or header would increase velocity, and therefore spool the turbo. You can have the best of both worlds.

>Do you think the exhaust turning 90 degrees at the turbine housing has no impact on the engine performance?
Yes, but less so than directly sapping power from the crankshaft.

>gain power with no increase in fuel usage
This is impossible without running lean, and you syhould know that.

It won't net you more peak power.

>on the order of maybe 5 HP
I'd say 5 of your (theoretical, and utterly wrong) horsepower are completely useless on any 1000+hp combo. Saying an engine can have an exact theoretical gain on ANY engine is plain stupid - it'll have a different effect on every single engine. Hell, even factory units have different outputs, while they're built mostly the same.

>>15912949
>Interesting to note Vortec is working in a CVT driven centrifugal blower.
Not Vortec, but Rotrex.

>>15912161
Turbo because i'm not a fucking faggot

File: parent-disasters-fail-pics-0149.jpg (44KB, 497x327px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 497x327px

>>15912618
>Bottles run out.
MORE BOTTLES

>>15912988
>Post-turbo water injection works wonders, too.
This is mostly to keep intake air cool, not to actually provide significantly more exhaust volume (nitrous is a lot better at that). Still, great solution for most boosted applicatiosn, and pure heaven on anything without an intercooler.

Also, make sure to mount it behind the intercooler, not just behind the compressor, on intercooled applications. Puddling + heat = explosions outside of the cilinder, which is bad, mkay.

>>15913059
>then it's incapable of running without it.
No, you just back off the timing, or open up the wastegates once you have no meth left.

> If you have WMI and something goes wrong
And you have a proper setup, the computer detects the lack of flow, and adjusts timing and boost accordingly.

>>15914797
>shitty 2L engine can'te ven weld itself shut
>shitty 2L can't even use it's spark plugs to weld solid metal
>shitty 2L can't even dynamically change it's ignition from spark to compression
Sounds weak to be hon

>>15916430
>gain power with no increase in fuel usage
>this is impossible without running lean, and you syhould know that.
Depending on how you measure "fuel usage", that isn't necessarily the case. While an increase in power generally does require a higher fuel rate, the distance you're covering could potentially be a higher percentage than the increased fuel rate which would indeed give you better mpg. After all, we don't measure a vehicle's fuel economy according to fuel burned over time, as it's a useless statistic.
I agree with all your other points, and the guy you're replying to is full of shit.

>replacing displacement

Forced induction is a meme

>>15916449
>not pouring it into the tank of your GSXR750

>>15916472
>Depending on how you measure "fuel usage", that isn't necessarily the case.
In terms of MPG, you might be right, yeah.
Is was talking terms of lbs/minute that your injectors need to supply during, for example a dyno run, you probably got the idea.

>>15912161
Both

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl3w9XsyzX0

File: IMG_20141130_163339158[1].jpg (1MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4320x2432px

tiny turbo for dem mpgs

>>15912161
SC because lolnotorks Honda

>>15916606
Turbo's also add torque though.

>>15912170
why the fuck do people like that whine

File: 1464559786894.jpg (16KB, 281x349px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 281x349px

>>15912212
>filename

>>15916483
Calling things a meme is a meme, get some new material

File: IMG-20160926-WA0007.jpg (184KB, 700x538px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 700x538px

depends on what you're doing.
for a race car having big turbos is efficient because you're always revving high.
Small turbos provide bottom end torque and are a match for small displacement city drivers.
Diesels have variable geometry turbos because diesels run fucking hot.
Roots type superchargers give a smooth straight torque vector, but come with parasitic loss.
Twin screw chargers are fucking sick but expensive. The twin screws on the m113 made it a fucking train.
You can always run a supercharger+turbo, two turbos, a mad max style supercharger switch.

>>15912206
slightly spooky

File: 1474959448715.gif (476KB, 200x199px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 200x199px

>>15915161
Have you ever wondered why cars have mufflers?
Its because after the ignition there is pressure in the cylinder even at bottom dead center.
This pressure creates the noise in your exhaust.
You can harvest a part of this pressure with a turbo. The turbo is NOT driven by pushing the piston upwards in the exhaust stroke. It is driven by energy which you cannot harvest with the piston.

>>15917025

For one, the diesel combustion process is several hundred degrees celcius cooler than petroleum or natural gas combustion process. Drive temperature safe maximum for the diesel process is about 680 degrees. Safe maximum for petroleum is about 1100 degrees. It is a much cooler combustion process.

Variable geometry turbine housings are not linked to the temperature of the drive gas. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

It exists to offer the ability to change the aspect ratio of the turbine housing. A smaller aspect ratio results in higher pressure and velocity across the turbine to impart maximum power at minimum drive gas flow and temperature. This means the maximum turbine choke flow is quickly reached due to the restriction. A larger aspect ratio results in higher heat and mass flowing across the turbine resulting in maximum power at minimum pressure. Variable geometry vanes and sliding rings attempt to broaden the choke flow map and often do so quite well.

They are also used to artificially build drive pressure for Exhaust Gas Recirculation operation and in some systems are used to artificially build very high drive pressures for exhaust brake operation.

Turbo for better fuel efficiency.

>>15916621
Because reasons, why do people like blow off valves. Because reasons

>>15912161
Depends what I want specifically.
Mpgs on a small engine? Turbo, and it won't spool up during regular boring driving but there's power if I want it. Also doesn't drain power from engine with pulley, so you can get more total power.
If I lived near mountain roads I'd go with a supercharger. No spool time so no turbo lag between turns.
If I had enough money I'd go with a twin turbo, one small one that spins quickly and a bigger one that kicks in later. Or a misfiring system.

But I'm poor so I'd probably just get a greddy turbo and nigger rig it.

>>15912217
that would be pretty cool if a) he actually got a turbo charger and b) it was right over his heart so it would look like he had a turbo for a heart

>>15919824
What are you talking about? That is a turbo.

As time goes on, the pro list for turbochargers gets longer as technology advances.

Turbochargers will always be better. Unless you're drag racing with nitro methed dragsters that moves the Earth below it.

Everything OEM is going to be turbo'd within 5 years anyways. Get Superchargers and be special (and slower).

>>15919910
>Unless you're drag racing with nitro methed dragsters that moves the Earth below it.
Actually, Top Fuel dragsters would probably be faster if they had turbo's - but costs would skyrocket, so NHRA mandates blowers instead.

>>15919846
Superchargers BTFO

>>15912744
Break a turbo and replace the turbo
Break a supercharger and replace the whole engine