Turbocharger vs supercharger

Turbo on a little engine. Supercharger on a big V8.

>>17132021
Wouldn't it spoil ultra quick with all the exhaust from a big engine vs a smaller one?

>tfw turboing my 1.4 4 bangers is not wise
>tfw stock engine makes 109hp and car weighs a bit over 900kg

Frigging econoboxes man

As somebody who has OWNED both a turbo and supercharged car, I prefer turbo.

Turbocharger is objectively the superior option from any which way you look at it

Power delivery: turbo
Cost: turbo
Power potential: turbo
Reliability: turbo

Muh feels aren't objective measurements so boomer fucks gtfo with your bullshit

>>17132036
please elaborate? seriously considering a supercharger for my MX5

>>17132044
Supercharger might be easier to install, pop off intake, apply boost, bolt down, install new belt, seems like cake

>>17132012
Supercharger for a DD
Turbo for a race car.

>>17132034
1.6 4 banger*

>>17132012
Well a supercharger is belt driven and parasitic so they're better on engines that are low revving with large torque reserves (V8). As well superchargers have a far more linear power band and predictable delivery (even compared to small quick spooling turbos). This is especially important in cars that you'll be doing a lot of canyon carving in. I would hate to be mid corner and have boost come on suddenly. Modern screw type superchargers are also a lot more reliable and higher producing than the blowers of boomers days past. I mean overall I'd say I'm with the supercharger UNLESS I'm making a cheap speed sled and need as much straight line speed for as little money as possible and fuck everything else.

>>17132050
Super chargers are just weird they don't throw you back as much as turbos

>>17132050
Super chargers are cheaper and simpler tho

Will turbos reduce engine life much ?

>>17132012
Supercharger for the toegay
Turbos for the waynegin

File: 1474430022181.jpg (55KB, 546x896px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 546x896px

>>17132044
>Muh feels aren't objective measurements so boomer fucks gtfo with your bullshit

Shitty throttle response is the easiest way to kill a car. You can't drive it if you can't accurately control it. This applies to all cars, it's just that turbo lag is fucking horrendous, and hard to mitigate. Superchargers are not as bad, but you're not adding that much power so why even bother? NA is masterrace, I'm sorry it had to end like this.

Turbochargers are better in pretty much every way, except for turbo-lag. Superchargers get good boost right off the line, so pretty much just for purpose built racers. They also look fucking badass looming out of the hood in full shiny and chrome glory. And that sound...

>>17132129
Good to know. May add a turbo to my lolV6 mustang when it's out of warranty + a tune.

>>17132044
>power delivery: turbo
>cost: turbo
U wot m8

File: Autoweb-2016-April-First-Drive-2016-Lamborghini-Huracan-006.jpg (274KB, 2048x1362px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 2048x1362px

na>supercharger>electric>turbo>bus pass>rotary

On my 2.5 i6 turbo definitely

>>17132075
If you know what you're doing you should know time to boost for a turbo engine at a given RPM so when you hit the apex you floor it to build boost and then suddenly cut throttle just as you start to come on boost so you can get linear modulation.

Also, modern cars are capable of torque management. They can pull boost to handle that kind of situation.

Also, in any kind of serious driving OEM turbos are sized to basically always be on boost if you're having a big go and the gearing is set up to keep you at the boost threshold.

The problem you're talking about is really more related to aftermarket turbos that are oversized for the engine and the lag becomes a major issue even when you're in the right gear for corner exit.

File: maxresdefault.jpg.cf (2).jpg (52KB, 711x399px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 711x399px

>>17132012
>can't choose both
Why the fuck not?
Pic related
Diesel 2 stroke roots/twin screw supercharged with a huge as fuck turbo sitting on top of it all.

>>17132050
Turbo on the mx5 all the way man. The Jackson Racing SC for the Miata is shit. Makes the car run really rough and the power levels are meh, and really drops off at higher rpm.

Supercharger cause i have boomer taste and want a blower

supercharger, I'll take that whine over a PSH anyday

>>17132105
The turbo on my miat comes on like a hit of NOS
>>17132303
>If you know what you're doing you should know time to boost for a turbo engine at a given RPM so when you hit the apex you floor it to build boost and then suddenly cut throttle just as you start to come on boost so you can get linear modulation.
Kek good luck with that

>>17132726
cant throttle control?

correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a supercharger be better than a turbo in the city because you tend to keep the revs lower? unless it's a small turbo that spools up easily.

>>17132736
yea that's correct, supercharger basically hits at instant throttle while obviously turbos take time to spool

>>17132101

>cheaper
>$4995.00 for the fast foward sc kit
>$3,299.00 for the flyin miata turbo kit

If you pieced the turbo kit together yourself you can knock over a grand off that price.

>>17132012
Supercharger because the whine is sex

Turbo for an inline engine, Supercharger for V engine

>>17132028
No, it's shelf life is actually pretty long

File: 1490832945121.png (262KB, 398x370px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 398x370px

>>17132872
>namefag
>having a say in anything

>>17132872
>Oh boy, I'll take my supercharged weekend car into the middle of the city, that'll be fun

>>17132726
Fucking hell, we've designed controllers for non-linear systems, I fail to see why you can't control your fucking foot to handle something non-linear as well.

Even if you can't, not to worry. At this point we're about to get mild hybrids that use regen to spool up turbos instantly along with non-linear throttle mapping so even retards like you can drive a turbo car without blaming the throttle response when you inevitably drift into a curb.

>>17132012
Turbo.
A super charger is just like having a stronger car, but the Turbo produce more power and gives you that increasing power that feels much better then the linear power the S/C gives.

300HP S/C have the advantage at lower RPM, but a 300HP turbo have more torque and drinks less fuel at any given RPM.
Though you'd have to have different engines since a 200HP engine with a typical default charger would produce around 300 while a 200HP engine with a turbo would give more than 300HP.
that's why a lot of 200HP engines are way below that if you remove the turbo, while the S/C engines usually would've had more without the S/C.

TL;DR Turbo engines gives the most added HP and way more torque but adds turbo lag if you don't have a proper re-circulating boost setup that most turbo cars have nowadays anyway.

>>17132900
Thanks for proving his point.
The charger leeches of the engine at all times, when you're in slow traffic that's the least thing you want.
That's why a turbo is better there as well.

>>17132893
>Degenerate people that think having a name makes it less credible.

>>17132948
It also adds power at all times

>>17132012
>does your engine sound good n/a?
supercharger
>does your engine already sound like shit n/a?
turbocharger

File: 16V71.jpg (89KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1024x768px

>>17132698
>be detroit diesel
>have 2 stroke V8 that sounds like a demon
>lets weld two of them together
>lets supercharge AND turbocharge them
>fuck your rules

>>17132028
Nope, you match the turbo size to the engine in such a way that optimises your boost curve for the application

turbo

couldnt care less about superchargers way too boring

>>17132170
NA actually is the best

File: 735.gif (16KB, 320x288px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x288px

>>17132012
Turbo for dat whistle

Super for that whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

>>17132837
kek

>>17132968
That's what I meant by it being a stronger engine, compared to a N/A, but it's power band is the same, while the turbo picks up and goes past S/C.

>>17132968
>at all times
>even when you don't want it
For a daily, having the progressive "on-demand" delivery of a turbo can't be beat.

>>17132027
Ravioli
Ravioli
Turbos are for dragon lolis

>>17133264
If you always have boost, do you ever really have any boost...

>>17133264
Even if you don't want it, we're not far from EPC assisted turbos. A big jolt of compressed air at the start to get the turbos spooled up before the compressor disconnects. Once you let off the turbo can be spooled down by the electric compressor too.

>>17132975
Why are all big Diesel engines painted?

File: volvo-xc90t8-hero-image-v6.jpg (28KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x270px

>>17132012
Volvo sells a car with both.

>>17133423
I'd gather presentation and marketing. Big diesel power plants such as the Detroit pictured are their own brand.

>>17132948
> when you are in slow traffic turbo is better
what did he mean by this?

>>17133423
Also, makes it easy to perform a Dulux recondition for a new unsuspecting owner

>>17133479
He means a turbocharger responds by demand, not just constantly boosting with 10% throttle just past idle where boost is irrelevant.

>>17133495
Wouldn't a supercharger increase fuel efficiency at the low RPMs you'd have in traffic?

>>17133505
No.

>>17132922
>t someone who learned everything about forced induction from video games
>level 3 turbo makes more power than level 3 supercharger tho guize

It depends on the size of said turbocharger or supercharger. A little tiny kei car turbo on a big dick v8 will actually lose power

>>17132012
its all about throttle response, i have a WRX and a BRZ, the WRX is fun because if i drive it hard im glued to the fucking seat, but aside from just accelerating the car doesnt provide a great 'sensation'. The BRZ with basic upgrades and suspension work feels like such a mean car despite being significantly slower. Having a roots on the BRZ (edelbrock all day) would be much more fun than the wrx regardless of whether i tune the wrx to be faster (and youll never get bored of 20LB boost on the brz, if you can run the suspension to even keep it on the ground), i could run new bushings and mounts and protune it all i want but itll never have the feel of a nice linear torque curve charging up and down the revs; ib4 parasitic SC, if you tune for power you can spin the wheels on anything for <$5k

File: viper_acr_2016.jpg (2MB, 1600x1030px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1030px

>>17133506
>Nissan added aftermarket parts
>Still slover than a Viper

File: IMG_1159.jpg (650KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 2048x1536px

>>17132975
>>17132698
I always find these kind of engines really nerve wrecking to look at. And I'm someone who owns pic related.

Do I have autism?

File: Screenshot (69).png (217KB, 596x547px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 596x547px

>>17133566
Then these are all fake or irrelevant then

>>17132044
>power delivery: turbo
Correct.
>cost: turbo
Correct
>power potential: turbo
meh. They both have the same power potential. Its just that the parasitic power of the supercharger hogs it down a little
>reliability: turbo
I wouldn't say it. They are both kinds of forced induction. Done right they are both reliable even if bolt ons.

Response is also a very important deal, and in a small track car, or a hill climb car, or anywhere where you cant be on the throttle constantly you will need either a supercharger or a twin turbo to reduce lag.


If you need to reach X horsepower regardless of psi or type, get a supercharger. Then you would have the same power as a turbo but no lag.

>>17133505
No because the charger that leeches from the engine makes the engine respond by having to increase fuel rate due to the increased load.

File: 1476158861133.jpg (104KB, 872x685px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 872x685px

>>17132922
>300hp turbo making more power than a 300 hp S/C

If same rev limiter a 300 hp turbo and a 300 hp supercharger makes the same fucking torque buddy. Except that the S/C gets better low end torque and better throttle resposne

>>17133264
progressive, on demand? what in the fuck are you talking about because it isnt a turbo; its nice nice nice then your mass airflow sensor decides you need more gas to keep the A/F ratio good and you are in your seat for a split second, your ratio leans out until you hit the next point on the map and get jolted again, all the way up the curve; its a constant fight between the road conditions, your turbo, and your tune; find me a turbo dyno that looks progressive vice ballz to the fucking wallz

>>17133574
what benchracing website is this from?

>>17133614
The same one all the GTR vs Corvette times are from

>>17133619
motortrend?

>>17133615
>He says moving the goalpoasts

>>17133592
last i checked (whatever you mean by) 'fuel rate' is determined by how much air is coming in, how does having boost at your throttle valve have anything to do with idle air control; all you should be getting idleing with a SC is lower revs in traffic due to the losses WHICH tend to taper off significantly at low revs anyways

>>17133632
Shouldn't single scroll turbos still enjoy better high rev power?

I mean, they have 4 piston's exhaust feeding it instead of 2.

File: edelbrock_kit_dynotest_1.jpg (125KB, 1280x789px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1280x789px

>>17133632
you see that flat ass HP trend all the way up to 6500; i dont know maybe im blind, because it looks progressive to me

>>17133663
indeed, its more of not disrupting clean airflow into the turbine inlet, simply a better design

>>17133663
But my point is, you have the exhaust from cyl 1 and 4 using venturi to gain speed and spin the turbo faster, but wouldn't the entire system hog it down at high RPM? wouldn't that mean that you are working with 2 cylinders and a little bit more fully working towards the turbo?

>>17133604
Let me explain it on a kindergarten level for you instead.
200HP engine with X amount of boost will give more power to turbo than s/c since the s/c steals some of that HP by leeching of the engine.

>>17133631
Read above
The ECU have to compensate when something is slowing down the idle RPM to prevent stalling and keeping an optimal idle RPM.

These are things you should've learned by now, unless you're one of those famous bus riders that visit /o/.

>>17133674
you dont really need a venturi for the concept to work, exhaust gasses from cylinder 2 and 3 disrupt the flow from 1 and 4 in any single scroll turbo, dividing the flow so they go through different turbines keeps flow clean and efficient

>>17133696
I get that. But wouldn't dividing the flow on the high speed tubes be worse than not dividing the flow? again, this is all for very high RPM range.

>>17133690
>200HP engine with X amount of boost will give more power to turbo than s/c since the s/c steals some of that HP by leeching of the engine.

But you said that both the S/C and T engine were producing the same amount of HP you fucking retard. Parasitic power doesn't magically come on when you dont look for it, its always there. You always need more psi for a S/C to provide the power of the turbo, that's parasitic load, but if they both provide the same power then they both provide the same fucking power. There's no magical fairy that makes S/C get increased parasitic load for no fucking reason. You are already counting for the parasitic load when you take the dyno.

File: 1491166470748.png (87KB, 358x467px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 358x467px

So a turbo can deliver power like a supercharger but can a supercharger deliver power like a turbo?

>>17133690
well no i dont ride any buses, i have 3 cars for that... anyways on any car using a more traditional ECU the engine gets gas based on the A/F ratio, at idle the same amount of air should be coming in stock, now your exhaust systems efficiency at low revs might lean out your ratio and it gets more gas with a S/C but other than a small difference i just dont see it

>>17133606
Just about the most elaborate shitpost I've read all year.

>>17133726
did you link the wrong article, id be interested in seeing what you are talking about but...
also as far as the dyno i posted, the power is delivered linearly, the curves that start out lower and end up higher are the HP curves, friend

>>17133725
Kindergarten tier explaining was too hard for you then...

>200HP N/A with either S/C or Turbo that boost the same psi
Following me so far?
>That 200HP will get increased HP from both but the turbo will get higher HP due to the turbo not leeching from the engine as much as a S/C
I hope you managed to understand toddler tier explaining at least.

>>17133756
You don't see it because you don't understand it.

>>17133790
shitpost or not can any of you post a fucking chart to prove me wrong, im serious i love learning something new but you arent coming at me with any substance, just bullshit

>>17133807
Are you fucking retarded? you cannot obtain the same power output with a turbo and a supercharger at peak power at the same psi. That's like saying "i want a car with more torque and the same rev limit but same HP".

You just fucking cant have that.

If you compare a turbo and a supercharged engine, you either have them have the same power, or the same psi. If you have them at the same psi, turbos win, if you have them at the same peak power, superchargers win but require more psi.


Is it that hard to understand for you?

>>17133827
ok, i understand now, im talking to someone that thinks their CAI means turbo not cold air intake, sorry, carry on, stay in school you fucking need it

>>17133846
err, that was at >>17133807

>>17133846
>>17133852
k. i almost got confused.

>>17133827
You really are a dense mother fucking retard.

200HP engine with:
S/C which produce XX PSI at full load
and
Turbo which produce XX PSI at full load

Both having the same PSI rating.
Now tell me which would make the most out of the same PSI value, the turbo, or the S/C that leeches from the engine?

The topic was ALWAYS about a specific engine that was EITHER turbo charged or super charged.

That same engine produce more HP and more torque than the super charger and also drinks less fuel.

>>17133852
Coming from someone that is so retarded that he thinks the alternator is the turbo.

>>17133863
>i love my twin turbo wrx, i just wish i understood how the second turbo is sending power through these wires; for real though have i gotten you flustered now?

Bunch of retards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5kj1lSMBo
Turbo wins when using the same boost, and the same engine.

>>17133863
YOU are the dense stupid motherfucker

You CANNOT have the same engine provide same peak power at the same psi with different forced induction. It just cannot fucking happen you stupid fuck.

You are changing the torque in that same engine and the supercharger always needs more psi to deliver that same torque because of the parasitic load.

You are calling me stupid because i dont understand your physics-breaking example since it could not fucking work in real life.

>>17133863
and SCs produce boost linearly, so considering the entire rev range that would come down to the efficiency of both

>>17133891
>supercharger always needs more psi to deliver that same torque because of the parasitic load.
So you're finally agreeing that the charger is the worse choice. Good.

>>17133890
well if you follow the links its about how linear power is delivered, and yes SCs win

>>17133903
But if you have the SAME power (not the same psi) then supercharger will have the same peak torque but no lag. That's why its a big difference to state if you mean the same fucking psi or the same fucking power, anon.

>>17133891
>You CANNOT have the same engine provide same peak power at the same psi with different forced induction. It just cannot fucking happen
Kept saying that the S/C is worse than the turbo at the same PSI, kept saying the charger leeches of the engine.
Yes, it's like you're repeating what I've been saying over and over but somehow still finds some retarded way to argue against it.

>>17133903
>supercharger vs turbocharger
>>the charger is the worse choice
That's true, N/A is best

none of it fucking matters, race on the track, NA is all you need, SC is nice to have, TC gets you in the ditch

>>17133913
At the same HP (which wasn't the topic) the turbo produce more torque than the charger.

Topic was which would be the best for the engine (obviously having an engine that was N/A and then converting it, this comparing what a XX psi turbo would give and what a XX psi super charger would give.
The answer: turbo gives more HP and higher torque than the super charger.
It's not about comparing a 300HP turbo to a 300HP super charger, it's about comparing a the effect of a 200HP N/A and how much power it gets from the turbo and the super charger.

The result would be that if the 200HP N/A got 300HP after adding a super charger, it'd get even more HP from using a turbo with the same boost.

>>17133922
Because like i said in >>17133913
If they both HAVE the same power then they are not at the same psi, they do the same power but the S/C has no turbo lag. and better low end RPM power

>>17133947
You still don't get it.
It was NEVER about comparing a XXX HP S/C engine to a XXX HP Turbo engine.

It was how much power they respectively got when PUTTING either a S/C or a turbo on them.
Get that into your fucking head.

You'd have to detune the turbo'd engine to go as low to meet the same HP and torque as the S/C.

>>17133943
>>17133959

>At the same HP (which wasn't the topic) the turbo produce more torque than the charger.
But that's a fucking oxymoron.

HP is defined by torque and RPM, if the RPM doesn't change and the HP is the same then the torque is also the same.

>turbo gives more HP and higher torque than the super charger.

At the same psi? Yes.

>it's about comparing a the effect of a 200HP N/A and how much power it gets from the turbo and the super charger

Oh. So that's the misunderstanding.

Yes in that case the turbo would work better at the expense of tubo lag.

Also, another thing to add, is that since the parasitic lag from superchargers isn't the belt or the system itself but the air being moved through, the higher psi or power the forced induction moves the higher the parasitic load always.


So at 11psi the difference of turbo/S/C on the same engine could be of about, hypotethically, 50hp, and the difference at 20 psi could be of about 150 hp.

this thread is full of so much autism, retardation, and false information that i don't even know where to start

i suggest all of you stop posting immediately, and go read a book instead of arguing with each other like dumbasses, because you're all wrong anyway

>>17133959
actually it was strictly SC vs TC, and id argue that throttle response combined with how stupid the amount of power you can make on EITHER makes SC a solid choice depending on the car, on my BRZ a SC makes a lot of fucking sense over a turbo, you are maintaining the car more handling friendly and even on the street theres something to be said about the feel of good throttle response

File: Fat mans rebadged Toyota GT86.jpg (705KB, 1700x1275px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 1700x1275px

>>17133966
>At the same psi? Yes.
There you have it, the Turbo wins.

>Yes in that case the turbo would work better at the expense of turbo lag.
Turbo's don't really have that much turbo lag unless you slap on a turbo that is too large for the engine at optimal RPM. Cars also have recirculation valves to prevent it from losing all boost.

>>17133974
The BRZ/GT86 is a light weight toy car with stiff suspension and slim tires so yes, a S/C is the better choice since it will behave more responsive, but it's gonna be weaker than the turbo.
N/A BRZ/GT86 are hella weak with a total absence of torque, so either upgrade is gonna immensely improve it.

>>17134003
>Turbo's don't really have that much turbo lag
To some people its not just about how much lag is there but also the fact that it exists. Specially on dedicated racecars where turbolag is specially what you dont want

>>17134003
i agree completely, anytime i go uphill or try to pass the WRX is infinitely more capable when they both have basic mods, of course a turbo will make more power but the edelbrock makes more than enough power for any situation, im still trying to figure out how ill put it all to the ground without semi-slicks (tough, i live in rainy washington) assuming i dont blow the tranny

>>17134035
>i dont know how manuals work
You always have to fucking cut the gas when you shift, up or down unless you have F1 tech in your car. Turbo lag, specially for high psi cars, its a big issue.

>>17134059
f1 tech would be nice, im still waiting for my electric turbo hybrid

>>17134068
well it makes 375-430 depending on gas and supporting mods at peak, but have you looked at how much boost an FA20 can make? because last i checked we still havent found a hard limit, 20lb sure isnt it

>>17134067
I want pneumatic valve springs and instant shifting trannys.

>>17134084
>what is blow off valve

>>17134086
nah, its like 5ms... actually no i dont want that lol i like shifting with my hand and feets

File: Suzuka.jpg (194KB, 1000x1348px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1000x1348px

>>17134021
I'm not OP so I can't claim that commute and non-race cars were the topic but I think you understand that not everyone is a race driver.

And immature red light braggers benefit from turbo anyway since you'd already spooled up the turbo before it became green, and any non-shit ECU tune would have a anti-lag function.
Heck even my old FWD car I had was using such a feature that slightly revved the engine between gears to keep boost up at all times.

A feature I had no use for since people grow out of 0-60 times and look more at MPG and HP/liter(fuel) and how much it drinks when in traffic.
Especially in places where fuel cost $8-9 per gallon.

>>17134035
Also this since just like the cheap ECU I have, race drivers keep the throttle up while changing to rev match and to not lose boost and thus disrupting weight balance.

>>17134054
Wider tires does a lot but I'm not that informed on the rear section of the the BRZ/GT86 so I don't know what the maximum width it can take is. But it'd be the cheapest way to get grip without having to use tires that wears faster due to stickier compound.

>>17134059
I never lift off, I just rev match. while I do lose some boost, it's not even remotely close to the same as if I'd let go fully on the throttle.

Funny it turned into F1 discussion in the end because I was about to post this picture showing that you don't have to let go of the gas fully when changing gears or braking.

Heck, old 2-stroke engines needed you to give gas even when going down hill, but that's another topic.

>>17134089
Something that waste your precious boost for the sake of wooosh sound around young people that think the sounds means power instead of loss of boost.

>>17134084
some of us drive on the street, i dont sit at 3k driving down main expecting an opening at any fraction of a second, nor do i like having to down shift if an opening occurs, which even if i do theres still a delay as the turbo spools however short

>>17134099
>I never lift off, I just rev match
You cannot "not lift off" the gas whenever you change gears unless you like to destroy clutches.

>>17134099
>Something that waste your precious boost for the sake of wooosh sound around young people that think the sounds means power instead of loss of boost.
Do you really not know what the fuck a BOV is and why its there?

>>17134099
wider tires would be nice, but i spent a pretty penny getting STI rims that would fit the BRZ and they come in 1 size, toe helps but i need to do the sway bar before i get the allignment i want done

>>17133543
Definitely

>>17134129
you misread, i dont like "to have to shift", if im in a comfortable rev range and an opening will be open for a short time its nice to be able to give it a bit of gas and still make it easy, oh the joy of meh stealth

>>17133615
>The cancer that is killing /o/
I take it you're part of that cancer then

>>17134099
Also, that was gonna be my last post since the topic sorted itself out now that we now know that Turbo is the slightly better choice in most scenarios, while S/C offers INSTANT response at the cost of just slightly lower power.

>>17134117
I don't ride the clutch, I just rev match without dumping the clutch.
https://u.nya.is/lpofnh.webm

>>17134221
But you are still releasing the gas dude.

>>17134312
I still give throttle, otherwise engine would've dropped to 800RPM when I changed to a lower gear.
If you mean at the end, then yes, obviously because the reason I let off at the end is because I engine brake after that part to slow down. It's just a cut section of a longer video.

>>17134325
If you let the engine drop so much you take too long to downshift.

Look. The point about this is that no matter how quick your shifts work, any big turbo will need something like a BOV to not destroy itself when you release the gas, and that's where turbo lag comes into play

Turbo lag literally is not an issue for anyone unless you've strapped a semi turbo to a civic

>>17134387
Its not about the fucking threshold. Lag still exists.

>>17134369
The engine never drops in RPM as you saw in the beginning which is the only part you should focus on.
If you still somehow after I already told you that the end of the video is me preparing to engine break going from 3rd to 5th, then you need to understand that for me to rev match into 5th gear I have to go down to 2k RPM, which I do in the uncut video.

Again the part you should focus on is the part where I go from 5th gear (2K RPM), to 3rd gear (3k RPM).
Since the video is cut you don't see where I fall back to 2K rpm to rev match again for 5th gear.

>>17134406
>Turbo lag is 0.0000000000000000000000001ms
HOLY SHIIIIEEEEET I CAN'T TAKE THIS TURBO LAG ANY MORE!!!!"#!"#!"%¤124

>>17132028
yes but its usually a pain in the ass to hook up a turbo to a v8 because they have two sets of headers

>>17134421
A good example of that is my car and my brothers car, both the same brand, he has a 2.0 with a big turbo I have a 2.3 with a smaller turbo.
Mine have more power even without boost, but I don't really feel the turbo kicking in since it's mostly ready at the get go while my brothers turbo has to wait almost a second to spool up.
His have 250HP/380Nm (tuned from 210HP/300Nm), mine have 250HP/370NM stock. His is super weak in the beginning and picks up some speed once the boost hit.
My other car with 320HP/540Nm is the same. Turbo is the same size as the stock 250HP one, and thus spools up very fast, so the power is there from the get go.

>>17134421
Turbos take time to spool up if there is no pressure in the manifold, even when you are above boost threshold, you mongoloid

>>17134528
You are correct but once you reach the boost threshold the transient response on modern turbo cars is often non-existent especially because you aren't even controlling the throttle directly.

Most turbo cars if you're in the high RPM regime will actually briefly snap the throttle completely open to spool the turbos faster and then decay towards the commanded throttle to build pressure. If you've ever tried playing with throttle mapping settings in a car like the current M3 while driving you can feel the mapping get super touchy as soon as you get to race mode while the efficient mode means it tries to stay in vacuum unless you 100% floor it.

The throttle will often also stay open even if you let off in the case of shifting with manual. BMW raises the idle target like crazy when the ECU thinks you're trying to do a shift on boost.

>>17132698
Pretty sure a two-stroke diesel needs a blower or it wont even work.

>>17134965
I'm pretty sure you can, but diesel blows big dicks without turbos. They run at like 40 psi of boost even in passenger car applications.

>>17134972
Its not a diesel its a two stroke diesel. It doesnt produce any vacuum needed to suck in fuel so it needs a blower.

>>17133525
And if you put a supercharger sized for a miata on a big v8 you would also restrict the air flow.
Thanks for that hot insight on turbo sizing.

>>17135217
Nigga he's talking in levels like it's a fucking DBZ-tier system. Of course he doesn't know shit.

>>17132034
do you drive smart forfour

>>17132170
electric > everything else

>>17135217
>reading comprehension
Supercharger does not inherently makes less power than turbo. It depends on the size

>>17135242
>what is greentext
My post was clearly an intentional strawman

>>17135311
Thanks for the (you). Also go to bed it's like 5am in the states

>>17132837
Underrated post

>>17134492
Which is why you use two turbo's instead.

Good rule of thumb:
>always use at least one turbo per cilinder bank
>always use at least one turbo per 3 or 4 cilinders

>>17132050
A turbo is going to be a lot more complicated to install, and the Eaton supercharger kits you get for MX5's package like shit an can't be intercooled. I'd go for a centrifugal (e.g. Rotrex) instead. You can intercool it, it's easy to install, it packages nicely, and the power delivery is better than both the Roots (which dies up top) and turbo (which needs to spool up). MCM tested a turbo MX-5 vs. a centrifugal-boosted one, and despite having less power, the centrifugal was just as fast as the turbo car.

>>17132712
As said above, Eaton blower kits for the MX-5 suck. Jackson doesn't even offer the kits anymore, they're moving on to Rotrex iirc.

>>17132760
>Kraftwerks centrifugal kit: 3999$
http://www.good-win-racing.com/Mazda-Performance-Part/60-11562.html

And it's a lot easier to install.

>>17132151
>just add a turbo
Americans are the dumbest creatures on this planet

>>17132050
>please elaborate? seriously considering a supercharger for my MX5
Are you going after a complete kit?

Or do you have a friend proficient in TIG/MIG?

>>17135381
>Eaton blower kits for the MX-5 suck. Jackson doesn't even offer the kits anymore, they're moving on to Rotrex iirc.
why do these kit suck? just because they aren't intercooled?

File: bisimoto_porsche_911_twin_turbo_drawing_by_hary1908-d7fg26i.jpg (621KB, 1600x1152px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1600x1152px

>4 cylinder
Turbo

>V6
Turbo

>flat 6
N/A or Turbo, equal imo

>I6
N/A

>American V8
Supercharger

>European V8
N/A

>V10
N/A

>V12
N/A

>V8, V10, V12 with electric motor assistance
Turbo

>W16
Turbos

>>17135158
Not strictly NA but SAE does define what an NA 2 stroke diesel is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturally_aspirated_engine

>>17135466
They suck because
>not intercooled
>high IAT's due to compressor inefficiency
>bad packaging
>compressor right over the fucking exhaust manifold
>boost curve dies up top, with some extra IAT to boot
>least PSI of all boost options (to compensate for IAT and lack of intercooling)

High IAT's make your car run like shit unless you heavily adjust timing to compensate - which kills power. All in all, a centrifugal or turbo is the best option for a Miata. Roots and screw blowers should be used only on V8's and transverse I4's, it's the only place they have clear packaging advantages.

>>17133615
>shows completely different car as a retort
New levels of retardation, the likes that mankind had only speculated existed.

>>17135484
I see, so lack of IC, poor packaging, poor BSFC, also I believe much less than 1 bar of boost?

Do you think things can be better with high-octane fuel to cope with high IAT and fight with detonation? Or maybe waterr/methanol injection can help?

>>17135605
Why bother fighting an inefficient compressor by resorting to high-octane or water/meth, if you could use a more efficient compressor instead, that's easily intercooled by air? Water/meth and high octane fuel are consumables, incoming air is not.

>>17132044
"Reliability"

>>17135475
You're only saying that because that's the "status quo". American V8s with turbos are fucking amazing.

>>17132044
Probs the dumbest shit I've read on /o/ this year.

>>17132760
99.9% of turbo kits don't bolt on the way they should

File: hu3oyr.jpg (64KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1024x768px

>>17132012
>can't have both
Oh, sure I can.

>>17135730
he's saying you're not allowed to pick both you brightard

>>17132012
>can't choose both

But I want both