Can't win em all.

Yup...quick stoplight race tonight...got my ass kicked by a SS Camaro. I don't think it was stock. Nifty headlights...nice rims showing off a big brake kit...spotless car...sounded like it had an exhaust...who knows what else. Right next to him till my shift to second, then it got bloody.

This probably would have gone better if my boost controller worked right. As I'm sure some/most of you know, my dumb ass let the screw come out (of my manual boost controller) in my hand and didn't realize that the spring and little ball fell out, too until later. I recently bought a spring and slingshot ammo (replaced the little ball) and thought it would work right...well...it works better now. Better in the sense that it does SOMETHING now. My boost will spike to 9-10, then go back to the boost level of ~6 psi that it was running before I replaced the parts. Anyone have any ideas of what to do to remedy this problem, I'm all ears. Probably gunna get the Profec in a couple weeks...but I'd like to get better results out of my current setup for now.

My boost will spike to 9-10, then go back to the boost level of ~6 psi that it was running before I replaced the parts. Anyone have any ideas of what to do to remedy this problem, I'm all ears.

Uh, yeah, don't do that. Boost spikes are really bad for all components involved.

Probably gunna get the Profec in a couple weeks...but I'd like to get better results out of my current setup for now.

Why'd you buy the manual in the first place? Not trying to be a dick, just I can't understand why you would buy the current system if you were going to get something better anyway.

quick question how does a boost controller work and does it give you more horsepower????

Okay so apparently you know nothing of turbos.

Read up some of the stickies in the "Forced Induction" section of the "cars in General" Forum.


Anyway, basically a boost controller lets your turbos push more boost into your engine before the wastegates open. This makes more power. So if your car runs a stock 9 psi of boost, you can use a boost controller to set it at 13 psi, or 15 psi or whatever.

thanx for the insult I have a general idea of how it works but it seems most stock cars with turbo dont have them thats why i was not sure

You're welcome. But you are correct as most stock turbo systems are controlled via the ECU in the car. After market boost controllers are basically designed to over ride this control and let you tune the boost levels yourself. This is naturally handy when upgrading or just getting more out of a stock turbo system.

what does your 1995 300ZX Twin Turbo run in the 1/4 mile??

not trying to be mean or anything, but i noticed something, you have two turbos in your sig but don't know what a boost controller is? that just seemed funny to me. don't take offense.

it's ok, he's a chevy guy.. i'm sure he's all about the big ass ridiculous blowers and huge displacement engines.. not trying to be prejudice or anything, that's just usually the way it is.. (my cousin owns a chevy, so i've got 1st hand experience)

as for broke's 1/4 mile? i'd say ummm.... well if you towed it out to the track right now, you might be able to push it in about... i dunno.. 3 or 4 min maybe? :p:p

as for broke's 1/4 mile? i'd say ummm.... well if you towed it out to the track right now, you might be able to push it in about... i dunno.. 3 or 4 min maybe? :p:p

Okay you know what? Screw you.

Punk


Anyway, I could probably do it in better time then that seeing as how the car is minus all the weight that used to be under the hood.

As for after the engine is back in, with some slicks on there some mid 10 second passes should be in order. Dead stock with a good driver can make the high 13s. A stage 3 (nothing more than an intake, exhaust and ECU upgrade) with a good driver should be able to break into 12s. However, Z32s don't really shine on the 1/4 mile but they will flat out rape other cars on a road course.

ok, ok, assuming that you're not a stick, lets say.... a minute.... a quarter mile is pretty far just to run.. well, if you're as out of shape as i am:rolleyes:
lol just playin man

Senior year of highschool: 300lbs squat and a 12:15 2 mile run. Me and the car make it fine in under 3 mins, no problem :D

This thread got weird....fast....

I got the manual boost controller cuz I wanted to up the boost but didn't have the cash for the profec at the time....that doesn't make sense?

Well not really. If you had just waited and saved the money instead of getting a manual you could have had the GReddy that much quicker...but thats me...

not trying to be mean or anything, but i noticed something, you have two turbos in your sig but don't know what a boost controller is? that just seemed funny to me. don't take offense.


im not sure if you if payed attention to the detalis of my question I said " Im not sure how it works" implying that I had some idea of its intent and pupose and the other guy supported my later response In which MOST cars (stock) dont have one to begin with and as far as me being a chevy guy.... I dont discriminate aganst any make or model I just like the fact that most of there cars and trucks are awesome and they have a rather rich history of past cars which will remain timeless for many years to come.. O and that blower thing.. yea there cool but I do like the theory of turbo charging and how it works more effective then a supercharger

dude, i was just messing around. i wasn't trying to put you down or anything. some people take stuff to seriously.

Yup...quick stoplight race tonight...got my ass kicked by a SS Camaro. I don't think it was stock. Nifty headlights...nice rims showing off a big brake kit...spotless car...sounded like it had an exhaust...who knows what else. Right next to him till my shift to second, then it got bloody.

This probably would have gone better if my boost controller worked right. As I'm sure some/most of you know, my dumb ass let the screw come out (of my manual boost controller) in my hand and didn't realize that the spring and little ball fell out, too until later. I recently bought a spring and slingshot ammo (replaced the little ball) and thought it would work right...well...it works better now. Better in the sense that it does SOMETHING now. My boost will spike to 9-10, then go back to the boost level of ~6 psi that it was running before I replaced the parts. Anyone have any ideas of what to do to remedy this problem, I'm all ears. Probably gunna get the Profec in a couple weeks...but I'd like to get better results out of my current setup for now.

Try picking on someone your own size, LLtZ! :biggrin: Careful not to blow up your engine just yet trying to chase down those Muscleheads!!! Why not get a BLITZ Boost controller? Then you can get a POWERMETER to work with it... to be cool like me! :iceslolan

Well not really. If you had just waited and saved the money instead of getting a manual you could have had the GReddy that much quicker...but thats me...

I don't see how that couldn't make sense. I spent $15 cuz I didn't have the ~$300 lying around for the EBC. Plus, I have all the plumbing done now so when I get the EBC, I just have to mount and plug in...basically plug and play...don't have to run any hoses or anything cuz it's already done.

I'm not too sure what I wanna do. I was really leaning toward the Profec B Spec II cuz I was planning on having it doubling as a boost gauge as well as a controller. I installed a boost gauge already, so I can take a less expensive route with the EBC now. I'm open to ideas.

Please, wastegates are overrated. Just clog up the wastegates with chewing gum and run max boost.. I'd say you could get around 4-5 bar quite easily. Imagine the power gain!
Just make sure you get premium fuel though, you dont want the engine to detonate!

-Mike

Please, wastegates are overrated. Just clog up the wastegates with chewing gum and run max boost.. I'd say you could get around 4-5 bar quite easily. Imagine the power gain!
Just make sure you get premium fuel though, you dont want the engine to detonate!

-Mike
:D:D:D:D:D:D

Be sure to tell us how the weather on the moon is!


Anyway, if you aren't really looking for alot of power out of this car then just go with the boost controller rather than one with hundreds worth of guages built in at the expense of an extra harness.

Somewhat offtopic, but what are you waiting for on your engine broke? ie. what haven't you got yet for the upgrades?

-Mike

The heads have been off for a while due to an problem getting some parts...other than that its just as money comes. All I really got left to buy are the turbos and exhaust pieces and those can be bolted on right before I drop the engine back in whereas I have to have everything apart for the cam work. Other than that its full speed ahead.

I get paid Fri and every week after that...fri will be my first full check from the new job...:biggrin:...wanna talk about "full speed ahead"?

Iv, what do you mean, pick on something his own size? I think he did great, just didn't peddle fast enough. Next time shoot out one of his front tires, that'll slow him down a bit.

Kenwood Guy, What are you doing posting my wife's pic. I asked her if you had permission and she said ,"no". You;ll be hearing from her attorney. JK
As for you theory of turbo's being more efficent than superchargers, wrong. First lets start on a level playing field. We'll use 10# boost for both systems.

It takes a certain amount of power to compress air to 10#. I don't care if it's done with a supercharger or a turbocharger, example: if it takes 30 HP to make 100HP, a supercharger well take 30HP off the crank to develop 100HP. A turbo well by it's design of restricting the exhaust to drive the compressor rob the engine of 30 HP to make 100HP.
A turbo on it's best day and one with S trim compressor blades has a 70-75% Volumetric Efficiency or VE, and has to be spun 100,000 RPM or better to build pressure, and because the compressor is attached to the turbine which is very hot (approx. 1300F) runs very hot. At 10#boost the Delta temp. is in excess of 180F. For substained high speeds works great, but do to turbo lag. isn't the best choice for varing speeds. True with good tuning and proper exhaust the lag can be reduced.
The centrifical supercharger is in the same class as the turbo,70-75% VE, but without the high heat as it's belt driven but has lag due to the compressor design. Delta temp. run about 160-165F
The screw or modified roots supercharger is a positive desplacement compressor, which means every time it rotates it puts out a given amount of air. The VE on this type compressor is above 90% and most newer ones are running 97-99% VE which means it takes less power and less heat build up to compress air. The delta temp. is 130F
Why is all this important, hot intake air isn't good for a engine. The cooler the intake air is the more boost you can run, so starting with 50F cooler intake air means you can run more boost. More boost, more power.
The bottom line is, you can run what ever trips your trigger, but the screw type supercharger can and does develop more power than a turbocharger because it has higher VE and lower Delta temps.
I'm just glad a lot of people don't due their homework, their the ones that get to look at others rear bumpers.

"screw type??" I have herd of roots and the others but wont a simple inercooler set up solve the hot air proplem most people have turbo systems in there cars there has to be a good reason why most imports have them not just because of that blow off valve sound and stuff. im guessing because with a turbo you can tune I dont see much tuning being done on super chargers .. O and as far as your wife she was and never will be yours :)

Iv, what do you mean, pick on something his own size? I think he did great, just didn't peddle fast enough. Next time shoot out one of his front tires, that'll slow him down a bit.

Kenwood Guy, What are you doing posting my wife's pic. I asked her if you had permission and she said ,"no". You;ll be hearing from her attorney. JK
As for you theory of turbo's being more efficent than superchargers, wrong. First lets start on a level playing field. We'll use 10# boost for both systems.

It takes a certain amount of power to compress air to 10#. I don't care if it's done with a supercharger or a turbocharger, example: if it takes 30 HP to make 100HP, a supercharger well take 30HP off the crank to develop 100HP. A turbo well by it's design of restricting the exhaust to drive the compressor rob the engine of 30 HP to make 100HP.
A turbo on it's best day and one with S trim compressor blades has a 70-75% Volumetric Efficiency or VE, and has to be spun 100,000 RPM or better to build pressure, and because the compressor is attached to the turbine which is very hot (approx. 1300F) runs very hot. At 10#boost the Delta temp. is in excess of 180F. For substained high speeds works great, but do to turbo lag. isn't the best choice for varing speeds. True with good tuning and proper exhaust the lag can be reduced.
The centrifical supercharger is in the same class as the turbo,70-75% VE, but without the high heat as it's belt driven but has lag due to the compressor design. Delta temp. run about 160-165F
The screw or modified roots supercharger is a positive desplacement compressor, which means every time it rotates it puts out a given amount of air. The VE on this type compressor is above 90% and most newer ones are running 97-99% VE which means it takes less power and less heat build up to compress air. The delta temp. is 130F
Why is all this important, hot intake air isn't good for a engine. The cooler the intake air is the more boost you can run, so starting with 50F cooler intake air means you can run more boost. More boost, more power.
The bottom line is, you can run what ever trips your trigger, but the screw type supercharger can and does develop more power than a turbocharger because it has higher VE and lower Delta temps.
I'm just glad a lot of people don't due their homework, their the ones that get to look at others rear bumpers.

Jeez...round and round it goes...it'll never end...V8 vs. V6 vs. I6 vs. I4...S/C vs. Turbo...AWD vs. RWD vs. FWD...epic topics that will never have a unanamous [sp.] winner. What ever works. In the mean time...read this (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=201348). If you wanna run a S/C after reading that, you're either A) in denial, B) stubborn, C) happy with the lesser of two goods. Anyway...just here to help man. Turbos are better in many ways...whether you think so or not.

Flawed piece about superchargers


Missing the entire point: No one is going to run 10 psi with their turbos. Thats under stock psi on alot of cars. It doesn't matter if your engine is 20% more efficient at making 10 psi if mine is making 20. And it doesn't take much to run 20+ psi turbos that have damn near no lag.

A F20C is making more power per liter than a VG30DETT, thus being more efficient. Therefore a F20C wil always make more power than a VG30DETT.

First off, the pumping losses incurred by turbos pale incomparison to the right off the crank losses of belt driven blowers. Much of the power for a turbo comes from the heat generated by the exhaust. The 5-10 hp sapped from back pressure is hardly the 30+hp used to drive a belt driven compressor to make about 100 extra hp. You are correct that it takes X amount of power to get Y amount of psi. But your forgetting that of the 100% power the exploding gas makes, 1/3 is lost to the cooling sytem, 1/3 actually makes power and the remaining 1/3 is dumped into the exhaust. Turbos are hugely efficient because they are not using the engines power to any great extent to make that Y psi. They use the 1/3 lost into the tail pipes to make alot of their power. Superchargers simply will always take more power to run then turbos, effectively pissing in the face of the better VE of screwchargers.

And superchargers are more or less fixed in reference to psi-rpms. You have to choose a pulley for the super that won't over boost at higher rpms. That means that you won't be making as much boost as you could be at lower rpms. If your running that 10 psi pulley, thats 10 psi at near redline. A turbo can make 10psi easily at half that and carry it all the way to redline with a much better power band.

There is alot more to making power than VEs and delta temps.

One last thing, a fully spooled turbo will be doing 100k rpms or better. Good turbos can be making boost at 60k.

yeah i just actually read that whole post in full and i'm convinced... not like i wasn't before, but now i'm 100% convinced that turbo's are the way to go... now all i need to do is get ahold of a turbocharged car... lol

Hmm. I seem to have a habit of making huge posts. Apologies in advance again.

Much of the power for a turbo comes from the heat generated by the exhaust. The 5-10 hp sapped from back pressure is hardly the 30+hp used to drive a belt driven compressor to make about 100 extra hp. You are correct that it takes X amount of power to get Y amount of psi. But your forgetting that of the 100% power the exploding gas makes, 1/3 is lost to the cooling sytem, 1/3 actually makes power and the remaining 1/3 is dumped into the exhaust. Turbos are hugely efficient because they are not using the engines power to any great extent to make that Y psi. They use the 1/3 lost into the tail pipes to make alot of their power. Superchargers simply will always take more power to run then turbos, effectively pissing in the face of the better VE of screwchargers.

Can you prove this theory?
Imagine (or try) this:
Remove the intake pipes from the throttle bodies (effectively producing a NA car with a turbo in the exhaust stream)
The car is obviously going to run a whole lot worse than a standard NA car due to the following factors:
1. Lower compression pistons
2. big fucking turbos in the exhaust stream

Now try taking the turbos out completely, eliminating any substantial backpressure. I would say that you would gain very close to 30hp after doing this. And then we have to consider that when we had the turbine in the exhaust, the compressor wasn't blowing air into anything restrictive (like an engine). Its just moving it, which takes a whole lot less power.

I'm sorry if this seems daft, but I cannot understand how an excess exhaust temperature is causing any power gains. Granted its hot, and it probably comes out of the turbo alot cooler (due to transfer of heat to the turbo housing, turbine, and because its losing pressure) but that doesn't mean that heat is going directly into producing power. Its actually doing the opposite, its heating up the intake charge, and as the intake charge is hence cooling it down, its losing pressure. A perfect turbo would have no transfer of heat between the two sides, which would mean that it would lose no pressure due to heat loss and hence the only heat loss would be due to it losing pressure (coming out the other side of the turbine into the atmosphere). I hope everyone followed that. :)

If there is backpressure, then the engine has to push the piston that much harder to get the air out. This is where the power losses are evident. You just wouldn't notice them because the engine is producing more power than what it's losing.

And superchargers are more or less fixed in reference to psi-rpms. You have to choose a pulley for the super that won't over boost at higher rpms. That means that you won't be making as much boost as you could be at lower rpms. If your running that 10 psi pulley, thats 10 psi at near redline. A turbo can make 10psi easily at half that and carry it all the way to redline with a much better power band.

This is different for different supercharger designs. Centrifugal chargers produce an exponential pressure/rpm graph (just like turbos). However, even though turbos have the same compressor design, granted the turbos can better self-regulate their pressure through the wastegates, and hence would be better in this situation. There are new centrifugal charger designs out now that have a coupling that helps regulate the rpms its doing, and you can also get around this by installing dual centrifugal chargers, as this effectively stretches out the pressure/rpm curve, making it more linear.

Eaton and screw type chargers however are different. As Zgringo said, they are positive displacement, which means that for every revolution, they will move X amount of air (provided its available). Now, for every revolution of the engine, it needs Y amount of air. Now thats a match made in heaven if ever I've seen one.

There is alot more to making power than VEs and delta temps.

Not really. Volumetric Efficiency is literally measuring how efficient the charger is. The more efficient it is, the less power drain its going to be on the engine, whether it be at the crank or at the exhaust manifold.

One last thing, a fully spooled turbo will be doing 100k rpms or better. Good turbos can be making boost at 60k.

Really, the rpm turbos are running at is completely irrelevant as it self regulates anyway.

Ok, I'm sure everyone has heard my opinions before, but I will give them again anyway.

Turbos are great if you want to manually control how much power you want your engine to make. They are great if you like just cruising around, but in the same token you dont want to lose to the hair-dresser in the lowered celica that just pulled up next to you. Turbochargers are also great above 100kph (60mph for you Americans). The turbos spool early as your engine is under load (producing maximum exhaust) but the rpms aren't increasing very fast, producing solid boost the whole gear. Turbos are great for auto cars where the gear changes are super quick and your foot doesn't come off the floor.

Superchargers however I feel are better if you gun it everywhere. Boost comes on instantly, cracking your neck back as soon as your foot touches the accellerator. Boost is always available. Whether you're sitting at the start line idling or guning it down at the salt flats doing 300mph. :)
superchargers are better for traffic where you want that power *NOW*. Superchargers are better for manual transmissions where you are constantly closing and opening the throttle body. If you had a turbo charger, you'd have to expend a bit more work spooling that turbo back up again. Blow off valves help, but they don't eliminate the problem.

Now I know the turbo zealots out there will undeniably shout over and over again 'BUT MISTER MIKEMAN, I CAN MAKE MY TURBOS HAVE ALMOST NO LAG AT ALL!!'
Bam. 'Not good enough' is what my body says when I'm in the driver's seat. I love getting winded (almost) just from a quick tap of the accellerator. I love that almighty snap of your upper vertebrae when you stamp down.

I'm not saying turbos are bad, not at all! I just think that many turbo guys out there either forget about, or gloss over some of the cons. I try and be objective in everything that I say, and as such, I'm just merely outlining the pros and cons of both systems.

-Mike

Mr. Mikeman, Thank you, you filled in all the blanks I left out as I didn't want to make my post 4 pages long. Your so correct in your FACTS that anyone with any brain cells left should understand. I could care less if you make 10#-20# or 50# boost , it takes a curtain amount of HP to compress air. That is unless you have something magic as some people seem to think they have.
I neather sell or have likes or dislikes for eather turbo's or supercharger's. Just giving some FACTS. Both have good points and bad.

Mr. Broke_****, Your theory sounds interesting, but unless you can prove what you say, it's nothing but personal theory.
AS for irrelevant, what the fuck does a F20C have to do with the subject.
I was only using 10# boost as a example. Would you like to work with 75#? I can prove everything I say, can you?
FYI, Stillen has come out with a compressor for the new 350Z. Guess what it is? Its a screw type supercharger. Maybe you should get hold of him and tell him he's out to lunch.
Now kinda getting away from the subject,the fastest car in the world is a 1938 Mercedes Benz W125 268.1MPH supercharged. 2nd fastest a 1988 Callaway Sledghammer Vette 254.7MPH turbo'd. Does that mean a supercharger is better than a turbo? Not a bit, two totally different applications.
Alot of the new car mfg.'s, Jaguar, Mercedes, BMW and alot of American mfg.'s are going to the new screw type superchargers. Does that make them better? Not a bit. It's just the engineers are putting more work into superchargers design right now than turbo's. Next year that all might change.
Do you understand what it means of being equal? Take 2 Z32's, 1 NA and 1TT. The difference being pistons and the TT has turbo's. The only thing you do is put turbo's or a supercharger with 7# boost on the NA and guess what, you have a 300+HP car. I know what your next statment is,,but I can boost my TT to 20#. Great, I can boost the NA to 20# also, and when we reach the limits of the engines guess what? BANG. They both have the same rods, cranks, blocks and heads. What is the most logical thing to do, unless you have help or have the knowledge i'd say stay with the basic's, If you don't like your NA sell it and get a TT. But dare to be different within your ability.

Now unless you can prove what you say, (may I use your words) piss in the face of your theory.

ok so overall which is better??? they both have enough cons to confuse the hell out of me

turbo's are better.. stop arguing!!!

I thought so i was not aruguing

Brent that artical about turbo vs supercharging was great, there's a few problems.

1. Bill Watson works for Garrett/Honeywell, who makes the Garrett turbo. Now if you worked for Ford would you try and sell people on Dodge or Chevy?

2. He talks about turbochargers and belt driven centrifugal superchargers, nothing, zip said about screw type or roots superchargers.

3. He states that the turbochargers have the potential to be the most efficient power-adder

4. Used the words, "I think"

5. Admits that most turbos have 60% VE but if you really do your homework can squeeze 70-75% VE out of them.

6. If you want max. power and boost you use a Screw blower. Ask the guys with tha $300,000 AA/F dragsters.
If you want something that well develop 5-30# boost without too much problem's, go the turbo route.
And somewere inbetween lay's the belt driven centrifugal and Knight superchargers.

As for which one is best? it's the one you like. Which one well win? depends on how you apply it.
What well make the most power for the dollar? Nitrous. If you know what your doing you can setup a wet system for under $300 and get 200+HP. Now for $300 you'll never get a supercharger, turbocharger anything that well give you that much kick for the buck. All things being equal a TT is faster than a NA, but take away the "equal" and all's fair in love, war and racing, and their's a few Z32 NA's out there that well run in the 10's. Most people don't even have the foggest idea what it takes or cost's to get a car to run in the 9-10's. Most cars that run in this bracket aren't streetable, and the cost is so high to maintain the only their able to afford it is to race pro or for money.

Now I've read lot's of posts on the few things you can do to a NA but it's limited to only so much power, but I have yet heard anyone saying anything about elect. fans or elect. water pump's. Those two items well gain you about 25-30HP and are really cheap. If you bet me enough money, I'll buy a NA and prove I can make streetable a 400-450HP NA Z.
Comon guy's and gal's let's support each other and put our heads togather and find more ways to make better cars.
Now if someone would start a thread on building up the VG30 engine I'd be more than happy to give you all the information I have, and where to get parts the cheapest. I'm not a authority but I figure with all us in here we could come up with some killer input. Power is in numbers. This goes for you guys downunder too.
lov ya all

Its actually very simple:

Turbo > Super when it comes to efficiency. Turbos use the kinetic (motion) and thermal (heat) that is wasted into the exhaust to power it. You can not tell me that exhaust gas is not fast and hot. Thats energy from the burnt fuel. Where is it going? Down the pipe. Thats a fact. What is using that energy to put more power back into the engine? The turbo. Its using the energy that would normally be lost to make more power. That is also a fact. This back pressures the engine some, but a damnsite less than you claim. Supers use the crank for power, and the more psi you want to run (the smaller the pulley) the more power is going to be lost. Also, despite the nature of some posts on here, you won't get zero lag and high efficiency out of one type of super. Want zero lag? Go screw or roots. Want efficiency? Go centrifugal. If you want very little lag with great efficiency accross the entire power band, go turbo.

If you can't get that, then perhaps you should start with:

This as it contains more than I'm going to type and you can read it there as well as you could here (http://www.b15sentra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65964&page=5&pp=15&highlight=turbo%C2%A0%C2%A0I)

Then go here (http://www.turbochargedpower.com/Turbo%20vs%20Blowers.htm)

Anything else, find on your own because between whats there and whats already posted, that just about sums it up. Its really easy to find because its everywhere.

As for:

AS for irrelevant, what the fuck does a F20C have to do with the subject.

You have got to be joking. Apparently you missed the entire point of

[Zgringostylecompletelyirrelevantcomparison]

which was that irrelevant comparisons look dumb. And the F20C example looks pretty damn stupid doesn't it?


"Given equivalent vehicles, the turbo would easily motor away from the centrifugal in an acceleration contest......The turbo offered massive midrange torque production, the only system to exceed 600 lb-ft. Need more convincing? At 4,000 rpm, the turbo was more than 100 lb-ft. stronger than either the Roots or centrifugal." - Battle of the Boost, Hotrod Magazine, August 2003.


Quite frankly, I don't have the monetary flow to create some one off custom forced injection system or kinky engine swap. Most people don't. Defining the goals of the project is probably the most important part. And the goal for most people is the most available power within their budget, in my case, a small budget in relation to the cost of building a odd ball system. And really, turbos are going to do that for you in the case of the Z32.

Everything that needs to be brought up pretty much has been. If you guys want to keep arguing the point then have at.

*goes back to feeling up his new valve springs*

Oh yeah, my new valve springs showed up :D:D:D:D sooooo stiff....

Very good Broke,,your doing your homework trying to prove how right you are you are but (Brokestylecompletelyirrelevantcomparison) Your Missing the one big thing. The first artical written by mpg999 was comparing turbo's with belt driven centrifugal superchargers. The second artical did the same but did say something about the "Old style roots" supercharger. Nothing, nada, zip was said about the screw type supercharger. They did talk about the importance of efficiency and how the very best turbo has 80% VE and the old style roots 60%, but not one word of the 98-99% VE of the screw type supercharger.

I'm going to make this as simple as I can as it seems you never took Physic's in school or you were in the parking lot and not in class.
Just so you understand these are just examples.

It takes "X" amount of power to accelerate "Y" pounds of mass in"Z" seconds. This is physics

Now it takes "X" amount of power to move "Y" amount of air at "Z" psi.

Now both the above statments are "fact" not theory. If you change any one of the inputs it well change the entire final figure.

Both the Univ.of California and Utah State Univ. school of Automotive Engineering did tests on ALL types of compressors including turbo's, screw type both belt driven, exhaust driven and electrical driven, and guess what they found out. Not matter what you use to drive the compressor they all take the same amount of power to move a given amount of air at a given psi. So which one is best? The one you like. They all have good and bad points.

Now just to clear up one more thing, the Magnuson-Eaton has a blow off valve, so when your engine doesn't need boost it dumps the load and runs like a NA engine and only requires 1/3HP but when you hit the throttle the valve closes and you have max. volume and psi. Does that make it better? Not a bit, but the engineers are working to make engines operate at a better VE with new technology.

One more point. It costs about a million+ dollars to build a Top fuel dragster, what do they have? A screw type supercharger. Does that make them the best? No.
To put a car on the front row at Indy it takes about a million+ dollars. What do they use? A turbocharger. Are they the best? No.
How about a million+ dollar Trophy Truck for desert racing. What do they use? Oh Oh, they use both. Some use turbo's and others use screw type.
Thank God we have choices. It would be the shit's if we all drove the same car's, ate the same food our houses were the same style and color and we had to watch the same movie cause some asshole said their the best. Myself I enjoy doing research and learning without blinders on, so I can see beyond my nose.
If you want to do something constructive, figure a way to run a vortex generator in the exhaust to make more power, and quit trying to prove physics are wrong.

Its dead simple that it takes energy to pressurize and push air. Its also dead simple that energy has to be pulled from somewhere. Where you get that power is the difference, right off the crank or from the energy pissed down the exhaust pipe. And you are correct that I was in the parking lot rather than in the class room. Quite literally (I got suspended once because me and two other guys were out in the parking lot installing a cat-back and intake system on a truck). And really when it comes down to it, thats where all this mess of paper racing gets run. And results such as the previously given example:

"Given equivalent vehicles, the turbo would easily motor away from the centrifugal in an acceleration contest......The turbo offered massive midrange torque production, the only system to exceed 600 lb-ft. Need more convincing? At 4,000 rpm, the turbo was more than 100 lb-ft. stronger than either the Roots or centrifugal." - Battle of the Boost, Hotrod Magazine, August 2003.

speak for themselves.

Myself I enjoy doing research and learning without blinders on, so I can see beyond my nose.

I guess since I'm not advocating something outside main stream that must mean I don't look for any other solutions, that I'm just some dumb sheep being led around by my ignorance. I did alot of lookin into various forced induction systems, namely a custom intake plenum mounted with dual screwchargers. And I while I still like to look for all possible answers, I found that things usually are the way they are for a reason, usually that reason being that alot of other people have tried alot of things and created the current method as a result of alot of trial and error. Anyone who wants to drop alot of time and money on a unique system, go for it. I'll take my turbos and proceed to run a near lagless 20psi and be realllllllllllllllly happy.

Its actually very simple:

Turbo > Super when it comes to efficiency. Turbos use the kinetic (motion) and thermal (heat) that is wasted into the exhaust to power it. You can not tell me that exhaust gas is not fast and hot. Thats energy from the burnt fuel. Where is it going? Down the pipe. Thats a fact. What is using that energy to put more power back into the engine? The turbo. Its using the energy that would normally be lost to make more power. That is also a fact. This back pressures the engine some, but a damnsite less than you claim. Supers use the crank for power, and the more psi you want to run (the smaller the pulley) the more power is going to be lost. Also, despite the nature of some posts on here, you won't get zero lag and high efficiency out of one type of super. Want zero lag? Go screw or roots. Want efficiency? Go centrifugal. If you want very little lag with great efficiency accross the entire power band, go turbo.

Firstly, you claim that turbos tap into the 'wasted' energy of the exhaust's kinetic and thermal energy. firstly, the thermal energy doesn't mean shit. Sure hot things are denser, but the turbo isn't using any of the thermal heat whatsoever. The exhaust comes out of the turbine cooler than when it was in the manifold, but that heat just goes into the turbo housing and then into the compressor housing. The physics involved in it using the exhaust temperature to extract power is beyond me. If you can explain physically what the exhaust is doing in relation to exerting force on the turbine wheel due to its temperature, I'll take it all back.

Now the kinetic energy is used, I'll pay that. However, the engine is moving exhaust out of the engine, and it bumps up against the turbine which is exterting force to stop the exhaust moving (it takes power to drive the compressor wheel). The kinetic energy of the exhaust does indeed start the turbine spinning, however its not moving through fast enough, creating pressure in the manifold, making it that much harder to push exhaust out on the next stroke. Again, if you can explain how we get this 'free' energy, be my guest.

I will accept that there is energy in the exhaust, and the turbo utilises that energy, its still taking that energy from the engine though. There isn't anywhere else to take it from. We have already accounted for the kinetic energy, and the thermal energy.

-Mike

guys can we please either stop or take it into pm's?

Broke your not stupid and I'm truly sorry if thats the impression I gave you. Sometimes people get caught where they can't see the forrest for the trees and if their's someone their to lend a helping hand, it's great, but sometimes it's hard to understand something we don't understand till it put to us in a way we understand. Mike does a great job of doing that, where as I just ramble on. God personally knows how many times I screwed up, and I too got kicked out of school. But were not dumb, thats why were here, to learn and help each other. I think everyone on this site should give Wes and all involved in operating this site a BIG vote of approval and thank them every chance they get.
When I started racing computers weren't even invented yet, and TV's had just came out. We had to build everything by hand. We made our intakes exhaust even ground our own cams, and it worked in a primitave sort of way. But look at where it is today. Right now we have people from all over the world providing input and have the ability put our minds togather and develop something beyond your wildest dreams, something noteven possible 50 years ago. I would give my left nut to remove 40 years off my life and be able to start racing now,,I was just born too early. I only have two more goals then hang it up. It's almost over for me, two more dreams, then time to get old and die. Complete lifes cycle. But it sure has been fun.
Your only young once, but once is enough if you do it right.

You can find what ever justifications you want to use against the info I posted before, but you won't find any damning evidence that he's wrong...cuz he's not. Period.

This is becoming way more confusing and complicated than it should be. A turbo is far more efficient than ANY supercharger could ever be because it's sapping power directly from the crank. Sure...there are some more efficient forms of s/cs than others, but as a whole, a well designed and put together turbo system (eg...turbo design, intercooler, piping, fuel system, maybe a nitrous system, exhaust and intake system, etc...) will always out perform a s/c system. The only reason blowers are used on dragsters is because turbos were OUTLAWED. Don't you kinda wonder why 99% of semi trucks on the road use turbos? Cuz they're very efficient, use less moving parts, and can make HUGE power...easily...

I'll take a turbo over a s/c ANY day...gladly...

As for all the Z32s out there running 10s and being "undrivable" and so on...dude...with all due respect, take your head out of your ass. Go to SGPRacing.com and look up Kyle's Z32TT...10s...daily driver...and all 3400lbs of him AND his full factory interior. There are TONS of Z32s (and even a few Z31Ts) out there in the 10s...you want more, lemme know.

what about that 7 or 9 second beast or whatever it was.. you posted a pic of it a while back.. was red and doing a massive wheelie.. that thing was sick

In all of its completely wicked ass sickness...

http://z31.com/racing/8secz.jpg

I also have a list of about 10 10sec Z32s...so...anyone that says turbos are bad or Z cars aren't good on the 1/4 is full'a'shit...

LLTZ:
Is it just me, or does that look like a supercharger sticking out the hood of that z31? :)

Now here's where I get defensive.
Firstly, No one ever said turbos were bad. I don't know where you got that from.
Secondly, unless you can show proof to prove your point, you aren't going to convince me. You might convince naive people by saying 'Turbos are more efficient. ITS FACT!!!!!!!' but unless you can throw some figures and numbers my way, I'm actually less inclined to believe its true. I'm not saying turbos aren't efficient, but as far as I'm concerned, they're equal to superchargers, not better.

When you make a statement, remember to back it up with something. It helps people believe that what you're saying is credible. Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a close-minded zealot that's on par with evangelical christians and uneducated naive housewives. I know you're not stupid, but making a statement without backing it up can make you look that way.

Don't take this as a flame, but when we're all throwing in physics equations and presenting thought-out arguments, it would help your argument if you did the same.

Cheers.
-Mike

Mr. Brent, Like Mr. Mikeman said, unless you can back up your statments, they have no meaning or value.
Let's try this one more time.
The VE on a screwtype supercharger is 90-99%. On the best turbo, with the best exhaust 80%. Does that make the supercharger the best? NO.
Both have good points and bad. So your statment that turbo's are more efficient, wrong. Once again does that make the supercharger better. NO.
Turbo's outlawed on AA/F Dragsters. Wrong. Show me the NHRA ruling to this effect. Want to ask a real live Dragster owner and personal friend? Give'em a call and tell Mike what you just said and see what his response is.

url]http://www.strasburg-racing.com/[/url]

Turbo's on a Z32TT have less moving parts. Wrong. Their the same, 2.

Do you own a 10 sec car? Have you ever driven one? Do you know what it takes to keep one in it's high state of tune? I know Kyle at SGP and he does drive his 10s car as I do, but it's a pain in the ass to keep tuned as any high performance car is. I think my statement was MOST cars that run in the sub 10s aren't streetable and run in the pro classes or for money, as it's very costly to keep them tuned and everything up to par.
As for 99% of all Trucks running turbo's, sorry Charlie, wrong again.
GMC's use the old Roots and the new screw type supercharger. Cummings use turbo's, Allison uses turbo's, Cat uses screw type and some use turbo's.
Mike, That Z31 has a 431 ci small block Chevy with a 1150 Domanator on top.
As for me having my head up my ass, dude, it appears it's you with that problem.

"Lie figure, but figures never lie." Albert E.

If I remember my schooling right, the performance gains from a turbo are far greater than the gains from the supercharger.

But there are different superchargers.
Screw-35/60% efficiant
Roots-30/40% efficiant
Centrifigual- 60/70% efficiant.

The typical turbo is around 85% efficiant.

This one of the HUGE reasons why many engines are turboed. That and they are easier to install and maintain. The price though is about the same for any of them. But the options available and the lack of the parasitic draw of the supercharger you can gain higher HP ratings at peak. But a Supercharger gives you ON DEMAND power as soon as you want it. Unlike some of the larger turbos which have some pretty nasty lag time.

Its a give and take world with boost.

LLTZ:
Is it just me, or does that look like a supercharger sticking out the hood of that z31? :)

Ha...sorry, but no...that's the inlet for the turbo's compressor housing sticking out of the hood.

I don't feel like reading anything else right now...I'm tired and have to do homework. I'll reply to the rest of that later.

Here we go again. Mr. Hodo, would you be as so kind as to tell all of us what school you attended? I went to the school of FACTS.
Fact Turbocharger's have 70-75% VE but if properly set up, meaning ideal exhaust can go as high as 80% VE

Centrifugal belt driven superchargers have 70-73% VE

Old style Roots superchargers 50-60% VE

Screwtype superchargers 90-99% VE

The proof is in the following:

http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/product.asp?ProdID=1204
http://magnusonproducts.com/images/mp112g1.jpg

Now about compression vs. supercharging: I keep hearing that a TT can make more power than a than a NA. I hate to keep popping bubbles but read the following:

http://www.motorsportsdigest.com/forced2.htm

So please Mr. Hodo please back up your claims, so we all may learn from your school.

A wise man changes his mind, a fool never.

that's all mustang stuff, i don't really see how much relevance that has to the Z... the 300zx was made to be turbocharged.. it will always be a better car turbocharged... so why do we keep argueing???

Travis, appearently you didn't read all the web's I posted. 13 years ago when the Z32 was designed, to keep with clean body lines the engineers chose to use 2 turbo's. Does that make them better? NO . Then is the screwtype supercharger better? NO. What is the problem some are having understanding FACTS. So which one is best? READ MY LIPS, THEY BOTH HAVE GOOD AND BAD POINTS. Is one better than the other, depends on how you apply it. Your statment is like saying, don't use a underdrive pulley, it wasn't designed for it. Or don't upgrade your ECU, it wasn't designed for it.
Enough has been said about superchargers and turbochargers. Those that read and understand have learned, and those that didn't, never will.

maybe i didn't explain myself correctly... it's not that i've got anything against superchargers... i just like turbo's better.... also, name me one stock car from nissan that came with a supercharger (i haven't looked into it but from my current knowledge, there aren't any) so i guess that puts me and the developers at nissan (8-23 years ago) on the same page... superchargers are better for some cars, tc's are better for others, it's all personal preference(sp?) and developer preference...
and i'm not saying don't upgrade minor things on your car, i'm saying don't do a total overhaul of your car and put in something completely different than what it was designed for... however.. you could ask then what do i think of the single turbo vert that's pushing 620rwhp or some crazy number like that.. that's not exactly using 'as it was designed' technology, but it still operates on the same components as the original developers had planned.... all i'm saying is leave it the way they intended it, it's better that way... i'm just trying to keep the vision of the designer of the Z alive

thats what i think derlerious. i will take a TC on my z over supercharger any day but if i lose my brain and go buy a mustang im for damn sure gonna put a supercharger on it. by the way nissan put a supercharger on there new frontier i think it is?

BTW: whats up with this??? http://www.nissan.com/

Nissan even has a engine code designated for superchargers: R
If I worked at nissan and I had completed my project z31, my car would have a VG30DER in it. :)
Granted it doesn't sound as good as VG30DETT

-Mike

I just went through all my posts and I can't find one that says put a supercharger on a Z32. And yes the new Titan has a supercharger, and Stillen has a supercharger kit for the new 350Z. Once again, does that make them better? NO. I have them on my car cause I want to be able to dial it in for the daily conditions and max power for that day. You have to read the words being printed and not assume anything. The only place I spoke somewhat negitave on superchargers or turbochargers, was the statment that for the bucks Nitrous is a better buy. For $300 I can get a 200+HP nitrous setup and no supercharger or turbo can match this. Period. None of this was about the Z32's or Z31's. As for which system is better for one car or another isn't even the issue, but what the engineers desided to use. Right now as we speak alot if not most engineering development is going into screwtype superchargers, why I really don't know, but I do know that the car industry go's through different cycles.
Both Mr. Mikeman and myself have been correcting a few incorrect statments, but NEVER said pull your turbo's and install a screwtype supercharger. That would be a stupid move. Please read this web. on compression vs boost. It's all FACT and is true for both turbo's and superchargers.
http://www.motorsportsdigest.com/forced2.htm

Now for the good news, I was up in San Diego the other day and they had a red 350Z. I called them today and they still have it, so I think I'll buy it.

yeah i know about the kit for the 350, hell i think igor's z is the one that is running 374 whp on it or something like that... pretty cool, but i still say the greddy tt kit that runs at around 430 whp is cooler:smokin: the titan isn't exactly a car is it ;) i was at the dealership a while back and those things are freaking massive... i don't understand why people need to own trucks that big... just stupid...

anyway, i see your points zgringo and i understand them, not trying to prove you wrong, just have a different view on things

And again...round and round we go...this will never end...and there is no way I'm going to read those posts...NOT in the mood to read that stuff. This is the last response I'm going to post on this topic...until the next time, at least:

Major Turbo pros:


VERY little lag on a well designed *system*. I've actually video of boost at idle.
Easiest adjustability. Turn a knob...
Less moving parts. This is only true with certain designs, but still.
Unlimited power potential.
Simpler.


-Personal oppinion-
Nothing sounds cooler than the wizz of a turbo...except that of a BOV...

Major S/C pros:


Virtually no lag.

Some of the fastest cars EVER PRODUCED are turboed cars...not S/C:

Porsche 959...flat 6, sequential turbo...will run with a McLaren.

Porsche 911...hell...PICK A YEAR...they're ALL extremely fast and ALL flat 6s.

Ferrari F40...twin KKK (and no, that's the maker of the turbo...not the hoody guys...) turbos.

Last Gen Mazda RX-7...Sequential turbo'd rotary...sub 5 seconds to 60 STOCK...not just "from the factory" like these SVT Mustang guys can say...these cars are STOCK...the WAY THEY WERE *ORIGINALLY* DESIGNED...

MKIV Supra...Sequential turbo'd I6...VERY low 5 seconds to 60, stock. Do the single *TURBO* conversion and I've seen them run 9s without internal mods on street tires with a full factory interior.

Our very own Z32TT...Twin Turbo'd V6...low to mid 5 sec to 60 and I've seen these run 10s on stock turbos.

And I know what you're thinking...dragsters don't used turbos cuz they're not allowed.

I don't know of many S/C'd cars that are even noteworthy.

If you like S/Cs, hey...go for it...they work...turbos and S/Cs are for the most part just different means to an end, but they're NOT the best way to do it.

Travis, Their's nothing wrong with having a different View as long as your willing to accept facts. I deal in facts and backup what I say. And unless someone trys something different and gives me the results so I have some facts to go on it's nothing more than a idea, which is OK but not a fact.
As for doing a major change, if someone wants to try something different, so be it. It's their choice. But when they ask for advice tell what your choice would be, not things which are not Fact.
Mant years ago a fellow in England designed a set of heads for the flathead Ford V8 engine. They were a overhead valve conversion for the flathead engine. Did they work? you bet they did, i had a set on my car that I raced which is now in the museum. 2 years later Ford, Chrysler and General Motors came out with the first OHV V8 engines.

Brent, You must be having a problem with facts.
Your statment:
Major Turbo pros:

* VERY little lag on a well designed *system*. I've actually video of boost at idle.
* Easiest adjustability. Turn a knob...
* Less moving parts. This is only true with certain designs, but still.
* Unlimited power potential.
* Simpler.
Very little lag...TRUE
Easiest adjustabilty FALSE You can adjust both with a knob.
Less moving parts FALSE A VG30DETT has 4 Moving parts and a Screwtype 3
Both have unlimited power potential
Simpler FALSE
But you forgot smaller good point. You also forgot simpler for general street use...good point
Your statment:
Major S/C pros:

* Virtually no lag.
Virtually no lag True
Higher VE good point
Lower Delta Temp good point
Easer to install good point

The fastest car ever produced was not turbo'ed car but a supercharged 1938 Mercedes Benz W125 269.1MPH
Some of the fastest cars in the world were supercharged also. you left out the supercharged Jaguar XJ220 S TWR

http://www.supercars.net/index-top.html

Have you ever seen a 959, other than a picture? I think not as their's only one in the USA and used only for showing. Illegal on the street. How about the turbo 911, ever have one or drive one? I use to have a turbo 911 Ruf. How fast are they?

Your statment:
Our very own Z32TT...Twin Turbo'd V6...low to mid 5 sec to 60 and I've seen these run 10s on stock turbos.

The fastest Z32 stock turbo'ed in the 1/4 I can find is 11.61. If you can prove theirs a faster one please let us all know.

http://z32racing.50megs.com/Z/_drag_lists/drag_lists.html

Your statment:
I don't know of many S/C'd cars that are even noteworthy.

I could name 100's if not more. Can you?

About half of what you said isn't noteworthy. Please backup your statments so we all my learn.

I don't like or dislike turbo's or screwtype superchargers. There just a means of extracting more power from a engine. Is one better than the other? NO

okay, you guys are saying the same thing over and over. it all depends on what you perfer, turbocharger or supercharger. they both have their pros and cons. debate over, i am tired of reading all this.

-Jared

this has nothing to do with the argument but on this page...
http://z32racing.50megs.com/Z/_drag...drag_lists.html
that these 300zx are running 11's and 12's on stock turbos, that mean that the engine internals are stock also??? i dont think they would rebuild the motor without upgrading the turbos. i was just wandering.

K3 I personally don't know all the guy's on that list but the few I do know personally, some have install ARP bolts and some are prue stock except for ECU's, exhaust, underdrive pulleys, clutch & flywheel, driveshaft tires and wheels. The top runner is using electric fans and a electric water pump. You can boost your turbo's to the max flow but thats it.
To be classified as stock you have to have stock flow injectors, in other words, 370cc, and stock turbo's and 93 octane gasoline in the tank.