headers and speed

[theimpaler 10+ year member]

Off topic (as if thats something new) acura/honda is supposed to be coming out with a v8 for the nsx in '05. Should be interesting to see what kind of output that has.

 

[CWT 10+ year member]

Usually cost as much, if not more to put boost on a V-8. The superchager does help out the bottom end torque; so much, some people have reported an increase in gas milage due to the motor not working so hard. And 60 ft/lbs. and about 80 hp. IS a big increase for a 1.6 ltr. 4-banger.

 

[95RAM 10+ year member]

you guys ever hear about twin turbos. a small one for low rpms and a larger one for higher rpms.

 

[LoudCrownVic 5,000+ posts]

Ok, I don't know whether this has been established yet or not, but this is how it IS!

A big turbo takes higher RPM's to create boost but creates WAY more boost than a small one ever will, but a small turbo takes less rpms to have boost output. This is why people replace the two smaller turbos on Supras with one big one because at a certian rpm, the smaller turbos become inneffective. They replace it because the stock turbos are designed to give the car more power at lower/midrange rpms for street driving. (so you don't have to wind it out like a weed eater) Big RACING turbos on a car such as a Supra or a Honda provide almost exponential power figues a 6000 plus rpm, because the boost provided at those rpms is huge. Provided with that information, one could come to the conclusion that...

Big turbo needs alot of rpm to go around, when it does... WOO HOO!

Little turbo, doens't need much rpm, Woo hoo kina sorta all the time.

 

[InhumanAcura 5,000+ posts]

Ok, I don't know whether this has been established yet or not, but this is how it IS!A big turbo takes higher RPM's to create boost but creates WAY more boost than a small one ever will, but a small turbo takes less rpms to have boost output. This is why people replace the two smaller turbos on Supras with one big one because at a certian rpm, the smaller turbos become inneffective. They replace it because the stock turbos are designed to give the car more power at lower/midrange rpms for street driving. (so you don't have to wind it out like a weed eater) Big RACING turbos on a car such as a Supra or a Honda provide almost exponential power figues a 6000 plus rpm, because the boost provided at those rpms is huge. Provided with that information, one could come to the conclusion that...

Big turbo needs alot of rpm to go around, when it does... WOO HOO!

Little turbo, doens't need much rpm, Woo hoo kina sorta all the time.

Okay, if this is how it IS. Explain to me why a MCLaren Mercedes, a car developed on the autobahn has a twin SMALL turbo rather than a single BIG turbo. Or perhaps any of the Italian sports cars with twin turbos. The fact is that the size of the turbo does matter how much overall boost it can put out, but the fact is that the size doesnt matter when it comes to how fast boost is accumulated. If the path the air travels from the impeller to the intake manifold is shorter on a large turbo the boost will be created at an earlier RPM than a small turbo with the longer path. It all depends on the legnth the air has to travel from the turbo to the combustion chamber, period. For instance, a air to air intercooler is known to not have as much lag as a air to water simply due to the legnth of piping ect. Think about it? Is the air going to get to the motor faster on a WRX(right under the scoop) or a Lancer (front mount). The WRX's because the air doesnt do a lap around the front end. The air to air wont make as much power b/c its less dense compared to the air to water. Now that I mention it a Lancer has a Big 16 which is the same turbo eclipses have except for a larger housing and impeller, and it produces more power earlier than the eclipse.

 

[dbhittin 5,000+ posts]

No no no no. Do you have any idea how much power top fuel cars make? Why the hell would they turbocharge it? Do you know how large a turbo would have to be to make the same kind of power a top fuel car makes? That turbo would be the size of a watermelon and crank out more heat than the sun. And turbos are not always the best for everything. Ever heard of a thing called turbo lag? Your just trying to knock everything that you don't like.
EDIT: And another thing, top fuel cars don't have transmissions.....ass.

i just wanted to add, why do most top fuel cars now run turbos instead of superchargers? so before u diss the turbo and say supercharging is better, u dont know ****, i know a kid with a supercharged del sol and its slow as hell

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

i just wanted to add, why do most top fuel cars now run turbos instead of superchargers? so before u diss the turbo and say supercharging is better, u dont know ****, i know a kid with a supercharged del sol and its slow as hell

You just couldnt let this thread die could you.

Show me ANY top fuel car that has a turbo.

Just because a car is slow and has a supercharger doesn't mean superchargers are pieces of ****. It's dependent on the motor, car, and the original performance of the car. I know a supercharged camaro that will whip the **** out of pretty much any car, so now does that mean superchargers are good? Not necessarily, turbos and superchargers have their place.

You don't know ****. How the hell are you gonna use one shitty example to bring down superchargers all together. That's like me saying turbos are crappy because look at how slow turbo diesel mercedes are. Now that's not fair is it?

 

[dbhittin 5,000+ posts]

why dont u do some research and see that most are using 4 turbos instead of a supercharger. But i will say u are right that it depends on the motor, but superchargers are goin out

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

why dont u do some research and see that most are using 4 turbos instead of a supercharger. But i will say u are right that it depends on the motor, but superchargers are goin out

Once again show me some proof. I don't need to do research because i know it's not happening. I'm not gonna waste my time to support your claim.

And superchargers aren't going anywhere.

 

[dbhittin 5,000+ posts]

http://www.turbocalculator.com/turbocharger-supercharger.html

good article

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

http://www.turbocalculator.com/turbocharger-supercharger.html
good article

I'll read it, but i still want to see a turbo top fuel car.

 

[LoudCrownVic 5,000+ posts]

Okay, if this is how it IS. Explain to me why a MCLaren Mercedes, a car developed on the autobahn has a twin SMALL turbo rather than a single BIG turbo. Or perhaps any of the Italian sports cars with twin turbos. The fact is that the size of the turbo does matter how much overall boost it can put out, but the fact is that the size doesnt matter when it comes to how fast boost is accumulated. If the path the air travels from the impeller to the intake manifold is shorter on a large turbo the boost will be created at an earlier RPM than a small turbo with the longer path. It all depends on the legnth the air has to travel from the turbo to the combustion chamber, period. For instance, a air to air intercooler is known to not have as much lag as a air to water simply due to the legnth of piping ect. Think about it? Is the air going to get to the motor faster on a WRX(right under the scoop) or a Lancer (front mount). The WRX's because the air doesnt do a lap around the front end. The air to air wont make as much power b/c its less dense compared to the air to water. Now that I mention it a Lancer has a Big 16 which is the same turbo eclipses have except for a larger housing and impeller, and it produces more power earlier than the eclipse.

It's all relative, of course, and those are good points. I'm not personally familiar with many cars, but have studied some of the basics of turbos, and no one had actually come out and said anything difinitive, just beat around the bush and bragged about how stupid everyone else was. For example, the Mercedes probably uses twin small turbos because it needs help in the low end. Just think about it a bit. A smaller impeller needs less force to get to speed, and yes as you mentioned it depends also on where the air is getting drawn through etc, and it will put out its max psi sooner, but wont be as high as a bigger turbo. That's all i have to say, so if you want to quote me and try to argue you need serious

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/help.gif.cee8f684da1ba626487a8bc51152e1ec.gif

 

[CWT 10+ year member]

Another .50 cents on this.

One of the most popular turbo's to use for a street Honda motor is the turbonetics T3/04 hybrid turbo (Parts made by Garret Air Reseach). It combines the best of both worlds for air flow CFM and boost response by combining the smaller T3 turbine (Exhuast) housing for lower RPM response, with the larger T04 compressor housing for added CFM air flow and boost capacity. Boost usually gets to full steam at about 1,500 to 2,000 RPM given the right compressor blade trim; this of course, varies a bit depending on the intercooler size and location. The main reason the hybrid design is so popular, is that even though a pure-bred T3 gets up to full boost real fast, like 1,100-1,300 rpm, it runs out of CFM capacity in the upper RPM band if the boost is set too high choking the motor at high RPM. The T3 simply can't supply enough air to most 1.8 to 2.0 liter motors. Even VW saw this light back in (I think) 2002; they started putting the K03/04 (KKK Turbochargers)hybrid turbo on all of the 1.8T motors except the 225 hp Audi TT quattro which gets a full K04 turbo. Even Greddy's turbo kits put a larger Mitsubishi TDO5/06-18G on the '97 and up Honda Prelude 2.2 ltr., while the a stock 1995 1.6 ltr. Civic ex has to settle for a smaller TD04H-15G.

NOTE: Most twin-turbo setups I've seen use two turbos of the exact same type and size; the goal being low boost lag and necessary extra CFM capacity. The only car maker I've ever seen use the staggard-size concept was Maseratti back in the eighties on the bi-turbo spider V6.

My point is, for good street reliability the turbo(s) must be matched to the engine size accurately or it's performance and/or drivability will suffer. Like the modded WRX I read about a while back that had an impressive 300+ hp; until I read that his turbo did not get to full boost until 4,000 RPM causing his car to get beat by other WRX's running less boost! Prime example of a mis-matched turbo.

Later.

 

[CWT 10+ year member]

tommyk90 is right about one thing: Superchargers are not going anywhere. Mostly it's a simple matter of cost. Supercharger kits do cost less then turbos; and as long as they do, many car manufacturers will continue to buy them. Also, superchargers have other marketing advantages over turbos; supercharger kits have fewer parts and are easier to install (Cheaper on labor); and the "instant boost" thing, most average people not liking the issues with boost lag and maintanance costs. Frankly, I think that turbos got a bad rap on that one.

I like turbos and superchargers for what they both can do; turbos have more performance potential, but unfortunately, superchargers are the cheaper alternative.

Later.