turbo vs. super, please input! |
turbo vs. super, please input! |
Apr 13, 2006 - 10:15 AM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jan 30, '06 From Augusta, GA Currently Offline Reputation: 4 (100%) |
so what kind of power and torque differences can i expect with a supercharger instead of a turbo with my 98 gt? any input is very appreciative!
-------------------- 2007 Subaru Impreza WRX STi 1974 Datsun 260Z 1997 Subaru Legacy L Wagon Kind of missin' my Celica GT! Hit me up if you're ever in my area. I'm always down for a meet. |
Apr 15, 2006 - 6:26 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jul 7, '03 Currently Offline Reputation: 55 (100%) |
I have two answers. I would say for a long stroke, low reving,
high torque motor like the 7A, supercharger. Higher reving,shorter stroke 3s, Turbo. -------------------- JDM guy made me do it.
|
Apr 16, 2006 - 6:51 AM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jun 25, '05 From Fort Wayne, IN Currently Offline Reputation: 14 (100%) |
QUOTE(97lestyousay @ Apr 15, 2006 - 7:26 PM) [snapback]421959[/snapback] I have two answers. I would say for a long stroke, low reving, high torque motor like the 7A, supercharger. Higher reving,shorter stroke 3s, Turbo. Actually, you want to be careful using any forced induction on a longer stroke/longer rod motor. You're slinging around more weight, and torsional effects on the crankshaft are dramatically increased. Had a LONG conversation with my engine builder about my 383 going into my Trans Am, the debate being whether to go with a 5.7" or a 6" rod with the 3.75" stroke crank. In the end it was deemed that the shorter rod would yeild the best compromise over it's strength and reliability with the longer stroke. Not that this really applies that much to engines as small as ours. Just food for thought. -------------------- |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: November 23rd, 2024 - 5:23 PM |