Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Turbo vs. NA
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by e30polak; 12-20-2010, 07:16 AM.Need a good mechanic/fabricator/performance shop in SoCal?
http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=155404
Castro Motorsport
12600 Sherman Way, Unit C
North Hollywood, CA 91605
(818) 765-3606
The Purple ///Monster Build:
http://www.s14.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47251
-
Ok...I know that this could turn into a massive flame-fest...but why is everyone so quick to go turbo and not look at doing a twin-screw supercharger? I know, I know, the age old "it robs power to make power" but considering the engine and the stock s14's lack of low end grunt - wouldn't a twin screw make sense? Fairly linear power boost over most of the power band seems like a good thing for a mostly street driven daily driver. I am not claiming any kind of expertise in the area at all...just been doing a lot of reading and comparisons and I find my self more intrigued with a twin screw over a turbo. For some reason it seems a little easier from a fabrication point of view and with the introduction of Mega-squirt it would seem fairly easy to get it tuned well (considering that was the major issue with previous SC kits of the past).
Is a supercharged S14 really a bad idea considering the materials available today? Seems to me as though there are a lot of factory supercharged vehicles out there that perform very well. So if one isn't looking for "drag strip" power and just wants a little more grunt through most of the power band - wouldn't the twin screw be a viable alternative to a turbo?
Let me know your thoughts. I ask this only because I have both a small stock turbo from a 1.8t VW as well as a rebuilt-as-new blower from an old Thunderbird SC and I have been going back and forth on which would be more "streetable" (streetable=passing power, stoplight to stoplight "spirited driving", canyon/mountain road twisties etc.)“Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… that’s what gets you.”
Jeremy Clarkson - BBC Top Gear
sigpic
Comment
-
No flame fest ...
It's not a terrible idea, and it does make for a much easier exhaust solution. However, it still results in much of the cost of a turbo setup, but with less power. It makes sense for OE V8s and such because a power boost of only 25-30 hp/L makes for a big jump. That brings a 5.0L V8 from 375hp to 500+hp. Consumers will pay a premium for that. For a 100 hp/L S14, that same jump would bring 230hp to maybe 300hp for similar cost, and that isn't such an exciting jump for the cost and power/weight ratios typical of most street cars. Neither will it have as large a powerband as a turbo setup with the same peak power potential.
If one were going to explore this route, I'd recommend something capable of 350whp at max rotation speed in exchange for the trouble and expense, which leaves out the VW and Ford units you mentioned.2003 Mitsu EVO VIII - 2.0L / 600+whp
1988 BMW M3 turbo - Work in progress. . .
1986 SVO Mustang - Work in progress. . .
Comment
-
What he said...
I think the twin-screw (Eaton style) charger adapted to a plenum would be a good setup, but for the hassles of bracket & plenum fabrication and max power output, it's not as feasible as a turbo systems flexibility for power upgrades... Osh has an s/c setup at AMS that is pretty reasonable.Last edited by ///schwartzman; 01-10-2011, 11:05 AM.Rich!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ted B View PostNo flame fest ...
It's not a terrible idea, and it does make for a much easier exhaust solution. However, it still results in much of the cost of a turbo setup, but with less power. It makes sense for OE V8s and such because a power boost of only 25-30 hp/L makes for a big jump. That brings a 5.0L V8 from 375hp to 500+hp. Consumers will pay a premium for that. For a 100 hp/L S14, that same jump would bring 230hp to maybe 300hp for similar cost, and that isn't such an exciting jump for the cost and power/weight ratios typical of most street cars. Neither will it have as large a powerband as a turbo setup with the same peak power potential.
If one were going to explore this route, I'd recommend something capable of 350whp at max rotation speed in exchange for the trouble and expense, which leaves out the VW and Ford units you mentioned.Originally posted by ///schwartzman View PostWhat he said...
I think the twin-screw (Eaton style) charger adapted to a plenum would be a good setup, but for the hassles of bracket & plenum fabrication and max power output, it's not as feasible as a turbo systems flexibility for power upgrades... Osh has an s/c setup at AMS that is pretty reasonable.“Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… that’s what gets you.”
Jeremy Clarkson - BBC Top Gear
sigpic
Comment
-
I'd actually like to see an Eaton M90 or the larger one adapted to an S14, they are only @$200 in junkyards. Our belt system could stand to be upgraded to eliminate the p/s pump and alt. brackets maybe to a billet underdrive pulleys in a serpentine configuration. A custom intercooler / plenum probably would likely be best suited with a 76-90mm throttle-body (Infiniti Q45) and MAF than the ITB butterfly plates should help to get a good tune (optional of course). This combination should yield @270whp reliably and have excellent street manners. You can play with the s/c pulley diameter to squeeze a little more power from it but heat and efficiency become a consideration. A headgasket may be necessary, but the stock 9.8:1 should be fine for 7psi or .5 BAR of boost... Anything more I would install an intercooler, not an option. Weight would be about the same as a turbo setup although biased to the front drivers side.
Modifications:
Standalone EMS
MAF
Throttle body
Custom or modified plenum (with or without intercooler)
Remove ITB butterfly plates
Eaton M90 s/c with support bracket
Billet pulleys (optional)Last edited by ///schwartzman; 01-11-2011, 04:04 AM.Rich!
Comment
-
Originally posted by ///schwartzman View PostI'd actually like to see an Eaton M90 or the larger one adapted to an S14, they are only @$200 in junkyards. Our belt system could stand to be upgraded to eliminate the p/s pump and alt. brackets maybe to a billet underdrive pulleys in a serpentine configuration. A custom intercooler / plenum probably would likely be best suited with a 76-90mm throttle-body (Infiniti Q45) and MAF than the ITB butterfly plates should help to get a good tune (optional of course). This combination should yield @270whp reliably and have excellent street manners. You can play with the s/c pulley diameter to squeeze a little more power from it but heat and efficiency become a consideration. A headgasket may be necessary, but the stock 9.8:1 should be fine for 7psi or .5 BAR of boost... Anything more I would install an intercooler, not an option. Weight would be about the same as a turbo setup although biased to the front drivers side.
Modifications:
Standalone EMS
MAF
Throttle body
Custom or modified plenum (with or without intercooler)
Remove ITB butterfly plates
Eaton M90 s/c with support bracket
Billet pulleys (optional)
“Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… that’s what gets you.”
Jeremy Clarkson - BBC Top Gear
sigpic
Comment
-
Ok, I'll buy that...(not literally)I like the billet belt pulley solution. Was that system ever installed? Trying to visualize the radiator fitting... Not a fan of the plenum design but it looks like it will work.
You could fit the T-bird throttle inside the Q45 one (looks like the one in the photo), which when coupled with the huge MAF made by Nissan it will probably be pretty [email protected]$100 at a local yard. Huge gains...Last edited by ///schwartzman; 01-11-2011, 08:30 AM.Rich!
Comment
-
Originally posted by ///schwartzman View PostOk, I'll buy that...(not literally)I like the billet belt pulley solution. Was that system ever installed? Trying to visualize the radiator fitting... Not a fan of the plenum design but everything else looks like it will work.
You could fit the T-bird throttle inside the Q45 one, which when coupled with the huge MAF made by Nissan it will probably be pretty [email protected]$100 at a local yard.
The M90 is recommened for 3.0L - 5.7L engines but again, with the S14 flow characteristics, I think it could be a good match up. The ability to tune it correctly is the only big issue in my head. Eaton claims a "realistic 40%+ increase in power output" which I think would be pretty decent - since twin-screw blowers basically make boost off idle. I have also read that twin-screws are one of the most reliable FI systems that one can do. And for street applications I think the flatter power curve would be a lot safer. I also think the sound would be intoxicating! I wonder if one could even do a custom carbon plenum...hmmm...now THAT would really sound amazing!!!
I think the builder of the engine pictured is still on the S14.net boards but I don't know for sure since that build in the pics was from awhile ago. The intercooler pictured slipped in right in front of the radiator and there are pics of the fitment on that Swede forum I linked to earlier (although I think he used a 540i radiator for increased cooling). I had Google translate the page that I linked to and have read through most of it in an effort to learn from all of his troubleshooting.
The big draw for me the is to do something awesome but still unique. I know that sounds kind of weird...but I like trying out new things that haven't really been done a lot (at least not successfully). But it Mercedes can strap an Eaton onto the 4-banger found in the SLK230 then I don't see why one couldn't figure out a way to do the same to the S14. :evilnah:
Just takes time and $$$ :gotcha:“Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… that’s what gets you.”
Jeremy Clarkson - BBC Top Gear
sigpic
Comment
-
Jonas had massive reliability issues with that system and (finally) gave in a put a turbo on instead. To reach the power he did, the system put out too much boost down low and killed axles over and over again. He also destroyed the supercharger at least once.Anders
"Objects in mirror are losing..."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anders View PostJonas had massive reliability issues with that system and (finally) gave in a put a turbo on instead. To reach the power he did, the system put out too much boost down low and killed axles over and over again. He also destroyed the supercharger at least once.“Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… that’s what gets you.”
Jeremy Clarkson - BBC Top Gear
sigpic
Comment
-
I think your goals are totally reasonable and that it would be reliable. I think, though, that you'll end up spending a lot of money on the project for a powerlevel that you will get used to/get tired of quickly.Anders
"Objects in mirror are losing..."
Comment
-
Originally posted by blaquea8 View Post250-300whp is all the more I think I would want for a semi-daily driver. But I don't want turbo lag either or the huge price tag of a full-on 2.5L engine build.
No amount of planning makes this as inexpensive or straightforward as it seems, and the reward would be nominal.
FWIW, a 300whp turbo setup, properly done, wouldn't be laggy in the least and have torque that kicks like a mule. Subi STis and EVOs are examples of that. It would cost roughly the same as a smartly engineered 500-600whp capable turbo setup.
There's just no cheap, easy option. Getting real power means getting into it hands and feet, and having a budget and skills (or access to skilled help).2003 Mitsu EVO VIII - 2.0L / 600+whp
1988 BMW M3 turbo - Work in progress. . .
1986 SVO Mustang - Work in progress. . .
Comment
Comment