
Turbo Vs Supercharger?
#16
Posted 04 January 2011 - 08:00 PM
#17
Posted 04 January 2011 - 08:02 PM
#18
Posted 04 January 2011 - 08:22 PM
Theres something about superchargers I just like on an engine, just feels right! Whilst there is no contest between a blower and a turbo in terms of efficiency and medium range power, dont forget that the fastest machines on the planet all still use a whopping great big blower!!! (And yes I know that jap cars can easily see over 1000bhp with a turbo but they ain't 4-8000bhp drag cars!)
Clicky
Dare i say that Mad Max just wouldn't have been the same if it had a turbo on it. Chargers look way cooler than turbos do (admittedly the M45 isn't the best example of this)
#19
Posted 04 January 2011 - 08:43 PM
Theres something about superchargers I just like on an engine, just feels right! Whilst there is no contest between a blower and a turbo in terms of efficiency and medium range power, dont forget that the fastest machines on the planet all still use a whopping great big blower!!! (And yes I know that jap cars can easily see over 1000bhp with a turbo but they ain't 4-8000bhp drag cars!)
Clicky
Dare i say that Mad Max just wouldn't have been the same if it had a turbo on it. Chargers look way cooler than turbos do (admittedly the M45 isn't the best example of this)
Heres my current version

#20
Posted 04 January 2011 - 08:54 PM
because the rules say so.
anyway, the nitromethane has a lot more to do with the power production than the charger type.
#21
Posted 04 January 2011 - 08:56 PM
Theres something about superchargers I just like on an engine, just feels right! Whilst there is no contest between a blower and a turbo in terms of efficiency and medium range power, dont forget that the fastest machines on the planet all still use a whopping great big blower!!! (And yes I know that jap cars can easily see over 1000bhp with a turbo but they ain't 4-8000bhp drag cars!)
Clicky
Dare i say that Mad Max just wouldn't have been the same if it had a turbo on it. Chargers look way cooler than turbos do (admittedly the M45 isn't the best example of this)
Heres my current versionhttp://www.topcatpro...o.uk/v8mx5.html
I'll agree on that one

#22
Posted 04 January 2011 - 09:12 PM
The suck through superchargers create the same gear box destroying force as the turbo`s do.
Simply due to torque.
Oh indeed. the bug bear of the early metro turdo.
May I quote a certain Dave Sexton, an ex work mate, when I was buying a second hand MG metro Turbo in the early 90's.
"Jacko, avoid the early one's as there more bottom end torque which destroys the gearbox, which is why the later one's feel faster. The Ecu's were reprogrammed to reduce mid range torque so that the warranty claims on the gearbox went down. Which is why the power is less progressive and appears to come in with a bang"
Dave had been an apprentice at Longbridge and had transferred into engine development for 15 years before moving to Lucas, and then into Aerospace aftermarket, and quality improvement. Last seen (by me) riding a Honda CX500, in the snow. Last Heard of he'd celebrated 50 years on the planet, so if you meet him, tell him I said HELLO.
#23
Posted 04 January 2011 - 09:38 PM
#24
Posted 04 January 2011 - 09:59 PM
Since when did the early Metros have a different ECU to the later ones ?
Ask Dave. I last spoke to him in 1995. I believed in everything he said. Still do. Although you seem to have stolen my rose tinted welding googles.
Every single problem I had with every car I owned between 1989 and 1995, he knew what was wrong and how to fix it, and often did (in his pj's once)
I can't believe he lied. Do they have date codes ? I bet that Lucas and Rover Coluded to keep the same part number.
or Are you telling me there's no santa claus either ? what about Jesus ? was he just a carpenter ?
Anyway I vote TURBO all the way (I spent 2 years working at garrett after I left Lucas)
#25
Posted 04 January 2011 - 10:35 PM
since no one has made on yet ):
#26
Posted 04 January 2011 - 10:38 PM
Make a super charged turbo!
since no one has made on yet ):
Someone on turbo minis was building one I think.
#27
Posted 04 January 2011 - 10:44 PM
Make a super charged turbo!
since no one has made on yet ):
Someone on turbo minis was building one I think.
props got the idea off me ive been saying since i started on her and when i was on 16 valve mini fourm for someone to do it haha
i think it be cool if they can do it in a Sokda fabio VRS we can do it in a mini
#28
Posted 04 January 2011 - 11:18 PM
Make a super charged turbo!
since no one has made on yet ):
Someone on turbo minis was building one I think.
props got the idea off me ive been saying since i started on her and when i was on 16 valve mini fourm for someone to do it haha
i think it be cool if they can do it in a Sokda fabio VRS we can do it in a mini
Im pretty sure that The fabia VRS was a 1.9 turbo diesel.
I think your thinking of the TSI engine from VW?
Edited by mini_mad69, 04 January 2011 - 11:19 PM.
#29
Posted 05 January 2011 - 12:01 AM
The latest Fabia VRS has the same engine as the new polo GTi (1.4 turbo supercharged). I have seen in one and they absolutely fly!Make a super charged turbo!
since no one has made on yet ):
Someone on turbo minis was building one I think.
props got the idea off me ive been saying since i started on her and when i was on 16 valve mini fourm for someone to do it haha
i think it be cool if they can do it in a Sokda fabio VRS we can do it in a mini
Im pretty sure that The fabia VRS was a 1.9 turbo diesel.
I think your thinking of the TSI engine from VW?
#30
Posted 05 January 2011 - 01:33 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users