True, & of course American mechanics live by the moto "there's no substitute for capicity" or something along those lines 
General super charger
- Thread starter chubbston
- Start date
Currently reading:
General super charger
J333EVO said:True, & of course American mechanics live by the moto "there's no substitute for capicity" or something along those lines
think it was "There's no replacement for displacement"
trying to think of that all day!
J333EVO - can i be really really picky. When comparing super vs turbo charger, you said the turbo doesnt use any of the engine power. Thats not strictly true tho, it sits in the exhaust and causes an obstruction, increasing back pressure and making the engine work harder to shift the exhaust charge, and therefore reducing power transfered to the crank.
Using both tyes of charger is called compound charging isnt it?
It was Steve (scrw) looking at using a cooper supercharger, i suggested he take the drive from, and mount it in the same place as the air con unit sits
Using both tyes of charger is called compound charging isnt it?
It was Steve (scrw) looking at using a cooper supercharger, i suggested he take the drive from, and mount it in the same place as the air con unit sits
Wow, follow the link on the "micra Super Turbo" page, there's a whole site for modded Micras!
www.micra.org.uk
Features such lunacy as Cherry Turbo engines being stuffed under the bonnets of 80's Micras!
www.micra.org.uk
Features such lunacy as Cherry Turbo engines being stuffed under the bonnets of 80's Micras!
But the exhaust gases are occuring anyway if you now what I mean?
Superchargers are belt driven which comes from the cam which will sap power, in theory two cars the same, one with all lights, stereo and heater on shold be slower than the one without.
For turbo cars say, a 100bhp Cinq n/asp should beat a 100bhp Torbo Cinq though due to the turbo so what your saying is kinda right Arc.
Only benefit of the charger is as previously stated there is always power on tap.
Liam
Superchargers are belt driven which comes from the cam which will sap power, in theory two cars the same, one with all lights, stereo and heater on shold be slower than the one without.
For turbo cars say, a 100bhp Cinq n/asp should beat a 100bhp Torbo Cinq though due to the turbo so what your saying is kinda right Arc.
Only benefit of the charger is as previously stated there is always power on tap.
Liam
you cant get power for free, a turbo will use power
mad_colm said:
thank god for that, its one I always seem to forget!
arc said:
Ah but you see the power consumed is negligible, thats why its such an efficient system & why in the late 80's F1 cars ran 1100bhp from 1.5L engines (true thats why turbo's were banned) and why 2.6L Skylines can achieve 1000bhp, you could never dream of getting that sort of power from supercharging otherwise you would have seen it in motor-sport where all technology springs in the pursuit of being first. I think Lancia is the only one to try & it was only to over come turbo lag.
I know, but like i said, i'm being picky. A turbo does use power, a lot of people seem to forget this because it doesnt run belt driven.
Not sure where the aircon unit even goes Tom, it was a suggestion to Steve - he seemed to think it was a good idea, but then he vanished again *shrug*
Not sure where the aircon unit even goes Tom, it was a suggestion to Steve - he seemed to think it was a good idea, but then he vanished again *shrug*
Yes 1242 turbo could be an easy 900 horsepower, for about 10 minutes. The F1 1500cc BMW units that gave 1500bhp were qualifying engines and lasted three laps, end of story. They used a fuel that was called 'petrol', but was so far removed from anything we could now call petrol as to be closer to nitro glycerine.
Slightly more impressive, to my mind, is 900bhp from a normally aspirated 3 litre engine. OK, they rev to 19000 rpm, and the pistons are actually a jelly as they run, but start doing the sums on how much force the piston exerts on the con rod at the bottom of each stroke and its a surprise they last one blip of the throttle.
Cheers
D
Slightly more impressive, to my mind, is 900bhp from a normally aspirated 3 litre engine. OK, they rev to 19000 rpm, and the pistons are actually a jelly as they run, but start doing the sums on how much force the piston exerts on the con rod at the bottom of each stroke and its a surprise they last one blip of the throttle.
Cheers
D
A little trivia for you, when Renault made the first F1 engine to break through the 1000bhp barrier (Renault were until very recently the most successful engine manufacturer in F1 history) they cashed in on this fact with a limited edition car, that car was the series one 5 GT Turbo, but as sales completely exceeded expectations, they brought out the much more reliable series two GT Turbo with water cooled turbo, better brakes and a decent cooling system.
If you see period ads from France from 1984/5??? its heavily hypes up the F1 cars technology as if you were getting it in the 5, what they didn't say was the engine had already seen the light of day in the in non turbo charged form about 10 years previously!
True what you say about the cars today, the reliability & power of them is incredible, but I can't help but look back on the turbo days through rose tinted glasses, seeing them turn the boost up for overtaking or down to get a few more laps out the fuel seemed so much more engrossing than the procession we have to endure on many a race Sunday, though I still watch eagle eyed
If you see period ads from France from 1984/5??? its heavily hypes up the F1 cars technology as if you were getting it in the 5, what they didn't say was the engine had already seen the light of day in the in non turbo charged form about 10 years previously!
True what you say about the cars today, the reliability & power of them is incredible, but I can't help but look back on the turbo days through rose tinted glasses, seeing them turn the boost up for overtaking or down to get a few more laps out the fuel seemed so much more engrossing than the procession we have to endure on many a race Sunday, though I still watch eagle eyed
I think the handling performance is so much better these days. Those turbo monsters were barely guided missiles. The turbo lag so huge that you actually had to apply throttle as you turned into the corner to ensure power when you left the corner.
Like I am talking from experience, NOT. But I have followed motorsport for over 40 years.
Cheers
D
Like I am talking from experience, NOT. But I have followed motorsport for over 40 years.
Cheers
D
You're so right about the handling, & what I found remarkable is the speed of progression in F1, I can't remember which race it was, may have been Australia where the last car on the grid (Minardi?) actually posted a faster time than the poll sitter (Ferrari?) from the year before
But we don't get the oddities today like you used to, the Maclaren fan car, the Lotus with skirts like a hover craft to suck itself to the ground, the 6 wheeler (Brabham or Lotus? I'm stretching my memory to much here), everything is so governed now, but then we do have less fatalities which is always a good thing.
Lets see what happens when the new rules kick in 2.4L engines less down force et all, I recon on a half season before they are getting close again to the pace set this season.
But we don't get the oddities today like you used to, the Maclaren fan car, the Lotus with skirts like a hover craft to suck itself to the ground, the 6 wheeler (Brabham or Lotus? I'm stretching my memory to much here), everything is so governed now, but then we do have less fatalities which is always a good thing.
Lets see what happens when the new rules kick in 2.4L engines less down force et all, I recon on a half season before they are getting close again to the pace set this season.
i think WRC is, and always will be far more intersting and worth watching that F1 will ever be
The air con unit on a Sei is over by the ECU, I think you only get Air Con with power steering, mckrich will be able to tell you as this is what his new Sei has.bloomfieldliam said:
Steve W bought a Skoda Fabia VRs so gave the Cinq's a rest but I think he'll be back.
Liam
I've got a photo somewhere of that BMW M-power 1.5 litre turbo unit used in F1 cars "back in the day". The 'bocharger is nearly as big as the engine block itself!
The engine is actually based on the old M10 block, as used in early 80's BMW's in 1.6 and 1.8 litre form.
The engine is actually based on the old M10 block, as used in early 80's BMW's in 1.6 and 1.8 litre form.
Here ya go, sorry bout the size of the pic:
There's one of the many probs with extracting over 1000bhp from a 1.5 litre turbo, i.e. extreme heat!
There's one of the many probs with extracting over 1000bhp from a 1.5 litre turbo, i.e. extreme heat!
That's some serious heat!
