Have you recently bought a Tesla or are you currently shopping for one? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 3/13 for more details.
Turbochargers & Superchargers: Theory and Application
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'd be very careful about over-boosting on stock engines, however, especially ones that have some miles on them.
Later Derek
I am a SC kind of guy because I like that boost way down low and I like to boost torque down there, too. Also it's kind of a natural for a V-8 car, sitting right there in between the cylinder banks. Turbos on V-8s can get into a LOT of plumbing.
If I were going to turbo a large displacement engine, it would be twin-turbos for sure and that can get expensive and complicated.
SCs tend to be more expensive though initially compared to a turbo installation.
So the difference between an SC and a TC, from a fuel economy standpoint, isn't that great.
Basicallly many people don't realize that if you increase fuel (larger carbs, bigger injectors, or a computer chip) you have to increase AIR if you want any kind of *substantial* gain. The "chips" they sell do take advantage of the factory's propensity to lean out mixtures for emissions and thus put in more fuel electronically, but without increasing air the HP gain from just a chip or a re-flash can't possibly be that great all by itself.
So too, conversely, if you put in a LOT more air, like a turbo or SC or even an actually working "ram-air" system, you really need to address the fuel issue as well, for power,cooling, etc. Now the factory may do this with factory turbos but sellers of bolt-on stuff may or may not engineer this correctly or advise you properly. Very often you can just go lean and lose power. This happens A LOT with so called "cold air intakes". You SOUND faster but you ain't.
I'm seriously looking at a twincharger system for my Ion Redline - a turbo, mounted just like a turbo would normally be, rams air into the intake, then it gets compressed again by the Eaton blower. They company I saw (can't recall the name) runs a piggyback ECU setup and elminates the boost control module on the supercharger. Two blowoff valves are used.
I just saw this setup on a Mini Cooper S, and although dyno results weren't shown, the article writer freaked out pretty seriously over the incredible power.
Mark from Psi-fi (turbo tuner folks from New Jersey) says:
"The benefits are surely worth the cost. On our Mini twincharger kit we have bumped power on pump gas up 120+whp. The power increase can go much higher as we still have another 100whp left in the turbo if we crank the boost up. Performance wise the twincharger kit puts the Cooper S into another league entirely dropping 1/4 mile Ets about 1.5-2 second and bringing trap speeds up from low 90's to 105+ on pump gas and street tires.
The Redline and Cobalt SS have a very efficient Laminova air to water intercooler, these intercoolers have been tested to about 86% efficiency. GM did the intercooling system right on these cars with a very large front mount heat exchanger as well. This type of intercooler can deal with the thermal load increases from increased boost as well as twincharging. We are currently developing parts(pulleys, Engine management, driveline products etc. as well as the aforementioned twincharger kit) for this platform. The beauty of twincharging over nitrous is the power is there all of the time and if tuned correctly the car runs around town feeling like stock till you hit the loud pedal
Don't they make a turbo version of the Pacifica? Maybe you should consider just taking a hit on trade-in and getting that model instead, already done for you from the factory.
I wonder why 250HP isn't enough? Seems like it should move right along. I wonder if it's running right? You should be around 0-60 in 9 seconds, similar to a Passat or a Volvo XC90.
It's the weight that's killing your performance. The Pacifica is kind of a porker. If you're thinking a SC will cut your times dramatically, I really don't think it will. It'll be a lot better, but the SC might give you 75HP or so, maybe a little more. It's not going to make your nose bleed or anything.
Also I'm wondering how much boost they are going to run in this kit. You have 10:1 compression in that engine--you may be burning very high octane fuel with a SC.
However, I'm almost certain DC would revoke your warranty on the engine, should you make a claim, and I think they'd win any dispute, too. I'd imagine the rest of the car would retain the warranty. In any case DC would have to show that the SC damaged whatever part of the car you are claiming warranty service on. So, they could make a good case for engine damage but not for brakes----now for transmission, with an extra 100HP running through it---well---they might win that dispute, too.
100 HP is plausible though I bet the dyno wont' show that. Usually a good SC setup at 6 psi can give 30-40 boost in HP, so he claims are not outrageous. I'd like to see the dyno slips though.
steve_, "Awesome Cars -- Let's see 'em!" #11, 6 May 2005 8:02 pm
Steve, Host
http://www.slponline.com/view_product.asp?P=63012
Does anyone else think the module could cause major engine damage? BTW, the new pulley increased S/C boost by 3 psi (from 7 to 10). I noticed a big difference in acceleration. SLP says gains up to 25 HP are possible with this pulley. The bottom line is should I also use the module?
It's the combination of pinging plus lugging the engine that's a piston-eater.
Actually as I think about it, a 1-2 degree bump in timing isn't a whole lot.
10 psi should be okay because your engine was designed for a SC to begin with. However, higher boost will seek out and magnify any defects you might have in compression or head gasket sealing, so it's important that you only do this with a very tight engine.
Secondly, exhaust restriction you speak of is vital to producing low range horsepower. You need a certain amount of back pressure to create horsepower in the low rpm ranges. It is not an issue of back pressure with forced induction at max power- otherwise my bud's car couldn't make 1000HP. (read this about turbos: http://www.turbo-kits.com/how_turbos_work.html )
Remember this: You only burn more fuel when making power. So in english, if you keep your right foot out of it, a low compression turbo motor will get good gas mileage provided you can keep your right foot in check. (here read the tech in this link! http://www.inductionmotorsports.com/index.html?turbos.html )
Turbo' car's drawback was emissions control. not gas mileage.
Thirdly if you were to create a lagless turbo, it would have many good advantages, you can run a larger compressor than normal. That allows the compressed air to be cooler and denser at a lower boost level. Translated in english, You no longer will need intercoolers and you will make more power at lower boost levels than previously possible. I design turbos and my company is creating the first lagless prototype turbo. Should be finished this year.
model like from Holset's? Or is this something like Garrett's hydraulically driver compressor? What sizes/specs will you offer? And while I agree with the higher peak effeciency of the larger turbo when spun up to its range, I don't think you can eliminate the need for an intercooler..
.. while I know many will think them ideal for smaller engines, I think there may be an even bigger market for larger engines! Simply because I think most in that crowd already care or are more conscious about power delivery to justify the extra cost
Have a look here:
http://www.roadracemotorsports.com/drivetrain.htm
Turbo systems need to be very well engineered and field tested, so I would say your best bet is to find any Alfa Specialty catalogues you can (like Centerline, or Alfa International) and see if these companies have developed their own turbo or supercharger systems specifically made for these cars.
Personally, having owned a 164L, I think you might want to try to replicater 164LS specs instead (different cylinder heads I believe).
Last of all, be prepared for one fact---that whatever you find out there, if it is of good quality, it's going to cost you more than your car is worth...so that's also a sobering consideration. You might be better off just going out and buying an LS.
Maybe I'm talking out of my rear, but I'm thinking the lack of tuning mods for most Alfas (and, even where tuning mods exist, they don't add very much power at all) is due to reliability issues. I mean, I know they are tough little powertrains ... when stock.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I've driven the supercharged 3.8 gms and yeah, they are pretty fun.. but there's something wrong about squealing the front tires
But as to chipping his car.. because anything can always be better that's why!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRM4SF_0d2o
The one bright light in the 1980s Dark Ages in America.
-mike
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
-mike
you may be correct.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That might help. They also have sections explaining Turbos and Supers in detail.
Looks like a Turbo also increase gas mileage in cars that arn't floored all the time.
Sorry if that was already posted but I wasn't getting a clear cut answer, and that did the trick.
I'm a fan of both turbo and blown applications, but feel that each has their place. For all-out racing, it's turbo hands-down. The most efficient power adder for getting huge output. It's raw, nasty, peaky horsepower for going fast, period.
But then you have daily driven cars with turbos attempting to use lighter turbines, dual turbines, sequential turbines, tuning, etc. to make a "street-friendly" torque curve... basically to do what a blower does naturally. I can understand it, but I don't completely agree with it. If you want throttle response (low-end torque), get a large displacement N/A or add a blower. It's that simple.
I own a 1998 Buick Riviera with the 240 hp supercharged 3.8L V6. It's my daily driver, bought 4 years ago with 24.5k miles. It used to go 0-60 mph in 8.5 secs, and run the quarter in 15.5. To the earlier posters claiming this engine is boring and can't be compared to Japanese turbo motors, you'd be surprised at what happens when you spend a few dollars to mod the 3.8L supercharged V6. You'd be astounded at what can happen with a bit more $.
Soon I began modding the car, adding the following bolt ons: cold air intake, SC overdrive pulley, high-lift rocker arms/valve springs, exhaust headers, custom tuned PCM, and not much else. The car now does 0-60 mph in 5.7 secs, and ran a 13.9 in the 1/4 mile. This is a 4000+lb FWD Buick on street tires. I have amps and a sub box in back, even kept the jack and spare tire in!
On the dyno, over 300 crank hp and 370 lb-ft. Still have stock exhaust system and original transmission. The best part is, the car just turned 146k miles and I still drive (abuse) it 60 miles to work each day. I have no back up vehicle, this is it! You want fuel economy? I averaged 31.5 mpg on my last 600 mile trek through the mountains.
But my car is slow compared to the top FWD 3.8L V6s running 8 and 9 secs in the 1/4. Interested in learning more? Check these links:
www.rivperformance.com
www.3800pro.com
www.intense-racing.com
www.zzperformance.com
I like both and both can be used for different purposes, tuning on either one can be tricky and expensive.
-mike