-
why do most of the sc people here think that superchargers are "more relaible than turbo?"
Is it just because most people with turbo's eventually turn up the boost, then grenade?
It is my understanding that at reasonable boost levels the turbo should be more reliable, because of the cooler charge temps?
Being faster by just turning a knob is hard to resist though.. I only lasted 3 months on mine before I cranked her up and melted a piston...
------------------
94 GSR drag gen 3 turbo
Benson's built bottom end
-
There is nothing wrong with the roots blower superchargers. They do a very good job. Make your car feel like it has a couple of more cylinders and 30%-40% more displacement. I've owned 2 Miatas, one with a turbo and another with a JRSC. The JRSC was much more reliable than the turbo. I had 2 turbos self destruct and I finally removed and sold the kit with a brand new blower and J&S, etc for a fraction of the cost http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/frown.gif The JRSC was practically trouble free and the couple of problems I had were much easier to correct, plus the car was not down until the repairs were done and only took a couple of hours to do.
Now, the turbo I had was a variable pitch vane affair made by Aerodyne. These are not conventional blowers and might have a lot more reliability problems. I know for a fact that my turbo had a lot of problems. The JRSC did not have anything like the problems with the turbo.
I know that many guys out there have turbos that make all kinds of power. The JRSC, on the other hand, seems to be more limited in the power output for the Miata application. However, the GSR blower is the M62 which is larger than the Miata's M45 blower, so it can probably make a lot more power if tuned properly.
The turbo guys are very happy with their choice and claim total reliability, etc. However, I always see where they are posting about their continual adjustments to the fuel and ignition maps, etc. The charge temps of the JRSC are not necessarily higher than those from a turbo, actually they might be quite lower. The difference is that the turbos are easily intercooled while the roots blowers are much more difficult to intercool. For my $$ and in my experience, the JRSC (in its *stock* configuration) is quite adequate and relatively inexpensive. Also, it is much easier to sell it and get more of your money than *any* turbo kit.
Manuel
-
F1 thought that blowers weren't dependable and they don't use them anymore. Turbos will be history in Cart next year as well. Probably becuause they're so dependable.
-
Redline,
You hit the nail on the head. Turbos were too expensive, even for F1.
Crane Cams worked on turbo top fuel dragsters for years and they never could make one competitive. They finally plumbed the intercooled turbos into a blower and it finally started to run. They finally gave up, siting that they could have sponsored the entire top fuel qualifying field for three years for what the program cost.
Their superturbo was one of the vehicles that inspired mine, tho.
-
ho train: It was not that the turbo itself as too exspenive and was everthing that teams started to do. Almost every team had a fuel sponser and they started to bring different fuel blends to different tracks. At 1500hp that the hondas were making they were melting the pistons off the rods. The was a strong faction in F1 that wanted to keep turbos and limit displacement to 1L to keep the power levels in tact.
I think that you have a cost arugment with fi vs. n/a but not SC vs turbo.
Kyle
-
F1 was still running rocket fuel until three years ago and all the budgets are well above what they were (even Hondas) during the peak of the turbo days.
As for being a NA person, I think not. Just how many people do you know that have both a supercharger and turbo on the same car? They both work together just fine too and it wasn't cheap.
Watch for it in the magazines.
-
then how much more power are you getting with both systems??????
ho train????
------------------
1996 GSR 4dr....221 hp with a 6psi JRSC
Heres how I pay for all my goodies
POWER
-
Well MarkC... it sounds to me like you agree with me then !!! Superchargers are better than Turbos for drag racing... Right ?!?
Actually, the reason Turbo's are not used in Top Fuel (or any drag vehicle with 1000+ hp) is because their power delvery is non-linear... it is too difficult to put it to the ground. One would have to "spool up" the Turbo to eliminate lag, but this would blow the tires away at launch. If a softer launch was attempted, when the Turbo spooled up, a huge power spike would occur, and the tires would break loose.
Either way, the advantage at the track for the Supercharger is LINEAR power delivery.
Now, not to side with the Turbo guys here, but sometimes having a lower power output at low rpm's and exploding with big power in the midrange elminates some traction problems on the street. Most stret races are won or lost at the light...
------------------
'93 Civic Si H/B with B18C1, JRSC @ 8psi
Best 1320: 12.68 at 110 mph
[This message has been edited by JRCivic (edited May 22, 2000).]
-
The best it's made has been 324 HP at 6200 RPM. It hasn't been easy either and I'll be broke for another year, but it works.
We haven't tried to max out the boost even though the engine has the best of everything, so I don't know what it could produce and i won't until I have another car to drive (and a wife that's calmed down).
-
F1 banned turbos cause the power levels were getting to high and cost. But when the rules stated 1.5l FI or 3.0l n/a a turbo was picked over a SC.
CART has talked about no turbos but it has never went anywhere to the best of knowledge.
There is a tt truck in pro stock that kicks ass.
k
