Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryephile
I'm not "against" superchargers. I'm not "against" turbos. They both have their time and place. Neither of my current cars are N/A, I have one supercharged and one turbo. The 2ZZ-GE IMO is not desirable as an N/A engine, as the cam lift switchover is distracting, and adding the M62 supercharger along with the ECU changes make the engine more linear and less Jekyll & Hyde. As for Diesel, one without a turbo is a sad engine, indeed. I'll just leave it at that.
Personally, if the job can't be done with N/A, then a TVS supercharger would be my first alternate. It's not about hating other aspiration techniques, but about fitting the preferred character to the vehicle in question. Cars like the Integra Type R, S2000, Miata, Corvette, Mustang Boss 302, Cayman & Boxster are all fantastic because they're N/A. Cars like the VW Golf TDI, Rx-7, Supra, STI, and EVO IX are fantastic because they're turbo. It's all about matching the character of the engine to the chassis.
Make sense?
|
Bravo, bravo!! An extraordinary post!
i am "against" centrifugal superchargers though. imo the only real reason to get one of those is if you have a large displacement engine and no room for a proper turbo setup. most of the people who still use centrifugals are the large displacement V8 guys. for them it makes sense. the engine itself has good low end tq and the centrifugal will help out up top. turbos are complicated, so why go there when a centrifugal is enough to get you close to 1000 hp?