FI options: Turbo or Supercharger

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by tomm.brz

did you ever saw a log of a PD, at low. rpm and WOT?

Looking at an Edelbrock log right now that shows ~5.5 psi of boost at 4000 rpm. Am I looking at bad data? https://www.delicioustuning.com/d-bo...k_tune_package

Originally Posted by tomm.brz

Anyway, boost spikes are tames by a boost limiter, so if the tune is well done, turbo can be safer than PD

And you don't have to set up a boost limiter? Is it as fool proof as a supercharger? Is it not fair to say one should have to the qualify their statements rather than just assume everyone with a turbo adds all the bells and whistles and pays a pro to install it?

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

I didn’t go into exact details... But yes if you go WOT at 3k rpm by 3.5k if you didn’t use a boost controller you could be making near peak boost.

Aren't the details important in a discussion where it's posited that turbos are safer than superchargers? Sounds like you need a few bells and whistles and extra attention to detail on the setup before it starts getting "safer" than a supercharger.

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

My PD instantly makes 10psi at 3500rpm at WOT and slowly ramps up to 13psi at around 6500-7k, so not instantly at max boost but still making a lot of boost at low rpm, much different than a centrifugal charger. And with zero lag or spool up time it comes on instantly directly correlated to throttle opening.

I'm comparing to turbos not centris. Maybe I have bad data from Delicious Tuning website but looking at 2 different boost plots I'm seeing ~5.5 psi at 4000 rpm?

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Once setup right, it’s way better. Never said It was easier to setup correctly though.

No but it was implied.

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

There is a reason car manufacturers usually use turbo over supercharger. Once setup right, it’s way better.

If they didn't offer superior gas mileage on the EPA tests they'd probably just use the PD (as several do/did anyway) for packaging simplicity and less thermal management to deal with.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by gtengr

Aren't the details important in a discussion where it's posited that turbos are safer than superchargers? Sounds like you need a few bells and whistles and extra attention to detail on the setup before it starts getting "safer" than a supercharger.

Like i said, i covered everything. I am not writing a 10 page DIY guide everything was covered, OP can ask more questions if wanting further details.

I'm comparing to turbos not centris. Maybe I have bad data from Delicious Tuning website but looking at 2 different boost plots I'm seeing ~5.5 psi at 4000 rpm?

The resolution on that is so low i cant make out any of it. But you would need a log showing RPM, Throttle Angle, and MAP pressure or boost pressure (assuming a properly scaled 2+bar map sensor) and then factor that into and compare to what peak boost is. Even if 5.5psi at 4k and 9psi at 7k was accurate, it is only 3.5psi off from max boost, but also the exact second you are on throttle at 4k rpm (which like i said why are you going wot at 4k rpm anyways unless in 1st...) you are at max boost for that RPM instantly, a turbo can make X boost at Y rpm but you still needs to spool into that before hand.

No but it was implied.

Not really, maybe only to you. Trying to read in or out what you want from other peoples posts, or completely disregarding entire sections of a post.

If they didn't offer superior gas mileage on the EPA tests they'd probably just use the PD (as several do/did anyway) for packaging simplicity and less thermal management to deal with.

Turbo technology has come a long way to be better in just about every way, minus maybe heat management, which for a DD is more than manageable.Also which was stated in my 1st post

See above

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

The resolution on that is so low i cant make out any of it.

Use a photo viewer and zoom. It's clear enough to tell it's not close to 10 psi at 3500 rpm.

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

But you would need a log showing RPM, Throttle Angle, and MAP pressure or boost pressure (assuming a properly scaled 2+bar map sensor)

The log does show RPM and MAP pressure. It's a run to redline so I can't imagine why it'd be at anything other than full throttle.

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Not really, maybe only to you. Trying to read in or out what you want from other peoples posts, or completely disregarding entire sections of a post.

I'm not reading into anything. You said 10 psi at 3500 rpm on a PD kit and I think that needs some backup since my research and records, which was all done before I bought a PD charger myself, suggest otherwise.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by gtengr

Use a photo viewer and zoom. It's clear enough to tell it's not close to 10 psi at 3500 rpm.

Maybe your computer is better than mine resolution is very unclear, what is max psi its making?

The log does show RPM and MAP pressure. It's a run to redline so I can't imagine why it'd be at anything other than full throttle.

Many tuners often slowly ramp into throttle on a dyno for two main reasons, eliminate traction issues on the dyno, and to be easier on drivetrain/engine as WOT under 4500rpm especially in 4-5th gear (typical dyno gears) is very hard on everything. Peak torque is typically around 5-5.5k rpm and peak power typically around 6.5-7k RPM (varies a little by setup) and when shifting near redline RPM is never under 5k rpm, so little reason to ever be at WOT under 5k RPM besides in 1st. I doubt that pull was for the specific intention of tuning either, (main reason for tuner to WOT at lower rpm) but more to see peak power changes. And how the DBox benefits the MAP. Because of all that unless throttle is logged showing otherwise, it’s highly likely WOT didn’t happen until 4500+ rpm, Im curious what boost it makes at 5k RPM and at 7k RPM according to that log then you can attempt to extrapolate what boost would be at 3500rpm and compare what % of max boost it makes at what rpm.


I'm not reading into anything. You said 10 psi at 3500 rpm on a PD kit and I think that needs some backup since my research and records, which was all done before I bought a PD charger myself, suggest otherwise.

You stated I didn’t mention certain things when i clearly did. Also I said MY PD (not all) instantly makes 10PSI on WOT at 3500rpm slowly ramping up to about 13-13.5psi according to my mechanical boost gauge. (I video recorded pulls and played back in slowmo to verify) To be fair i have a sprintex and they make the most low end boost out of all the PDs but the other PDs still make a lot compared to centrifugal, and have instant throttle response/boost compared to turbos on WOT engagement.

Smaller turbo properly sized/setup can make near peak boost (will usually still slowly ramp up as rpm goes up/back pressure builds, or using boost controller to limit boost) by 3500rpm IF it was spooled from 3k rpm. That doesn’t mean if you are at partial throttle cruising and go WOT starting at 3500rpm you will already instantly be at peak boost. From partial cruising throttle to WOT at any rpm it’s typical for a 300-700rpm spoolup after going WOT, smaller turbo with boost controller limiting boost can make “peak” boost and spool very quick only because you are limiting peak boost, not because it’s capable of maxing out the turbo instantly. Like using a small turbo only capable of maxing out at 12psi but limiting it to 7psi, it'll spool up to 7psi very quickly and make 7psi at low rpm, but change it to max out at 12 it’s not spooling to 12psi or making that 12psi nearly as quick or low of rpm.

.

[mrg666]

Turbo pressurizes on the intake while blocking the flow on the exhaust. The poor engine is in between, it is hard on the engine, hard to tune, laggy, hot, and overall stupid idea. Now, I am ready to embrace the flames

[tomm.brz]

all you said, but the stupid part

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by tomm.brz

but the stupid part

Well, that's for the popcorn

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by mrg666

Turbo pressurizes on the intake while blocking the flow on the exhaust. The poor engine is in between, it is hard on the engine, hard to tune, laggy, hot, and overall stupid idea. Now, I am ready to embrace the flames

Which one gets better MPG at partial throttle, low load/cruising?
Which one makes more WHP at the same crank horsepower?
Which one makes more WHP at less boost pressure?

See answer to these trivia questions below.



















Turbo

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Which one gets better MPG at partial throttle, low load/cruising?
Which one makes more WHP at the same crank horsepower?
Which one makes more WHP at less boost pressure?

See answer to these trivia questions below.

Turbo

No other FI option gets better MPG then JRSC. Never seen any turbo kit better than the stock NA engine in gas mileage where JRSC is actually better. on my car.

Nobody measured/posted crank horsepower here.

I think JRSC makes ~260 WHP at 9psi. Is there anything better at 9psi?

All of the "turbo is best" arguments are based on low rpm torque which people think increases driving fun. And, this is funny, most of them drive manual but too lazy for downshifting.

Turbo literally kills the spirit of this car and blows up the engine.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by mrg666

No other FI option gets better MPG then JRSC. Never seen any turbo kit better than the stock NA engine in gas mileage where JRSC is actually better. on my car.

Nobody said any FI had better MPG than NA. But turbo is better mpg than SC. Your claims about JRSC are false.

Nobody measured/posted crank horsepower here.

Common sense, SC have much greater parasitic draw, much less efficient.

I think JRSC makes ~260 WHP at 9psi. Is there anything better at 9psi?

AVO, P&L, SBD500, JDL, FBM all hitting 300whp on pump gas (no e85) at 9psi
PDs will destroy JRSC at the same peak boost for entire area under the curve. JRSC or centrifugal will be barely better than PDs from about 6500+ rpm making slightly higher peak power.

All of the "turbo is best" arguments are based on low rpm torque which people think increases driving fun. And, this is funny, most of them drive manual but too lazy for downshifting.
Turbo literally kills the spirit of this car and blows up the engine.

Turbo has the capability of being fully tuned,tweaked,setup to have pretty much any boost/power curve you want. “The best” arguments are based on, higher whp at less boost and at less crank power, and the ability to completely control every aspect of it if you so choose. Aside from greater initial cost (non issue to some), complexity of install (non issue if you don’t DIY) and the potential heat issues (non issue for DD) turbo is better in just about every other possible way.

.

[Skwerl]

I understand it's a personal preference, but can you explain why or how you set your goal of 325-350 wheel horse power?

[tomm.brz]

Originally Posted by Skwerl

I understand it's a personal preference, but can you explain why or how you set your goal of 325-350 wheel horse power?

well, not with SC, and normal petrol

with turbo you get that with normal 91oct without ethanol

[Tanstin]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

.

guys. i got a hunch, but something tells me he's a fan of turbochargers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[tomm.brz]

i m too a fan of turbo, and i put a supercharger in my car

86toyo just put on the table objective facts about each other, if you read him good, you ll see he s right in every statement, and those don t imply subjective opinions, like some other s still doing