welcome to GT40s.com! If you've never posted on the forum maybe give it a go by introducing yourself in the Introduce Yourself Here forum. Also, think about becoming a Forum Supporter at GT40s.com. Becoming a supporter will allow you more PM space, an avatar, and the money is used to keep GT40s.com running.
Enjoy the forum!
Welcome to the GT40s.com, the World’s Largest GT40 resource.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, view pictures, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, Join Our Community Today!
Why not start with your first post today and become an active part of GT40s.com now! And, if you find you enjoy GT40s.com think about becoming a Forum Supporter.
GT40 Tech - Engines/Induction/ExhaustMotors and engine related - right here!
View Poll Results: What is your preference for engine aspiration?
The sounds, the surge of power as it spins up, the flexibility and control it allows. Such a simple principle but one that can bring unbelievable complexity with it and always keeps me guessing, learning, experimenting.
Most definately my favourite thing is the lag, be it small or large.....learning it's characteristics and how to use them to your maximum benefit. You just cannot beat that sudden, massive punch in the head from a T3/4 going from 0-22psi in 2 seconds of wheel scrabbling, torque steering madness!
__________________ If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, it's probably French
I don't see forced induction as cheating, BUT nitrous is bogus. If it isn't there all of the time or whenever I want it, then why bother. Another laughable feature is the push-to-pass in Champ cars; how hokie is that!
Regards,
Lynn
__________________ Sabre GT40/5L EFI/G50/50
Always verify parts or products discussed for your own use.
Huge/light C/I NA motor. My favorite NA motor is the alum chev's used in the old CANAM cars.
Turbo motors always turn into a engineering problem centered around how much boost it will take. Way too much money involved with 3+ bar 4 banger motors for my taste. Give me a 500 inch NA instead.
I looked hard at a turbo rotary at 400 hp. Cost was at least twice as much as a SBC. The intercooler alone cost as much as the chev's complete intake/carb/fuel system.
Not much real saving in total weight either. All those pipes, turbos, computers and coolers add up.
NA 500hp motor in a 2000 lb car with a lot of grip is always going to be more than I can handle anyway.
By the way I do remember those little 1500 cc 4 banger BMW's that ended the F1 turbo period @ 1500HP+....... Interesting engineering/$$$$$ exercise.
That big ol M8F sounded much better!!! At least to my ears.
Last edited by Howard Jones; 07-17-07 at 03:39 PM.
We have a 6th generation supercharger that is referred to as TVS Twin Vortices Series. Read all about it TVS - Eaton.com
This new series gives turbos a serious run for there money up to about 20 psi boost pressures. I would have to disagree with people that call any form of boosting cheating whether it is turbo or Supercharging. It is simply increasing the displacement of your motor. No one says it's cheating when you take a 302 and make a 347, that is also increasing the displacement of your motor.
The nice part about belt driven superchargers over Turbos is the drivability. With turbo cars when you get out of the throttle the boost drops off then when you get back into it takes a second for the boost to come back, then when it comes on it is so radical that you may break the tires loose -VS- belt driven Superchargers you can manage the power better by modulating the throttle since it is crank driven. It is a smoother power which helps to maintain traction.
I'm not too wild about the old GMC type S/C due to it's low Thermal and volumetric efficiency and over all size. Our largest TVS unit the R2300 can support over 1000HP, but is still quite small in size. About the size of the Screw compressor on the Ford GT, but much more effecient!
Bottom line it takes all types to make the world go round.
I Must say I disagree with forced induction being called 'cheating'.....if thats was the case then any modification designed to get more combustables into the cylinders is cheating such as cams, and thats just absurd.
Quote:
when you get back into it takes a second for the boost to come back, then when it comes on it is so radical that you may break the tires loose
Exactly
I Guess my idolisation of Turbo's is because my favourite engine is only a miserable 1995cc four pot, without the blower it'd be somewhat boring, although being a speedfreak of sorts I dont think I could own a performance car that didn't feature forced induction....the wasted potential would be unforgivable!
__________________ If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, it's probably French
I'm not too wild about the old GMC type S/C due to it's low Thermal and volumetric efficiency and over all size. Our largest TVS unit the R2300 can support over 1000HP, but is still quite small in size. About the size of the Screw compressor on the Ford GT, but much more effecient!
Bottom line it takes all types to make the world go round.
Hey Jim,
What do you have that goes in place of a M112 and is more efficient? my Heaton is doing exactly that at 16psi! Out of sweet spot on the compressor map.
I like positive displacement forced induction. Can't beat it! Something cool about an archaic mechanical compressor driven by a belt.
traditionally, you see turbos in road racing and superchargers for drag. The reason was always because superchargers build up heat and lose efficiency. I seem to recall a magazine where they tested a new shelby gt500 in high heat and noticed a loss of power after they were driving for a while. Turbos on the other hand, allow you to fit massive intercoolers and not make this power loss so profound.
If you are talking GT40 then NA. I dont like turbo lag, which despite what the salesmen tell you still seems to be there.
I have a supercharged Mini Cooper S which is a terrific car and heaps of fun to drive.
For the track, I would always stick with normally aspirated for the sake of simplicity.
For me , turbo all the way. They are much more efficient than superchargers as no crank power is needed to drive them and they are also more thermal efficiant and don't heat the compressed air as much.
Much more flexible and your mum can drive one and at a push of a button you have a animal on your hands.
Having said that, they all have their good points, but turbos give you more bang for your buck.
Re: Turbocharged, Supercharged or N/A? 
- Too Little Time 
