Either the z7 or z3 kit? Id like to twincharge.. Its gonna happen but id love some more info from people that know a bit more about turbos. And what id have to do
|
|
03-09-2011
Either the z7 or z3 kit? Id like to twincharge.. Its gonna happen but id love some more info from people that know a bit more about turbos. And what id have to do
03-09-2011
Meh on the twincharge...sell off your blower crap and make a good amount of money back for a simple z3 build. 400 FWHP...easy.
03-09-2011
What would I have to build on my motor? I could gey decent money since I jave a gen v blower. But I still love the blower sound. Just looking at my options
03-09-2011
I hear ya...
I bet you could sell a GenV Top Swap for over $500 easy to an '04+ owner. Even a non-intercooled Z3 kit under 10psi will make great numbers...an intercooler will do even better...which honestly I wouldn't NOT run an IC with a snail...so beneficial. If I could do it all over again...I'd snail it. I've got the transmission for it...why not
On the motor...you really don't NEED anything...you can run a stock cam/stock rockers...I figure that since your there rockers would be a great upgrade and you really don't have to "tear" into anything or build a motor minus removing the valve covers. 1.80:1 ratio ones don't even need stronger valve springs. If I was to snail a car...I'd get ported heads, a big cam...and a bulletproof valvetrain and run a pretty good sized snail on it with a big stall.
That's just me though.
03-09-2011
I want rockers. Idk about the sc. dont I need that throttle body though? Will it bolt up to an older sc?
03-09-2011
With an adapter plate yes...I'd get an Aluminum L26 Upper Intake with an HV3 and Rockers...with a turbo build that thing should easily run 12's on street tires with a good tune...
03-09-2011
Would I need a different lim too then?
03-09-2011
all this talk with out any mention of a trans.....
Build a trans first then Turbo
03-09-2011
Because a base Z3 kit is intended for those people with a stock transmission...or that aren't making tons of power. I've seen plenty of turbo kits without a built transmission still make good numbers and run good times. Is a built trans required...no...is it a good investment...beyond belief.Originally Posted by 2003 SSEi
03-09-2011
Im not making this a race car I just wamt a turbo. Even if it makes the same or a little more than a 3.4 setup
03-09-2011
A turbo kit of any kind makes a 3.4" setup look stupid slow
03-09-2011
Does it really? How while making the same boost?
03-09-2011
Efficiency brutha...turbo is not taking power from the motor to make power like a roots type blower...your making power off of spent exhaust gases
03-09-2011
Its just so much moremomey than a 3.4 setup though
03-09-2011
Twincharging really only has a tangible benefit for a track car in that you can use a larger turbo for more power and rely on the blower for low end torque (and quicker spooling). For a street/ fun car I can't see the need and the setup is exponentially more complicated.
I run a Z3 kit on my car. Yes, I know that sounds odd. We had a full prototype kit on my car, I pulled it off to have it made and put on a used Z3 kit back on. Unfortunately we ultimately decided that the market won't take another turbo kit and that ZZP has that market pretty well cornered so the idea was shelved. But I digress!
We have essentially the same car (04 Comp G). I'm running the Z3 with the small turbo and small intercooler and I'm pushing it through a bone stock exhaust for 339whp at 14lbs. Basically it's as tame as you can get but still completely ridiculous on the street. ZZP makes a good kit. We sold Cartuning back in the day and besides the kit being lackluster, Kevin's customer service also SUUUUUUCCCKKKKED.
As for the difference between a turbo and supercharged setup, I wouldn't call either better. Both feel completely different, even at the same power level. I'm casually looking to buy up one of the retired drag cars to build another blower setup. Nothing sounds quite as wicked as a lopey cammed 3.8 with an obnoxiously loud blower.
03-14-2011
Sure it is. If it wasnt it would violate the first law of thermodynamics (and every powerplant in the world would have infinite streams of serial turbines running off of exhaust stacks creating power without cost).
The work done by the turbo requires energy (taken from the exhaust stream) and ultimately from the engine itself via increased backpressure.
The sc vs turbo is an efficiency debate (as you alluded to).
To the OP - there are a million articles available about forced induction choices. There are sc guys and there are turbo guys - but the both do fundamentally the same thing: they use engine power (directly or indirectly) to compress incoming air so that more fuel can be shoved into the intake and burned (creating more power).
03-14-2011
Turbocharger > supercharger. Don't even go there.
03-15-2011
My point was that the turbo boost isn't free - that would be energy generation which flies in the face of physics and reality.
Turbocharger > supercharger. Don't even go there.
03-15-2011
Lets not get off point here. I think he was trying to say that a blower takes power from the engine to run, when a turbo essentially uses engine waste to create power. Sure it uses engine power to run a turbo in the form of back pressure and heat, but the point is that a turbo doesn't use nearly the amount of power from an engine as a blower does.
03-09-2011
i love the sound of a supercharger. but i would have to be intercooled to run below a 3.6 inch pulley. i also would love to cam it. but the install wuldnt be easy. a turbo kit is more money, but there is something to be said about a turbo'ed 3800 also.. very hard decision. lol
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Tags for this Thread |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
