Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 105
  1. #1
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    So, I may or may not have found a few gems...because pictures are worth a thousand words. And I have *heard* of a turbo ZJ before, but I've never seen anything on it... until now

    So now I know it can be done. This particular one was done by "Bill's Honda" shop... They used a Turbonetics 61-1 turbo and a Spearco intercooler. It doesn't look any worse than a supercharger cluttering the engine bay












    And my original thinking was a remote turbo setup like this instead:




    This is because the longer I look at supercharger kits, the more I am discouraged by their outrageous prices. And for less than a supercharger kit, or at least the same amount, you can get a cool turbo setup! I would have a local performance shop do all the custom piping... and here's the rest of what I'm thinking:

    * Walbro 255 pump
    * Injectors
    * BOV/BPV somewhere...
    * Intercooler, depending on whether I go with an engine bay mounted turbo vs remotely mounted.
    * External Wastegate maybe
    * MBC (instead of EBC)...probably Hallman with an in-cabin controller like this:





    Who knows, maybe I'm losing my mind. I just understand turbo systems better than superchargers. And with a turbocharger, controlling the boost would be a serious advantage over a supercharger. And I think the power output could actually potentially be more. Power throughout the RPM range would be more constant - wouldn't die off as much as a supercharger.... and yes, there would be some lag, but I think it would be barely noticeable. This wouldn't some tiny ass 1.8l Honda engine, this would be a V8...so that exhaust gas would spool that turbo in a heartbeat.

    Let's talk...

    Figured I might as well make it into a post for this thread


    HERE ARE SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER:


    POWER:

    • Think in horsepower not boost.

    • Boost is just a number that you will have to run on your engine to make a certain horsepower.

    • How much power do you want to make? Be realistic, the more accurate that you are, the better tuned your forced induction system will be.

    • Can your vehicle (not just the engine, but the entire setup) handle such power?

    • Remember the turbocharger is generally not the weakest link.

    • Forged pistons, connecting rods, head studs, etc.

    • “As much as possible” is not a goal.



    INTENDED USAGE:


    • What are you using the vehicle for?

    • Race or street use?

    • The way that you will be using the vehicle dramatically changes the sizing of the turbocharger and intercooler needs.

    • Your choice of transmission type and gearing will greatly affect the performance and characteristics of the turbocharger, keep this in mind.



    PACKAGING:

    • Will the turbocharger(s) fit in your vehicles space constraints? Consider using differently sized compressor housings to more easily fit a given location.



    REMEMBER TO CHOOSE WISELY:

    Most street/autocross/drift enthusiasts will prefer a smaller turbocharger due to its fast response. A turbo system equipped with a smaller turbocharger is generally considered more fun to drive. The tradeoff is the final power output of the setup. On another note, dedicated track cars are aimed for peak power over boost response. There’s no doubt track cars spend more time in the upper RPM than average street cars. So, a small sacrifice in boost response is offset by the huge power potential. Larger frame turbochargers are preferred by track car owners due to their maximum power capacity. For most street applications the best solution for selecting turbine wheels and turbine housings, is to choose the smallest wheel diameter available that meets the horsepower level wanted.



    It is also important to remember that response/spool-up time is greatly affected by turbine wheel diameter and turbine housing A/R. The A/R sizing can be used as a tool to fine tune the response range in the RPM band. The smaller the A/R, the faster the turbocharger will be able to spool up from the increase in exhaust gas velocity entering the turbine housing. Backpressure has become a major tuning issue associated with high performance turbocharged engines and the turbine wheel and turbine housing A/R are both critical to maximizing the performance of the turbo system. Backpressure is the pressure that the exhaust gas generates trying to enter into the turbine housing inlet. If backpressure becomes too great (a 2:1 ratio), the exhaust gases can not escape the cylinder head and can possibly cause major tuning, performance and durability issues. It is important to try to keep the backpressure to boost pressure ratio as low as possible and should be no greater than 1.5:1 for best performance (Example: 15 psi of boost to 22.5 psi of backpressure).
    Last edited by Ninergrad; 04-23-2010 at 12:55 PM.

  2. #2
    Administrator Ninergrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Bothel, WA
    Posts
    3,248
    Rep Power
    636
    If you do all that for less than it would cost to supercharge it, it would be awesome.
    But honestly, I think it will be either the same, or my bet a bit more.
    Would be hellova fun project though that is for sure.
    -Davit.

    98 ZJ 5.9L Slate
    Click here for MODS

    98 Ram 2500 5.9L 24V Cummins, short bed, Blue
    MBPR Turbo back 4" exhaust, Edge Juice, Superchips tuner.


    http://autotruckservice.org/

  3. #3
    Member JGC403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pottstown, PA
    Posts
    2,275
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    ]
    Who knows, maybe I'm losing my mind. I just understand turbo systems better than superchargers. And with a turbocharger, controlling the boost would be a serious advantage over a supercharger. And I think the power output could actually potentially be more. Power throughout the RPM range would be more constant - wouldn't die off as much as a supercharger.... and yes, there would be some lag, but I think it would be barely noticeable. This wouldn't some tiny ass 1.8l Honda engine, this would be a V8...so that exhaust gas would spool that turbo in a heartbeat.

    Let's talk...
    For street use a turbo and supercharger are probably about equal. I don't see an advantage one over the other when running only a couple of pounds of boost. Now for all out racing turbocharger is the way to go.

    And the way that that turbo is mounted in the engine compartment, I think there is going to be a lot of extra heat in the engine bay. Now comparing the 2 if everything was equal I think you could probably make more power with a supercharger.

    Why do you think the boost can be controlled better with a turbo compared to the super?
    No replacement for displacement!

    1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo ZJ
    360 Stroker, 408c.i.


  4. #4
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Yea, I'm really curious what kind of power that guy put down.

    Battery relocation was probably in the "trunk"...

    Not sure how they mounted the turbo... how it is secured in the engine bay.

    Tried emailing the shop that did that turbo 5.2, email came back as unrecognized... Will try to call tomorrow maybe. I think that shop is even here in Colorado. I'll see if I can pick their brains a little on the subject.

    Even if it costs more (which I am doubting unless you have to factor in all the custom piping and brackets/welding), I think it would be worth it! I really think this could be the key to seriously opening up our motors I mean, even more than a supercharger already does Turbos almost always make more power than a supercharger given the same application/engine.

    Would love to have this kind of sound too!

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lb7ytp47Q8&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lb7ytp47Q8&feature=related[/ame]

  5. #5
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JGC403 View Post
    And the way that that turbo is mounted in the engine compartment, I think there is going to be a lot of extra heat in the engine bay. Now comparing the 2 if everything was equal I think you could probably make more power with a supercharger.

    Why do you think the boost can be controlled better with a turbo compared to the super?
    The engine bay heat would be nullified by the intercooler. Countless turbochargers get mounted in the engine bay on many other cars with even smaller and more cramped engine bays than we have. AND they don't have cast-iron blocks which can handle the heat better than aluminum.

    Subaru WRX:



    Mitsubishi Evo:



    Honda:



    DSM:



    Cobalt SS:



    Neon SRT4:



    And even a Jeep SRT8




    As for why I think turbochargers can control boost better than a supercharger...well, there are many ways. The only advantage (if you want to call it that) a supercharger has over a turbocharger when it comes to boost management is that you will never run the risk of overboosting with a supercharger. That's because it's controlled by the pulley of course. There is no wastegate on a supercharger.

    I mean it's not even really a matter of opinion...turbochargers control boost in many different/better ways than a supercharger. Superchargers are controlled by the size of the pulley pretty much, so you have a limited capacity. It's great if you set it at a certain psi and tune for it and then leave it alone. It's not great if you need varying degrees of boost like a turbo can give you.

    Turbochargers have boost management controlled either electronically via an Electronic Boost Control Solenoid or mechanically through a Mechanical Boost Controller. This allows for much more fine tuning when you get it up on a dyno. This allows timing and spark and fuel all to be synced in perfect harmony with the amount of boost you are running at what RPMs throughout the powerband. And of course, you set the limit on a turbocharger's boost this way.

    Externally waste-gating the turbo is even better.

    I don't know, I could go on and on... but for low boost, yes, the difference between a supercharger and a turbo would be minimal if at all. And yes, for higher power applications a turbo would be better.

    And hey, we don't call this place MediocrePowerFreaks now do we?

  6. #6
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Looks like KRC got this stroker 408 R/T to 530hp/578tq at the wheels on a single turbo...

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1fTTvz04eo&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1fTTvz04eo&feature=related[/ame]

  7. #7
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Tell me this doesn't sound SICK guys?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mooe8i4IKxs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mooe8i4IKxs[/ame]

  8. #8
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Another video... out with the old Paxton, in with the new turbochargers

    Couldn't be mounted any closer to the engine. More proof that turbos can be mounted in the engine bay no problem.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNanZgMYKBY&"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNanZgMYKBY&feature=player_embedded#![/ame]

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,000
    Rep Power
    125
    idk why you would go with an MBC over an EBC, u can get a faster spool with an EBC and u have more control over boost vs rpm and boost vs gear if u want. sounds awesome... do it

  10. #10
    Member JGC403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pottstown, PA
    Posts
    2,275
    Rep Power
    129
    OK, you convinced me about the heat issue I thought could be a problem.

    Those Dakotas with the turbos are they just using one header to power the turbo or are they piping both sides into the turbo? The Jeep has to be only able to use one bank of cylinders to power the turbo.

    How much boost are the guys running on here with their superchargers?
    No replacement for displacement!

    1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo ZJ
    360 Stroker, 408c.i.


  11. #11
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by enlight22 View Post
    idk why you would go with an MBC over an EBC, u can get a faster spool with an EBC and u have more control over boost vs rpm and boost vs gear if u want. sounds awesome... do it
    Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the EBC. Had a 3-port in my old WRX and it was by far one of the best mods I did to my car. Had complete control over the boost and spool-up was nearly instant. And I loved that especially since I am here in Colorado at nearly 6000ft elevation, the EBC can compensate a lot more for the elevation and the changes in our weather. One of the arguments I always had against the guys who ran MBC's up here was that sure, it works great when you have it tuned...but then winter rolls around and you have colder weather and suddenly you've got boost-spiking issues. You have to pull over, pop the hood, and adjust the MBC accordingly. Or, adjust it from inside the cabin.

    I guess the only thing that turned me on to it was the price factor. On my WRX it was easy to run a 3-port EBC because there was already a factory 2-port hooked up. All you had to do was disconnect and reconnect, no splicing required I can't even begin to fathom how to modify and wire an EBC into the Jeep's PCM/ECU... and if I bypassed it completely and went with an in-cabin controller, I'd be looking at $500 easily whereas the Hallman MBC would be $100-200.

    Quote Originally Posted by JGC403 View Post
    Those Dakotas with the turbos are they just using one header to power the turbo or are they piping both sides into the turbo? The Jeep has to be only able to use one bank of cylinders to power the turbo.

    How much boost are the guys running on here with their superchargers?
    Good questions. I don't think anyone on here is running the kind of boost with a supercharger that you might see on a turbo. I guess that depends on what turbo I go with though. A larger turbo isn't going to require 20psi to get some serious flow out of it.... I guess I'm hoping to be pushing around 15psi tops? I don't know, I need to research it more. The big benefit is going to be utilizing wasted energy through the exhaust ventilation.... one big drawback of a supercharger is the parasitic loss on the engine since it is driven by a belt.

    I can't exactly tell from the pictures or videos how they're running twin turbos on that Dakota... but it does look funky. I would obviously only want to run ONE turbo so that does beg the question of whether to just have 4 exhaust banks powering the turbo or all 8? If it was a big turbo, I would want all 8 so as to spool up the turbo faster... but that would mean I would have to go with my remote mount idea. I think that ZJ I posted earlier was only running off of one bank of headers.

    Here's the Dakota setup though:








    So...turbo = better MPG, less parasitic engine loss, more control over boost, and more power generally

    Alright that's it guys, everyone drop your supercharger projects and start looking into a turbocharger setup with me lol

  12. #12
    Member JGC403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pottstown, PA
    Posts
    2,275
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    A larger turbo isn't going to require 20psi to get some serious flow out of it.... I guess I'm hoping to be pushing around 15psi tops? I don't know, I need to research it more.
    You would still want the same amount of boost as the supercharger. The back pressure in the intake system is what creates the boost, your just compressing air against the intake valve when closed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    The big benefit is going to be utilizing wasted energy through the exhaust ventilation.... one big drawback of a supercharger is the parasitic loss on the engine since it is driven by a belt.
    But the turbo is going to create more back pressure in the exhaust system.

    You can probably make a supercharger perform just as well as a turbo from around 2 to maybe 12 psi of boost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    So turbo = better MPG, less parasitic engine loss, more control over boost, and more power generally
    I don't agree with better MPGs, under boost you are forcing in more air therefore using more fuel.

    I have 2 turbocharger books I got to brush up on.
    No replacement for displacement!

    1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo ZJ
    360 Stroker, 408c.i.


  13. #13
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JGC403 View Post
    You would still want the same amount of boost as the supercharger. The back pressure in the intake system is what creates the boost, your just compressing air against the intake valve when closed.
    I would want more power, so yes I would want more boost than a supercharger. And with less drain on the engine to boot

    That SD-Concepts twin turbo Dakota I posted is supposedly making 700hp. Find me a supercharger setup for our engines that is even close to that without some crazy stuff like Ben (5.9_Racer) has done. Not to mention it would be twice the price probably too.


    Quote Originally Posted by JGC403 View Post
    But the turbo is going to create more back pressure in the exhaust system.

    You can probably make a supercharger perform just as well as a turbo from around 2 to maybe 12 psi of boost.
    You're correct about the turbo creating back pressure in the exhaust system. This is one argument those who are proponents of superchargers use. But the issue is minimal and pales in comparison with the kind of parasitic loss suffered from a belt driven supercharger system.

    So as far as power goes, you're right that as far as efficiency goes at low psi, turbos and superchargers are going to be similar. Except the fact that you're losing hp/tq with a supercharger while at the same time gaining it back. It's a direct drain on your rotating crank. So given the same psi, even if it's low, a turbo is going to give you more power because it's not draining on your system nearly as much as a supercharger.


    Quote Originally Posted by JGC403 View Post
    I don't agree with better MPGs, under boost you are forcing in more air therefore using more fuel.
    You don't have to agree, it's a fact lol... Why do you think diesel trucks get better MPGs than their NA counterparts? Aside from diesel technology, it's because they're turbocharged.
    I've talked to Honda guys who actually increased their MPGs when going from NA to turbos.
    Back in WRX world, it was very common to see MPGs in the near 30s.
    And on the Cobalt SS for example...old one was supercharger. Different 2.0 motor, but it was only putting out 200hp and had questionable mpgs for a 2.0 motor. In 2008+ Chevy got smart and swapped out the supercharger to a turbocharger. Motor was different, but still 2.0 Ecotec...power was up to 260hp as well as torque (supercharger was always lacking in torque). More awesomeness though was the 33mpg it could achieved.

    Basically it's like you said when you're in boost you're forcing air and fuel so you're losing MPGs. Makes sense and it's true. But when you're OUT of boost... not WOT...that's when you can see an increase in MPGs as the turbo is atomizing the air and translating it back into the engine. It's a better engine/forced induction relationship than a supercharger. From my understanding of superchargers, you're always in boost basically. You are not at peak boost of course, but the faster your engine is going the faster you're spinning that supercharger. But on a turbo, you could shift into 4th or 5th gear and then cruise out of boost and be seeing a huge increase in MPGs. You just don't have that kind of control over a supercharger.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,000
    Rep Power
    125
    lol, I doubt you could see an MPG gain with a turbo, that goes against everything... but you could maintain similar MPG if u take ur foot out of it.. which u cant do if u have a turbo, or at least i cant... so yeah... turbos dont increase MPG... but it can give u the best of both worlds, like big engine power when u want it, and small engine fuel consumption when u keep ur foot out, provided u have a small engine

  15. #15
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by enlight22 View Post
    lol, I doubt you could see an MPG gain with a turbo, that goes against everything... but you could maintain similar MPG if u take ur foot out of it.. which u cant do if u have a turbo, or at least i cant... so yeah... turbos dont increase MPG... but it can give u the best of both worlds, like big engine power when u want it, and small engine fuel consumption when u keep ur foot out, provided u have a small engine
    I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall

    YES you DO see an increase in fuel efficiency with a turbocharged motor! Assuming you stay out of boost. And YES you can stay out of boost. What turbocharged car do you have? Staying out of boost is not a matter of the size of the engine, it's a matter of tuning and boost management. Like I said before, you can get up to cruising speed on the highway, then drop your rpms low enough that you're cruising and staying out of boost and then sit back and enjoy your MPGs

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sL-nJfEffc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sL-nJfEffc[/ame]


    I'm not saying there would be some massive mpg increase for us, but it would help our already horrible MPGs. Supercharging our motors only serves to make our horrible MPGs become even more horrible.

  16. #16
    Member RagingBull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    66
    Rep Power
    99
    The biggest issue to contend with is the PCM and its inability to properly read boost. SCT is a bandaid at best for a PCM that was never designed for a boosted application.

    With a centrifugal SC it's not an issue because boost builds linearly, but with a turbo boost builds with load. You can have a situation where you're in closed loop (part throttle), and building boost while at stoich AFRs! not good for the motor.

    I think the best way to properly manage spark and fuel for a turbo setup is running open loop all the time. have a backup CL/OL tune for when you need to get inspected.
    COME AT ME BRO

  17. #17
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RagingBull View Post
    The biggest issue to contend with is the PCM and its inability to properly read boost. SCT is a bandaid at best for a PCM that was never designed for a boosted application.

    With a centrifugal SC it's not an issue because boost builds linearly, but with a turbo boost builds with load. You can have a situation where you're in closed loop (part throttle), and building boost while at stoich AFRs! not good for the motor.

    I think the best way to properly manage spark and fuel for a turbo setup is running open loop all the time. have a backup CL/OL tune for when you need to get inspected.
    Yea, that's why the plan is for an EBC or MBC with an in-cabin controller to help regulate the boost. And that would help with the professional dyno tune to get everything dialed in.

  18. #18
    Member JGC403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pottstown, PA
    Posts
    2,275
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    Why do you think diesel trucks get better MPGs than their NA counterparts? Aside from diesel technology, it's because they're turbocharged.
    Diesels get better mpgs because they are more efficient. Because they don't have a throttle and they are direct injected. This helps increase volumetric efficiency. And also the higher compression ratio extracts more energy out of the fuel.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wrinklechops View Post
    But when you're OUT of boost... not WOT...that's when you can see an increase in MPGs as the turbo is atomizing the air and translating it back into the engine. It's a better engine/forced induction relationship than a supercharger.
    The air is already atomized, that's why its called air. When your not under boost now the engine has to pull all the air through all of that extra piping, from the air filter, through the turbo, through the intercooler and into the intake manifold. Their is going to be piping losses and therefore a reduction in volumetric efficiency of the engine.
    Last edited by JGC403; 04-15-2010 at 11:16 AM.
    No replacement for displacement!

    1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo ZJ
    360 Stroker, 408c.i.


  19. #19
    Banned SERB Z06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    421
    Rep Power
    0
    JGC0403 you seriously need to stop posting on this topic.

    If a diesel can get better MPG because of a higher compression ration than I got news for you….a turbocharger raises your effective compression ratio.

    Both turbochargers and superchargers can make great power, but turbos have a lot of advantages that superchargers do not.

    The fact that you talk about both in terms of psi shows me you have no clue how forced induction works. The amount/number of PSI is completely irrelevant to how much power an engine will make. A car/truck with a roots blower at 7 psi is not the equivalent as a centrifugal like a Vortech at 7 psi and that’s not equivalent to a turbo at 7psi.

    Let me put it this way: If you take a road bike tire and fill it to 30 psi, and then take a 33” tire and fill that to 30 psi, which one has more air? Obviously the 33” tire. Turbos and superchargers operate on the same principle, except they go even more complex as to have compressor maps mapping out their efficiency, meaning the power increase will almost never be linear (per psi).

    Back to the MPG thing, turboing an NA motor will always increase MPG, sometimes significantly. I have a significant amount of personal experience in this regard as I used to tune people’s Hondas in my area when I was in college. All of them got better gas mileage after turboing. If you don’t want to take it from a guy on the forum, read this: http://autospeed.com/cms/A_109931/article.html

    For making power, turbo is the answer. But on a V8, a centrifugal supercharger is often times a much easier solution, this is what we call a trade off.

    I can tell you one thing. Many more people remove superchargers to turbo their vehicles than the other way around, that’s for sure.

  20. #20
    Modfag Saleen4971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,358
    Rep Power
    2342
    cool down guys. no reason to have a heated debate instead of a good discussion.
    Ross
    1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited
    MPP Headers - Thunderbolt Metallic Cat - 3" Mag catback - EBC Brakes w/ drilled Rotors - 4bbl M1 - Vortech 12psi - Built trans & 2900 stall - Ford 8.8 - Addco & Hellwig Sways - Poly Bushings - H&R Springs - Grabber UHP Tires - Alpine/Infinity Stereo - FX-R BiXenon Retrofit

  21. #21
    Member JGC403's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pottstown, PA
    Posts
    2,275
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by SERB Z06 View Post
    If a diesel can get better MPG because of a higher compression ration than I got news for you….a turbocharger raises your effective compression ratio.
    Obviously. But their compression ratio start around 20-25:1.


    Hey look at that effective compression is based on PSI from whatever is creating the boost.


    Quote Originally Posted by SERB Z06 View Post
    Both turbochargers and superchargers can make great power, but turbos have a lot of advantages that superchargers do not.
    I am not saying they aren't better than superchargers. They also can be more temperamental than a supercharger.


    Quote Originally Posted by SERB Z06 View Post
    Let me put it this way: If you take a road bike tire and fill it to 30 psi, and then take a 33” tire and fill that to 30 psi, which one has more air? Obviously the 33” tire. Turbos and superchargers operate on the same principle, except they go even more complex as to have compressor maps mapping out their efficiency, meaning the power increase will almost never be linear (per psi).
    Obviously the 33" tire is going to have more air. How does this apply to super/ turbochargers?
    No replacement for displacement!

    1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo ZJ
    360 Stroker, 408c.i.


  22. #22
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JGC403 View Post
    Diesels get better mpgs because they are more efficient. Because they don't have a throttle and they are direct injected. This helps increase volumetric efficiency. And also the higher compression ratio extracts more energy out of the fuel.
    That's what I said; aside from diesel technology. The turbocharger only helps. When I was in the Army, we had HMMWVs right? Well, they're diesels here in the states mostly...Normally Aspirated. Complete DOGS and don't get the best MPGs. Overseas, we got the turbocharged versions. Didn't need to fill up nearly as often...and you add in the extra weight of the armor plating and full ammo and weapons and 3 guys and it still got better MPGs than the unloaded NA version here in the states


    Quote Originally Posted by JGC403 View Post
    The air is already atomized, that's why its called air. When your not under boost now the engine has to pull all the air through all of that extra piping, from the air filter, through the turbo, through the intercooler and into the intake manifold. Their is going to be piping losses and therefore a reduction in volumetric efficiency of the engine.
    I really don't know how else to explain it to you in a way you can understand...but the turbocharger is more efficient than a supercharger. Simple as that. Doesn't run off a belt. Recycles unused exhaust heat and air. Better MPGs when not WOT full boost.

    Here are some compressor maps for us to look at it. First, the Vortech S Trim V2:




    And here is a Turbonetics T66 turbo similar to the one used on the 5.2 ZJ I originally posted:




    Turbo = more RPMs, more boost, more CFM

  23. #23
    Banned SERB Z06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Jersey Shore
    Posts
    421
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JGC403 View Post
    Obviously the 33" tire is going to have more air. How does this apply to super/ turbochargers?
    Because some turbos and superchargers are much bigger than others.

    7 psi on a big supercharger is going to move a lot more air than 7 psi on a smaller one

  24. #24
    Administratororororor SUPERJEEP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1971
    Location
    bawwston
    Posts
    948
    Rep Power
    21475410
    as said before boost is just a measure of backpressure. more boost isnt the answer. if you hit 12psi on a t63 turbo and the more boost you add your losing power,put on a t88 at 12 psi and hold the hell on. adding a shit ton of boost doesnt always mean more power
    1998 grandcherokee5.9.forged bottom,vortech T trim,220 cam,ported eq heads,and all supporting valvetrain,4bbl m1,sct tuned,headers/full exhaust,4.10 gears,and the usual bolt-ons,alcohol injection, martin saine 3800 pro billet stall converter

    2002 954rr kandy red with lots of mods

    2004 f4i. sick inovations cage,kandy red paint,polished frame,si round bar. dirtbike bars, dual caliper handbrake

    "wear a condom,i dont want to be an uncle to a bunch of space cadets on motorcycles lookin like you" -davit-


  25. #25
    Banned Wrinklechops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,979
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SUPERJEEP View Post
    adding a shit ton of boost doesnt always mean more power
    True...but 12psi from a turbo will give you more power than 12psi from a supercharger just because of the parasitic loss difference.

Similar Threads

  1. Bunch of ZJ stuff
    By GreenZJ in forum For Sale
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-05-2012, 04:17 PM
  2. 5.9 Stuff for Sale
    By MineRunnerZJ in forum For Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2011, 07:29 AM
  3. 5.9 stuff...
    By -xxxj- in forum For Sale
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-06-2011, 08:46 AM
  4. Suspension stuff
    By JGC403 in forum Wanted to Buy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-08-2011, 05:59 PM
  5. Some 5.9L stuff for sale
    By MonaDeRio in forum For Sale
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-14-2011, 06:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •