old TC vs SC debate... - MX-5 Miata Forum

****** retards

 

Oh god....

 

lol @ faggo over there

 

Not again.

 

Fun stuff.

 

Wow, do people at m.net still think the world is flat??

 

Apparently during the milliseconds that my turbo lags, a supercharger car pulls bus lengths on me.

That seems likely...

 

What amazes me is the fact all this ------s argue about is turbo lag, and late spool, I dont know what miatas they're driving but a regular cruise in my car is ~3k and downshifting puts me at ~4k WTF O_o

 

Turbo lag and boost threshold is pretty much a non-issue with most of the turbos we run anyways. At least for me on the street I love where my turbo starts to make boost.

 

The main problem I find with M.net is that most of them are a bunch of old dinosaurs like me... difference is most of them refuse to learn anything newer than 1980 tech.

I bought a SC right after I bought my Miata thinking just like they did. After I spent some time researching the subject more in depth I sold the SC and am currently accumulating parts for a turbo install instead. If you can actually read and understand with an open mind it's pretty damn clear the turbo wins at damn near everything.

 

Problem is these people don't have open minds, and don't have the physical ability to comprehend the mere possibility that something could be better than their FFS, p-p-p-powercard 'e-cool' garbage.

The same group of people will debate hand and foot that swapping out their powercard/ecool/bandaids for REAL EMS would make ANY power difference at all. Sadly we removed the S/C from the car before another dyno pull could prove that fact. Not that they would ever believe or buy into it..

I look at it this way, they want to spend $4000+ for 190rwhp then more power to them. The only reason I have an M45 on my car right now is because I don't have the time / weather to complete my turbo install and I'm slightly addicted to boost. The 8psi might not be much, its sure not what 8psi from my turbo would make, but the car will at least get out of its own way.

 

Here is a few interesting facts.

The Eaton M45 flows approx 300cfm @ 14000rpm and 10psi, which converts to about 24lbs/min of air flow. DeltaT for 10psi is at 4000rpm is 140*F, and 14000rpm its about 185*F. The compressor requires about 25hp to operate 10psi @ 14000.



While I don't have a power consumption or delta-t map for my T04 compressor, I can tell you that 7psi it flows 21lbs/min of air @ 7000rpm. M45 flows around 8.8lbs/min air @ 6000rpm (Compressor) which should be around 2700rpm engine speed IIRC where the turbo flows 9lbs/min @ 3000 engine RPM.

My point is the two compressors flow about the same amount of air at around the same engine RPMs. Which one makes more power, and which one makes it quicker? That'll depend heavily on how well sized my turbine is, along with my downpipe and overall exhaust flow. If I had to guess judging by the parasitic drag on the engine which the compressor of the M45, I think all thing equal the turbo would make more power, and the difference at low engine speed would be pretty minuscule.

Yeah I'm that bored tonight.

 

Bingo, but the thing that I find funny is that for a lot of people its as much about some sort of weird Ying-Yang like balance in their heads. Surely the turbo cannot be better in every way, thats not balanced. Ahh, the positive displacement blower makes boost sooner/quicker. Therefore they have strengths and weaknesses and all is in balance.

Seriously, you see this all the time. The big engine makes more power, but it has lower HP/L and weighs more. The intercooler does a much better job, but now theres more volume to fill up. This car is much faster, but that car is more 'fun to drive'.

It's weird. Its like the concept that sometimes one approach is far superior to the other overall is not viable. I can understand weighing advantages, but at some point you have a winner.

 

I see that same thing a lot. You'll also see a slightly different but related argument, the "different strokes for different folks" line of argumentation. Someone should go post a "bias ply vs. radial ply" thread and argue that bias ply tires just have different strengths.

I also blame car magazines. Face it, 95% of internet car guys learned their car info from 2 sources -- their father/older brothers, and car magazines. If automotive writers hadn't for years been complaining about "peaky" turbos and "dangerous turbo lag", we might not find this attitude to be so prevalent.

 

I don't understand how people still have energy for this argument.

 

A bit to the east of here, several groups of very similar-minded people have been engaged in an ongoing argument about a piece of relatively barren and worthless real estate (specifically, the only bit of land in that neck of the woods underneath which there is no oil at all) since pretty much the beginning of recorded history, and for many of the same reasons.

By comparison, the turbo / SC debate has only been going on for a few decades. They've got a lot of catching up to do.

 

seriously hurts my head that they find the "there's lag in your response/thinking" joke funny.

 

You stole my comments....good thing you wrote it better than I would have :-)

 

that sjmarcey dude is insane. he's the only one that keeps bring up "lag" he dumps in any sort of delay at all to the term; be it turbo or gearing or even hesitating on the line

When I defined the true definition of turbo lag, he stated it was too commercialized for him to accept.

Is Turbo Lag a genuine issue? - MX-5 Miata Forum

 

The first production turbocharged automobile engines came from General Motors in 1962.