Have you not noticed that the turboed and Supercharded 4 cyl are both VERY well suted for the 4cyl. Superchargers are just like turbos, you have to match them up to the displacement of your car.
quote from rippmods - supercharger cost $3500 stage 1
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The SDS-4G64 (Mitsu 4 cyl 2000 and up) is now available, we are taking orders on it and it is in complete form, PICS coming soon. The system sells for $3595.95 on sale for $3200 and produces 260.21hp-247.5lb/ft on a 5SPD and 235hp-221.25lb/ft on an automatic (values at crank). The systems come complete with everything needed to bolt on. Shipping as early as 3 weeks.</div>
stage 2 is not out but makes 250 hp for the 4 cyl
quote from dougs dyno power - Turbo stage 1 and 2 cost $3349
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Full bolt-on turbo kit for the RS/GS 2.4L. Includes Mitsubishi 16G Turbo, Spearco side-mounted intercooler, wastegate canister, in-tank pump and Holley FMU regulator, BOV and all necessary piping and components, including VDO boost gauge as well as an air fuel monitor.
APEXi Super AFC and larger RC Engineering Injectors are highly recommended for boost levels above 5psi. EGT gauge and Turbo Timer are also highly recommended.
Recommended 5-8psi - no more than 10psi for stock internals. Est gain 60-90hp
stage 2
Complete stage two turbo kit for 2000-01 2.4L engine - includes everything as Stage 1 kit but with a front mount intercooler rather than a side-mount intercooler. May require trimming of front bumper to have the FMIC fit.
Est. gain 70-130+hp
</div>
and just by looking at the dyno sheets between these two kits you would have a VERY hard time saying which is the turbo and which is a super charger application.
Please do this whole board a favor and before you start confusing new people that have just joined please READ up on all the applications for our cars. Read the benifits and the downfalls, then only answer the questions with relivant information and not your own speculation..
thank you
[/quote]
Please do this whole board a favor and before you start confusing new people that have just joined please READ up on all the applications for our cars. Read the benifits and the downfalls, then only answer the questions with relivant information and not your own speculation..
thank you[/quote]
yea..i 4got 2 say that... 8)
ok, well then galants must be an exception to the 99.9% of 4-cyli cars that will benefit more from a turbocharger than a supercharger. I've got shit to learn too, please don't treat me like I'm an idiot, cuz both of us know that I'm not.
I'm not saying a supercharger is BAD for a 4-cyli. I'm saying that a turbo is better suited to a 4-cyli, because of the powerband, and the parasitic drag a supercharger creates. A turbo will make more power, apparently, unless you have a 4-cyli galant...
its cuz our galant are superior 2.4's most 4cyls have 1.5-2.0L's
parasitic drag is minimal on newer setups. and a minute point when trying to talk down SC's
and what about the freaking power band? a SC makes all of it's power up top JUST LIKE A TURBO!!! but it also makes good torque down low.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ScootinIntegra)</div><div class='quotemain'>ok, well then galants must be an exception to the 99.9% of 4-cyli cars that will benefit more from a turbocharger than a supercharger. I've got shit to learn too, please don't treat me like I'm an idiot, cuz both of us know that I'm not.
I'm not saying a supercharger is BAD for a 4-cyli. I'm saying that a turbo is better suited to a 4-cyli, because of the powerband, and the parasitic drag a supercharger creates. A turbo will make more power, apparently, unless you have a 4-cyli galant...</div>
Both Supercharger and TurboCharger utilize a vehicles powerband.
Turbos have drawbacks too, like LAG and heat.
A SuperCharged S2000:
http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/s20...upercharger.pdf
A TurboCharged S2000
http://www.ultimate-racing.com/Products/Ho...tSecondDyno.jpg
I didn't find actual Dyno Pictures of 4G64 S/C vs T/C but i will. In the mean time numbers for the S/C Automatic are: 235hp-221.25lb/ft @6psi.
ic now
uhhhh...... Whats a 9g???
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RedGalant2k1)</div><div class='quotemain'>Both Supercharger and TurboCharger utilize a vehicles powerband. Â*
Turbos have drawbacks too, like LAG and heat.</div>
a supercharger provides the "instant power" that is ideal for torquey, low-revving muscle cars, not for sky-high revving imports. If superchargers were better, then why don't you see the 10-second civics, and 9-second talons using them? It's because a turbocharger can provide more airflow, with no parasitic drag on the motor. Muscle cars live on torque. The weight transfer of the car is perfect for a supercharger, because they generally won't break traction in a RWD and slicked car. A supercharger is run by a belt-driven pulley, which sucks away hp, especially at top end. The more boost you run in a supercharger, the bigger the pulley you have to buy, so the more power is sapped from the engine. With a turbo, all you need to do is adjust when the wastegate opens, with NO loss in power anywhere else, as opposed to running lower boost. The lag "problem" that you mentioned can be used to a tuner's advantage in a FWD car, that is, to get off the line and gain traction before the turbo spools, which will keep you from spinning to a 3 second 60' time.
Heat buildup is simple...an intercooler. While no air-to-air intercooler is 100% efficient, there are some that come as close as 80%. A liquid-to-air intercooler can actually be over 100% efficient, meaning the intake charge temp is lower than the ambient air temperature. A supercharger doesn't need to worry about this as much, because the compressor housing is not attached to an exhaust turbine housing. The charge, however, is still hotter than the ambient air due to compression. Any turbo with a halfway decent intercooler comes out to nearly the same, but always a little higher, air temps than a supercharger.
The trade-off a turbo makes for it's power delivery is a lowering of exhaust gas velocity, which some people try and refer to as "backpressure." However, as soon as a turbo reaches positive boost, that is, it has become a pump instead of a restriction in the attempt to equalize and surpass the surrounding air pressure, it begins to spool itself, in a way. The pressurized air obviously has to go some where when it is combusted, and it heads out the turbo manifold. This gives the turbo more and more air as it compresses more and more air, bringing it to peak boost much quicker. The turbo itself basically eliminates it's own problem.
A supercharger's trade-off is parasitic drag on the motor in the form of a pulley. This power will always be sapped, no matter how much boost pressure you run. In fact, the more boost you run, the harder it is for the engine to turn the pulley, and the more power is sapped away. When the disadvantages of a supercharger outweight the advantages, it is time to go turbo. On wide-geared, high torque muscle cars, the off-the-line power is more than enough to end a race. However, with a smaller engine, and shorter gears to compensate for this lack of power, the race lasts much longer. Staying in powerband the entire time, with basically no parastitic drag except during the launch, when exhaust gas velocity is lowered by the restriction of the turbo turbine, is imperative. A 4-cyli car may go through 3-4 gears on its way to the end of the quarter mile. A mustang or camaro may go through 2 or 3.
If you ran a turbocharged galant/integra/civic against a supercharged g/i/c, with the same boost pressures and the same driver, the supercharged car would run the faster 60', (if it didn't spin out of control at the start), but the turbo'd cars would catch up and beat them through the 1/4. And honestly, how many of you race for 60' then call it a race?It's all a matter of what you drive.
Maybe the misunderstanding we're having here is a result of ignorance of each other's tuning philosophies, and the specifications of our cars. If a 4-cyli galant has a lower redline, and larger displacement than my car, which i believe it does, it is better suited to a supercharger than an integra or civic, but still would benefit much more from a turbocharger, due to the fact that it has a smaller displacement, and with an open exhaust and intake, it's powerband is, too, shifted into the upper RPM's. This powerband is more suited to a turbocharger, which is more efficient and provides more power in an area of the rev band that the car can make the most efficient use of.
Either way, I see we have a lot to learn from each other. I'm not claiming to be an expert on turbochargers and superchargers, but I know a little more than the average person. I definitely do not have any hard feelings or feelings of superiority over you, although I may come off that way. Peace out, man, hit me up on AIM sometime.
I can see your point on the turbo's scootin, but i always thought a SC would be better on a 4cyl car, not for top end, but because we lag power on the low end and tourqe. And i was always under the impression SC's really take over the role of giving you instant power hence better and faster take off. I would think muscle cars would need a turbo more because they aleady have the instant power in the beginning with their beastly engines, but they lag top end. And thats why i thought they put turbo's on the Formula 1 cars engine. Because they have quick acceleration, but for their engines, the F1 committee back in the early 90's aproved the racing teams to put turbos on their cars cause the V10's they had were not getting them over the top at max speed.
everybody talks about this lag, you must remember we are FWD and if you want any power at all, then lag will be your friend. With our 2.4L 4g64 and a 14b turbo with most supporting mods it will spool that thing like a pinwheel and the wheels will be spinning like no other unless you get a LSD...
Supercharger is nice b/c its instant power, but I think there is more aftermarket support in turbochargers which means more potential power...
7g for life!
thanks for telling us things that we all allready know!
All I can say is please do some reading about the two applications.
First off a SC does not need a LARGER pully to make more boost it uses a smaller pully to make the turbine spin faster...that is why the GTP and Lightning sell SMALLER pullys to make more power.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>a turbocharger can provide more airflow</div>
please prove this point
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>With a turbo, all you need to do is adjust when the wastegate opens</div>
and with a SC all you need to do is change the pully if it is an Eaton application. and (get this) is you are using a Vortech SC all you need to do (gasp) is adjust when the wastgae opens!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>While no air-to-air intercooler is 100% efficient</div>
aggreed
and SC need to worry about heat just as much as turbos. try an aftercooler
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>On wide-geared, high torque muscle cars, the off-the-line power is more than enough to end a race</div>
off the line power is never enough to end a race. you still need power up top to finninsh
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>A 4-cyli car may go through 3-4 gears on its way to the end of the quarter mile. A mustang or camaro may go through 2 or 3.</div>
Again please study what you are talking about a mustang AND camaro will be at the end of 3rd bagining of 4th at the end of the 1/4 STOCK then if you up the gears to 3.75 or 4.10 out back you will be in mid to top of 4th...
as far as the turbo lag being an advantage off the line. Why would people that drag turboed cars try to build the boost up at the line before the tree drops. This tells me that they are wanting "Instant Power" off the line.....
well I will finninsh this post later I have to run and take care of a late night problem at work.....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alister_McRae)</div><div class='quotemain'>I can see your point on the turbo's scootin, but i always thought a SC would be better on a 4cyl car, not for top end, but because we lag power on the low end and tourqe. And i was always under the impression SC's really take over the role of giving you instant power hence better and faster take off. I would think muscle cars would need a turbo more because they aleady have the instant power in the beginning with their beastly engines, but they lag top end. And thats why i thought they put turbo's on the Formula 1 cars engine. Because they have quick acceleration, but for their engines, the F1 committee back in the early 90's aproved the racing teams to put turbos on their cars cause the V10's they had were not getting them over the top at max speed.</div>
I think you have it flipped. In 1989 they prohibated use of Forced Induction in F-1 racing. Nowadays they utilize N/A V10s and V12s.
http://www.f1-grandprix.com/history5.html
It wasn't because the V10s couldn't muster enough to 'get them over the top' at max speed Turbos proved either unreliable OR because it gave things an uneven playing field.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RedGalant2k1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alister_McRae)</div><div class='quotemain'>I can see your point on the turbo's scootin, but i always thought a SC would be better on a 4cyl car, not for top end, but because we lag power on the low end and tourqe. And i was always under the impression SC's really take over the role of giving you instant power hence better and faster take off. I would think muscle cars would need a turbo more because they aleady have the instant power in the beginning with their beastly engines, but they lag top end. And thats why i thought they put turbo's on the Formula 1 cars engine. Because they have quick acceleration, but for their engines, the F1 committee back in the early 90's aproved the racing teams to put turbos on their cars cause the V10's they had were not getting them over the top at max speed.</div>
I think you have it flipped. In 1989 they prohibated use of Forced Induction in F-1 racing. Nowadays they utilize N/A V10s and V12s.
http://www.f1-grandprix.com/history5.html
It wasn't because the V10s couldn't muster enough to 'get them over the top' at max speed Turbos proved either unreliable OR because it gave things an uneven playing field.</div>
Ohhh, i see, i thought it was in the 90's when senna was the field master....back when honda engineers were building mclaren engines...lol
OK...in muscle cars, generally those incorporating a supercharger, which are well tuned, are somewhere in the 10's or even below. They also will run slushboxes, which allow for faster shifting, and the benefits of shifting faster outweigh the loss of hp. They also have 4 speeds, with wider gears as opposed to 6 speeds or 5-speeds with shorter gears. That it what I was referring to when i said the mustang/camaro was in 3rd or 4th gear. Now, if you are running a 10-second quarter, do you really have time to play catch-up? No. If you fuck up the launch, you're done, its over. He's already past the 320' mark, and you are on your way to a "shitty" 12-second 1/4. This is what makes superchargers so useful in all-out dragging. They get a RWD, slicked V-8 off the line and propelled down the track. They aren't concerned with a few hp loss at the top end because of parasitic pulleys (which are smaller, correct...I knew that, but I guess I wasn't thinking!!!
Once again, switching to a smaller pulley will cause more drag on the motor, as opposed to changing the wastegate pressure, which does nothing to affect power other than increase it.
A supercharger DOES NOT have to deal with the same heat that a turbo does. A supercharger has to deal with the heat of compression, that is pretty much it. A turbocharger has to deal with the heat of compression, plus the heat of 1400 degree exhaust gases spinning a turbine which is attached to the compressor housing. Heat transfer, my friend, is a bitch.
TOO SUM IT ALL UP...
A supercharger takes a butt load of energy to spin, which 4-cyli cars already lack. A supercharger set at 2-3 psi would probably feel about the same as a NA motor, with no supercharger. It doesn't take this energy to spool a turbo. There's a reason turbochargers are banned from the NHRA...they are TOO efficient. A supercharger is only about 40-50% efficient, as opposed to a turbocharger, which is around 70% efficient. A race in a FWD, low-powered car allows catch-up time...that is, whoever has the faster 60' doesn't really matter, too a degree. However, with 10-second muscle car beasts, the 60' time and sometimes the 320' time, will tell you exactly who won the race. It's the person with more power off the line, and a better launch. 4-cylis can play catch up, it's how you win the game. v-8's don't play catch up, they play kick-your-ass. You need to buy the turbo best suited to your application.
And lag in a turbo, FWD car is good for traction. Do you honestly think you'd be able to hook and run anything less than 2.5s 60' times? No, probably not. Once you get off the line, however, and you get moving, the effects of that weight transfer become negligible, and you won't spin (unless your turbo spools around 3k or so, and it spools HARD...then you may break loose the tires, but it's still better to break loose then than sit spinning at the line.)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>as far as the turbo lag being an advantage off the line. Why would people that drag turboed cars try to build the boost up at the line before the tree drops. This tells me that they are wanting "Instant Power" off the line..... </div>
If you're correct about a supercharger being better, then why are they even racing turbo'd cars? Why bother "building up boost" when he could have it right off the line with a supercharger? This obviously means that there are greater advantages to turbos than are outweighed by the lack of instant power off the line. And I'm willing to bet that John Sheppard knows more about turbos and superchargers than you do.
Go to talk to any performance shop worth it's salt in your area. They will tell you, straight up, that a turbocharger is better for a 4-cyli car than a supercharger. C'mon, go ahead, ask. If you want to argue with me about this, that's fine, I just want to let you know that I have been learning from someone studying mechanical engineering, first at Rolla, MO, now at SLU, MO, and drives a well-tuned Eclipse GST. Also, I can go talk to my friend's stepdad, who worked for Garrett turbos for 11 years, and is now an airplane mechanic who deals specifically with jet turbines. And most of all, if you want to argue with me, don't make it personal. I can't stand someone who gets personal over the internet.
FYI: In my first novel-length post, I had to be at work in 10 minutes, and was skipping around the post to add here and there. So obviously I mispoke quite a bit. For example, the turbochargers providing more airflow comment was supposed to be part of the sentence "Turbochargers and superchargers both provide boost, but what matters more than boost is airflow. A larger turbo will provide more airflow than a smaller turbo, under the same boost." (generally the difference in airflow isn't noticeable until about .8-1 bar boost and higher, fyi) but instead i forgot to add the rest, lol...my mess up...
~Drew
jesus schrist scootin
what web site did you cut and paste all this bull shit
we all know you didnt type all that
by the way integras suck
remember what i said when you will never have FI unless mommy or daddy buys it for you
hahaahha
you suck
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Phase24)</div><div class='quotemain'>jesus schrist scootin
what web site did you cut and paste all this bull shit
we all know you didnt type all that
by the way integras suck
remember what i said when you will never have FI unless mommy or daddy buys it for you
hahaahha
you suck</div>
disqualified for resorting to personal attacks
shut the fuck up
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Phase24)</div><div class='quotemain'>shut the fuck up</div>
or what mr. trolly mctrollerton?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Phase24)</div><div class='quotemain'>look get the fuck off the galant website noone wants to hear your bullshit</div>
please drop the personal attacks. i don't mind hearing his "bullshit" and i'm sure a lot of others feel the same. atleast he is making useful input in this argument instead of insulting people for no apparent reason. btw, i agree with his point that all the big boys with small 4 bangers are using turbos, and i'll just stick with that rather than trying to argue all these points. there are obviously arguments for both sides, take your pick, i already picked a turbo and am more than satisfied with it. if you want a supercharger, have fun, it's your choice.
on a somewhat personal note though, i had no traction in 1st or 2nd gear, and only partial traction in 3rd gear (they would spin, but not too bad) with a bit of tuning while running 22psi on a gt30 compressor wheel. this is by no means at perfect tuning, and i'm running less than the recommended 25-30psi. fwd has far more disadvantages to worry about than a supercharger or a turbo, so i would concentrate on finding a way to get traction in the first place. when my car was stock, i remember how easy it was to lose traction in 1st, and chirp 2nd with a measly 140hp not even at the wheels.
4-banger, v-8, whatever, i wouldn't bother supercharging a fwd car, for rwd, a supercharger is great, but on a fwd, or even an awd, most people seem to want to go with a turbo including subaru, mitsubishi, audi, and others.
now what you do is your choice, but don't go insulting people just because they feel one is better than the other, especially if you don't even have experience with either.
scooting- sorry if it sounds personal....it's not ment to be
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>"Turbochargers and superchargers both provide boost, but what matters more than boost is airflow. A larger turbo will provide more airflow than a smaller turbo, under the same boost."</div>
the same applys for superchargers....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Once again, switching to a smaller pulley will cause more drag on the motor, as opposed to changing the wastegate pressure, which does nothing to affect power other than increase it.</div>
a smaller pully actually DECREASE the drag on the engine (smaller part to move) and again Suprecharger systems also use a wastgate system (look at the rippmods SC setup)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And I'm willing to bet that John Sheppard knows more about turbos and superchargers than you do. </div>
ditto
and please do not start bringing in your brothers best frinds sisters second cousins uncles best friend that races cars. Please Use knowlage that you have aqqired personally.
and for the reason why people race turbos and not superchargers on imports is because a turbo is more KNOWN to be applyed on smaller cars. Turbos have been marketed over MANY years toward smaller cars. also because of the more recent "fast and Furious" croud they seem to think that sport compact car racing has only been around for a few years when in fact people have been racing small cars from way back in the late 60's early 70's (not every one and not applying this to you) and they also think that turbos are the only ones for small displacement engines.
and it turbos were the bset application for small engines why would Mini Cooper put a supercharger on their 1.6L 4 cyl? why would mercedes Benz use an intercooled supercharger on their 1.8L? why would RippMods even mess with a Supercharger for the 2.4L? Why would Jackson racing make a supercharger for the Acura Integra GSRhttp://www.hirevracing.com/supercharger.html ? or the civic or the CRX or the Del Sol or the Focus or the Escort ( yes I got those cars from that link) But it makes me wonder why a performance company who relys on a street reputation for how their products perform create a weaker product? ummmm...
ok I am going to only say a few more things about this then I am done with this thread.
The debate between which is better can go on forever. The turbos and Supercharges are doing the exact same thing.
So please to those that have been reading this thread please take some time out and read the following links to learn a little more about turbos and Supercharges to make up your own mind on what you think is better for your application and for what you are looking for. Use your OWN mind to make the decisison for you.
http://www.superchargersonline.com/content.asp?ID=19
http://www.perfectpower.com/Technical_info/turbovs.asp
very good info here maybe read this thread first
http://www.automotiveforums.com/t417.html
so I am done here I have other things to do.....
Posting Rules
Log in
Register
Reply With Quote
2002 Mitsubishi Galant GTZ
Bookmarks