speed /performance

[00GTZ00]

one last thing, apparitly club 3g is talking about the same thing...

http://www.eclipseforums.org/forum/showthr...threadid=133121

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Um let’s do a better ratio!

How many turbo cars are running?
How many SDS cars are running?

Then let’s talk power! Â*
We have the most powerful, fastest and most reliable kits out there; the turbo kits have proven to be unreliable over and over... this is a fact, not opinion!

The SDS cars go from 161whp and 170~lb/ft to 281whp and 271lb/ft.... so what about torque? That’s our base kit.... with 5 engine failures to date, mostly consumer related (Fact)

So the bottom line is, is THIS APPLICATION turbo has proven to be consistently detrimental, with few exceptions, and SC has proven to be consistently reliable over time and testing. Â*

The real argument is the application; is this application viable for turbo charging? In our opinion the engine has been built with materials which are not designed to deal with the heat and backpressure the turbo produces (and it produces on average 75% more heat than any other FI including NOS). Â*

Secondly the engines electronics seem to disagree with the air speeds your feeding it with the TC so timing starts to log all over the maps…. Once again not a reliable situation. Â*

Lastly the current TC systems do not compare in kit form to an SDS kit, as we provide ALL fuel, ALL electronics, and, all hardware to make is a TRUE buy and bolt on kit, with the exception of the header. Given the header choices you have out there, our header just happens to be the best designed unit to purchase, because we engineered it to be, just like all our other products. So again your argument about affordability of the TC is falsified vs. the SC.

If you want to compare real world numbers, let’s compare the numbers in this forum and with this group of individuals, while I understand the benefits of TC and engine will provide a more impressive torque curve (MAYBE) IF THE KIT IS RUNNING SOUNDLY. But has this V6 in this format run reliably? From what we have been reading no! Because more guys have purchased the “next best thingâ€� and had to drop their whole project, because the kit blew the car up….Whether it be tuning, intercooling, or customer negligence, more TC kits have blown up there application than there are SC kits running, why? Â*

Because we did our homework properly, and because the kit we designed was designed from the novice stand point of a customer, were he is putting his faith in the hands of the manufacturer. So if you’re going to bring up any argument, whether the manufacturer is a “nice guyâ€� or not, the fact of the matter is the kits have blown up cars! Were as the more expensive SDS kits have not, and were they have there has been a reason that was outside our control doing so. Â*

So as a manufacturer, reading this is both a good and bad thing, I feel the work we have done has proven itself in A GOOD WAY by the number of sound running kits we have been able to provide, but it’s bad in the respect that, when it’s compared to turbo we feel that response it “Oh well can’t get a turbo so I may as well get the SCâ€�. Which is fine, but we want the get across right now, the SC has been the only real viable option this community has, not because of the bad turbo charger kits, but because our kit is really hard to compare to. Â*

When you factor on all the positive feed back the SC kits have gotten, remember, that as PERFORMNCE TUNERS first, we too went the TC route in this application, bringing us only frustration and grief, if form of boost. We lost a great customer over it. That spawned the SDS program… and we never looked back…. More and more groups are seeing it…. But I just don’t want you guys to lose sight of the fact that this kit was designed and manufactured from the performance division of RIPP Modification, not the accounting department…..

I said it before and I’ll say it again, what good is a more powerful broken car? Â*

Respectfully,
Ross Esposito
President
RIPP Modification Inc
718-442-4723
</div>

Yeah, i'm done with this thread too...but superchargers are not for imports. That's the bottom line.

And a smaller pulley WILL create more drag on the engine, it's like bike gears, plus the fact that it takes more and more energy to compress more and more air.

Go ask any performance shop worth it's salt what they would reccomend for a 4-cyli car. They will tell you that you should go turbo, because the power benefits outweigh the disadvantages of extra heat and "lag..." which actually lets your car get off the line without spinning. The weight transder and tire make-up is all wrong for that much torque off the line.

BMW put a supercharger on a Mini Cooper because the Mini cooper S was not designed to be a drag car. It was designed to have that "instant power" off the line, which provides this daily drivable power that is evident in Mini Coopers. Same thing with the Benz's...they aren't designed for people to go ripping up to 8k RPMs, building boost pressure, for maximum hp. They are designed to present drivable power, and Mini and Benz both decided that maximum power was not the idea is this situation, and they would prefer driveable power as opposed to maximum power. In this case, the supercharger wins. But how many of you boost to enjoy "driveable power?"

Supercharger kits designed for the smaller 4-cylinder cars by companies such as Edelbrock and Jackson racing make superchargers for these small cars because it is what they do best. They have just recently expanded into the sport compact field, so they do not have the best turbo kits together. It's a way to make money, that's all. They draw off what they know after tuning muscle cars for so long. Just because they offer a kit, as well, doesn't mean it is the best application for the car. Why, then, does AEM make a short ram intake for my Integra? Obviously not the best option, but it's available.

Well, I'm done with this as well, hope everyone got some good info on the ongoing debate between turbos vs. superchargers.

[Wintergalant]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VegasMatt)</div><div class='quotemain'>I have 7000 miles on the Ripp SDS and no problems either. Â*Tranny is holding up fine.</div>

Vegas??? How often are you getting your tranny serviced??

[Strahan]

My thoughts on the matter are that either one is good to have

Most of peoples' complaints about SC are not valid anymore. It eats power? Sure, it takes around 5% of your power but gives you +/-50% so I think that makes it a nonissue. Parasitic drag? You can get SC setups with clutches so it's not pulling at low boost situations. Don't get me wrong, I like turbos too. I just -hate- people who rave about turbos just because its cool to like turbos.

Also that nonsense about a supercharger being inferior because the power comes too quick and can break the wheels loose.. pleeeease. If your solution to that problem is to just give up off the line power you need some serious help.

My thoughts on the matter are that either one is good to have

Most of peoples' complaints about SC are not valid anymore. It eats power? Sure, it takes around 5% of your power but gives you +/-50% so I think that makes it a nonissue. Parasitic drag? You can get SC setups with clutches so it's not pulling at low boost situations. Don't get me wrong, I like turbos too. I just -hate- people who rave about turbos just because its cool to like turbos.

Also that nonsense about a supercharger being inferior because the power comes too quick and can break the wheels loose.. pleeeease. If your solution to that problem is to just give up off the line power you need some serious help.

If you want to continue arguing this, take it to the turbo vs. super thread
that's what is there for.
Real quick though: 5% of you rpower is 5% of your power. That doesn't change. It'll give you 50% power, great....but then 5% of that is gone, dead, sucked away by the pulley. Turbos...they don't do that. Alittle less exhaust gas velocity, maybe worth like 2% power, if that. And the return is just as much. It's not a non-issue at all. Turbos will make more power than supers....it's a given fact. Just look at the setup. (and did you say +/-50% power? I don't know of any superchargers that will either add or reduce your power by 50%)
I don't rave about turbos because its cool to like turbos. You obviously don't know me very well. Why rave about superchargers because it's cool to like superchargers?
And do you know what weight transfer is? FWD cars have SHIT for weight transfer. Their weight transfer at launch actually HURTS the launch, not helps it, unlike RWD cars. You'll waste more time sitting there spinning the tires than you will not having instant boost off the line.
You said you can have a clutch in your supercharger so that it won't pull in low boost situations. Tell me then, when do you race? Do you race at 50% throttle and low boost? We're not talking gas mileage here buddy. We're talking power.
Take your argument to the turbos vs. supers sticky, at the top of the page.

[Gir]

I find a lot of these percentage claims to rather amusing. The claims seem to center around the fact that a newer type SC will produce only a few percentage points of drag on a motor. This may be true at a given RPM, the problem I have is with the takeoff. The arguement usually says, well a turbo takes X amount of rpm to spool. If I may point out, nearly 99 percent of all turbos that have been properly sized to the motor will be spooled within that same power range. If a SC is taking to that 3k rpm to run within the 5% lag on engine then the point of turbo "lag" is moot. The "lag" does not exist if that is the case. Given that there is no turbo lag if you retain your factory set static compression, then you don't notice any drop in power at all.

The next thing I'd like to comment on is the "potential" claims. People are saying that a SC can give a 4g64 or a 6a motor equal to the performance of a turbo. Find me a single SC that will work with these applications and will give you 1100 hp. Polk Performance in Little Rock Arkansas just finished a hybrid that pumps out 900 rwhp. I'm yet to see a 4g motor do that other than this motor. The only other possibility is shep who pulls 8's in a 1g, but I'm sure he's pretty close to those numbers too.

Questions of strength of the motor: There shouldnt' be any questions here...a 4g64 is a 4g63 bored .4 liters more. That is all there is to it. The blocks are identical other than that. There are several good things that can happen here, more torque for less revs, more displacemnt = good, and of course no walking cranks to date. The problem with nearly all drag DSM's is that the transmissions die within about 10 passes. This is in part because of 9000 RPM launches and shifts. This can be fixed by simply running the rpms less. With a 4g64 you can run less rpms, and produce the same power as the legendary 4g63. This is being proven at dsmtalk.com all the time. They have several hybrid guys saying how great it is. Their turbos used to spool at 2000+ rpm's now they are fully spooled at 1700 or less.

Finally, flow rate. Again, going back to the reason why a turbo would provide for higher flowrates than a supercharger would, is simply becuase of the designs of some turbos. The biggest baddest blower in the world will always be limited to the rate of which the crank is turning. The biggest turbos will not be...plain and simple. If you examine Garrett's diagram and look at the flow rates http://www.turbobygarrett.com Link is encoded in java, so I can't directly link you to the catlog. The T 60 turbo can do up to 2000 hp on a 6 liter motor.

Not to mention the fact that a greddy kit on a SOHC civic will change the power to about 180 hp on the ground from about 80-100 on the ground from stock. That means 100% power increases for a civic with 6 psi of boost. I don't think that a SC could give you those kinda numbers.

[stryker204]

points well made chase...im just gunna kina inforce what u said....and for ur Polk comment everyone is goin to bitch about but were talkin fully built motors and Polk is one of the guys in the main streem doing the 8 second passes on a turboed hybrid...hopefully ill be visiting his shop pretty soon when me and Travis go to tune one of his Sentra's...back to the point...lag is not a real factor when ur talkin 4g64 cause lots of guys were complaining of 'boost creep' with there motors...due to imporperly sizing of the turbo...so this is pointing out that these motors are able to run very large turbos with NO problem...the only really really fast cars that u see with blowers/SC's are the top fuel drag cars most of the time...hinting V8....but most of the IHRA drag cars are turboed...so this has to make a big statement for the 4cyls...if thses guys, whos lifes revolve around building thses motors properly are using turbos....that should say something....im not all turbo....but thses are points that people seem to neglect....lag is not a real factor anymore due to the deziners bettering the turbo....SC's (as Gir pointed) are limited to crank rotations....where as turbos are run by flow of the ehaust....again all these points have been made in "turbo vs. supercharger" thread....switching pullys on a SC rather than just playing with a lil electronic box to create more boost is just a big ole' inconvience....

and someones point of the turbo car loosing in the quarter is just faggy of them....because of a could of tenths of a second for a turbo to spool is goin to make a big diffrence....cause the SC's will have this sort of lag also...this could possibly help in the quarter by 'not losing traxion....turbos have much more top end....SC's really dont have any other advantage than a turbo....

and i kno scootinIntegra are gunna put his 2cents in once again which would probly put him close to 2 dollars...hehe....and bitch about how my infomation or opions are totally stupid, inconsiderat twords SC's, and totally wrong...

but....personally i think turbo would be the way to go because of reasons stated by other people, GIR, and myself....

and i kno scootinIntegra are gunna put his 2cents in once again which would probly put him close to 2 dollars...hehe....and bitch about how my infomation or opions are totally stupid, inconsiderat twords SC's, and totally wrong..

I hate when people assume the worst. I've never said anyone's opinions are wrong man. I've said that people have their facts wrong, etc...but I've never argued anyone's opinions. I think that you think I'm arguing that superchargers should be used on small motors...which is totally wrong. I'm arguing the exact opposite of that.
The only advantages superchargers have over turbos are A. "instant power", which can be solved by a properly sized turbo, and B. less heat, which is what intercoolers were made for.
But to make a long story short, I agree with you completely. 00GTZ00 is the one arguing for superchargers. I'm arguing for turbos.

[PlanoEastRacer]

sooo......where can i get a turbo for my '99 V6?

[FRCFD6]

ya, supercharger is instant power, plus with our SC's, i heard they have been holding up extremely well with little upgrades to the engine? What gives?

a turbocharger takes the best advantage of a high-revving, 4-cyli engine's powerband. A supercharger is generally for mustangs, camaros, and other high-torque muscle cars. You will run slower 1/4's with a supercharger than a turbocharger, one reason being that the "intant power" from a supercharger is more than the tires, especially in a FWD car, can handle. You will spin like crazy, unless you are running drag radials, or at least some damn good tires. You will also make more power with a turbocharger, because it makes more power where your car's powerband already exists. A turbo is much more efficient than a supercharger, so you won't lose much low end power, while still putting out incredible top end power.
I'm not saying superchargers are BAD for a 4-cyli, I'm saying that superchargers are more suited to higher-displacement applications, such as mustangs, camaros, and even GTZ galants. It is more beneficial to run a turbo set up.

not true, its all about right sizing of a supercharger or turbocharger....

[The 99 Galant]

nos is for ricers who want to go fast w/o putting in the time or moey to build it properly. Build up an engine right to begin with. NOS could fry your internals in a min. if done wrong. Turbos do well for engines that have powerbands that don't have much of a low end and SC do good for cars that are built for them, SL55 AMG. IMO I'm divided between turbos and SC. Both have their ups and downs but really it depends on your wants and the cars potential. For example if you want a car to break off the line like a mad MOFO from hell and care more on a 0-60 mark than a SC would be IMO a better choice. A SC lays on the power as soon as the pedal is pressed. Its instant and lowers the powerband down to the 2000rpm range. You'll hit 0-60 really fast but don't expect too much top speed since its belt driven. Turbos are good because they have lots of potential(size does matter here) for HP and can increase the potential of the powerband. Turbos can outdo a SC in the HP and TQ category because you can get more by getting bigger turbos. But turbos do take time to spool, the bigger the longer it takes. If you want a freeway terror or fast&furious car go turbo. Also engine types make a difference. Honda's do well with either and get different responses from SC or Turbos. A SC honda will break the line with fine skids and will still have a good top end due to the VTEC. A turbo one everyone knows about. But engines like the SL 55AMG are built for SC and do quite well with them. I think most of the cars we can afford or have will do better off with turbos but high dollar cars like SL55 or Vipers or cars that have a high end HP rating will do better with SC since it'll lower the powerband a few thousand rpms.

[sethmo]

Turbo > top end
S/C > lower end

Well, me being FWD and all, I do not want instant power. I do not want to be buying tires every month. Lets say you have a 250hp S/C setup, as soon as you hit that gas, that 250hp is unleashed straight to your drive tire(Unless you have LSD, which I do not know any Galant drivers with) which will give uncontrollable traction loss @ WOT in first gear. With a turbo setup, using a large turbo(ex tdo6h 20g), you have untill ~3500 RPM untill full boost is reached, therefore you will have traction untill you reach boost. So either way you will have to learn how to drive your setup. IMO you can make more hp with less money in a turbo setup. Also, turbo setups for DSMs are dominant and S/C kits are pretty much non-existant. If you want a turbo part for your galant, chances are a part from a 1g or 2g eclipse will fit. I am a turbo guy, and nobody will EVER change my mind(maybe cause I own a 7g)

VegasMatt, do you have problems with traction?

Ok, go ahead, tear up my post...

[The 99 Galant]

actually a SC is cheaper...you're looking at 3k for a setup...turbos are 5k or more depending on how much you have to change....internals need to be changed more than likely with a turbo too. and as far as SC vs Turbo goes, I'll take a Sl55 AMG over almost any turbo'd engine except maybe a porsche or Ferrari turbo'd 995/F40. SL 55 AMG makes 394hp/515tq at about 3000-4000rpms. Can't beat that...too bad the car is a little heavy. With a SC car you need to know how to lay into the gas and not lay on the gas. Also SC really depend on who makes it. that AMG SC is a heavy MOFO and gives as good as numbers as Turbos.

[sethmo]

see, we are not talking about porsche and ferrari engines.

I can put togther a 190-210whp turbo setup for under $2k, its not hard at all

[The 99 Galant]

ok maybe you can make a turbo for 2k$ but most kits out there are for 5K$...and if its between SC or Turbos i'd have to make my pick on who makes them. The ones Porsches of Ferraris get factory are way better than the ones available for imports. Same with SC...the AMG SC is better than a Jackson one. IMO its not the turbo that matters its the engine and how it is made that counts. Some engines like the R34 engines and the Supras are made to be trashed by a turbo. They are solid and have alot of potential. I don't know if the G's internals are a match for the SUpras or Skylines. And i don't think theres as much potential in our engines either. Not to say our engines are bad but the engine has to be built to take a pounding.