| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
leumeah NSW
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
supercharge or turbo
|
Fri, 10 December 2004 00:22
|
 |
|
im looking at building a sleeper ae82 hatch. I want to put a 4agze into it. My question is supercharged or turbo?
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
Fri, 10 December 2004 00:39
|
|
|
Given that you are putting a 4AGZE into it, I would say that it would have to be supercharged.
|
|
|
Location:
leumeah NSW
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
Fri, 10 December 2004 02:50
|
|
|
sorry i meant whats better to buy a turbo capable engine or a 4agze supercharged. i dont even know whats running in it now. Perhaps its a better option to just do that engine up and turbo it.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
Sat, 11 December 2004 01:25
|
|
You dont even know if the engine is currently super/turbocharged? Easy way to tell is to have a look at the engine. If there is a super/turbocharger on it then yes, else, no.
Rex be guessing you want to run about 3bar and 8 or so seconds 400m ET?
Do you know what turbo/superchargers actually do? If so you'l understand the only fundamantal difference is the method in which air is forced into tha engine.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
Sat, 11 December 2004 03:14
|
|
if you want a sleeper then i wold probably go for the 4AGZE as it is already all done and pretty much drop in, where as with the turbo you have to take the supercharger off and do a turbo setup...
but ultimately what is your aim in power for the car? its all good to say you want a sleeper but if you want high power then it wont be a sleeper for long when you do front mount IC, brake upgradfes, etc etc
|
|
|
Location:
Potts Point, Sydney
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
|
Location:
geelong
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
Sat, 11 December 2004 12:55
|
|
feel free to correct me if i'm wrong as i'm only relaying what i've been told.
but my understanding of the two (difference wise)
is that the turbo won't kick in till around 3-4 grand, so that on a fast take-off, you have the first part of that power using your engine naturally aspired. (until it kicks in)
whereas a supercharger, whilst it's heavier and whilst it takes power from your car's engine to get it going, it does however kick in straight away.
therefore, if you aim were to take cars off at the lights, you'd assume the supercharger would be the go, yeah? nah?
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
Sat, 11 December 2004 13:40
|
|
| chutz_pah wrote on Sat, 11 December 2004 23:55 |
feel free to correct me if i'm wrong as i'm only relaying what i've been told.
but my understanding of the two (difference wise)
is that the turbo won't kick in till around 3-4 grand, so that on a fast take-off, you have the first part of that power using your engine naturally aspired. (until it kicks in)
whereas a supercharger, whilst it's heavier and whilst it takes power from your car's engine to get it going, it does however kick in straight away.
therefore, if you aim were to take cars off at the lights, you'd assume the supercharger would be the go, yeah? nah?
|
you are right that supercharger kicks in from the beginning and heavier and stuff but the turbo produces more overall power, and mainly top end when its kicked in. now with the low compresion there is the lag at bottom rev range and thats why people go for a NOS squirt for take off
|
|
|
If you want sleeper then go the supercharger. But if you're after power then go turbo. As they say "once you go turbo, you'll never go back" 