Turbo or Super Charged? Pros and Cons of both
01-09-2007, 07:31 AM
#21
Originally Posted by Zilvia
wow i always thought it ran Roots or Twin Screw...........
wow
wow
http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/ccx.asp?submenu=10
That is a sick car
01-09-2007, 07:31 AM
#22
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really all depends on what you want out of your ride. If you are looking for a daily driver, low maintenance and a lot of TQ then go with a S/C. If you want a weekend ride with lots of power and high HP then go Turbo. A Turbo has a lot more potential for making power but for me a S/C'ed Z is more fun to drive although I do like to ride in a Turbo Z occasionally and get my head slammed to the back of the seat, LOL.
01-09-2007, 07:35 AM
#24
Originally Posted by reptile718
It really all depends on what you want out of your ride. If you are looking for a daily driver, low maintenance and a lot of TQ then go with a S/C. If you want a weekend ride with lots of power and high HP then go Turbo. A Turbo has a lot more potential for making power but for me a S/C'ed Z is more fun to drive although I do like to ride in a Turbo Z occasionally and get my head slammed to the back of the seat, LOL.
Yeah so fun you wait for the powerband to hit and it never does. Oh $hit, here we go...
01-09-2007, 07:40 AM
#26
Originally Posted by Alberto
LOL. So possible belt slipping issues are low maintenance? A lot of TQ is relative. 280ft/lbs to the wheels may be a lot to you, weaksauce to others, overall though, I would never say a S/C provides a lot of TQ in comparison to a turbo. Instant (with a roots) TQ is more like it. <----not trying to turn this into WW32 Turbos vs S/C's. As far as a S/C being more fun to drive?! Yeah so fun you wait for the powerband to hit and it never does. Oh $hit, here we go...
Yeah so fun you wait for the powerband to hit and it never does. Oh $hit, here we go...My belt was slipping though past 5500rpms on this run so I was making 10 psi instead of 12. So if I had a dynosheet that showed that, the tq curve would remain flat to redline and hp would probably hit around 450whp on this dynodynamics dyno...
I can only guess if I wasn't running an SSV manifold and then ran a better exhaust than my nismo, the tq would be even higher
I'm planning on doing the TIMROD belt reroute fix to eliminate the slipping so I don't have to tighten the belt so tight around the other pulleys
Last edited by sentry65; 01-09-2007 at 08:24 AM.
01-09-2007, 07:53 AM
#27
Originally Posted by sentry65
why, not fast enough for you? 
01-09-2007, 07:56 AM
#28
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alberto
LOL. So possible belt slipping issues are low maintenance? A lot of TQ is relative. 280ft/lbs to the wheels may be a lot to you, weaksauce to others, overall though, I would never say a S/C provides a lot of TQ in comparison to a turbo. Instant (with a roots) TQ is more like it. <----not trying to turn this into WW32 Turbos vs S/C's. As far as a S/C being more fun to drive?! Yeah so fun you wait for the powerband to hit and it never does. Oh $hit, here we go...
Yeah so fun you wait for the powerband to hit and it never does. Oh $hit, here we go...
01-09-2007, 07:58 AM
#29
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by reptile718
It really all depends on what you want out of your ride. If you are looking for a daily driver, low maintenance and a lot of TQ then go with a S/C.
01-09-2007, 07:59 AM
#30
Originally Posted by Alberto
The S/C's dont make that car what it is, the weight, design, and gearing do. It would be plenty fast NA the S/C's are just a bonus. Imagine if it had turbo's it would only be sicker.
Originally Posted by Alberto
BTW-this is the 134th time Ive seen your dyno chart
Originally Posted by Gman2004
The s/c kits for the VQ35 do not produce a lot of tq.
I guess 372-375 dynodynamics tq (390ish dynojet tq?) is only a decent amount of tq if it's on a turbo car
01-09-2007, 08:09 AM
#31
reptile-What does a turbo have to do with transmissions? Funny how you get your panties in a bunch when somebody disagrees with you, grow up, we all dont want NA power at the cost of FI....
Sentry you know the point I was making. Im not saying that car needs any FI, all Im saying is you act like that car is what it is due to the S/C's and thats not the case.
Sentry you know the point I was making. Im not saying that car needs any FI, all Im saying is you act like that car is what it is due to the S/C's and thats not the case.
01-09-2007, 08:15 AM
#32
I agree, it's a fast car to start, but why wouldn't they add a turbo or two instead of 2 centrifugal SC's of all things?
could have been a fitting/plumbing issue or a heat issue, or they weren't happy with how the powerband would have changed to have an already powerful car suddenly have a bunch more power after a brief lag. I know they said they decided against a Roots/twin screw blower because it had too much tq down low and was hard to drive. I'd imagine the same would be the same with a turbo - only even MORE torque, but in the midrange instead. That makes me think that they're thinking about more things than just maximum tq
could have been a fitting/plumbing issue or a heat issue, or they weren't happy with how the powerband would have changed to have an already powerful car suddenly have a bunch more power after a brief lag. I know they said they decided against a Roots/twin screw blower because it had too much tq down low and was hard to drive. I'd imagine the same would be the same with a turbo - only even MORE torque, but in the midrange instead. That makes me think that they're thinking about more things than just maximum tq
Last edited by sentry65; 01-09-2007 at 08:18 AM.
01-09-2007, 08:20 AM
#33
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alberto
reptile-What does a turbo have to do with transmissions? Funny how you get your panties in a bunch when somebody disagrees with you, grow up, we all dont want NA power at the cost of FI....
Sentry you know the point I was making. Im not saying that car needs any FI, all Im saying is you act like that car is what it is due to the S/C's and thats not the case.
Sentry you know the point I was making. Im not saying that car needs any FI, all Im saying is you act like that car is what it is due to the S/C's and thats not the case.
01-09-2007, 08:24 AM
#34
I was blowing tranny's NA man, thats not the power's fault at these levels its me, if it was our tranny's we'd have PLENTY of people on these forums with more power than me blowing them, most are not. I understand your point with the S/C, I just disagreed with the TQ statement and the fun to drive but like I originally said its all relative.
01-09-2007, 08:28 AM
#35
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bradenton/Sarasota
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bboypuertoroc
Turbo=more mantainence needed,
.
WTF? Since when? All I have done is change the friggin oil. I don't have a belt to worry about, or gears inside the s/c......
I hear this **** all the time, SINCE WHEN DO TURBOS REQUIRE MORE MAINTENANCE?
01-09-2007, 08:35 AM
#36
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alberto
I was blowing tranny's NA man, thats not the power's fault at these levels its me, if it was our tranny's we'd have PLENTY of people on these forums with more power than me blowing them, most are not. I understand your point with the S/C, I just disagreed with the TQ statement and the fun to drive but like I originally said its all relative.
As far as I can remember our manual transmissions have been a problem since day one. Trouble shifting, gears sticking, grinding, bad synchros. And this is on a N/A Z. You say putting more power to them isn't going to make a difference?
01-09-2007, 08:50 AM
#38
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chimmike
WTF? Since when? All I have done is change the friggin oil. I don't have a belt to worry about, or gears inside the s/c......
I hear this **** all the time, SINCE WHEN DO TURBOS REQUIRE MORE MAINTENANCE?
I hear this **** all the time, SINCE WHEN DO TURBOS REQUIRE MORE MAINTENANCE?
01-09-2007, 08:53 AM
#39
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scotts300
Keep in mind the Stillen SC requires a new hood as well, so add ~$1k.
01-09-2007, 08:55 AM
#40
New Member
Originally Posted by sentry65
that's just what typically has been done because MOST japanese engines are pretty damn small - 2 liters, 2.5 liters, 3 liters, 3.2 liters. Engines that small need ALL the help they can get.
The 350Z is one of japan's biggest engines in a sports car. You can stroke it to 4.24 Liters, which is almost as much liters as a V8 mustang GT only it's drastically more efficient when you consider even the base Z engine puts out as much peak hp as the mustang (less tq of course), but has more aggressive gearing and can rev quite a bit higher to pretty much compensate
There's lots of really fast cars with superchargers. Even a porsche GT3 has a 3.6 liter engine with a centrifugal SC and it's pretty fast. IMO what you want to look at is the end result.
The 350Z is one of japan's biggest engines in a sports car. You can stroke it to 4.24 Liters, which is almost as much liters as a V8 mustang GT only it's drastically more efficient when you consider even the base Z engine puts out as much peak hp as the mustang (less tq of course), but has more aggressive gearing and can rev quite a bit higher to pretty much compensate
There's lots of really fast cars with superchargers. Even a porsche GT3 has a 3.6 liter engine with a centrifugal SC and it's pretty fast. IMO what you want to look at is the end result.