Power Adders (FI) For Dummies (Turbo, Supercharger, Nitrous)
08-15-2007, 07:44 AM
#28
You must be proud of your GED.
How many cars are SC'ed? How many are TC'ed? How many miles driven on each? There are many more trouble free TC cars than there are even SC cars. Even you cannot dispute this.
Ultimately, we all know more moving parts means more reliable, right?
08-15-2007, 05:29 PM
#32
GED = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GED
08-15-2007, 06:31 PM
#33
I admit i'm no expert - but then again being an expert can sometimes cloud your judgement anyway .
these are my opinions only - formed in the most part by observation and what I read right here .
1/Heat - turbos allow more heat to be collected close to the engine and dispersed in that area rather than out the exhaust . Heat = bad for reliability
2/Restriction of exhaust - Exhaust gases have to be pushed out rather than just let out with an unrestricted exhaust . This has to mean more heat build up in the exhaust ports . Again heat = bad . There was suggestion a while back that this was a factor in many turbo renesis engines blowing (Pettit racing thread ) although who really knows .
3/Extremely hot turbo impellor spinning at 100's of thousands of RPM and being lubricated by engine oil . You are probably going to argue that lots of turbos last a long time on factory cars . I would counter this by saying this is not a factory turbo that has had countless hours of testing to destruction . We are talking aftermarket - and we all know how much effort greddy put into the 8's system. Probably the turbo itself could last a long time if everything was perfect in its setup but in an aftermarket situation this is often not the case.
4/ Tuning : By its nature A SC is always going to be easier to tune because boost is linked to engine rpm. With a turbo there are more variables so its harder to tune. So I contend this is another factor that can contribute to poor reliability.
5/ Boost from a SC is more gradual . A turbo can be quite severe (especially a big one) which has to be harder on the drivetrain.
6/ Anecdotal evidence from all the blown turbos/engines I hear about on this forum that suggest there may be some truth in all the above.
these are my opinions only - formed in the most part by observation and what I read right here .
1/Heat - turbos allow more heat to be collected close to the engine and dispersed in that area rather than out the exhaust . Heat = bad for reliability
2/Restriction of exhaust - Exhaust gases have to be pushed out rather than just let out with an unrestricted exhaust . This has to mean more heat build up in the exhaust ports . Again heat = bad . There was suggestion a while back that this was a factor in many turbo renesis engines blowing (Pettit racing thread ) although who really knows .
3/Extremely hot turbo impellor spinning at 100's of thousands of RPM and being lubricated by engine oil . You are probably going to argue that lots of turbos last a long time on factory cars . I would counter this by saying this is not a factory turbo that has had countless hours of testing to destruction . We are talking aftermarket - and we all know how much effort greddy put into the 8's system. Probably the turbo itself could last a long time if everything was perfect in its setup but in an aftermarket situation this is often not the case.
4/ Tuning : By its nature A SC is always going to be easier to tune because boost is linked to engine rpm. With a turbo there are more variables so its harder to tune. So I contend this is another factor that can contribute to poor reliability.
5/ Boost from a SC is more gradual . A turbo can be quite severe (especially a big one) which has to be harder on the drivetrain.
6/ Anecdotal evidence from all the blown turbos/engines I hear about on this forum that suggest there may be some truth in all the above.
Last edited by Brettus; 08-15-2007 at 06:37 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Kamikazipug (01-06-2024)
08-15-2007, 07:13 PM
#34
Heat - turbos allow more heat to be collected close to the engine and dispersed in that area rather than out the exhaust . Heat = bad for reliability
Extremely hot turbo impellor spinning at 100's of thousands of RPM and being lubricated by engine oil . You are probably going to argue that lots of turbos last a long time on factory cars
Tuning : By its nature A SC is always going to be easier to tune because boost is linked to engine rpm. With a turbo there are more variables so its harder to tune. So I contend this is another factor that can contribute to poor reliability.
Boost from a SC is more gradual . A turbo can be quite severe (especially a big one) which has to be harder on the drivetrain.
Anecdotal evidence from all the blown turbos/engines I hear about on this forum that suggest there may be some truth in all the above.
In conclusion, you want to think SC > TC, but in reality you have nothing to back it up other than you wanting it to be that way.
08-15-2007, 07:44 PM
#36
That is not the argument I'd make. While it's true the engine oil is shared with the turbo, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Use a good synthetic oil and it's fine. I monitor oil temps (racing beat pod), and I rarely go over 180F. This is not an issue. Remember, only a tiny drip of oil goes into the turbo. It's not like it's located in the oil pan!.
I can tell you've got no background with a turbocharged car. If you did, you would know you can adjust the boost controller to increase or decrease the wastegate speed. You can get gradual boost, or you can get neck snapping power. Another bonus for the turbo - adjustability and control..
That's bullshit. Improper tuning will cause engine failure. GReddy has had issues with the tune, and even shipped some of the emanage blue units with no map on them. For sure that would cause issues, but that's not a reflection on turbo systems. A SC would face exactly the same fate..
I have no vested interest in this argument - you on the other hand have a turbo and it runs very well for you by all accounts so of course you will be in that camp.
Last edited by Brettus; 08-15-2007 at 07:49 PM.
08-15-2007, 07:57 PM
#37
OK but most will go for the neck snapping - not really the fault of the turbo . More the tuner .
How many more blown turbos/engines would it take to convince you that turbos are more likely to cause problems?
I have no vested interest in this argument - you on the other hand have a turbo and it runs very well for you by all accounts so of course you will be in that camp.
08-15-2007, 09:48 PM
#39
A SC just adds air, same as a TC. With larger fuel and air, comes added wear and tear on the engine. There's no additional reliability one way or the other for the car.
You have managed to skip answering my question. Show me proof that a single RX-8 has been harmed by a TC that couldn't have happened with a SC. You can't because your argument is completely flawed.
08-15-2007, 10:19 PM
#40
I agreed with you in an earlier post that there is not enough evidence to suggest a SC is more reliable so I'm not going to try and justify the statement .
Those are my beliefs based loosely around the points I put forward .
You have your view as well - can you supply proof that TCs are as reliable as SC's in this application?
What I do know is that i'm continually reading about blown turbos and blown turbo motors - who really knows whether a SC on the same motor would have had the same problem ?
Those are my beliefs based loosely around the points I put forward .
You have your view as well - can you supply proof that TCs are as reliable as SC's in this application?
What I do know is that i'm continually reading about blown turbos and blown turbo motors - who really knows whether a SC on the same motor would have had the same problem ?
08-15-2007, 10:58 PM
#43
lol.
No, I meant it. Numbers aren't your thing if you think that more people with blown engines from being turbocharged means it's less reliable. You're making huge assumptions here, ignoring the fact that there's a risk from going FI, no matter how you do it. Add in people doing installs half assed, issues with the car in NA form, and the fact that there's likely a 100:1 ratio between them, and you'll see why I mentioned GED.
If you install it properly, and tune it properly, you should have no issues with a turbo damaging your car more than anything else. If you don't have it installed and tuned properly, you risk damage, regardless of if it's a turbo or supercharger. That is why I'm telling you one is not safer than the other. Both carry a risk, and both can and will destroy your engine in exactly the same way if not done right.
No, I meant it. Numbers aren't your thing if you think that more people with blown engines from being turbocharged means it's less reliable. You're making huge assumptions here, ignoring the fact that there's a risk from going FI, no matter how you do it. Add in people doing installs half assed, issues with the car in NA form, and the fact that there's likely a 100:1 ratio between them, and you'll see why I mentioned GED.
If you install it properly, and tune it properly, you should have no issues with a turbo damaging your car more than anything else. If you don't have it installed and tuned properly, you risk damage, regardless of if it's a turbo or supercharger. That is why I'm telling you one is not safer than the other. Both carry a risk, and both can and will destroy your engine in exactly the same way if not done right.
The following users liked this post:
Rx8_sport (02-28-2020)
08-15-2007, 11:21 PM
#44
+1 with Mysql101's last comment. I think the this versus that argument will never be solved (since even the real experts are still arguing about it). But the thing to keep in mind is that they both can blow your motor the same way. It will all come back to the tuning.
08-16-2007, 10:53 AM
#48
I would concur that they are experts. I would also say that the point was not to argue (at least MY point was not to argue). The point was to educate and allow people to weigh the Pro's and Con's and come to thier own decision. In order to make that happen, I need additional Pros and Cons as I have limited knowledge.
But it is starting to get under my skin that we can't seem to have a normal, rational discussion without becoming jackasses to each other.
And I am not referring to CRH, we argue civilly all the time....
But it is starting to get under my skin that we can't seem to have a normal, rational discussion without becoming jackasses to each other.
And I am not referring to CRH, we argue civilly all the time....
11-11-2007, 06:07 AM
#50
Lurker
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: N 01°21' E 103°59'
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My insistence on lumping nitrous in alongside turbos and superchargers drives some people crazy but that, to me, is just their own prejudices and preferences speaking and not an educated, technical, opinion. I have an on-going conversation with a guy who told me that he looked into having "Shop A" install a nitrous kit for him. "Shop A" is a fairly well-respected shop and they cautioned him that they believe nitrous will not work on the RX-8. Am I correct in assuming that those who have followed my guidance or allowed me to do the install are having success with their systems? If I have a pretty firm grasp of the situation, and an accurate view, I would say that "Shop A" is wrong simply because history proves otherwise. The truth is probably that they tried it, failed, and now caution others away from nitrous use. Not because of any technical inferiority, just because of one or two bad experiences with it......
If your shop says to stay away from any particular application, then listen to them if you intend to engage their services... It probably means they aren't very good at installing it. Go with their recommendation, or look for another shop that is willing to endorse your choice of poison (preferably validated with good customer feedback).