Old vs. New ...

[bleh]

fwd cars need turbo lag!! unless they have some other means of traction control.

split personality says: electronic traction control ... shut up jared

[iroc-z89]

Old cars, big block motors, loud as hell, with a few changes will shut up any Lambo on the street, though I love the feel they give in riding in the bumpy feel every rock in the road exprience the cars from the sixties and such need a more stable suspension. Then on the strip and off, I feel they could handle any modded supercar, from any manufacturer.

As far as the blower discussion went, I prefer the superchargers more than than the turbos. They dont break, less plumbing, and easily fixed.

[LateNightCable]

V12 Lambos are fairly "big block" in their own right and sound like it too from inside - Nothing under 6.0 liters for some time. But even still, as far as exhaust pipe music goes, how can they compare to some American V8 of over 7.0 liters?

I'm quite fond of old style cars myself, I always have those to turn to. That's why I'm not discouraged if there aren't any good new cars. If we didn't have old cars, the car hobby would be quite sad.

[wEstSide]

LNC, you're an anachronism. Let's see some pics of the E36! I heard the new 330ci is going to be faster than the E36 M3.

[bleh]

Originally Posted by iroc-z89 As far as the blower discussion went, I prefer the superchargers more than than the turbos. They dont break, less plumbing, and easily fixed.

im not going to touch the rest of what you just said. but with this i had to say something. less plumbing, yea ok thats your only good point, but only if you dont have it aftercooled.

if they dont break then how are they easily fixed?? that makes no sense. and turbos only break when they are misused. so if you get the proper turbo for the setup and desired performance, nothing should go wrong, unless the user makes a mistake.

but all this 'extra plumbing' is totally worth it cus psi for psi you will make more power with a properly sized turbo. this is of course, generally speaking, and there are many other circumstanced causing exceptions.

in all reality superchargers really are dyno queens.

[LateNightCable]

Originally Posted by wEstSide LNC, you're an anachronism. Let's see some pics of the E36! I heard the new 330ci is going to be faster than the E36 M3.

I don't care how fast the new 330 will be if it looks like piss. It might very well be faster, but to me, it's no more exciting. Old cars just have more soul in my opinion, faster or not. But I try to see the good in new and old alike.

[iroc-z89]

Originally Posted by bleh Originally Posted by iroc-z89 As far as the blower discussion went, I prefer the superchargers more than than the turbos. They dont break, less plumbing, and easily fixed. im not going to touch the rest of what you just said. but with this i had to say something. less plumbing, yea ok thats your only good point, but only if you dont have it aftercooled. if they dont break then how are they easily fixed?? that makes no sense. and turbos only break when they are misused. so if you get the proper turbo for the setup and desired performance, nothing should go wrong, unless the user makes a mistake. but all this 'extra plumbing' is totally worth it cus psi for psi you will make more power with a properly sized turbo. this is of course, generally speaking, and there are many other circumstanced causing exceptions. in all reality superchargers really are dyno queens.

My point is that a supercharger follows to power band if well tuned a turbo well yeah, a supercharger can break but not from just being run, its a fairly simple device its a giant fan, but it works and when something does go bad ie bearing, fan blade, you dont need a new one.

Turbos generally have to be replaced every few years especially when the are run hard on cars that aren't worth it. Examples of such cars. But as far as they go if you talk about Japenese cars, and the ricer mobiles. Take the STI for example, now take a 1989 Pontaic firebird TTA or Buick GN, tta has an old iron duke, impossible to kill this motor. Subie has well ick, The tta has well over 350hp, (rated @ 250) and made gobs of torque, the STI has the same 300/300 ratio. Now besides the launch who will come out on top? You say sti your wrong, newer cars aren't always the best and when both are manual its a drivers race. TTA is a 12 second car. GN is a 13

My point is I dont hate turbos, but I would rather a nice vortec.
As far as the supercharger go take what ever you have find a 1970 Challenger, with a blower ask for a race you will have him up to about 20mph

[bleh]

if your not overspooling your turbos they wont blow....i still dont know what your talking about. some of them die, cus they are pushed to hard, but that happens with most things. and superchargers are a lot more complex than fans. after all, a turbo is just 2 fans. you cant tell me a roots supercharger is more complex than a turbo.

are we talking about motors? or the types of forced induction??

i dont personally know anyone that has broken 12s with a super charger, however i have a friend who has a wrx that runs 11s all day long and another friend who runs low 12s with the occasional high 11 in 2nd gen eclipse. a friends grand national ran 9s.

these are the fastest examples i can think of that i have seen and know the drivers well. i dont know many supercharged cars that can produce those numbers. just your average lightening or svt cobra... 13s and 12s.

my car is n/a so how would that compare to a 1970 charger? this is nothing personal.

[iroc-z89]

my point was turbos have alot of little tiny parts, in my exprience turbos tend to die. They usually last 3 to 5 years and its time for a new one. That might be because they are pushed but superchargers are out of common use, they are extremely expensive and require alot of knowledge to pick your gearing. Where as now a days the turbo is pretty much picked for your engine. Plus they are cheap at about 2500 to 3500 a piece. They were originally designed for diesels and are somewhat over rated. A roots type supercharger is the most simple of the three but the most commonly used. This is your low powercharger and tends to not do a whole lot, a centrifugal is a little bit better but gets hotter than the roots at quicker pace. If you hang with alot of older cars you will see more of the superchargers. They can be extremely quick and are commonly used in drag racing on 8 second cars. Most 4 cylinders do not use them because they require more money for the initial purchase and most that are made would give a 2.5L engine an ass kicking. Most wont even fit my car, and I am an 8 cylinder. For example to see a 6-71 on a 2.0 honda would be a joke, but to see it on a 383 would be quite common, the 383 make mores than 30 ft lbs of torque at the crank N/A, (sorry had to do it) and has the capability to run it with actual power gains.

[bleh]

Originally Posted by iroc-z89 Most wont even fit my car, and I am an 8 cylinder. For example to see a 6-71 on a 2.0 honda would be a joke, but to see it on a 383 would be quite common, the 383 make mores than 30 ft lbs of torque at the crank N/A, (sorry had to do it) and has the capability to run it with actual power gains.

there are supercharger kits for hondas, but they never ever get above 300whp

as far as the other stuff, you lost me. i dont know what 6-71 and 383 are but i think a centrifugal supercharger is simpler than a roots supercharger, just because it has a compressor housing identical to a turbo, haha. i dont know what you are talking about with little parts though. turbos really are simple: compressor, turbine, wastegate.