S2000 Forced Induction S2000 Turbocharging and S2000 supercharging, for that extra kick.

Turbo vs. SC: 0-60 and 0-100 times?

Thread Tools
 
Old 11-29-2006, 02:58 PM
  #31  

 
GrandMasterKhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,149
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

It was 100% a vortec. It was an 01 so it was not an ap2. I know what it was, because I have been friends with the guy for quite some time.

The kit boosted 5.5psi. It is possible the owner of the car went with a less aggressive pully or his psi gauge was incorrect. Either way the s/c 01 didnt make any boost what so ever until 6k.
Old 11-29-2006, 05:47 PM
  #32  
Registered User
 
LilRedMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Martinsburg WV
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I got a question maybe off topic maybe not.....Since the turbo is at full boost by 3.5-5k rpms would that account for some of the reasons the turbos are somewhat unreliable? I mean you can drive a SC s2k all day and not go over 1lbs of boost (by staying under 5k rpms) but with a turbo you are always flirting with (or at) full boost pressure which is putting all that pressure on your engine all the time. Does this make sense or am I just reading too much into it?
Old 11-29-2006, 05:57 PM
  #33  

 
GrandMasterKhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,149
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

the reliabilty is more so leaning the parts used. A supercharger is a much more simple and straight forward install. It doesnt require EMS to run.

I am sure the same could be done with a turbo if you are willing to sacrafice power. (ie less than 300whp)

turbos also generate much more heat and require more attention than a s/c would.
Old 11-29-2006, 05:59 PM
  #34  
Moderator

 
AusS2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30,810
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

It is incorrect to say that a turbo is at full boost at 3500. It is at full boost at 3500 and WOT.

So how much boost you use is entirely dependant on your right foot. it's just that it happens to be there if you want it.
Old 11-29-2006, 07:04 PM
  #35  
Registered User
 
LilRedMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Martinsburg WV
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by AusS2000,Nov 29 2006, 06:59 PM
It is incorrect to say that a turbo is at full boost at 3500. It is at full boost at 3500 and WOT.

So how much boost you use is entirely dependant on your right foot. it's just that it happens to be there if you want it.
Ok. So if both are at WOT and have the same boost rating (lets say 7lbs) the turbo has the edge because it will be at full boost quicker than the SC. The SC will take a little longer to get there and even at peak wont make the torque of the turbo. Correct? Do you think a different type of charger (twin screw/whipple) would have been better to address the low torque "problem" of the s2000?
Old 11-29-2006, 07:08 PM
  #36  
Moderator

 
AusS2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30,810
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

If you're at 3500 cruising and you hit the throttle the SC will act like a normal S and accelerate slowly until about 5000rpm where a bit of boost kicks in and starts increasing torque and horsepower and then hits VTEC and a bit more boost and eventually gets to redline and full boost.

If you're at 3500 cruising and you hit the throttle the turbo will take a very short period to get to full boost and whammo, you're off.

Peak horsepower and torque can be identical but it's the midrange that is different.

But this scenario is not real. I you are in 5th at 3500 and decide to take off in an NA or SC'd car you would drop two gears so your engine is in the sweetspot and hammer it.
Old 11-29-2006, 07:14 PM
  #37  
Registered User
 
LilRedMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Martinsburg WV
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

So do you guys think the centrifugal charger is best or would a different type of charger been better (for the low end power)?
Old 11-29-2006, 07:15 PM
  #38  
Moderator

 
AusS2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30,810
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

The benefit of the centrifugal kit is that it exists.

A different type of charger is definitely better.

A TURBOcharger.
Old 11-29-2006, 07:18 PM
  #39  
Registered User
 
LilRedMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Martinsburg WV
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by AusS2000,Nov 29 2006, 08:15 PM
The benefit of the centrifugal kit is that it exists.
LOL One is better than none!
Old 11-29-2006, 07:51 PM
  #40  

 
GrandMasterKhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,149
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

the benefit of a centrifugal kit is that its not a hugely involved install and doesnt require massive tuning. Its an easy go fast solution, which is perfectly acceptable.


Quick Reply: Turbo vs. SC: 0-60 and 0-100 times?



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:20 PM.