what is the advantage of a ...
#11
Originally Posted by revhi,Dec 8 2004, 06:45 PM
I meant in the aspect of being a turbine in a housing unlike the roots type screw replacing intake throttle body.
#12
Originally Posted by gernby,Dec 8 2004, 05:25 PM
It seems that the question should be "What is the advantage of a complete subject title?
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 名古屋
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry guys.
i wish there was a way to have a "constant boost" but woulden't installing a smaller pully per say 20 psi, eventually reach that 20 psi at redline? Although, it'll create more stress on the supercharger.
I was thinking similiar terms although since I have a FMIC I'm expecting boost loss but by upping the boost it'll compensate. I wonder how to build that up w/o blowing the motor. maybe theres a way to use a smaller pully but not be able to redline our cars. I don't know i think i'm confusing myself
i wish there was a way to have a "constant boost" but woulden't installing a smaller pully per say 20 psi, eventually reach that 20 psi at redline? Although, it'll create more stress on the supercharger.
I was thinking similiar terms although since I have a FMIC I'm expecting boost loss but by upping the boost it'll compensate. I wonder how to build that up w/o blowing the motor. maybe theres a way to use a smaller pully but not be able to redline our cars. I don't know i think i'm confusing myself
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aschaffenburg, Germany
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think with an centrifugal supercharger you can keep still the character of the S2000 (need to rev it to get power). I like this, so i choosed the supercharger on my setup to add about 100 hp.
On the other side a turbo will turn the s2000 in something different (powercurve changes way more).
On the other side a turbo will turn the s2000 in something different (powercurve changes way more).
#16
Originally Posted by BLOWNJROCK,Dec 8 2004, 06:23 AM
what is the advantage of a centrifugal supercharge vs turbo or even roots style?
http://www.automotivearticles.com/Supercha..._Choices_.shtml
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Salaska,Dec 9 2004, 02:33 AM
I think with an centrifugal supercharger you can keep still the character of the S2000 (need to rev it to get power).
#19
Originally Posted by toddwcarpenter,Dec 9 2004, 03:19 PM
A centrifugal SC is basically a turbo housing driven by a belt instead of an exhaust manifold. In design and efficiency, It is the most similar to a turbo of all SC's.
EDIT: Looking back, I see that I left the "in performance" out of my response... sorry.
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gernby,Dec 9 2004, 02:44 PM
The guy that I was responding to said a centrifugal SC is most similar in performance to a turbo.
Actually, I'd still say the centrifical is the closest to a turbo in performance. Not that they are identical, just that they are more similar to turbos than Roots or Lysolm designs.
By performance, I mean
kind of performance
not
how much performance.
I've lurked on this board for years and always chuckled a bit at the SC vs. Turbo debates. The familiar quote was,"if you want low end torque, get a turbo". In regard to what was available for the S2000 (Vortech/Paxton/Turbos) this was true. But on almost any other car forum where Roots & twinscrew setups were available the argument is completely opposite. Turbos have more low end than Centrificals but Roots & Lysolm generally have more low end, by far, than turbos.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post