turbo question on this GT86

[dnalunchie]

about half way down the article it says that the car is "technically forced induction but with no turbo in the way to muffle up the sounds it sounds more like NA"

http://www.speedhunters.com/2013/04/the ... performer/

I am curious as to why this is? is there something special about the way the turbo has been mounted or is it something about the FA20 engine? just couldnt work out what they meant.

[sergei]

It is a mechanical supercharger.
The centrifugal variety.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuga ... percharger

[rolla_fxgt]

I think the comment about being technically force inducted is about the fact the supercharger presurises the engine above normal intake pressures.
I'm sure someone with more technical know how will say it better, or tell me I'm talking out my arse

[Lloyd]

A turbo will change how the exhaust sounds, there is no turbine in the exhaust system with a mechanical supercharger, hence the exhaust note should be more like an N/A. That's all they're saying

[dnalunchie]

A turbo will change how the exhaust sounds, there is no turbine in the exhaust system with a mechanical supercharger, hence the exhaust note should be more like an N/A. That's all they're saying

ah cool, thanks man.

[matt dunn]

A turbo will change how the exhaust sounds, there is no turbine in the exhaust system with a mechanical supercharger, hence the exhaust note should be more like an N/A. That's all they're saying

Turbo's are quite good mufflers.

Most turbo race cars don't need mufflers.
That thing definately would.

[Lloyd]

Yeah, it's quite impressive how well they work. Had a van a while ago with no exhaust from about 2 feet behind turbo and it was as quiet as most cars. And the AE92 GTZ got the exhaust done before the turbo setup so was just supercharged for a while. Extremely loud until the turbo went on and then it was nice.

[steroidcontaskie]

Been a while since I read up on them, but I thought that centrifugal superchargers were poos. Just like a turbo, but they drain engine power to run them. Pretty sure no company uses them factory on a car, I guess they are easier to fit in a car, but if you were going to that kind of effort why didn't they just turbo it?

[Mr Revhead]

Hugely popular in the USA bolt on market.
Like any mod, they have the best points and neg points.
They take less to drive them that a Roots type

[jacobrjett]

as far as i was aware all superchargers drain engine power.

twin screw, centrifugal etc. belt driven off the crank.

[rollaholic]

who cares if its not as efficient as a turbo, if it makes more power (than the stock engine) then the car is faster.

thats the point after all?

has plumbing benefits etc too eh

probably made up for by the mounting issues

[Grrrrrrr!]

as far as i was aware all superchargers drain engine power.

twin screw, centrifugal etc. belt driven off the crank.

So do turbos.. great big restriction in the exhaust, and lower compression to stop the engine going pop all costs power.

[gt4dude]

^---- exhaust turbine is wasted energy being harnessed


belt driven compressor is worst of both worlds - turbo lag and accessory drain

[RomanV]

Boost threshold =! lag.

There's an aussie guy with an MR2 running a beams motor with one of those superchargers, makes bloody good numbers all across the rpm range, with instant throttle response.

Turbo isnt necessarily a free lunch either.

Supercharged 2GRFE is the answer

[Alex B]

as far as i was aware all superchargers drain engine power.

There goes my idea for a perpetual motion engine, $&#$% it.

[Bling]

I'm pretty sure all petrol engines consume petrol too. Another fun fact to add to the above technical advice.

[Lloyd]

Not if you drive everywhere in reverse, then they actually produce fuel

[Mr Revhead]

Reverse with centrifugal a/c perpetual motion engine..... Poof goes my mind

[Lloyd]

Keep it to yourself otherwise you may find certain people knocking on your door