Turbo, Carbs, Throttle Bodies, Boost??? - Page 15 - Saxperience

scot-ish · 15th September 2011, 18:35

aye, i know i lost a wee bit of torque lower down, was shown in a couple RR graphs, but gained a wee bit more bhp higher up, the car revved up easier, but now i think about it, i think i was told that it would drop revs faster between shifts, and that i should really "heel-toe" to try keep her gan but the rev drop would be better on the sychro's.

Ryan^p · 15th September 2011, 19:36

It would be a real shame if people begin to stop using this forum because of some of the hate being thrown around.

So people have different opinions, and some companies may want to push products they sell more than others. Its a fact of life and GMC are not the only ones who do it.

axsaxoman · 16th September 2011, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannygti

Is this Cumbria 106 turbo charged?

John you wouldn't be telling me how 'to do it' would you? Who's to say you know 'how to do it'. I just asked for an opinion, the fact you are relunctant to give us it shows you are not happy with the question, It seems to you there is no spec turbocharged TU that would make a great track car... As in your opinion s/c is ALWAYS better ????

I didn't think as a tuner you could be so narrow minded

no it is superchared--so if you want all the power you can possibly get on the road +some to spare in a saxo i see no need to have any of the turbo downsides + alot of other complications to get it to work as well .
For about the 10th time i will say again i have nothing against turbo,s --specced correctly and used in the right cars
but for me the saxo just isn,t one , its light ,its front wheel drive and a very small engine bay and engine was never designed to be turboed,you have to move oil filter ,cut into oil supply system ,most don,t restrict the oil fow ,so are dropping pressure to other parts of engine then you need weld oil returns to sump .
i know it can work but I do not like interferring with std systems unless I have too,the more you change the more problems you usually create-- --too many possiblilites of other problems --
please don,t send a million posts saying this and that car don,t have any of theseproblems -
-it,s my opinion that leaving as many things as possible the way the engine designer made it is a better idea .
If you want to turbo , then on you go .
about a year ago i offered a cast manifold for the c2 ,which one of my trade customers in taiwan makes , no moving of oil filter etc,all i got was when are you going to build one and prove it works ?
so as far as i can see there is no market for another a professional made turbo kit --itseems to all about getting s/h units + home builds --

dannygti · 16th September 2011, 11:09

Peugeot/cit never designed the car to house a supercharger in the bay either, nor intercooler.

Until rotrex develop this geared s/c I believe a turbo has much more of an advantage Everywhere except lag which is nothing if car is driven properly, even not driven properly I believe a turbo car would have better pace

KamRacing · 16th September 2011, 11:21

move the radiator to the boot. Plenty of room then

Mieran · 16th September 2011, 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

move the radiator to the boot. Plenty of room then

thinking of doing this on my next project.

Not the actual engine radiator but going to run a charge cooler and the radiator for that going in the boot

axsaxoman · 16th September 2011, 11:31

[QUOTE=scot-ish;5559449]this is deffo getting interesting now.

only thing i picked up earlier, john you said a lightened flywheel was not a good idea in a small cc engine running a turbo charger? - apologies if you didnt, sure i read that back a few pages.

I ran a 3.9kg(i think it was) Cusco fly in my starlet, sure it was around 1kg less than standard, been a while since i messed with cars like that, but considering another for next year.
main reason i run this flywheel was, reduced lag, there was less RPM drop during gear changes, which kept me higher up the rpm, and in the peak boost for a longer time.

this is genuine question, do you think i would have been better running the standard fly?[/QUOTE

the difference in spool up should be very little but what a heavier flywheel will do is to soften how it rises and maybe make it easier to kep wheelspin under control --look at top fuel dragsters --fly fit 3 stage centrifical clutchs and big flywheels to aid traction
if rpm is dropping on gear changes then maybe your gearing i wrong or maybe the light flywheel is allowing rpm to drop --less mass+ inertia--ideally rpm should go from just over max rpm to maxtorque when you get next gear and if turbo is right then it should well over spooling region-- so it should not be a problem
dropping below this area is why i don,t like trubo,s on FWD

adzvtr · 16th September 2011, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannygti

Peugeot/cit never designed the car to house a supercharger in the bay either, nor intercooler.

he said he likes to keep as much as possible the way it was meant to be.
no t ing into water and oil lines.

one of the reasons i decided on charging and not turbo was the charger uses its own seperate oil suply not the engine oil.

dannygti · 16th September 2011, 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by adzvtr

he said he likes to keep as much as possible the way it was meant to be.
no t ing into water and oil lines.

one of the reasons i decided on charging and not turbo was the charger uses its own seperate oil suply not the engine oil.

he also said they were never designed to have a turbo up front. same can be said with a charger.

fair enough with oil lines etc but its not like its a big deal is it? get sump welded and t-off a couple of water pipes is hardly rocket science.. you never hear of people having problems with them unless bodged. same could be said for everything we "mod".

dannygti · 16th September 2011, 16:23

what rotrex charger is equivelant to a gt25 turbo?

adzvtr · 16th September 2011, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannygti

what rotrex charger is equivelant to a gt25 turbo?

do we really care. turbos are fun, chargers are fun. itbs are fun.
and there are some awsome tu examples of each.
the problem isnt which is better.
as personally the charger was a better route for me.
but thats just it its a personal opinion.
(id love to do a turbo build and an itb build)
but at the moment id like to make my charged setup the best it can be.
and for those against superior saxo turbo moments ill use the gas to help my midrange out a little ha ha.
john has a very strong personal opinion of why he prefers chargers thats his call.
in all fairness he doesnt need to explain himself. hes got alot more experience than i have for sure.
so which is better. the answer is non are better than the other just different.

dannygti · 16th September 2011, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by adzvtr

do we really care. turbos are fun, chargers are fun. itbs are fun.
and there are some awsome tu examples of each.
the problem isnt which is better.
as personally the charger was a better route for me.
but thats just it its a personal opinion.
(id love to do a turbo build and an itb build)
but at the moment id like to make my charged setup the best it can be.
and for those against superior saxo turbo moments ill use the gas to help my midrange out a little ha ha.
john has a very strong personal opinion of why he prefers chargers thats his call.
in all fairness he doesnt need to explain himself. hes got alot more experience than i have for sure.
so which is better. the answer is non are better than the other just different.

wow wow wow adz, this aint no dig at you mate. this is a debate. not an argument. i dont know if you have noticed but there has been some real good info in this thread. squeezing info and opinions out of people can have benifits to everyone.

that was a simple question. id like to do some looking into specifics of performance of both types of blowers. it may come in useful for debates that might come up in the future.

adzvtr · 16th September 2011, 16:53

lol i know its not a dig dude.
its one thread ive actually enjoyed and there aint many i do.
the info is pretty good.
i personaly think that the c30 74 is a gd enough match for the 16v.
and cant understand why the 94 would be needed.
(its bad enough on a 74)
plus having driven in everyday traffic its not mareish atall.
ive heard the 94 can feel a little stalled at lower rpms.
the gt25 is good for around 270 and perfect for smaller displacement engines
and going by specs its similar to the c30 74 which is good for between 250bhp to 300bhp

dannygti · 16th September 2011, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by adzvtr

lol i know its not a dig dude.
its one thread ive actually enjoyed and there aint many i do.
the info is pretty good.
i personaly think that the c30 74 is a gd enough match for the 16v.
and cant understand why the 94 would be needed.
(its bad enough on a 74)
plus having driven in everyday traffic its not mareish atall.
ive heard the 94 can feel a little stalled at lower rpms.
the gt25 is good for around 270 and perfect for smaller displacement engines
and going by specs its similar to the c30 74 which is good for between 250bhp to 300bhp

ok mate i was thinking the 74 too.
its a good charger tbh, tam made 240@wheels with one, it was overspinning but they still seem reliable with overspeeding them. what are rebuild costs like?

adzvtr · 16th September 2011, 17:01

havent looked into rebuild costs, as im not overspinning yet (will be after the 7th november)
i imagine them to be a bit more than ur average turbo rebuild tho. but could be wrong.

definantly think the 74 is perfect for a fast road/track car as with matched other mods, lairyer cams arent such a problem with a charger the produce plenty of go. and as we know there is only so much power you can actually use everyday.

dannygti · 16th September 2011, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by adzvtr

havent looked into rebuild costs, as im not overspinning yet (will be after the 7th november)
i imagine them to be a bit more than ur average turbo rebuild tho. but could be wrong.

definantly think the 74 is perfect for a fast road/track car as with matched other mods, lairyer cams arent such a problem with a charger the produce plenty of go. and as we know there is only so much power you can actually use everyday.

in all fairness on the road any 200hp+ saxo/106 will be a weapon. not much will drive away from you.

the rotrex chargers arent anywhere near as popular as turbos hence why i think rebuilds could cost a lot (dont know though)

im trying to convince a friend to supercharge his MINT 106 gti.. hes got a lot of things, all he needs is the kit really. should make for a decent fast road car.

adzvtr · 16th September 2011, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannygti

in all fairness on the road any 200hp+ saxo/106 will be a weapon. not much will drive away from you.

the rotrex chargers arent anywhere near as popular as turbos hence why i think rebuilds could cost a lot (dont know though)

im trying to convince a friend to supercharge his MINT 106 gti.. hes got a lot of things, all he needs is the kit really. should make for a decent fast road car.

he wont be disapointed with it if he does, and its not to much hassle to build. and the noise it makes higher up the revs is like nothing uv heard b4 lol. just sounds like its tearing the air