Ok, I'm getting a another spyder soon and I am going to build this one to race. Probably mostly time attack because they are starting to do a good amount of races on the east coast, and maybe some nasa racing. So I am looking for opinions on which would work better for hard racing, but still want to be able to drive it on the street occasionally. Motor will be lightly built to keep reliability up hopefully (also if anyone has recommendations on a compression ratio to go with for pistons for either supercharged or turbo'd). Will probably go pistons and rods, valves, springs, retainers and maybe cams(any opinion on cams would be good too). In keeping it lightly built I'm talking stage 1 or 2 for the internal goodies. The car will be gutted and will have some sort of cage installed (haven't decided on wether to do a full cage or a really hefty rollbar). Thats all I can think of right now. Any opinions (that make sense, and are not flames) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
sbm-mrs
People can compare all they want, but it only matters for what you want. Turbo's and SC's are two different worlds and comparing them really is like apples to oranges. I am more of an SC guy, but with all the turbo stuff readily available why not do that? I think personally that a supercharged car would get you out of the turns faster, but it really does depend on the track's turns. Low-end torque doesn't help on a track where you won't even be spinning under 4k. If WEBIII comes out with his design soon, I would consider that, but since there seems to be more R&D than actual applications, I would say your'e better off with a happy whizy turbo system who's design is tested on and off the streets. I don't want to step on anyone's toes with this comment, that's just how I see it logically.
I have yet to see a link to a S/C kit I can actually send money to and receive a bolt-up S/C application.
I personally am a S/C fan because of the daily driver status of my car and my lack of interest in being the fastest guy on the block. I would like a bit of extra power in the car in a usable powerband with stock-like reliability.
Plus, I'll be honest, there is something about a supercharger whine that a turbo just doesn't do for me. Blow offs valves are cool for the first day or so, but when I pull up to a business meeting I don't want a loud exhaust and a chirping blow off valve going off.
I personally am a S/C fan because of the daily driver status of my car and my lack of interest in being the fastest guy on the block. I would like a bit of extra power in the car in a usable powerband with stock-like reliability.
Plus, I'll be honest, there is something about a supercharger whine that a turbo just doesn't do for me. Blow offs valves are cool for the first day or so, but when I pull up to a business meeting I don't want a loud exhaust and a chirping blow off valve going off.
Lower under the hood temperatures, but especially with an Eaton and in our case a non intercooled Eaton at that = slightly higher IAT's. It really all depends on the setup. A twin screw would be better than any current turbo kit for our cars but it doesn't exist yet.
Overall, I wouldn't recommend one over the other for track days as I'm not qualified. I personally love the Supercharger over a turbo for its simplicity, absolutely seamless boost, linear pull, we are talking as you press the pedal response, it just plain feels like a bigger engine in the car. It is less complicated to install, maintain, and therefore; diagnose. A supercharger offers more of the experience that many seek out of a power adder as it is as close to set it and forget it that you can get.
I speak from experience with a very well sorted out Turbo. It was fun, made gobs of power, but it also had many subtle drawbacks. It was a maintenance nightmare, something was always needing to be tweaked, poked, prodded, massaged, in some way or the other. Not to mention the incredible heat it introduced and/or trapped in an engine bay that was not designed for such. Not to mention the cylinder head itself. Ours simply wasn't designed for a turbo. A turbo can be very complicated, ESPECIALLY for the novice to live with.
By that I mean support it even after a professional install and tune. Disagree with that and you are either a braggart or don't know what you're talking about. I for one am more than competent, more than proactive, and I still had my days with the thing.
The SC so far has been completely painless. I spend my time on it experimenting and changing configurations to get the most out f it. Other than that it is a no brainer.
So it really boils down to a few things.
How much do you want to spend and what numbers do you want? You also have to consider torque curves based on your high end numbers. These nice and neat 6 psi graphs are fine, but they do change as the numbers go up and so do the size of the turbos. I for one had a GT2871R and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It was a true stereotypical turbo regardless of the hype.
Anyway, like others have said. If you want big numbers go turbo. Not only that, but if you want proven performance and a lot of other cars just like yours go turbo. Go turbo also if you want to take advantage of easy swaps for more power, parts availability due to kit turn over, etc. BUT, be forwarned of the dark side. Yes turbos have a dark side and it is called constant tinkering, but hey, you pay to play right?
Considering SC's in general, I would always (now) go SC. The big giant BUT is well, there isn't a big SC kit out there at the moment. That so, most of this discussion is pointless. I also don't know if there ever will be from me. I'm not looking to compete with Jay, I simply made something for myself that makes sense for a ton of other people. Frankly, I have another business to attend to and I don't have time to put up with the kind of Flak that Jay has taken on to make a living.
I am wrapping up my testing as we speak to see if it is going to do what I want. If so, I'll sell the upgraded units to current TRD SC owners and let them deal with them on their own. There is a decent amount of those to get corky a ROI.
As far as Spyder owners go, I also have to sit down once all is said and done and see if there is a cost justification. Either way, I'll take on a few one off installs for those that want something unique as well as painless to operate. More for my personal pleasure than to make any money. In the end, any time I spend on cars is costing me money for every minute I put into it at any hourly rate.
Then I'll see how it goes. If it makes sense, and there is a market, I'll build some more. But I think I have learned one lesson from watching Hass and that is I would only plan on selling DIY starter kits and not attempt to sell what is billed as a complete out of the box solution to a complete novice. Especially one based on a modified TRD product.
So there is another reason to buy a turbo. If you want a one stop shop and are not mechanically inclined, don't even think about a SC until someone comes out with a comparable product!
The only way I would go that route is if I stop and develope a complete intake manifold with a twin screw and intercooler. That is something that I could stand behind and compare to anything on the road. Then we can talk Turbo versus SC 8) That however, would require someone to put their money where their mouth is and that hasn't happened yet!
It's never happened to me 8) neverrrrr....Originally posted by grumpy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (grumpy)</div>Worst part was everybody there had a highly moded Spyder. Plus we all kew we had done the same thing with no audience.dman™ PFC.![Image]()
Man I caught a lot of sh*t for that one.![Image]()
:wink:[/b]![Image]()
Web3-
Aside of more linearity through the whole band and "the less you have, the less to break" mindset... It just doesn't appeal that much to me vs a turbo system. I know what you meant by 'it makes the car feel like it just has a bigger engine.' But that's from starting from a dead stop. I'm really not sure if this car was designed with anytype of sprint/drag racing in mind, like a mustang cobra for example. It makes a better track car to me, which rpms or 2000 and lower just really don't matter.
Aside of more linearity through the whole band and "the less you have, the less to break" mindset... It just doesn't appeal that much to me vs a turbo system. I know what you meant by 'it makes the car feel like it just has a bigger engine.' But that's from starting from a dead stop. I'm really not sure if this car was designed with anytype of sprint/drag racing in mind, like a mustang cobra for example. It makes a better track car to me, which rpms or 2000 and lower just really don't matter.
I completely agree with WebIII and would rather have a supercharger that gives a serious bump in power/torque very predictably and reliably over massive top end turbo power.
I just don't get the reliability arguement.
How much worst can some special exhaust piping, an extra fan, and some oil lines be?!? It can't be THAT much worst.
Now I understand the concept of "the more you have... < the more you have to break"
But it's not like you have tons more things to worry about in a turbo system vs a supercharged one.
How much worst can some special exhaust piping, an extra fan, and some oil lines be?!? It can't be THAT much worst.
Now I understand the concept of "the more you have... < the more you have to break"
But it's not like you have tons more things to worry about in a turbo system vs a supercharged one.
....special exhaust piping, an extra fan, and some oil lines....
As part of a system already under pressure it is more than just tons more things to worry. As an example......how many oil line problems and leaks have you seen or heard about over the last few months alone? How often would you need to check of it if you had a turbo? What is the cost and potential problems for even running an extra line or even from tapping your oil pan? How long will that oil feed line or it's fittings last under all the extreme heat. What would happen it that line failed while on my way to work? Is it any easy fix or am I stuck at the side of the road? Should I carry extra oil in case I spring a leak? I can go on and on and on. And that's just one item.
SC is simpler.
Simpler is more reliable.
Turbos make heat and heat is the enemy.
They make noticeable power OFF-boost too.
T-Timer not required in a DD.
Simpler is more reliable.
Turbos make heat and heat is the enemy.
They make noticeable power OFF-boost too.
T-Timer not required in a DD.
...Not nessecarily true. If you compare a roots to a Turbo, 9 times out of 10 the roots will run far hotter. A centrifugal supercharger on the other hand may flow cooler, but it takes more from one to make good power and it usually won't make much torque. That's why the screw, as in other threads, has been refered to as the "god" of SC's. It makes power, torque, instant boost, and it flows cool to boot.
They can't ALL be about YOU. 10% or more have to be about ME. It's the fourth law of thermospyderchatdynamics.Originally posted by sbm-mrs
This thread is supposed to about me.![Image]()
No! It also partially about me!
Any turbo spyder should be a dailydriver and a turbo track car should have a t-timer.
Frosting!!
I waaant Frosting!!
Any turbo spyder should be a dailydriver and a turbo track car should have a t-timer.
Frosting!!
I waaant Frosting!!
Well when you put it that way, you are correct. Sorry about that. I'm definetly in support of him using a turbo.
Hey SBM... You should be able to get a low-lag setup if you are looking for 250 hp, but I would suggest you use 8.5:1 or 9:1 comp pistons at most. Everything will run smoother on higher boost and lower compression. However, if an SC system pops up then I would definitely support the switch. The turbo is guaranteed to do what you need and later you can get the SC setup. Maybe after the season is over you could do your own R&D?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
