• The site migration is complete! Hopefully everything transferred properly from the multiple decades old software we were using before. If you notice any issues please let me know, thanks! Also, I'm still working on things like chatbox, etc so hopefully those will be working in the next week or two.

Not another turbo vs supercharger question



Tyler gets so butt hurt

turbo>m90

my turbo> tylers prebuilt car

tyler crying> me pouring e85 out the window and I fly by on 93
 


GTPpower said:
I would like to disagree with this, but every time you fill up with e85, it puts money in my pocket...so I think I'll just let it be. ;)
Click to expand...

I was kidding just because it riles people up. But yeah I like E85 to each their own opinions.........

NebTurboSt5 silly me I forgot my sarcasm font. Yes I totally agree, 10 to 1 would be retarded.
 
So in summary... The boost levels typically seen from a supercharger are fine with slightly elevated compression. GM lowered the compression on supercharged motors as a way to reduce warranty costs- so many "average" people don't understand why you need the increased detonation resistance of higher octane fuel in their supercharged motors, etc.

But once you really start to push boost (i.e. with a turbo) you really do need to back off the compression. You can moderate that effect by doing some things (like intercooling, using E85 or race fuel or xylene, water injection, etc.) but as the boost levels get up there you really do need to back off the compression to prevent motor damage. And don't worry about sounding like a wimp with lower compression- with all that boost, you are really cramming the cylinder full and achieving very high cylinder pressures anyhow.
 


speaking of compression, the 4 cylinder mazda 3 engine runs at like 13:1, but I think its direct inject, so not really the same principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top