Notices
Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Aftermarket turbos vs. Stock turbos

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 13, 2008 | 02:02 PM
  #1  
PhantomRoadster's Avatar
Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 200
Total Cats: 0
From: Central, NJ
Default Aftermarket turbos vs. Stock turbos

Hey guys new to this forum and am looking into maybe getting a begi-s or jrsc mp45. (I know go with begi-s)

Anyway I have heard a lot of criticism towards the MSM NB and honda s2000 having too much lag or feeling stockish before over 5000 rpm. I was just wondering why the aftermarket turbos don't get this same complaint. Especially the higher horsepower kits that Begi and FM provide. I am assuming boost comes earlier. Do automanufacturers have boost come later for better fuel economy? Anyway I am a FI newbe and I learned a lot about turbos within a couple days just from this forum and am just throwing this out there.

By the way I have a Black NB with intake, headers, exhaust and a couple of suspension mods.
Old Jan 13, 2008 | 02:14 PM
  #2  
airbrush1's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,038
Total Cats: 9
From: Baltimore Maryland
Default

first off.... the S2K is Not a turbo car....

2nd, the response from a factory turbo is limited by both restrictive intake and exhaust systems, as well as ecu mapping.

A simple exhaust and intake upgrade on an MSM frees things up quite a bit IHMO

People tend not to complain about response time on their aftermarket kits because they know what to expect from them. OTOH you will find quite a few threads on other sites complaining about the response from some of the aftermarket turbo options out there.

There is a tradeoff between response and outright HP capability. I for instance have sacrificed some response in my quest for horsepower. Aftermarket "kit" options from FM and BEGI have very nicely researched and sized turbo options that should appeal to the vast majority of enthusiasts.
Old Jan 13, 2008 | 03:17 PM
  #3  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

People love to whine and cry about "lag" which is actually "positive pressure threshold." No blower is going to make 200lb/ft at 2000rpm...period. If you're worried about "spool" then buy 3" exhaust and a gt28r which will make 8psi at roughly 3000rpm according to most people here. Where the turbo makes lets say 75% of max torque, the blower is only going to make 50% or less because of the mechanics behind it. However the blower will make noise and you'll think your going faster than you are outside turbo boost threshold.

If you're expecting to make peak torque below 4k rpm, you should kill yourself because you've failed at life.
Old Jan 13, 2008 | 03:28 PM
  #4  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

my 1.6L T3 with 3" exhaust vs a stock 1.8L MSM turbo with 3" exhaust:

Old Jan 13, 2008 | 06:31 PM
  #5  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

Originally Posted by Braineack
my 1.6L T3 with 3" exhaust vs a stock 1.8L MSM turbo with 3" exhaust:

where is all that power from the msm coming...the exhuast?

My sister bought 2.5" exhaust on TDR's recommendation which I said was stupid considering another $150 would get her a 3" enthuza. Her car makes 152whp...lol.
Old Jan 13, 2008 | 06:37 PM
  #6  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

we were both running 12-13psi, and ultra low restriction turbo-back exhausts. but i gotz the low end
Old Jan 13, 2008 | 06:39 PM
  #7  
Joe Perez's Avatar
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Default

Before I went with my turbo setup, I did a couple of charts where I overlayed dyno figures from, say, a JRSC vs an FM-I on the same plot. I was specifically looking for the point at which the torque output of the turbo crossover over the torque output of the supercharger, "knowing" that turbocharged engines do not make torque at the bottom end.

What I found blew me away. Typically, the turbo setups that I looked at surpassed the supercharger systems by at most 3,000 RPM, some of them closer to 2,500 RPM.

Here's the only one of the charts I made that I can find. This shows a '99 with an FM Voodoo-1 vs a '99 with an Ubercharger stage 1. Since they are both FM products, tested on the same dyno, and set to the same level of boost with the same engine management, I felt this was probably a fairly accurate comparison:



Really opened my eyes...
Old Jan 13, 2008 | 06:45 PM
  #8  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

god look how flat that SCer torque curve is!
Old Jan 13, 2008 | 07:39 PM
  #9  
elesjuan's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
From: Overland Park, Kansas
Default

Originally Posted by Braineack
god look how flat that SCer torque curve is!
but made like 35# less torque!
Old Jan 14, 2008 | 06:11 PM
  #10  
Joe Perez's Avatar
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Default

It was really a startling revelation when I saw the two curves printed together on the same piece of paper.

Yeah, the S/C torque curve is damn near flat. And yeah, the S/C makes more torque at the bottom end (about 9 ft/lbs, at the highest point). But by 3,000 RPM the two are dead-even, and after that the turbo just keeps climbing.

Now I grant you- If you're just tooling along the highway at 3,000 RPM light cruise and suddenly decide to floor the pedal, the S/C will have a slightly faster response time. But is that really worth the huge trade-off in power at 4,000 and above?
Old Jan 14, 2008 | 06:13 PM
  #11  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

here's a good one for you joe.

mine vs a 99 MP62:



it would only take a quick burn of the MS (1psi on the EBC) to surpass it from 3500RPM up.
Old Jan 14, 2008 | 07:14 PM
  #12  
cardriverx's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,573
Total Cats: 12
From: Hermosa Beach, CA
Default

The stock cams in the miata suck ***** till 4500 rpm anyway..
Old Dec 28, 2009 | 05:44 PM
  #13  
evank's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 666
Total Cats: 0
From: Springfield, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by Braineack
we were both running 12-13psi, and ultra low restriction turbo-back exhausts. but i gotz the low end
I know this is an old post; stumbled onto it just now. My car during that test had the puny stock IC and stock computer. Since then I upgraded to a large IC, Megasquirt, larger injectors, and ported turbo set at 14psi. Wanna rematch?
Old Dec 28, 2009 | 06:14 PM
  #14  
Braineack's Avatar
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 80,552
Total Cats: 4,368
From: Chantilly, VA
Default

Originally Posted by evank
Wanna rematch?
yes. will it have working cops?
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pineda92
Meet and Greet
4
Sep 20, 2015 09:22 PM
fail wagon
Miata parts for sale/trade
2
Sep 7, 2015 08:51 PM
itsMikey
Insert BS here
0
Sep 5, 2015 02:56 PM
AlwaysBroken
Engine Performance
4
Sep 4, 2015 01:35 PM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 PM.