The FFS crew is at it again....
#26
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
i believe the thread was called "not all boost is created equal"
https://www.miataturbo.net/showthrea...ighlight=equal
#27
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
oh the lols.
It might not be up for debate to you, but the fact remains that your statement is bogus.
Instead of being a myrmidon, why not just read what I say, take a minute to comprehend it?
A centrifugal supercharger happens to share the same compressor technology of a turbo. In fact, it is essentially identical to a turbocharger in operation, but for one big factor - the manner in which it builds boost.
It needs a belt to turn the compressor wheel. As the RPMs increase, so does the compressor wheel speed, since it is attached to it directly. This means it takes nearly the entire RPM band to achieve full boost, boost increases exponentially as the engine speed increases. It does not have the ability to produce boost in low rpms. The advantage here only being that it does have the ability to produce some boost instantly when you get back on the pedal.
A turbo can achieve the necessary compressor speeds with the ability to produce significant levels of boost pressure at very low rpms. Boost is produced exponentially only in this small threshold window, depending on the size of the turbo. From that point on, let's say 2000RPM, the turbo will continue to produce the same boost level throughout the entire remainder of the rpm band. The disadvantage here being that it takes a moment to respool the turbo when you get back on the throttle, however, full boost can still be achieved at low rpms.
So yes, while they do share the same types of compressors and the way they pack air molecules together is identical, the method in which they do makes them completely different animals. A turbo will have a torque output more similar to your coveted M62, with the efficiency of the centrifugal compressor.
So don't act like I'm the one not willing to accept when you can't even understand the clear difference between the two. Or you could go back and look at the dyno comparison I posted and asked you to take a look at 17 times, but then why stop being a stubborn fool now?
Instead of being a myrmidon, why not just read what I say, take a minute to comprehend it?
A centrifugal supercharger happens to share the same compressor technology of a turbo. In fact, it is essentially identical to a turbocharger in operation, but for one big factor - the manner in which it builds boost.
It needs a belt to turn the compressor wheel. As the RPMs increase, so does the compressor wheel speed, since it is attached to it directly. This means it takes nearly the entire RPM band to achieve full boost, boost increases exponentially as the engine speed increases. It does not have the ability to produce boost in low rpms. The advantage here only being that it does have the ability to produce some boost instantly when you get back on the pedal.
A turbo can achieve the necessary compressor speeds with the ability to produce significant levels of boost pressure at very low rpms. Boost is produced exponentially only in this small threshold window, depending on the size of the turbo. From that point on, let's say 2000RPM, the turbo will continue to produce the same boost level throughout the entire remainder of the rpm band. The disadvantage here being that it takes a moment to respool the turbo when you get back on the throttle, however, full boost can still be achieved at low rpms.
So yes, while they do share the same types of compressors and the way they pack air molecules together is identical, the method in which they do makes them completely different animals. A turbo will have a torque output more similar to your coveted M62, with the efficiency of the centrifugal compressor.
So don't act like I'm the one not willing to accept when you can't even understand the clear difference between the two. Or you could go back and look at the dyno comparison I posted and asked you to take a look at 17 times, but then why stop being a stubborn fool now?
#35
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Statesville, NC
Posts: 2,738
Total Cats: 319
I would of quickly stopped this but not knowing that Bill from FFS was setting up my MS3x. He forgot to calibrate a few things..... I'm not sure what he was told to do other than to get the car to start.....
Things wrong/not calibrated:
coolant sensor
wideband
base motherfucking timing
also not sure he realized it had a CAS, even though it has a 99-00 head and 01 block but the CAS is pretty obvious on the back of the head with a bigass plug on it.
So fml I got work to do on the car before it's in working order.
Also, beating a dead horse. IMA KOOL AIR WITH GASOLINE, YYYYIIII.... MURIKA!
Things wrong/not calibrated:
coolant sensor
wideband
base motherfucking timing
also not sure he realized it had a CAS, even though it has a 99-00 head and 01 block but the CAS is pretty obvious on the back of the head with a bigass plug on it.
So fml I got work to do on the car before it's in working order.
Also, beating a dead horse. IMA KOOL AIR WITH GASOLINE, YYYYIIII.... MURIKA!
#37
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Damn, late to the party again.
Honestly it used to bring me great joy to ridicule FFS on m.net in their own threads. I've never in my life had so many posts deleted and threatening messages from moderators sent. Was a great time trolling that old ******..
Yeah, I miss trolling Tom..
Honestly it used to bring me great joy to ridicule FFS on m.net in their own threads. I've never in my life had so many posts deleted and threatening messages from moderators sent. Was a great time trolling that old ******..
Yeah, I miss trolling Tom..