Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i have a mate with a ford ranger, 2.5L 4 pot turbo diesel. when he took me for a spin in it the turbo was spooling up as we slowly reversed across the flat grass in his front yard lol. Those things spool up so quickly, that's the purpose as diesels don't like to rev

Edited by Galois
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No can't agree.

Typical automotive discussion, way too much generalisation.

Modern large truck diesels have a beautiful flat torque curve from around 900 to 2200rpm, all due to big turbocharging boost.

OLD fashioned diesels didn't rev too well, but even an Rd28 will still be pulling strong at 5000rpm, not too shabby for a diesel.

As for this one.............

No can't agree.

Typical automotive discussion, way too much generalisation.

Modern large truck diesels have a beautiful flat torque curve from around 900 to 2200rpm, all due to big turbocharging boost.

OLD fashioned diesels didn't rev too well, but even an Rd28 will still be pulling strong at 5000rpm, not too shabby for a diesel.

As for this one.............

lol, generalizations are the only way to talk about a general topic like this. Your specific examples suck and he is right: diesels don't like to rev. They are typically long stroke and high compression, which is why turbochargers are employed to make the most of what they can rev to. The RD28 is not your average diesel engine, it has a much shorter stroke than most diesel engines (actually shorter than it's bore is wide), hence it revs out to 5000 and the power band is more midrange oriented. It lacks the low down torque that most diesels have. Further evidence of this is peak torque at 2400rpm...again, higher than most diesels. And surprise surprise, peak torque is 178nm...which is shithouse for a 2.8 diesel because it is designed more like a petrol engine that runs on diesel. Yet, in contrast, the 3 litre petrol engines of the same time revved out and produced peak power past 5000rpm. So no, they don't like to rev out in comparison to most engines.

Modern truck diesels have a flat curve because they've got a massive stroke and the torque doesn't die off because the turbocharger draws it out.

That's cause turbos work better with diesels. They don't rev high (as per a longer stroke than petrol engines) and this would severely limited boost in a supercharger application. Turbo lag is also much less noticeable on a turbo diesel because they are high compression engines - in fact, the turbocharger is solely there to extend the useable range of the diesel engine in the middle and upper RPM (they run out of steam very quickly), rather than to produce more torque/power all round.

It's all about application. There's no "one is better than the other". One will always be better for your application than the other..."which one" depends on your application. Vehicle manufacturers around the world still have a divide about it, there's no general consensus that one is better than the other, which is why twin charging exists.

my point was design efficiency. by using exhaust gas pressure, turbos are using some of the wasted energy from the engine. sure it does increase back pressure but compared to the loss of a supercharger, turbo is more efficient.

though, im not a mechanical or thermal engineer, so i cant do the math to prove it.

We see alot of supercharged domestic cars and i can tell you now most of them (vortech style) are laggy dyno queens, the twin screw are the only way to go.

i should post some boost curves from vortech, kenne bell and harop chargers vs turbos... you will be surprised.

My thoughts on supercharging fall into two groups, dyno queen or useful :banana: I prefer to use a whipple (twin screw) style setup as boost is more turbo like ie comes in and stays constant whereas your vortech style charges increase boost with rpm so peak power and boost is always @ peak rpm... great for dynos, crap for daily livability.

The whipple will hit target boost quickly and offer FAR GREATER area inder the curve, much like a turbo setup.

Here is a comparison boost curve vortech vs turbo

typical_boost_curve.jpg

Here is vortech versus whipple supercharger.

Twin screw --->

twinscrew.jpg

Vortech --->

ve_chargedcentrifugal.jpg

i should post some boost curves from vortech, kenne bell and harop chargers vs turbos... you will be surprised.

I am definitely interested if they are the same motor with supercharger vs turbo for similar power outputs.

I am definitely interested if they are the same motor with supercharger vs turbo for similar power outputs.

similar outputs (520 vs 560rwkw) ^^ different chargers (these were the only two graphs on my comp which where close in peak power)

interesting trent. obviously different applications so can't accurately compare, but for arguments sake it's good. look at the torque. the twin screw made 200nm more at 50kmh less (1000rpm), but at 2500rpm the twin screw is making double the torque. that thing would be an absolute pig in the wet..... or the damp, or even if it looked like rainging, LOL.

how about a comparison with super vs turbo chargers on smaller engines? r25/6 or sr20 since that's what the majority here have.

there's a vid floating around with a s15 running a turbo and super setup, making around 300kw. (if i recalled correctly)

Edited by Peter89
how about a comparison with super vs turbo chargers on smaller engines? r25/6 or sr20 since that's what the majority here have.

there's a vid floating around with a s15 running a turbo and super setup, making around 300kw. (if i recalled correctly)

look in the forced induction section under twin charged i posted a few results in there, we have a rb30 with a gt3540 and supercharger that comes in... sick setup and is all home built see build thread here

http://forums.justcommodores.com.au/vn-vp-...ukes-vn-43.html

look in the forced induction section under twin charged i posted a few results in there, we have a rb30 with a gt3540 and supercharger that comes in... sick setup and is all home built see build thread here (ended up @ 400rwkw 23psi @ 2000ish)

http://forums.justcommodores.com.au/vn-vp-...ukes-vn-43.html

At 2000ish RPM? Fark me...no lag there!

Yeah I knew they boosted from low, I was just surprised by the amount of power the thing is putting out at 2000rpm particularly with a turbo bolted on. As is the purpose of twin charging I guess...

Whipple superchargers usually have full boost by 1200rpm, don't even need any throttle.

yup, if you look at the post above you will see the whipple is making 6 -odd psi down there :P

yup, if you look at the post above you will see the whipple is making 6 -odd psi down there :P

I think if someone made a Whipple supercharger kit for a skyline that didn't require $5k of fabrication for custom manifolds and relocating power steering etc and wasn't ridiculously loud there would be a definite market for it.

I know there is someone on here that has supercharged his RB25DE but he has had lots of issues with the bypass valve and making the car quieter than a 747 on full noise. If these problems could be ironed out I think a lot of people would use them.

Would make the engine drive like a big capacity v8 which all the RB30 guys seem to love.

Edited by Rolls

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I've got the rear ones, they're certainly beefy. I need to take them to my driveshaft guru to check over, he's very fussy about the quality of components so I'll let you know if they are made of cheese by a blind man.   Are you in Australia? A mate just had a set of EN26 shafts made for his K20 Lotus by our fabricator which were quite cheap (compared to Driveshaft Shop) so if you can procure the CV's and draw what you need he'd make them for ~$800 for the pair.
    • Had I known the diff between R32 and R33 suspension I would have R33 suspension. That ship has sailed so I'm doing my best to replicate a drop spindle without spending $4k on a Billet one.
    • OEM suspension starts to bind as soon as the car gets away from stock height. I locked in the caster and camber before cutting off the kingpin. I then let the upright down in a natural (unbound) state before re-attaching it. Now it moves freely in bump and droop relative to the new ride height. My plan is to add GKTech arms before the car is finished so I can dial camber and caster further. It will be fine. This isn't rocket science. Caster looks good, camber is good, upper arm doesn't cause crazy gain and it is now closer to the stock angle and bump steer checks out. Send it.
    • Pay careful attention to the kinematics of that upper arm. The bloody things don't work properly even on a normal stock height R32. Nissan really screwed the pooch on that one. The fixes have included changing the hole locations on the bracket to change the angle of the inner pivot (which was fairly successful but usually makes it impossible to install or remove the arm without unbolting the bracket from the tower, which sucks) and various swivelling upper arm designs. ALL the swivelling upper arm designs that look like a capital I (with serifs) suck. All of them. Some of them are in fact terribly unsafe. Even the best one of them (the old UAS design) shat itself in short order on my car. The only upper arm that works as advertised and is pretty safe is the GKTech one. But it is high maintenance on a street car. I'm guessing that a 600HP car as (stupidly, IMO) low as you are going is not going to be a regular driver. So the maintenance issues on suspension parts are probably not going to be a problem. But you really must make sure that however your fairly drastically modded suspension ends up, that the upper arms swing through an arc that wants to keep the inner and outer bolts parallel. If the outer end travels through an arc that makes that end's bolt want to skew away from parallel with the inner bolt, you will build up enormous binding and compressing forces in the bushes, chew them out and hate life. The suspension compliance can actually be dominated by the bush binding, not the spring rate! It may be the case that even something like the GKTech arm won't work if your suspension kinematics become too weird, courtesy of all the cut and shut going on. Although you at least say there's no binding now, so maybe you're OK. Seeing as you're in the build phase, you could consider using R33/4 type upper arms (either that actual arm, OEM or aftermarket) or any similar wishbone designed to suit your available space, so alleviate the silliness of the R32 design. Then you can locate your inner pivots to provide the correct kinematics (camber gain on compression, etc).
    • The frontend wouldn't go low enough because the coilover was max low and the upper control arm would collapse into itself and potentially bottom out in the strut tower. I made a brace and cut off the kingpin and then moved the upright down 1.25" and welded. i still have to finish but this gives an idea. Now I can have a normal 3.25" of shock travel and things aren't binding. I'm also dropping the lower arm and tie rod 1.25".
×
×
  • Create New...