supercharged or turbo??

The last incarnation of our beloved mr2..Discussion and technical advice for the ZZW30 MR2 Roadster (MR-S), & MR2 Spyder. 1ZZ-FE.

Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members

Post Reply
johnboy

supercharged or turbo??

Post by johnboy »

i have a mk3 [zzw] MR2, it quite nippy and it handles brilliantly thanks to my new suspention, but its not fast enough, i wondered if anyone knows which is better, a turbo will cost me around £3000 an £4000 to supercharge it, is it worth an xtra £1000 to be supercharged 8)
Last edited by johnboy on Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
waynestoyotamr2
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:25 pm
Location: Northwich, Cheshire
Contact:

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by waynestoyotamr2 »

Probably not.

Sell the car, buy a Turbo :-)

Much more simple and cost effective.



Edit: Oi! You tried to embarass me with an edit there!! ;-)
Last edited by waynestoyotamr2 on Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If in doubt - just make the numbers up!" ;)
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by Lauren »

turbo will be far more efficient and setup well it needn't be laggy.

I have driven Martin Holden's Roadster turbo all over europe and round Magny Cours & Dijon and i have to say i was pretty impressed with its responsiveness. Martin's pushes out 220bhp/lbft torque.

It does make a pretty good track and road car.
screech

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by screech »

it's not worth an extra £1000 to supercharge - it'll be just as laggy as a turbo yet won't give as much power.

if it's a centrifugal supercharger it definately isn't worth it!

from the honda s2000 boys
"See, here we have another example of the classic SC vs turbo debate. SC has parasitic losses while a turbo setup has lag. The funny thing about this argument is that the centrifugal blower guys ALWAYS like to bring this up. LAG. They just don't seem to realize that their centrifugal SC has more lag than almost every street turbo setup that has ever been imagined. Reason? The SC is relying on crankshaft rotations to spin it. Any centrifugal compressor wheel has to get to a certain speed before it will kick out any boost at all, so even with that centrifugal supercharger you have to get it to xxxxrpm before it gives you any boost, but then you don't get full boost, cause the engine is not spinning fast enough yet. It takes hitting redline to hit full boost. Meanwhile, the turbo car in the next lane hit full boost before VTEC even kicked in and walked away hard... Poor SC guys. I feel bad for them..."
Mk1 Turbo Powered Steve
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Romford,Essex

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by Mk1 Turbo Powered Steve »

I know you might all slate me but from my experiencies ,as i own a mk1 supercharger.From 0-60 an sc will beat the mk2 turbo ,standard!!
Obviosly the turbos are easier to modifybut when i get the big pulley fitted,i might be able to give it a bit more!
As far as i know the big pulley on a mk1 sc will give it much more mid range and start pushing you tubby owners a bit further!

We will have to see how it goes!!!
Mikejc
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: london

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by Mikejc »

I think not i'm afraid. Your experiences must have been held against some one who was unable to launch their turbo properly.

Tubby's of all revisios pull 0-60 in under 6 seconds! :wink:

Mikejc
Mikejc
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: london

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by Mikejc »

Revisions that should have read :oops:
User avatar
tonigmr2
IMOC Committee
Posts: 18054
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Here

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by tonigmr2 »

Mike
You do have an 'edit' button at the top right of each post where you can go back and fix little mistakes like that! :)

Sadly have to agree with you, even an SC with a pulley on is unlikely to beat a tubby, 0-60 or 60+, the best hope you've got is to catch them off boost by surprise!

T
Mk1 Turbo Powered Steve
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:29 pm
Location: Romford,Essex

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by Mk1 Turbo Powered Steve »

Ok! so that is probably the case,i was over doing it by saying beat a mk2 turbo but i have kept up with a few that haven't been able to pull away from me.

This was proven by one of our Mk1 club runs out last year,that the IMOC boys got invited to aswell.
Great fun and a great day out!

I admit i haven't done a side by side race yet,i'm sure i would get thrashed!!
I don't care i will still give it a go!

It's all fun and the main thing is i love driving the car whether,i'm beaten or not!! :lol: :lol: sometimes :oops:
GSB

Re: supercharged or turbo??

Post by GSB »

There is a small problem with supercharging the mk3...

No-ones managed to fit a supercharger in there yet.

TRD make a bolt on SC for the 1ZZ-FE engine, but it wont fit in the Mk3 becasue of engines close proximity to the bulkhead. This could of course be cut, but besides the additional fabrication work that would have to be done to re-seal the bulkhead and isolate the engine compartment from the cockpit, you'd also lose the use of the convertible top...

Turbo's on the other hand are far easier beasts to fit to the mk3, and use of modern design techniques means that the turbines themselves are far less "laggy" than they used to be now, and on most turbo conversions for the mk3, owners report little or even no lag at all...
Post Reply

Return to “MR2 MK3 2000-2007”