Tb's, Turbo or Supercharge

18th November 2008, 11:59

Throttle Bodies - Not that much power gain but emphasised with other mods, cheap, easy to setup, smooth delivery, reliable and sounds brill.

Turbo - Plenty of power, expensive, easy to setup, shit power delivery and can be un reliable.

Supercharger - Plenty of power, very expensive, easy to setup, acceptable power delivery, not enough info on reliability.

Ive been over all 3 extensively and i just can't decide. I want close to 200*bhp, money isnt really an object and not because im minted but ive saved very very hard and disposed of my social life.

Which ever option i go with ill be doing full on, no cutting corners. I just really can't decide but im at the stage now where its time to buy to get ready for the summer.

Id also appreciate descriptive responses not, "get turbo sounds mint" because im really stumped and people with experience get fedup of answering noob questions.

18th November 2008, 12:01

bodies
itll be quite a high strung motor but ill give a decent throttle response
just get a very wild cam in there and you should achieve 200

18th November 2008, 12:04

The 3 are constantly ticking over in my head too and its a tough one. I would say supercharged would be the induction of choice for me.

Seems the most reliable, good delivery but as mentioned, probably the most expensive.

If you really like the sound of a turbo though, i can see how it would be tempting to go that route. Sound of spooling & dumping is quite appealing imo

18th November 2008, 12:09

is that 200 @ wheels or @ fly?

Getting 200bhp from TBs isnt easy. It will cost around 4-5k.

18th November 2008, 12:11

im assuming fly

4-5k on bodies or 4-5 on boosting both will get similar results

18th November 2008, 12:13

This was a decision i had to make also, after a lot of research, budgeting and saving up i decided to gor for the turbo route.

If you want a reliable 200 bhp you will have to spend a bit but i'd definitely think hard before you decide.

Where will the car be used as a daily drive??

18th November 2008, 12:25

If by *around* 200bhp you think you might want more after a while - then going the TB route is not the answer. Will cost a small fortune to get any increase, and there's not much more potential.

Whereas with boost, if you're sitting at 200bhp and want more - it can be as easy as removing restictor and getting the map checked over.

Both turbo and s/c can be expensive. I think the reason you'll be under the impression that s/c is more expensive, is most of the s/c cars do it properly with standalone/forged items/proper intercoolers - whereas there are loads of cheap t/c ones about.

Reliability is really a choice of budget and power. You can make both t/c and s/c reliable very easily - but usually at large expense, and sometimes at a sacrifice to power. But at the same time - spending more money in some areas will increase both reliability and power (ie a decent intercooler will lower charge temps, making it more reliable - and offer a better power gain)

18th November 2008, 12:46

i loved the rotrex charger on my vtr.

im only going turbo this time round to see what the difference will be like

imo try the rotrex setup from gmc, but instead of using the mf2 and extra injectors before the TB, use a standalone ecu setup.

main addvantage of SC is that i dosnt need to run massive amounts of boost like a turbo does to get a big bhp gain. therefore placing less stress on the internals and making it a wee bit more reliable.

you could get big BHP off a SC setup, running forged low comp pistons and forged rods, then just allow it to run a higher boost

mapping is the expensive bit lol

SC have instant power as the run with the crank, so they start boosting as the throttle opens. you dont get the lag like you do with a turbo setup.
they have an awesome wine as well

18th November 2008, 12:49

dont forget you will need bigger brakes and also a decent cluth.
helix do a good clutch as well as AP racing (but its a bastard to drive in traffic with lol)

best thing to do will be to call john at gmc racing regarding the SC set-up and then call DP engineering www.dp-engineering.nl and chat to pieter. they will be able to fill you in with the crack for SC (gmc) and turbo (DP).

good luck

18th November 2008, 12:50

you will soon find out how weak the gearboxes and drive shafts are on a saxo lol

18th November 2008, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by boz

you will soon find out how weak the gearboxes and drive shafts are on a saxo lol

Yep was going to say - bigger the power the more stress on components

18th November 2008, 12:56

as far as turbo'ing goes ive always been told to pick 2 of the following 3, you cant do all 3!!

high power
reliable
cheap build

18th November 2008, 13:04

lol there is no such thing as a reliable cheap turbo or sc setup.

if you cut corners, you will pay for it big time.

its all down to research and getting the best of everything. at the end of the day, you are making the engine do something that its not built for doing. hence why you need to get everything that it needs to do said thing properly.

no good just banging 2heads gaskets in and turning the boost up. (you need pistons and rods easy £850 - £1k)
or butchering a standard manifold and welding a turbo flange on lol (you need a well designed manifold)
get a 2nd hand turbo off a car that you know nothing about.

do that and it will end in tears.

get an account with your local scrappy, you will be his top customer for ma boxes and driveshafts

18th November 2008, 13:05

Strange how there's one TU engine on an MA box coping with 240ish@wheels. Only changed to a Quaife diff.

18th November 2008, 13:09

yep, but it wont last too long.

i have seen a boosted TU engine with less power, destroy a few boxes and sheer (twist) the drive shaft from the cv joint. thats was running a ATB diff as well.

most of the boxes are like toffee, its getting hard to find a good one now.

i know a few peeps that are running BE boxes with little problems

but thats the joy of doing it, each car is never the same

i had to get a new shaft and a few boxes when i had mine SC

18th November 2008, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd16

Strange how there's one TU engine on an MA box coping with 240ish@wheels. Only changed to a Quaife diff.

This was my understanding also, ive rebuilt an ma box and fitted an atb quafe lsd diff, will soon see if its a problem!

18th November 2008, 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by boz

yep, but it wont last too long.

i know a few peeps that are running BE boxes with little problems

Managed to last 18 months so far - with at least 18 track days over that time, and not exactly going easy - althuogh being mechanically sympathetic.

The problem with the BE is that the input shaft is the same as the MA - so really both have the same weak point. In my eyes no point upgrading to BE if the same weak link exists.

18th November 2008, 14:10

Yeh, im sure in the past year or so the BE boxes have proved themselves not to be much better than the MAs.

18th November 2008, 14:16

sounds like its seen its fair share of abuse

was that a rebuilt box or just you origional?

18th November 2008, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by boz

sounds like its seen its fair share of abuse

was that a rebuilt box or just you origional?

It was one of the slightly newer MA's off of a C2 i beleive. Rebuilt from a few boxes and just picked/mixed the desired ratios and best looking parts.

Talking about the green s/c ax by the way - AXO16V

18th November 2008, 15:11

most of the reasons MA boxes die isnt because of the power its because people dont have the brain cells to be mechanicaly sympathetic...

200bhp from NA isnt going to be cheap, or cost effective imo. In order to go 200bhp on NA you will have a peaky engine, then what are you going to do with the gearbox, really the the pug-cit range of gear clusters on MA side of things are not great for a high revving peaky engine.

Also TB engines are not reliable long term at that sort of power, that sort of power is produced at 7.5k+ so engines revving 8-9k. This is where alot of wear will occur on the crank and so bottom end bearings will wear out quicker so you will need rebuilds sooner. (why im getting a spare crank for mine) id say 5K minimum will be the cost of an engine producing this sort of power, espec as you will be going solid grind cams, solid liftes, high comps, headwork, uprated rods etc...

NA imo its better to get an engines that drives better with a slightly wider powerband rather than going for *my cocks bigger* bhp figures.

18th November 2008, 18:47

i think youd be best to supercharge it

18th November 2008, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullit

i think youd be best to supercharge it

as long as gmc supply the parts id say thas the best route.

They seem to be the only company able to get one running properly (and help self builds)

19th November 2008, 11:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd16

It was one of the slightly newer MA's off of a C2 i beleive. Rebuilt from a few boxes and just picked/mixed the desired ratios and best looking parts.

Talking about the green s/c ax by the way - AXO16V

sounds like the best way to get a decent box then

do the C2 use hydraulic clutch??

19th November 2008, 14:43

Some of them do, some of them don't. Also with the hydaulic clutch you also get the cable gear shift (instead of rods) which apparently takes some of the sloppiness out of gear changes - and obviously no rods mean they don't bend like the standard ones.

The AX in question has converted to both hydraulic clutch and cable gear shifter. I'm planning on going the same way - but at the moment i'm trying to get a neat solution to the hydraulic clutch. The Ax has cut out some of the floor to get a pedal box in to control the hydraulics - i'm not too keen on cutting the shell (even though its non-structural parts getting cut). Holes need cut for the cables for the gear shifter as well, but they can be made fairly neatly and out of site. Then need to affix the C2 gearstick assembly as well which should only need a wee bit of fabrication.

19th November 2008, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd16

Some of them do, some of them don't. Also with the hydaulic clutch you also get the cable gear shift (instead of rods) which apparently takes some of the sloppiness out of gear changes - and obviously no rods mean they don't bend like the standard ones.

The AX in question has converted to both hydraulic clutch and cable gear shifter. I'm planning on going the same way - but at the moment i'm trying to get a neat solution to the hydraulic clutch. The Ax has cut out some of the floor to get a pedal box in to control the hydraulics - i'm not too keen on cutting the shell (even though its non-structural parts getting cut). Holes need cut for the cables for the gear shifter as well, but they can be made fairly neatly and out of site. Then need to affix the C2 gearstick assembly as well which should only need a wee bit of fabrication.

sounds like alot of work then to convert it lol

i have seen pics of tams car inside, i remember him mentioning the hydraulic setup, i just assumed that he was using a BE box.
beast of a car that lol

i will have to look for a decent MA box lol, got a few stuck in the back of the garage lol

19th November 2008, 18:03

so some C2's use the MA style box with the same cable and rod setup as the saxo??

19th November 2008, 18:27

As far as i'm aware - yes, some of the C2's use the cable clutch & gear rods, others use hydraulic clutch and cable gear shift.

Same with the 207's/307s i think.

The gear shifting isn't too much work, only bit is cutting the holes for the cables to pass through the bulkhead. Other than that its just getting the cables in the correct position and fixing the gearstick down. The hydraulic clutch is the hard part, as you need to get a pedal box in there. I had another idea that would've maybe worked as well - but its expensive for what it is and i'm not entirely sure how to implement it :?

19th November 2008, 18:37

hmmmmm, you have me thinking now.
car is a shell and i need it painting inside, now would be the time to fit a newish unabused gearbox

any big advantage of going hydraulic over the normal saxo system?

19th November 2008, 19:40

Main advantage is the pedal isn't as stiff if you've got a meaty clutch. All the clamping pressure is hydraulic, instead of having to pull the cable by pressing down with your foot. Also takes out the issue of bending the clutch arm - as its no longer there.

Have a quick search on SSC and you'll see a few pics of Tams. Think the thread was started by boni or hansthebear

19th November 2008, 21:32

lol, i noticed that with my twin plate AP clutch, its heavy and a bastard to drive with.

i welded up a beefy new arm to stop it from bending

this is starting to sound like a good idea to me, i will check that thread out on ssc matey, cheers