how much boost can stock handle
Good thread this!
Must say, i'm with 05turbo here - Limiting the torque is a good way of retaining the life of the engine.
I mean for a DD, a 50% power/tq increase is surely enough...right?
300whp in a 1250kg car, plus total reliability?
Sounds good to me
Sure, if you have the money, go for the big boost and buy a new engine/rebuild when it wear out in less than 10k miles.
Personally, at $4000 for a used engine, I can't afford that!
Must say, i'm with 05turbo here - Limiting the torque is a good way of retaining the life of the engine.
I mean for a DD, a 50% power/tq increase is surely enough...right?
300whp in a 1250kg car, plus total reliability?
Sounds good to me

Sure, if you have the money, go for the big boost and buy a new engine/rebuild when it wear out in less than 10k miles.
Personally, at $4000 for a used engine, I can't afford that!
50k+ miles here with boost and definitely not a low power setup. Compression numbers have been the same since i started measuring them, however i think some compression is lost in the first or second crank when the motor is cold as it takes a few more cranks to start than other cars tuned by the same tuner. That being said i made the exact same power as other big horsepower people on this site, on the same day, same dyno, within 20 minutes of each other, so im guessing my motor still hasn't lost it yet! My diff on the other hand is another story!
If you want to cut down on cylinder pressures invest in a well made tubular manifold. You'll make as much power as a log at a lower boost levels, while making alot more midrange torque!
If you want to cut down on cylinder pressures invest in a well made tubular manifold. You'll make as much power as a log at a lower boost levels, while making alot more midrange torque!
Originally Posted by 05TurboS2k,Oct 14 2008, 12:45 PM
tons of people do all kinds of things.... tons of people have problems too and tons of people DON'T post about embarrassing things like blowing stuff up.
I'm not saying 400 can't be reliable though and CERTAINLY not in regards to the top side issues, the tune is easy even well above that, but the tune has nothing to do w/ the load on the bottom end in this case... however TQ is more what I look at, making over 220ft/lbs IMO is pushing your luck then again it comes down to how hard you drive it too. I drive the hell outa my car. full boost early on in the rpms = more tq and therefore more stress on internals. SC > Turbo for reliability... and I'm saying this being someone who IS turbo and hates SC.
Factory equipment rarely chooses turbo for a reason.
I'm not saying 400 can't be reliable though and CERTAINLY not in regards to the top side issues, the tune is easy even well above that, but the tune has nothing to do w/ the load on the bottom end in this case... however TQ is more what I look at, making over 220ft/lbs IMO is pushing your luck then again it comes down to how hard you drive it too. I drive the hell outa my car. full boost early on in the rpms = more tq and therefore more stress on internals. SC > Turbo for reliability... and I'm saying this being someone who IS turbo and hates SC.
Factory equipment rarely chooses turbo for a reason.
^ also to add to what "soul coughing" said, a equal length or at least long runner will help to keep those exhaust gasses from being pulsated right back into the cylinder, they should help with detonation and a cooler EGT...
and of course POWER!!!!!
^ by the time you're taking advantage of that it's time to be looking for....
R200 FTW!!!!
and of course POWER!!!!!
^ by the time you're taking advantage of that it's time to be looking for....
R200 FTW!!!!
Originally Posted by 05TurboS2k,Oct 14 2008, 12:28 PM
I'll play devils advocate, let's face it SC FTL because you SC guys lack TQ 
...then again, Turbo = harder on the engine internals. More TQ = more stress.
Then again like Spec Ops said about tuning on SC's.... I personally know 2 people who've blown em.

But like S2000 Junky said....
Less hp capability and less tq are great reasons to buy a SC instead of a turbo


...then again, Turbo = harder on the engine internals. More TQ = more stress.
Then again like Spec Ops said about tuning on SC's.... I personally know 2 people who've blown em.

But like S2000 Junky said....
Less hp capability and less tq are great reasons to buy a SC instead of a turbo


Originally Posted by AndyFloyd,Oct 14 2008, 12:36 PM
i dont see why a f20 making 400whp is going to be unreliable. Tons of people do it. it really is all in the tune and the sum of the parts that you have. the SC is a more bolt on thing than the turbo, but i dont agree that it is gonna make the engine last longer. 9k rpms is harder on an engine than 4k....thats a silly argument if you think about it you have to wind out a centrifical SC very high to make the power. A turbo can be at full boost around 4500rpm and you dont even have to wind it out to get peak power, so therefore less stress on the engine. Also the turbo uses wasted energy, the SC steals it from the crank putting stress on it as well. Turbo > SC
I like your argument about the SC expending more energy to drive, putting more stress on the engine, that sounds like something someone pulled out of their ass. This is not some 6/71 v8 blower. Its a centrifugal blower, cmon man get a clue. The blower if you have ever turned one by hand without a belt will tell you there is vertually no resistance at all, its like spinnig an over sized skate board wheel. I will tell you that the air conditioner on our car provids much more resistance to the engine then a SC. hahaha
Again to the OP..... like Mase said..... don't use PSI as a rating system at all. It makes no sense on it's own. Manifold...turbo...intercooler...CR....etc.etc.etc . all change things.







