"I guess I sorta contradicted myself"

Yes, you just did.

The big difference is that you are applying the added HP and torque at grossly difference engine speeds. Throw a baseball at 2 cars that just passed you. One is travelling at 20 mph and the other is travelling at 80 mph. Which scenario would have a higher impact?

If "fun" is measurable in terms of more wear and tear, then you have just justified "your" wear and tear. Another individual may not equate it in quite the same way.

The original argument was to do with "a Turbo kit will significantly wear down stock internals at a quicker rate than a SC all things being equal including the driving style." NOT when you will develop "problems". IMO, that original argument still stands true. I don't believe "destroying" the motor came into the discussion.

We still must give due consideration to both motors being equal to begin with. Factory turbos were built for that purpose and so were motors that are turboed and have a long, lengthy, safe lifespan. A turbo S2000 with an otherwise stock motor, has no such history, whereas there are many examples of high mileage S/Cd ones out there.
Sure, the thought of a TURBO S2000 will always have a more "exotic" sound to it, but let's not allow the symbolism interfere with what may or may not be true.

 

Heh, next can we debate the philosophical differences in leaded vs unleaded?

 

Boost is boost whether it's from a supercharger or turbo. All things being equal I fail to see how one would cause more wear on engine internals. Ask yourselves this: What causes wear on engine internals?

 

That's your deficiency and has nothing to do with how the real world works.

 

I don't know about australia but here in us drag race=400m race.

I don't plan on street racing...but it will be nice to give some cocky drivers a harder time passing me...

 

Maybe you'd be so kind as to explain it to me and other board members. I mean I only analyze machine nonconformances and failures and work with metalugists and engineers on a daily basis.

 

[QUOTE=RZFD,May 13 2005, 07:18 PM] Maybe you'd be so kind as to explain it to me and other board members. I mean I only analyze machine nonconformances and failures and work with metalugists and engineers on a daily basis.

 

Cliffnotes: With turbo you're underboost for a MUCH longer period of time and can actually have boost cruising around and not actually trying to drive balls out like with an S/C. The extended period of time under boost is extra strain on the engine. Boost = stress. So with turbo it's stressed for longer intervals.

 

Kane, thank you for the voice of reason and experience. Somehow, I doubt that "Cliff Notes" are going to be satisfactory for Mr. RZFD.
Therefore, I'll add something for him to chew on (above and beyond what I've already posted at length).


Since he claims he's good at analyzing stuff, ANALYZE THIS:
I'm NOT going to give any conclusions or tell anyone what is or isn't, just a few "average, across the board numbers" since every application gives slightly different dyno plots.

Your average NA S2000:
Around 4000 rpm .............. ~120 WHP and ~110 lb/ft
Around 9000 rpm .............. ~200 WHP and ~150 lb/ft

Your average S/Cd (out of the box):
Around 4000 rpm .............. a bit LESS than the NA car for both WHP and torque
Around 9000 rpm .............. ~300 WHP and ~200 lb/ft

Your average Turbo S2000:
Around 4000 rpm .............. ~150 WHP and ~200 lb/ft (nearly 50% MORE WHP and nearly DOUBLE the torque than the S/Cd car at these rpms)
Around 8800 rpm .............. ~300 WHP and ~200 lb/ft

The situation seems to be that "all things being equal", they aren't.

 

there are some examples of low mileage blowed up SC motors too (got one brewing away in my garage right now )