s2kpdx01

the benifit of 2 superchargers or two turbos (that are not sequential) is for large displacement engines. Almost all turbo/SC (not roots type) systems for a viper or Z06 are twins because it easier to find two smaller SC to work on say 4 liters of displacement each instead of 8.

RiceBurnerTX

[QUOTE]Originally posted by s2kpdx01
[B]the benifit of 2 superchargers or two turbos (that are not sequential) is for large displacement engines.

ruexp67

My car will run 8's in the 1/4, and it's still NA. Yours can do it too.


1. Find a 1/4 mi high cliff edge.
2. Set staging lights and timers.
3. Rev to 6000 RPM and drop the clutch when the light turns green.
4. Record time for postarity, it might be a while before you can repeat the run.

hatchback

Hey Quick2K, thanks for your explanation above. It makes me wonder why anyone would put a supercharger on their S2000, if the turbos are so much more power-efficient. Yet if you read these forums, it sounds like a lot of s2ki members have chosen superchargers instead of turbos. Any thoughts on why? And what would you recommend as the most effective forced induction solution for the S2000?

Quick2K

well, the logical explanation for the popularity of the supercharger is the fact that it builds on the cars present characteristics, ie not much down low, with a white-hot top end (to borrow a phrase). I think that a turbocharger on this engine also is more difficult to install and maintain, though i could be wrong on this one. Frankly I don't have much experience with forced induction on this engine, but my old Si had the Vortech supercharger, albeit without the aftercooler(they came out with it after i got my kit and i couldn't justify the expense). in that case, I chose the supercharger because I was afraid that a turbo, with it's ability to make maximum boost at low RPMs, might cause problems from the increased low RPM torque. if you think about it, the forces of inertia and momentum in an engine are extreme, and it makes sense to add boost when the pistons already have a lot of momentum(such as at high RPMs) if you add boost at low rpms when the pistons have a small momentum, i assume that the part is easier to break.

Example: In martial arts, breaking blocks is a well known test. If the blocks are stationary, the force is very strong and focused on the point of impact. now, imagine that the blocks are falling slowly, as if their support was retracting into the floor. the blocks can still break, though not as easily as before. next, imagine that the blocks are falling quickly, as if they had been dropped. It would be hard to break them, even if the force were doubled, right? Thats the principle I used when deciding between the GReddy turbo and Vortech for my Si, and perhaps that's why people who don't want to change their engine internals tend to go the supercharger route, because it adds power when the engine internals already have a lot of momentum.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Quick2K

P.S.: falling off a cliff would result in a 9.47 second 1/4 mile, assuming no drag and constant -9.81 m/s acceleration...at 190 MPH(92.91 M/Sec or 278 ft/sec). there is a striking similarity to the time run by the jaguar F1 car, which did 9.8 seconds at 181 MPH i think. still not in the 8's! it's possible that i did the math wrong, I did a mental purge and my physics knowledge might have left me at the beginning of summer. check my numbers?

RiceBurnerTX

I believe cost is also a large factor. Also, I don't believe anyone has had great success with Turbos (on the S2K) as there isn't an out of the box Turbo solution (I know there are supposed to be some in the works). Comptech and Vortech are proven FI solutions and so ppl trust them. That's my take anyways.

REV IT

[QUOTE]Originally posted by realdeathsled
[B]

brushman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pakisho
[B]that my car was nothing special, because it had only ONE supercharger on it, and they had seen a white s2000 with TWIN superchargers AND nitrous, busting off 8.8s at Sacramento raceway, on slicks.

carloS2000

As I understand it, the S2000's primary designer (forget his name & don't have references handy) specified early in the project that there be "no lag time" between driver input and the car's reaction/performance. That, I read somewhere, is one of the reasons that superchargers are considered more "correct" on the S2K than turbos.

Or I might be having an acid flashback.

ruexp67

There is also a general concensus that in order to do a turbo "right" you need a build motor. This entails a rebuild with different parts to lower the compression ratio so you don't turn your caps and bearings into shiny paperwieghts and your block into a very pricey boat anchor. The SC runs (correct me if I am wrong here) about 3-5 PSI of boost. This is seen as relatively safe for the F20C.

Without getting into the price war going on now over SC'ers bear in mind that the SC kit will run from $4-$5K USD or so, it would cost you AT least that much to get your motor built so you could turbo it, and you still haven't bought the actual turbo unit.

As stated there is no turbo kit yet. There are two different SC kits available for the car though. I am sure that has a lot to do with it.

BTW -- I don't hate on people with fast cars. I also think if you want to turn your S2k into an 8 sec car, go for it. However, I am convinced the cheapest way to make an S2k into an 8 sec car is to follow this simple plan:

1. Sell the S2k
2. Buy a late model Firebird.
3. Mod the Firebird into an 8Sec car.

I think you would end up saving yourself at least $30K. If you wanted to send me HALF the differance as a consultant, feel free

Time to: