turbo!

[jastrunk97]

does anybody know if they make a turbo or supercharger for the l20?

[DAT510]

You can fit a turbo to a L20B, you're going to need to make a custom manifold if doing suck through.

same with supercharger. if anything i'd go with a supercharger. 3 reasons.

Not alot of people have supercharged Ls

a lot less piping

and no lag

[Zfighter76]

itse going to be a custom setup. turbos dont just bolt on. you will have to size your turbo according to where you want your power and how built the rest of the engine is. ask others who have turbo setups what theyre running. you will need a custom exhaust manifold, down pipe, intake manifold (most likely) intake piping, intercooler (if you want to put any kind of boost over a few pounds), injection setup(if you wanna go that way, or you can go carburator on the front of the turbo but i wouldnt recommend running an intercooler with carburation due to condesing of gas in the intercooler), oiling, oil cooler will help, custom outlet to the oil pan for oil return, blow off valve etc. not exactly simple. suck throung would be easier but no intercooler will limit boost levels.

[nismo dr]

does anybody know if they make a turbo or supercharger for the l20?

 

Yes, I do know.

[Zfighter76]

Yes, I do know.

nicely put

[mrbigtanker]

Yes, I do know.

I would like to know myself.thank you

[Zfighter76]

I would like to know myself.thank you

 

in a way, yes, in a way, no.

[MicroMachinery]

I would like to know myself.thank you

 

I know myself pretty well.

[datzenmike]

Yes, I do know.

 

 

I know myself pretty well.

 

Well then, I know now too.

 

 

 

You can fit a turbo to a L20B, you're going to need to make a custom manifold if doing suck through.

same with supercharger. if anything i'd go with a supercharger. 3 reasons.

Not alot of people have supercharged Ls

a lot less piping

and no lag

 

A couple of cons on the supercharger...

You have a 100 hp L20B and you add a SC and now you make 160hp. What about the crankshaft hp used to turn the SC? Yup, to make an extra 60hp you had to use 25-30 to run the SC compressor. You are really making closer to 190hp but it takes power to make power.

When not putting your right foot 'into it' and just driving along your motor is still spinning that SC even though at a much reduced rate. There are frictional losses and a certain amount of weight that has to be brought up to speed just like having an extra 30 lb flywheel to spin. A 10 lb boost costs 25hp from whatever you make. A super charger is 'on' all the time.

 

Yes absolutely from idle up, when you 'give er' she is giving full power instantly.

 

A tubo works virtually for free. It runs on fast flowing hot gasses that are piped out of the car and would normally be dumped at the side of the road as waste. A turbo takes free waste exhaust energy and uses it to effectively power a 'super charger' to push more fuel and air into the motor. A 10 lb boost is free. A turbo is ON only on demand.

 

Yes there is a big lag from idle till the turbo gets enough exhaust to really spin it up and start working. Sometimes 3-4K RPMs before there is enough. Additionally if a motor is revved this high and cruising along and the throttle is suddenly opened there is also a short delay as the turbine 'spools up'. After all you can't go from 50K RPMs to 200K instantly.

 

Advantages and disadvantages for both.

[Ron1200]

You guys know too much. :P

[Uncle Laulau]

Do you guys think it would be easier to swap a turbo motor or build a custom turbo motor out of the L20? Wouldn't you need to rebuild an old L20 before turbo ness. It would fall apart if you didn't, right? Seems like a bunch of work for an old engine. It does have the unique factor. The fact your making something from scratch is cool. Golly I just don't know what I would do. I do know I crave more power, that's fo su!

[DAT510]

L20B is such a outdated engine. it was ahead of its time and overbuilt just as any L engine was. I think the only downfall to a L engine is that is a single OHC. all the power is restricted by these heads.

give it DOHC and it breathes a lot better.

a Turbo L20B is cool and all, but T/C a old engine when new and better tech is out there.... personally i'm only doing it to toy with EFI and Turbocharging. If i want serious power i'd do a later engine, CA18, KA, SR etc.

If you really want a kick in the pants,,, Rotary!!!

[Digi7al Trauma]

A tubo works virtually for free. It runs on fast flowing hot gasses that are piped out of the car and would normally be dumped at the side of the road as waste. A turbo takes free waste exhaust energy and uses it to effectively power a 'super charger' to push more fuel and air into the motor. A 10 lb boost is free. A turbo is ON only on demand.

 

 

If I had a nickel for every person that incorrectly claims the energy to drive a turbocharger is "free" I would be a rich man. The turbocharger's drive system is more mechanically efficient than the belt on a supercharger but it's not free. The most basic laws of physics say that nothing is free. Some people have changed the terminology to say that the turbo is driven by "wasted energy". That's more nonsense. The energy needed to expel the exhaust from the combustion chamber is not wasted, in fact it's rather essential. Many makers of Turbo kits phrase it another clever way. They say that the energy needed to drive the turbo is "not taken directly from the crankshaft like it is with a belt driven supercharger". Ok, well at least that's basically true although somewhat misleading. It may not be taken "directly from the crankshaft" but it is taken from the engine. So how is the energy taken, and how much is used?

 

Here are the facts as reported in many N.A.C.A. reports. Exhaust drives the turbocharger and that causes exhaust backpressure robbing power as surely as if the compressor section was connected to a belt. It may not rob as much (it's possible under some conditions it will rob more) but it does rob power. Here is a quote from N.A.C.A. " When an exhaust turbosupercharger is used, the net engine power is the total engine power supercharged less the reduction in power due to increased exhaust back pressure." So there you have it, turbos cause exhaust back pressure taking power away from the motor. The report goes on to say just how much the loss from exhaust back pressure is going to cost and I assure you it's not free. If it was, then all the efforts made in the performance industry to reduce backpressure via special mufflers, headers etc. would be wasted. So just how much power will the turbo consume? They compiled a ton of data on that. It will vary somewhat from motor to motor, even between two theoretically identical motors. The number they came up with is 6.2% of total engine horsepower when using 10 pounds of boost. That's assuming exhaust pressure in the manifold between the combustion chamber and the turbine is equal to intake manifold pressure. It's important to understand, that's a best case scenario. A turbo car will need very good unrestrictive equal length exhaust manifolds and a perfectly sized turbocharger to achieve this. I suspect the best manifolds made for race cars by masters like Jim Steck or the mad South Africans are good enough to get these results. In practice when limited by engine compartment space, strength requirements and other factors it's not likely you will find a manifold this good on a street car. Many turbo cars have double the intake pressure in the exhaust manifold prior to the turbine. At 10 pounds of boost that would cost about 15.3% of the engine's horsepower using N.A.C.A.'s formula.

 

Time to plug in some real world numbers. A MP62 supercharger providing 10 pounds of boost on a 2.5 will use about 27 horsepower. It could potentially use less with optimal piping, but on this car it uses 27. This car has about 250 flywheel horsepower so using N.A.C.A.'s formula a very efficient turbo set up would need 15.5 horsepower to drive the turbo. While there is no doubt that 15.5 is less than 27, it's a factor that's small enough to be offset in other areas. Now using the same formula a turbo with a restrictive type of exhaust manifold will use 38.25 horsepower.

 

My point here is not to say that belt driven superchargers are better or worse. The point is that according to the best engineers in the U.S. at the time working with a nearly unlimited wartime budget determined that the energy to spin a turbocharger is not free. I am sure the brainwashed free energy crowd will state that these reports are old and turbos have come a long way. Of course if free energy was used to spin a turbo then it wouldn't matter how much they improved in this regard. An improvement of any percentage times zero is still zero. In other words if they are free now because they are twice as efficient as the older units the math says the older units must have been free too.

[Uncle Laulau]

Coffee, I hope. That was the school bell ringing my friends.

[Gary]

its not that big of a deal trauma, turbochargers/superchargers easily make more than enough power to overcome the energy required to drive them. how is %loss relevant to 99% of the people that intend to use them?

 

the %'s you're quoting are negligible to most, you'll never make less power than you were when you supercharge or turbocharge with the right components

 

its only engineers and those in serious competition that actually need to consider %loss. for everyone else, stating that turbos and supercharges are virtually free power adders is close enough to the truth (ie simply stated as: 'F/I' + engine = more power than before). suggesting turbos generally require less power to run than superchargers do is true across the board

[Digi7al Trauma]

its not that big of a deal trauma, turbochargers/superchargers easily make more than enough power to overcome the energy required to drive them. how is %loss relevant to 99% of the people that intend to use them?

 

the %'s you're quoting are negligible to most, you'll never make less power than you were when you supercharge or turbocharge with the right components

 

its only engineers and those in serious competition that actually need to consider %loss. for everyone else, stating that turbos and supercharges are virtually free power adders is close enough to the truth (ie simply stated as: 'F/I' + engine = more power than before). suggesting turbos generally require less power to run than superchargers do is true across the board

 

 

Wow, you just want to complain before actually reading, pay moar attention because all youve said is in the last part of the post. I never said tubos/sc's dont make more hp than it takes to use them (that would be retarded), i wasnt saying that it really matters what he uses, and for what reasons. The obvious point that you have failed to grasp, is its not "free" power like mike said, and that negates the views of people chosing turbos over conventional superchargers. The point i was making is that chosing a turbo over a supercharger for the point of "free power", is just wrong. Im putting info out so people can make better decisions on real information, and not misconceptions. And also yes it is physically possible to make less power in a boosted aplication, if things arent properly built/planned or set up and tune. Also, it would be wise to read the full thread, and pick up on what the person is replying to in a post before you comment about it.

[elmerfudpucker]

To keep it simple, if you want to race, use a turbo. If you want to pull or haul, use a supercharger. Turbos dont really like towing loads unless it is a diesel. Turbos have a lag time as they spin up where a SC is constant. You can kill the turbo lag with a NOS prespooler setup, I want to say Venom has the kit. They work by giving a short shot of NOS at low RPMS till the turbo takes over. Im tossing on grabing a SC motor out of a Frontier if I can, but my wish is a bit bigger than my wallet!

[datzenmike]

I think that N.A.C.A. report is from about 80 years ago when turbos were only a decade or so old. Surely turbo technology has been refined and more efficient than 1932 numbers..

 

Yes I suppose a turbo is offering some restriction to the exhaust. I would also think that a turbo manifold, turbo and 'turbo muffler' would be less restrictive than the stock manifold with it's small pipes and quiet mufflers, or just as. Assuming they are equal then there is no difference except the turbo is traded for more power.

[Digi7al Trauma]

I think that N.A.C.A. report is from about 80 years ago when turbos were only a decade or so old. Surely turbo technology has been refined and more efficient than 1932 numbers..

 

Yes I suppose a turbo is offering some restriction to the exhaust. I would also think that a turbo manifold, turbo and 'turbo muffler' would be less restrictive than the stock manifold with it's small pipes and quiet mufflers, or just as. Assuming they are equal then there is no difference except the turbo is traded for more power.

 

 

Oh, yes don't get me wrong, it is old data, and tech has gotten better since then for both blowers. But, now adays its to the point of powerband really, as compared to the % of wasted energy to power the blower. Due to the fact that both turbochargers and superchargers are very efficient, and the small % of power used wont make much noticeable difference. The different signature powerbands, be it low down or higher up in the rpm's, will make a large difference and fit better in different peoples wants.

And i also ment no disrespect or anything. I just wanted to negate that misconception in the hopes that people wont choose something they dont want because of "free power".

[RedBanner]

I totaly get it, use nawse like bawse

[Gary]

Wow, you just want to complain before actually reading, pay moar attention because all youve said is in the last part of the post. I never said tubos/sc's dont make more hp than it takes to use them (that would be retarded), i wasnt saying that it really matters what he uses, and for what reasons. The obvious point that you have failed to grasp, is its not "free" power like mike said, and that negates the views of people chosing turbos over conventional superchargers. The point i was making is that chosing a turbo over a supercharger for the point of "free power", is just wrong. Im putting info out so people can make better decisions on real information, and not misconceptions. And also yes it is physically possible to make less power in a boosted aplication, if things arent properly built/planned or set up and tune. Also, it would be wise to read the full thread, and pick up on what the person is replying to in a post before you comment about it.

i did that big fella, you missed what I was trying to say in my post. i didnt miss that it wasnt free power, i was noting that for most people, it practially IS free power

 

your long winded diatribe was unnecessary. try taking some of your own advice :)

 

proven yet by the fact you've written all that stuff, then gone back on all of it to summarise with 'yeah but it doesnt matter'?

[Zfighter76]

also, another thing to consider is that the extra back-pressure can contribute to low end torque. also it may lag to make power but from what i've seen firsthand watching professionally built turbocharged engines by the twins turbo shop, running at 0 lbs of boost doesn't really make a power loss that is noticeable from stock, as long as the intake setup is free flowing enough. yes it takes some horsepower to turn but say the low end torque is better while the turbo is spooling, and by the time the turbo is kicking in a fair bit, you dont need that torque anymore. the torque will make up slightly for the lag and still be faster than the same engine with the same parts built the same way. plus you can change the boost easier and faster and can even run 0 lbs of boost with a turbo. back-pressure is nice at low end too. when i was running to big of a diameter headers and a stinger on my bug it produced 147 torques 150 hp on a dyno at 4000 rpms (thats an ass-load for a bug), and when i switched to a smaller diameter header and a turbo fat-boy muffler with more back-pressure, my peak hp with this system was 143 with 148 torques at just under 3800 rpms. and when i was driving is was actually noticeable, the loss of acceleration with the free flowing setup. not to argue the fact that it takes power to run but the loss to gain ratio is much smaller on a turbo than a supercharger.

[Zfighter76]

i did that big fella, you missed what I was trying to say in my post. i didnt miss that it wasnt free power, i was noting that for most people, it practially IS free power

 

your long winded diatribe was unnecessary. try taking some of your own advice :)

 

proven yet by the fact you've written all that stuff, then gone back on all of it to summarise with 'yeah but it doesnt matter'?

too bad i have hit my positive rating quota for the day this deserves one

[Gary]

:lol:

 

im not going to break it down for you. read the posts again carefully, isolate his argument, then read what i said, then isolate my argument. then realise the irony and hostility in his comment, and realise why i said what i said

 

ive said all i need to say, no use going on about it like a child :)

[Laecaon]

dont be retarded. he didnt "go back" on what he said. mabey your problem isnt reading, like trauma said, mabey you have a learning problem..... do they have short busses in australia? go back to watching spongebob, and dont forget to wear your "special helmet"

 

This seems like a troll account. First post, full of hate, even an insult, and the account was made today. Hmmm...