Hi,
To revive this thread which has gone a little quiet ...
I'd be keen to hear from those with turbos or superchargers & the relative
merits thereof, especially for daily, non-track driving. I'm not a "press
on at all costs" driver (these days) - in a past life I did have one of the
first Cordia Turbos into Australia as the first car I purchased with my own
money. Understeer at will regardless of speed ... but I digress.
All the reviews I've read of the MX5 do mention a lack of power (to whit the
development of the BBR turbo in the UK) & I must confess a little more urge
underfoot would be nice. Most of my driving is around town commuting so
low-down torque (a la supercharger) seems more relevant.
So - any thoughts or personal experiences ?
Regards,
Greg
1990 V Special (normally aspirated ... for now)
Turbo vs. Supercharged
-
GEEMCB
- Need, more, 5-ing, time....
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:12 pm
- Location: Glendowie, Auckland
Turbo vs. Supercharged
Greg
1990 V Special
1990 V Special
-
garry
Turbo vs. Supercharged
Hello people.
There is a really simple formula for working out if you should put a turbo
or a supercharger on your motor and it goes like this ... the more
horsepower you get from your motor the more gas it will guzzle and the
shorter its lifespan will be.
Since you all know this already all we have to do is apply it to the
question at hand.
Now since you will all know that if you drive something from the crank of
the engine like your waterpump or a fan or an alternator it draws horsepower
from the motor to drive it and accordingly this horsepower is not available
at the rear wheels to drive your car.
Not only that but the fuel required for that horsepower is being used to
drive said item instead of driving your car too.
A supercharger is driven from the crank ... end of story.
Ok for those who need this spelt out a supercharger takes horsepower to
drive it, a v8 one might draw 150 hp and make 250 at the flywheel
culminating in a gain of 100 hp but you are paying for 250 hp in fuel and
engine wear and only getting 100 hp at the wheels to show for it.
A turbocharger draws no power from the engine in fact it runs entirely on
excess fuel that is not normally burnt in the engine and so makes its 100 hp
at no cost whatsoever other than the shortening of the engine lifespan
relative to the extra 100 hp, it weighs less cost less to replace or rebuild
and there is nothing you would do to a motor to turbo it that you wouldn't
also need to do for a supercharger.
I could take this further if anyone really wanted to but since the above is
reality I just cant see why anyone would want to supercharge a motor unless
they were doing a specific event like drag racing which has its own separate
set of priorities that make a supercharger more practical.
Garry
There is a really simple formula for working out if you should put a turbo
or a supercharger on your motor and it goes like this ... the more
horsepower you get from your motor the more gas it will guzzle and the
shorter its lifespan will be.
Since you all know this already all we have to do is apply it to the
question at hand.
Now since you will all know that if you drive something from the crank of
the engine like your waterpump or a fan or an alternator it draws horsepower
from the motor to drive it and accordingly this horsepower is not available
at the rear wheels to drive your car.
Not only that but the fuel required for that horsepower is being used to
drive said item instead of driving your car too.
A supercharger is driven from the crank ... end of story.
Ok for those who need this spelt out a supercharger takes horsepower to
drive it, a v8 one might draw 150 hp and make 250 at the flywheel
culminating in a gain of 100 hp but you are paying for 250 hp in fuel and
engine wear and only getting 100 hp at the wheels to show for it.
A turbocharger draws no power from the engine in fact it runs entirely on
excess fuel that is not normally burnt in the engine and so makes its 100 hp
at no cost whatsoever other than the shortening of the engine lifespan
relative to the extra 100 hp, it weighs less cost less to replace or rebuild
and there is nothing you would do to a motor to turbo it that you wouldn't
also need to do for a supercharger.
I could take this further if anyone really wanted to but since the above is
reality I just cant see why anyone would want to supercharge a motor unless
they were doing a specific event like drag racing which has its own separate
set of priorities that make a supercharger more practical.
Garry
-
KSCRIM
- Need, more, 5-ing, time....
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 8:46 pm
- Location: West Auckland
Turbo vs. Supercharged
One more plus for the turbo. A turbo engine typically has a compression
ratio of around 7.2 : 1, instead of the normally aspirated engine with 9 or
10 : 1, This means that when "pottering" around town the engine is much more
docile and tractable, and can accelerate away from lower revs than a high
compression engine, without the typical heavy vibration and loads on the
crank bearings. eg, take a tight low speed corner in 3rd instead of having
to go down to 2nd or even 1st. Sure the acceleration is not there, but the
"potterability" is so much better.
Once the revs build up to over 3000 the turbo starts to kick in and then the
real power begins and the BIG smile appears.
I used to have a Sigma GSR 2 litre turbo, and it was a delight to drive, but
beware in the wet!!!
Kevin
[...]
ratio of around 7.2 : 1, instead of the normally aspirated engine with 9 or
10 : 1, This means that when "pottering" around town the engine is much more
docile and tractable, and can accelerate away from lower revs than a high
compression engine, without the typical heavy vibration and loads on the
crank bearings. eg, take a tight low speed corner in 3rd instead of having
to go down to 2nd or even 1st. Sure the acceleration is not there, but the
"potterability" is so much better.
Once the revs build up to over 3000 the turbo starts to kick in and then the
real power begins and the BIG smile appears.
I used to have a Sigma GSR 2 litre turbo, and it was a delight to drive, but
beware in the wet!!!
Kevin
[...]
Kevin 2010 NC PRHT. (98 NB6C sold)
-
garry
Turbo vs. Supercharged
Hi Kevin,
That is good reasoning but not correct when looking at the big picture.
It is in fact smarter to turbo a normal engine than it is to decompress it
for said turbo as most people believe.
The reason for this is simply that your turbo only supplies boost when you
have your foot on the pedal accelerating the car this is relatively speaking
for a very short time when most of the time you are driving at a constant
pace and no boost is needed or supplied.
At this time a decompressed engine is not putting out the same horsepower as
a standard one thus more fuel is required to keep the car at its constant
speed due to less power available to do so.
The normal engine has higher compression and thus more power and uses less
gas to maintain speed and this is going to be 90% or more of your driving
time, so a turbo on a normal high comp engine with low boost will give you
optimum performance over all.
Garry
That is good reasoning but not correct when looking at the big picture.
It is in fact smarter to turbo a normal engine than it is to decompress it
for said turbo as most people believe.
The reason for this is simply that your turbo only supplies boost when you
have your foot on the pedal accelerating the car this is relatively speaking
for a very short time when most of the time you are driving at a constant
pace and no boost is needed or supplied.
At this time a decompressed engine is not putting out the same horsepower as
a standard one thus more fuel is required to keep the car at its constant
speed due to less power available to do so.
The normal engine has higher compression and thus more power and uses less
gas to maintain speed and this is going to be 90% or more of your driving
time, so a turbo on a normal high comp engine with low boost will give you
optimum performance over all.
Garry
Turbo vs. Supercharged
Hi guys...
I believe the initial query was how to improve torque for mainly CITY
driving (1990 Vspec). The relative merits of turbocharging v supercharging
should not detract from other advice such as a 14/18 degree & exhaust mod,
or a possible replacement with an 1800 car (complete with same tweaks) -
fewer insurance hassels too! My 14 degree 1800 has ample torque for city
driving...
I believe the initial query was how to improve torque for mainly CITY
driving (1990 Vspec). The relative merits of turbocharging v supercharging
should not detract from other advice such as a 14/18 degree & exhaust mod,
or a possible replacement with an 1800 car (complete with same tweaks) -
fewer insurance hassels too! My 14 degree 1800 has ample torque for city
driving...
93 1.8,intake/ex mods,Megasqirt PNP,torsen ,konis,GC coilovers,Nitto-01,cage,sparco seat,Schroth harness.
Turbo vs. Supercharged
This is pretty much on the button, although, strictly speaking, the Turbo
doesn't use unburnt fuel, (that fuel still goes out of the exhaust). It uses
the residual heat and kinetic energy of the exhaust gases.
Much of the power used by the Turbo has already been created by the engine
and would otherwise be wasted as heat and noise, but there is still a slight
cost in engine performance in the "non pressurised mode", in other words
when the rpm is too low to allow the turbo to supply pressurised air to the
intake. This is caused by back pressure in the exhaust which requires
energy, and therefore fuel, to overcome.
Obviously, when the engine and turbo are at full noise, the extra power
required to drive the turbo also has to come from somewhere (see Newton's
First Law of Motion) but again, a high proportion of the energy required
would have been produced, and wasted, anyway.
So it is probably more accurate to say that the turbo is far more efficient
than a supercharger, but there is still a cost in fuel to drive it.
Whilst it does not directly cross over, because the turbo is used in a
different way, I can quantify it by telling you that a Cessna 210, non
turbocharged, aircraft uses about 15 US gallons an hour at cruise at 5000
ft. The 210 Turbo Centurion, essentially the same engine but with a turbo,
would use 17 gallons an hour in the same configuration. What makes this
relevant is that the turbo on an aircraft runs at full noise all the time,
because the engine runs at constant RPM, and simply dumps pressurised air
overboard through the wastegate when it is not needed to maintain the set
power level. Thus, the difference in fuel consumption accurately represents
the extra energy required to drive the turbo at full noise. It's about 15%
I hope that further clouds the issue!
Eric
doesn't use unburnt fuel, (that fuel still goes out of the exhaust). It uses
the residual heat and kinetic energy of the exhaust gases.
Much of the power used by the Turbo has already been created by the engine
and would otherwise be wasted as heat and noise, but there is still a slight
cost in engine performance in the "non pressurised mode", in other words
when the rpm is too low to allow the turbo to supply pressurised air to the
intake. This is caused by back pressure in the exhaust which requires
energy, and therefore fuel, to overcome.
Obviously, when the engine and turbo are at full noise, the extra power
required to drive the turbo also has to come from somewhere (see Newton's
First Law of Motion) but again, a high proportion of the energy required
would have been produced, and wasted, anyway.
So it is probably more accurate to say that the turbo is far more efficient
than a supercharger, but there is still a cost in fuel to drive it.
Whilst it does not directly cross over, because the turbo is used in a
different way, I can quantify it by telling you that a Cessna 210, non
turbocharged, aircraft uses about 15 US gallons an hour at cruise at 5000
ft. The 210 Turbo Centurion, essentially the same engine but with a turbo,
would use 17 gallons an hour in the same configuration. What makes this
relevant is that the turbo on an aircraft runs at full noise all the time,
because the engine runs at constant RPM, and simply dumps pressurised air
overboard through the wastegate when it is not needed to maintain the set
power level. Thus, the difference in fuel consumption accurately represents
the extra energy required to drive the turbo at full noise. It's about 15%
I hope that further clouds the issue!
Eric
-
Ian Chapman
Turbo vs. Supercharged
One minor correction I would make is that a turbo does not run 'entirely
on excess fuel that is not normally burnt' - rather, it is driven by the
exhaust gases passes through it's impeller (turbine). The energy in the
exhaust gas (velocity, pressure, mass and heat) drives the impeller
which in turn drives another impeller on the same shaft but in a
different chamber - this second impeller compresses the air into the
engine. This is where turbo and super both do the same thing, ie
compress the incoming air, so ... more air = more fuel = more bang =
more power.
I've never owned either a super or turbo so can't comment on merits of
each apart from lots of reading and engineering knowledge that draws me
to conclude that generally a super gives better lower down grunt and a
quicker response whereas a turbo has more high end power. Obviously
depends on a whole pile of factors so is a generalisation and my view.
Ian
From jifjif@gmail.com Fri Apr 27 17:34:19 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id
from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=TbAMGHF4WjVtyiF8sDd+qVxDoRxgLQ4KUtB4m9xnCXJFyHoFEAs2wPTx8p9CWBaGij97M5XKjYeWqRFno4qAZLdD3zvx4vSM80fQWMQzmF3gre7mWmtI0r34q578GCpgL6gKVo6x1Us1pfYl+BAnezdedIxpD5N662tlXFcd0C0=
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:46:46 +1200
From: ~Jeff~ <jifjif@gmail.com>
To: MX5List <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharged
In-Reply-To: <s304450e.070@ngc.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <s304450e.070@ngc.co.nz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <4hnhpB.A.t1D.DxYMGB@L733>
And just to be pedantic - there are centrifugal superchargers which
*don't* make boost at low rpm (The VF supercharger for Miatas). Roots
(Jackson Racing) and other positive diisplacement SC (FlyinMiata's
Ubercharger) compress air continually, wiith the excess getting dumped
out a bypass valve - even at idle.
So, it's not necessariiy instant torque with SC.
With a turbo it feels like being attached to a large rubber band, ie a
little bit detachedand non-linear. Scary quick tho
Greg - sounds like you need one of FlyinMiata's Ubercharger kits !!
I'll shut up now...
on excess fuel that is not normally burnt' - rather, it is driven by the
exhaust gases passes through it's impeller (turbine). The energy in the
exhaust gas (velocity, pressure, mass and heat) drives the impeller
which in turn drives another impeller on the same shaft but in a
different chamber - this second impeller compresses the air into the
engine. This is where turbo and super both do the same thing, ie
compress the incoming air, so ... more air = more fuel = more bang =
more power.
I've never owned either a super or turbo so can't comment on merits of
each apart from lots of reading and engineering knowledge that draws me
to conclude that generally a super gives better lower down grunt and a
quicker response whereas a turbo has more high end power. Obviously
depends on a whole pile of factors so is a generalisation and my view.
Ian
From jifjif@gmail.com Fri Apr 27 17:34:19 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id
from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;b=TbAMGHF4WjVtyiF8sDd+qVxDoRxgLQ4KUtB4m9xnCXJFyHoFEAs2wPTx8p9CWBaGij97M5XKjYeWqRFno4qAZLdD3zvx4vSM80fQWMQzmF3gre7mWmtI0r34q578GCpgL6gKVo6x1Us1pfYl+BAnezdedIxpD5N662tlXFcd0C0=
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:46:46 +1200
From: ~Jeff~ <jifjif@gmail.com>
To: MX5List <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharged
In-Reply-To: <s304450e.070@ngc.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <s304450e.070@ngc.co.nz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <4hnhpB.A.t1D.DxYMGB@L733>
And just to be pedantic - there are centrifugal superchargers which
*don't* make boost at low rpm (The VF supercharger for Miatas). Roots
(Jackson Racing) and other positive diisplacement SC (FlyinMiata's
Ubercharger) compress air continually, wiith the excess getting dumped
out a bypass valve - even at idle.
So, it's not necessariiy instant torque with SC.
With a turbo it feels like being attached to a large rubber band, ie a
little bit detachedand non-linear. Scary quick tho
Greg - sounds like you need one of FlyinMiata's Ubercharger kits !!
I'll shut up now...
-
KSCRIM
- Need, more, 5-ing, time....
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 8:46 pm
- Location: West Auckland
Turbo vs. Supercharged
"There's no substitute for cubic inches" if one wants TORQUE.
Kevin
[...]
Kevin
[...]
Kevin 2010 NC PRHT. (98 NB6C sold)
-
Mike Jolley
Turbo vs. Supercharged
Correct ,drop that v8 lexus motor in and of course add 2 white stripes. Mike
-
Matt & Sarah Avery
Turbo vs. Supercharged
I can't comment on turbo'd mx5's because I've never driven one, but I
have owned a supercharged one for the past 3 or so years. My experience
of other turbo'd vehicles goes along with Jeff's rubber band analogy,
wheras my supercharged motor just feels like a larger normally aspirated
engine. I did find it interesting to compare the dyno graph of my 7psi
car vs a 9psi turbo'd mx5. Up until about 5000rpm my car made a steady
10-15kw more than the turbo, but after that my car trailed off and the
turbo went on to make about 30kw more peak power. I was pretty happy
with that. At the time my car was running heavily retarded timing (6
degrees) to stop detonation so it was actually quite laggy. Since then I
have added an ignition timing controller that allows advanced timing off
boost, then retards it as the boost rises. It now makes more power, but
because the power delivery is smoothed out a lot more so it actually
feels slower. No more shove in the back, which is what the turbo fans love.
The supercharger does have a bypass to supposedly improve economy off
boost, but I'm still lucky to see 350kms from a tank of 98 octane.
To sum up my experience:
-power is great but you soon get used to it
-more power costs more money
-more power means driveability suffers (wife hates driving it)
-supercharger whine is great
-exhaust sound is still great (no turbo to muffle it)
-engine bay looks more impressive than turbo
-power delivery is fine by me
But... I'm actually seriously thinking of selling it. Its a lot of fun,
but with a wife, mortgage and baby to contend with I just don't have the
time or money to spend on it. I don't want to be without an mx5 though.
Plan is to put it on the website to see if anyone wants to trade for a
stock mx5 + a bit of much needed cash.
From jifjif@gmail.com Fri Apr 27 17:34:10 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-idfrom:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=cKiT07BmeRQwGdSvjXkBXEkjJxWhoaCx1OHYKdJ6mca2S7kNGb9FgFKTvT4L7YmYOl48+ai7GlMmKAAofQzGnbIyekKBhu6ndk9Cb45xSZjCD2BA20DY9bQH33++tApc/2B00OwMVocR9uXeGH8O3yvPFHZ8fZgWr24PESnBrC0=
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:19:47 +1200
From: ~Jeff~ <jifjif@gmail.com>
To: MX5List <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharged
In-Reply-To: <001701c5a499$1e2fd550$dd02b8cb@imbecl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <GHEBLBKOJPCFDCEFIEDPMEKDCFAA.gregmcbain@woosh.co.nz>
<001701c5a499$1e2fd550$dd02b8cb@imbecl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <6qqy5D.A.61D.DxYMGB@L733>
I'd just add for Greg that there's no problems getting >10km/l around
town (ie >480km per tank) or >13km/l on long trips with the wee turbo
monster :-]
On 8/19/05, Matt & Sarah Avery <avery296@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
[...]
From tonebeats@yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 27 17:34:09 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.nz;
h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
b=VpqAiGOZtmVKFZVU1fhfRQoKzIMqyAi30ePebje/hU2ppOiJTjF3KS/u8flmUqGJFl1y6t7nWt2AksdLsoE/Y6TCwgyXTA2AJJcqICDXNYPWpPFJTz5B+Yu3zP3oIWu75OWhM6jIfI0pk1eyrIEAIiI6x9gBbAuQsmSTdxnTrtU=
;
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:08:04 +1200 (NZST)
From: Tony Spellacey <tonebeats@yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharged
To: MX5List <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
In-Reply-To: <36363491050819041971cc1c71@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <-QF4u.A.71D.DxYMGB@L733>
Jeff i maybe interested in your car swap etc etc drop
me a line if you like Tony
--- ~Jeff~ <jifjif@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
From k.jones@auckland.ac.nz Fri Apr 27 17:34:08 2007
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: Meremere
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:30:24 +1200
Thread-Topic: Meremere
Thread-Index: AcWiQKyz8jlyiR91Tpi5i1sbxMM2gQAXi8Kw
From: "Keith Jones" <k.jones@auckland.ac.nz>
To: "MX5List" <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <1WfD8B.A.81D.DxYMGB@L733>
Don
I have been having a similar problem snatching 5th instead of 3rd coming
out of the hairpin and and Castrol at Pukekohe.
I have just put a stronger spring in the 5th/reverse gate. Hopefully
that will help. This is easy to do with the car up on stands or a hoist.
Keith
From chris.tankard@aderant.com Fri Apr 27 17:34:08 2007
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: Turbo vs. Supercharged
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:23:52 +1200
Thread-Topic: Turbo vs. Supercharged
Thread-Index: AcWlLTpc+4S5isZpRjC/abQ0nC8/ZQBiqZqQ
From: "Chris Tankard" <chris.tankard@aderant.com>
To: "MX5List" <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <uP0Mw.A.91D.DxYMGB@L733>
Just out of interest - how many members actually have turbo'ed or SC'ed
cars?
Did you buy a kit - i.e. Flying Miata, AVO etc, or did you DIY?
What are your thoughts in regard to the changes?
And - just to stir up fun - who has the fastest MX5?
C
have owned a supercharged one for the past 3 or so years. My experience
of other turbo'd vehicles goes along with Jeff's rubber band analogy,
wheras my supercharged motor just feels like a larger normally aspirated
engine. I did find it interesting to compare the dyno graph of my 7psi
car vs a 9psi turbo'd mx5. Up until about 5000rpm my car made a steady
10-15kw more than the turbo, but after that my car trailed off and the
turbo went on to make about 30kw more peak power. I was pretty happy
with that. At the time my car was running heavily retarded timing (6
degrees) to stop detonation so it was actually quite laggy. Since then I
have added an ignition timing controller that allows advanced timing off
boost, then retards it as the boost rises. It now makes more power, but
because the power delivery is smoothed out a lot more so it actually
feels slower. No more shove in the back, which is what the turbo fans love.
The supercharger does have a bypass to supposedly improve economy off
boost, but I'm still lucky to see 350kms from a tank of 98 octane.
To sum up my experience:
-power is great but you soon get used to it
-more power costs more money
-more power means driveability suffers (wife hates driving it)
-supercharger whine is great
-exhaust sound is still great (no turbo to muffle it)
-engine bay looks more impressive than turbo
-power delivery is fine by me
But... I'm actually seriously thinking of selling it. Its a lot of fun,
but with a wife, mortgage and baby to contend with I just don't have the
time or money to spend on it. I don't want to be without an mx5 though.
Plan is to put it on the website to see if anyone wants to trade for a
stock mx5 + a bit of much needed cash.
From jifjif@gmail.com Fri Apr 27 17:34:10 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id
from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;b=cKiT07BmeRQwGdSvjXkBXEkjJxWhoaCx1OHYKdJ6mca2S7kNGb9FgFKTvT4L7YmYOl48+ai7GlMmKAAofQzGnbIyekKBhu6ndk9Cb45xSZjCD2BA20DY9bQH33++tApc/2B00OwMVocR9uXeGH8O3yvPFHZ8fZgWr24PESnBrC0=
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:19:47 +1200
From: ~Jeff~ <jifjif@gmail.com>
To: MX5List <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharged
In-Reply-To: <001701c5a499$1e2fd550$dd02b8cb@imbecl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <GHEBLBKOJPCFDCEFIEDPMEKDCFAA.gregmcbain@woosh.co.nz>
<001701c5a499$1e2fd550$dd02b8cb@imbecl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <6qqy5D.A.61D.DxYMGB@L733>
I'd just add for Greg that there's no problems getting >10km/l around
town (ie >480km per tank) or >13km/l on long trips with the wee turbo
monster :-]
On 8/19/05, Matt & Sarah Avery <avery296@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
[...]
From tonebeats@yahoo.co.nz Fri Apr 27 17:34:09 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.nz;
h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
b=VpqAiGOZtmVKFZVU1fhfRQoKzIMqyAi30ePebje/hU2ppOiJTjF3KS/u8flmUqGJFl1y6t7nWt2AksdLsoE/Y6TCwgyXTA2AJJcqICDXNYPWpPFJTz5B+Yu3zP3oIWu75OWhM6jIfI0pk1eyrIEAIiI6x9gBbAuQsmSTdxnTrtU=
;
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:08:04 +1200 (NZST)
From: Tony Spellacey <tonebeats@yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharged
To: MX5List <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
In-Reply-To: <36363491050819041971cc1c71@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <-QF4u.A.71D.DxYMGB@L733>
Jeff i maybe interested in your car swap etc etc drop
me a line if you like Tony
--- ~Jeff~ <jifjif@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
From k.jones@auckland.ac.nz Fri Apr 27 17:34:08 2007
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: Meremere
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:30:24 +1200
Thread-Topic: Meremere
Thread-Index: AcWiQKyz8jlyiR91Tpi5i1sbxMM2gQAXi8Kw
From: "Keith Jones" <k.jones@auckland.ac.nz>
To: "MX5List" <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <1WfD8B.A.81D.DxYMGB@L733>
Don
I have been having a similar problem snatching 5th instead of 3rd coming
out of the hairpin and and Castrol at Pukekohe.
I have just put a stronger spring in the 5th/reverse gate. Hopefully
that will help. This is easy to do with the car up on stands or a hoist.
Keith
From chris.tankard@aderant.com Fri Apr 27 17:34:08 2007
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: Turbo vs. Supercharged
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:23:52 +1200
Thread-Topic: Turbo vs. Supercharged
Thread-Index: AcWlLTpc+4S5isZpRjC/abQ0nC8/ZQBiqZqQ
From: "Chris Tankard" <chris.tankard@aderant.com>
To: "MX5List" <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <uP0Mw.A.91D.DxYMGB@L733>
Just out of interest - how many members actually have turbo'ed or SC'ed
cars?
Did you buy a kit - i.e. Flying Miata, AVO etc, or did you DIY?
What are your thoughts in regard to the changes?
And - just to stir up fun - who has the fastest MX5?
C
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests
