Supercharged 2.5l engine
20 March 2004, 04:49 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't really see the point. One of the advantages of the 2.5 litre engine is that the greater gasflow levels spool the turbo up earlier and stronger than a smaller engine, thus negating the principal benefit of a direct-driven blower. You'd get more relative benefit from supercharging a 2.0!
Feasible? Anything's possible, although the practicalities of locating it in line with the front pulley (assuming you use a belt drive one) and sorting the intake piping would be a bit interesting. FMIC would probably make things easier, but still a bit stuck for space given the proximity of the inlet manifold and alternator (and possibly an aircon pump).
Feasible? Anything's possible, although the practicalities of locating it in line with the front pulley (assuming you use a belt drive one) and sorting the intake piping would be a bit interesting. FMIC would probably make things easier, but still a bit stuck for space given the proximity of the inlet manifold and alternator (and possibly an aircon pump).
20 March 2004, 04:58 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see what you mean about the 2.5l reducing the boost threshold, but it's throttle response I was thinking about primarily. That's the single thing I find most unsatisfying about my car. It makes it difficult to adjust the car with the throttle. My mate reckons I should practice left-foot braking but I'm not as good a driver as he is 
I guess a lighter flywheel and a degree of anti-lag would help.
I guess a lighter flywheel and a degree of anti-lag would help.
20 March 2004, 05:39 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left-foot braking will help, but braking hard with your foot on the gas doesn't do the longevity of the transmission any favours. If you're talking about on/off/on/off throttle response in a quick B-road type situation, removing the dumpvalve gets you most of the benefits of an ALS implementation, and without the negative implications for exhaust manifold and turbo life*.
The biggest potential gain (and the one with minimal downsides) though is in a lighter flywheel. Standard one is way heavier than it need be, and provided you don't go too light (and/or run a silly clutch), you'll notice a big difference in driveability.
The biggest potential gain (and the one with minimal downsides) though is in a lighter flywheel. Standard one is way heavier than it need be, and provided you don't go too light (and/or run a silly clutch), you'll notice a big difference in driveability.
20 March 2004, 07:01 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, interesting stuff. Is it OK to have the standard flywheel lightened or is it a better to buy a lightweight one off the shelf? My new Scoob came fitted with an STi paddle clutch when I bought it, although it isn't as fierce as I was expecting.
20 March 2004, 08:01 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few places lightening the standard wheels, and they can be got down to 8kg or so without compromising strength, but if you go this route, it needs to be done by someone with experience rather than some random local engineering firm as the consequences of a shattered one aren't pretty.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sam Witwicky
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
17
13 November 2015 10:49 AM
Brzoza
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
1
02 October 2015 05:26 PM