Turbo'd and Supercharged Euro E36 M3

[decay]

It still made 600hp on pump gas, so uh, yea.

and i'm supposed to be impressed when a 2jz supra will do the same with less displacement and no blower?

[whiltebeitel]

I think the power curve is supposed to be the important part, thought I agree that a centrifugal SC was a bad idea.

[decay]

I think the power curve is supposed to be the important part

that was my original point, yeah.

[PУCCKAЯ_e30ka]

that nissan engine prolly won't work that good... maybe just on a dyno to show the #'s but in real life it won't be run.

[whiltebeitel]

but you argued about peak numbers in your previous post, not the power curve. you argued two different things, one on each side of the issue.

[decay]

retarded, IMO, to use a centrifugal blower in a twin-charged setup. that thing won't make boost until the turbo is already spooled anyway.

maybe they're trying to use the small turbo to handle the low-end, but i say that's the bass-ackwards way about it, as the hotside is gonna limit things...

i guess you're misreading me, because i've been talking about area under the curve the entire time.

[whiltebeitel]

Show me a 2jz that has a power curve that doesn't look like an exponetial function. You argued that you are not impressed by this engine making 600 hp, stating that the 2jz was more impressive, regarding only peak numbers. 2jz's make all their from 5k up when they exceed that level of power. You switched from arguing that the area was important to peak numbers being important.

Regardless of your stance (you're not running for office, are you?) it's meant to make power down low and up top without any theoretical drawbacks (besides complexity)

[AppState325]

^ and weight

[decay]

Regardless of your stance (you're not running for office, are you?) it's meant to make power down low and up top without any theoretical drawbacks (besides complexity)

wow. thanks for explaining to me what i already said in my first post in the thread.

fucking idiot.