Hey guys!

I own a 2.4L TE and I dont know much on super-charging but i would like to know the following:

1) Should i sc or turbo?
2) wat sort of gains would i get from sc compared to turbo (kW wise)??
3) What is the cost of super charging the 2.4L?
4) How will super-charging affect my fuel consumption?
5) any side effects i shud know bout from super-charging?
6) Any other info u guys think would be of help

Thanx guys

im not even sure if a supercharged 2.4L would be quicker than a V6 TE :nuts:

Maddog, just a quick response as I'm in a bit of a hurry but:
1) Depends on the car. As a general rule of thumb, supercharging will wear out your engine less quickly (or more quickly, depending on the engine and the supercharger).
2) Once again, it depends how much work you put into it. If you want to make big power from a supercharger, you have to spend more initially to get the setup you want (and from strengthening the engine and such).
3) It'll be expensive if you want it to run correctly (i.e. well over $4k)
4) The same sort of fuel consumption losses you'd expect from a turbo, what with the engine working harder to drive the belts.
5) Side effects: Supercharging a FWD (front wheel drive) is a no-no if you want the car to remain driveable. If you've got a set of extractors already it's most likely going to be easier to fit (as you do not need a new exhaust manifold for a supercharger, it runs off the engine belts, as opposed to a turbo which must be plumbed somewhere along the exhaust manifold).
6) In my humble opinion, supercharging Magnas is not a good idea. I can't really talk because my car is undergoing the treatment, but if you select a non-centrifugal supercharger you will most likely have massive traction problems (if running a lot of boost) and also plenty of engine wear, if not strangthened correctly - two of the three types of Superchargers work to constantly provide you more boost earlier in the RPM range, as opposed to turbos which must spool (increase the RPM of the turbine in order to raise the compression in the engine above atmospheric pressure), which means less traction, quicker, harder, and faster.

On the other hand, running low boost on a properly setup, low-boost Front Wheel Drive car is like a dream. No turbo lag, no Torque Steer (steering in a direction but not having sufficient grip to turn, and instead plowing into a wall).

It's really up to the personal preference of the owner. Personally, I much prefer the feeling of a turbo'd car, however the linear (read - smooth) power delivery of a correctly boosted SC will also be quite exhilarating to drive.

I'm not sure about on your engine, but generally on FWD (Front Wheel Drive) cars a supercharger will be easier to setup (although considerably more expensive), especially if you already posess extractors. Sorry about the big rant, but I'm sure I've got heaps more to say on the subject! Cheers, Joe

At the end of the day a supercharger is going to be a lot better in the way of performance and driveability, you are going to get higher boost all through the rev range which means power all the time without having to wait for it. Unfortunately as previously said this will cost you a lot more $$$$$. But in the long run it is well worth it. As for fuel consumption if you go forcing more air into an engine it is going to use more fuel no matter what you do. With such intricate systems you will always have the ability to program different fuel maps (you'll obviously have a programmable comp by this stage) so depending on the type of driving you plan to do you can run the appropriate fuel map. There's some fuel for thought for you.........

WoW!! thanx heaps bLAdEbLA and shane!! I didn't expect that much info but its very useful...

I'm gonna go and ponder over this one!

thanx guys!

mate, personally i think you'd be better off dropping a V6 in it, either the 3.5 V6 or the 3ltr DOHC mivec V6 like killbilly did.. probably wouldnt cost that much extra, and at the end of the day it would be MUCH better value for money

also a V6, whether it be the 3.5 or the 3ltr mivec, will have more scope for future development and power. Also a sweet naturally aspirated V6 is ALWAYS going to be a much nicer car to drive then a turbo 4 because of the lack of turbo lag and the fact that naturally aspirated engines are always nicer revving. If i was you i would try and get a 3ltr mivec engine, good power (i think 200kw standard?? someoen correct me) and a bloody nice engine to boot.

There is a wreckers near the Gold Coast I visited whilst on holidays a few months ago. They had several Mitsubishi FTO engines (3L V6 MIVEC) with all wiring looms going for around $1500 to $2000 each. If you have mates with tools, this is certainly a possibility. Aso had a 3000GT TT engine there with manual gear box for around $3000. If interested I'll chase up the name. We were hunting Z32 pits and pieces.

The FTOs had 2L V6 mivecs, too small for a Magna. The GTO engines will fit 2nd Gen Magna, but Maddog has a 3rd Gen.

As for the 2.4L, being a 4cyl it would be easy to turbocharg it. There should be plenty of room infront of the engine to fit the turbo. I belive TBucher had a Turbocharged 2.4 TE, maybe PM him for some info. :D

I seriously looked at this option too on my ole 2.4l TE, but in the end it was only going to be as fast as a stock V6 and just not worth the dollars spent on it, plus insurance will be a pain as well after doing mods like this.
So in the end I bit the bullet and sold it, then bought my manual V6 TE.

I seriously looked at this option too on my ole 2.4l TE, but in the end it was only going to be as fast as a stock V6 and just not worth the dollars spent on it, plus insurance will be a pain as well after doing mods like this.
So in the end I bit the bullet and sold it, then bought my manual V6 TE.

With a propper build up I don't see why a Turbo 2.4 couldn't produce 160kW+. It also has the advantage of being lighter, so handling will be better than a V6 model. And in the futer you just need to upgrade a few components, windup the boost and watch the power climb :badgrin:

Phonic, tell me how your gonna increase power without blowing your auto box???
You really have to talk to the pros in the business and find out everything before making a decision. Because it is one costly excercise.

And how much lighter is a 2.4 te to a v6 te, from memory I thinks it's only 30kg or so, and with a turbo it would match the weight of a v6 so that's a mute point.

Phonic, tell me how your gonna increase power without blowing your auto box???
You really have to talk to the pros in the business and find out everything before making a decision. Because it is one costly excercise.

And how much lighter is a 2.4 te to a v6 te, from memory I thinks it's only 30kg or so, and with a turbo it would match the weight of a v6 so that's a mute point.

I didn't realise he had an auto box. What turbo suited to a 4 cyl weighs 30kg? lol

The 3.0/3.5s have more steel casting being a V6, 2 extra pistons, a 2nd cam shaft, 8 more valves and lifters, a second exhaust manifold..etc. All that for just 600cc of extra displacment. A turbo 2.4 would drive more like a 3.8litre.

The whole system would weigh a fair bit, new piping and stuff, it would definetly bring the weight up close to that. :D

The whole system would weigh a fair bit, new piping and stuff, it would definetly bring the weight up close to that. :D

The piping wouldn't weigh much anyway, you are replacing the standard cast iron exhaust system, no just adding extra stuff. :D

Anyway I'm not arguing, just that in my opinion it is easier to turbocharge the 2.4 then fabricated new engine mounts and things to install a V6 into a car originally fitted with a 4cyl.

mate, personally i think you'd be better off dropping a V6 in it, either the 3.5 V6 or the 3ltr DOHC mivec V6 like killbilly did
Except neither would fit.

Don't know whether the auto tranny would like either forms of supercharging. Turbo could ultimately produce more and a supercharger could be better for engine but bang for buck relative to starting platform, hard to say whether it's worth it. Mind you, forced induction on a 6 isn't cheaper.

im not even sure if a supercharged 2.4L would be quicker than a V6 TE :nuts:
I think it would be a GREAT base to start with, its got the cubes for a 4cyl engine and would really pack a punch ! there is a 12 second 2L camry getting around in brissy! now thats lethal!

ide turbo, because you only have 1 manifold to make and the reason i would SC a 6cyl is to save money on making two manifolds or 1 big one for a single turbo. IMAGINE THE TORQUE FROM A 2.4L 4cyl :| oh yeah !

I think it would be a GREAT base to start with, its got the cubes for a 4cyl engine and would really pack a punch ! there is a 12 second 2L camry getting around in brissy! now thats lethal!

ide turbo, because you only have 1 manifold to make and the reason i would SC a 6cyl is to save money on making two manifolds or 1 big one for a single turbo. IMAGINE THE TORQUE FROM A 2.4L 4cyl :| oh yeah !

My thoughts exacttly :D

Except neither would fit.

Don't know whether the auto tranny would like either forms of supercharging. Turbo could ultimately produce more and a supercharger could be better for engine but bang for buck relative to starting platform, hard to say whether it's worth it. Mind you, forced induction on a 6 isn't cheaper.

why would the 3.5ltr V6 magna engine not fit in a 3rd gen engine bay? considering the engine was an option on 3rd gen magnas??

why would the 3.5ltr V6 magna engine not fit in a 3rd gen engine bay? considering the engine was an option on 3rd gen magnas??
Okay, it would fit but it wouldn't be a straight swap. Way cheaper / easier to trade cars. The DOHC that Killbilly has wouldn't fit. Wrong way around.

With a propper build up I don't see why a Turbo 2.4 couldn't produce 160kW+. It also has the advantage of being lighter, so handling will be better than a V6 model. And in the futer you just need to upgrade a few components, windup the boost and watch the power climb :badgrin:

160+ i imagine with lowered compression and a decient turbo could definatly get that power! i reckon go for it man, make up a manifold, get a autronic or microtech and a decomp head gasket and your set mate!

Okay, it would fit but it wouldn't be a straight swap. Way cheaper / easier to trade cars. The DOHC that Killbilly has wouldn't fit. Wrong way around.


ahh ok, does any type of mivec engine fit? isnt their a 3.5ltr version?

ahh ok, does any type of mivec engine fit? isnt their a 3.5ltr version?
No. I suspect the 2.0l Mivec *might* fit but why would you want to? The 3.0 is a direct swap. The 3.5 isn't a direct swap. It's from a Pajero so is a north south engine so not even close. Don't know about the smaller Mivec ones but like the FTO, why bother?

Looks like its no-go for superchargin and green lights all the way for turbo-ing....interesting...

yeh my car is auto :cry: and i have no intention to do engine swaps at the moment as my baby has run only 76,000kms so far!!! :D

Now its just a matter of saving up the cash n making my baby fly! hope so...

i wana be able to pull off some decent kWs!! u guys are mentioning 160+kW that sounds nice...

If i decided to turbo....wat options do i have in strengthening my auto box?

I know the whole "speed costs money...how fast do u want to go?" saying....so with the rite equipment...how much would it cost me to pull off atleast 150kW?? any ideas??


I seriously looked at this option too on my ole 2.4l TE, but in the end it was only going to be as fast as a stock V6 and just not worth the dollars spent on it, plus insurance will be a pain as well after doing mods like this.
So in the end I bit the bullet and sold it, then bought my manual V6 TE.

I dont wana have have the same scenario as heydude, as i sed previously, no intention on engine swaps

If your really intent on doing it then go for it.
It is just gonna cost some dollars.
And yeah you can strengthen the auto box but again it will cost dollars.

So in the end you have to be commited from the start to do this job on your 2.4l magna.

Here is a few tips for you which I found out when I was looking at this job too.
You can run a DOHC on this engine, it is a direct swap over, they just plug up a couple of oil drain back holes, the head is 4G63T.

Here are some of the bits you need.

Turbocharging the 4G64
Page 2

Parts List for turbo install


List of MUST HAVE parts
4G63T Exhaust Manifold (Ported 2g Preferred)
4G63T O2 Sensor Housing (Ported 2g Preferred)
4G63T Downpipe - 2G FWD (aftermarket or custom 2.5" - 3" preferred)
A Turbo (duh!) - 14b, Small 16G, or other. Avoid the stock 2G T25! (16G variant (small, big, EVOIII) preferred)
High-Flow air filter & MAS Adaptor
Intake Pipe from MAS to Turbo (stock 2G OK, aftermarket better)
Intercooler - Stock 2G SMIC OK, FMIC better. NOTE: Stock 2G Intercooler won't fit on a 1996 model without moving the Washer bottle.
Intercooler Piping from turbo to intercooler & intercooler to throttle body (custom connector needed for stock throttle body connection).
Blow off valve (BOV) - 1G is fine
Boost Gauge
EGT Gauge <-- Yes, it's a MUST HAVE
Gauge Mounting (A-Pillar and/or Gauge cluster bezel trim or other)
Gasket: Head to Exhaust Manifold
Gasket: Turbo to Exhaust Manifold
Gasket: O2 Housing to Turbo
Gasket: O2 Housing to downpipe
Spark Plugs: NGK BKR7E (NGK's part number 6097) <-these are 2 heat ranges cooler
Misc Nuts, Bolts, Washers, hose clamps, etc.
Turbo oil Supply Line (Stainless braided preferred)
Turbo oil return Line from a stock 2G setup
2G turbo oil pan (or somehow mount the turbo oil return on your stock oil pan)
Turbo water lines (feed & return) + rubber coolant hose to connect to engine.
Higher flow Fuel Pump (Walbro 190lph is plenty)
Bigger Injectors (Stock 4G63T 450cc Injectors OK with turbo car resistor pack wired in)
Apex-i S-AFC
OBD-II Datalogger

The above parts should cost you between $1700 - $3000.
It all depends on the options you choose, used or new parts, etc...



List of parts you probably SHOULD Have
2.5"-3" Hi-Flow Cat or Test Pipe
2.5"-3" Cat-Back exhaust System
Heat shields for the Exhaust Manifold & O2 Sensor Housing
Turbo with a 34mm Wastegate flapper modification (needed to help prevent boost creep with larger exhaust)
Ported or tubular O2 Sensor housing (needed to help prevent boost creep with larger exhaust)
2G Turbo ECU (for knock sensor support, better fuel maps, and better timing maps)
Oil Pressure & Coolant Temperature Gauge
Heavy duty Clutch (ACT, Centerforce, Clutch Masters, etc)
Quaife Limited Slip Differential

You can also buy a turbo kit straight from the usa, but I cant find the website, do a search for 4G64 and turbo, it should come up.

Here is a pic of it done.

hahhaha
tats great but u forgot to mention tat its $1700-3000 US dollars

Yeah that is US dollars, I got that from a site that deals with 4G64 motors in US spyders, they had a whole article on how to put it on and everything, but I cant find the url. :rant:

I reckon turbo conversion easier than V6 conversion, u would need to change all the looms and ecu as well to swap to V6, and subframe/crossmember as well, then theres rego hassle. 160kw is actually only a start point for turbo astron, about right for low boost on stock internals for your low k engine, but later u can go a lot further with it. there are plenty of sub 10 sec astrons, but mainly in lighter rwd cars like sigmas. plus the long stroke of the 2.6 or 2.4 make them plenty torquey off boost. u would need to rebuild trans tougher as well if u started upping boost levels :cool: .

No. I suspect the 2.0l Mivec *might* fit but why would you want to? The 3.0 is a direct swap. The 3.5 isn't a direct swap. It's from a Pajero so is a north south engine so not even close. Don't know about the smaller Mivec ones but like the FTO, why bother?

alright then how about this, will the 3ltr mivec heads fit onto a 3.5ltr magna block??? that way we could make our own 3.5ltr mivec's :)

alright then how about this, will the 3ltr mivec heads fit onto a 3.5ltr magna block??? that way we could make our own 3.5ltr mivec's :)
Maybe. I've been told yes however I don't know if cylinder bore difference is an issue. The problem is that the block isn't designed or has ancillaries to operate the Mivec component.

Maybe. I've been told yes however I don't know if cylinder bore difference is an issue. The problem is that the block isn't designed or has ancillaries to operate the Mivec component.

isnt the mivec component solely contained in the head? and im sure you could widen the bore on the head if that was an issue.. which i think it would be. But if i where to buy a mivec head i would probably put it on a flow bench anyway to maximise its usefullness.

Also with mivecs, can you change the cam profiles? or does the ECU get all confused and go crazy if you do that?

Think about it, flowed mivec head with even better cam on a 3.5ltr magna block thats been bored to 3.7ltrs, lower compression pistons, extracotors, larger throttle body and pod filter, ecu tune.. i reckon you'd have one of the best n/a V6's going around.. 250-260kw's would be achievable me thinks without forced induction!

probably cost a packet though and you'd need to do it on an AWD to maximise the benefits...

Think about it, flowed mivec head with even better cam on a 3.5ltr magna block thats been bored to 3.7ltrs, lower compression pistons, extracotors, larger throttle body and pod filter, ecu tune.. i reckon you'd have one of the best n/a V6's going around.. 250-260kw's would be achievable me thinks without forced induction!

probably cost a packet though and you'd need to do it on an AWD to maximise the benefits...

I think you will want to use high compression pistons for NA :D . The bore difference shouldn't pose an issue in transfereing the Mivec 3.0 head to a SOHC 3.5 block. Possible issues could be that the cooling channels don't match up, bolt pattern and things like belts.

But the main thing is everything lining up, belts can be soured without too much problem, then you have to look at things like controlling the mivec operation (should be controlled by the ECU on the mivec fitted cars).

MIVEC is like VTEC in it's operation, and I have seen a few VTEC conversions in Hondas without much trouble so the only real issue is sourcing the MIVEC heads and having parts support if sointhing needs replacing.

I think you will want to use high compression pistons for NA :D . The bore difference shouldn't pose an issue in transfereing the Mivec 3.0 head to a SOHC 3.5 block. Possible issues could be that the cooling channels don't match up, bolt pattern and things like belts.

But the main thing is everything lining up, belts can be soured without too much problem, then you have to look at things like controlling the mivec operation (should be controlled by the ECU on the mivec fitted cars).

MIVEC is like VTEC in it's operation, and I have seen a few VTEC conversions in Hondas without much trouble so the only real issue is sourcing the MIVEC heads and having parts support if sointhing needs replacing.

thats the second time ive done that today.. exam week.. very stressed

HIGH compression pistons dammit!

wouldnt you be able to buy new mivec heads from mitsubishi in japan? surely they must sell them as replacement parts so unless they demand a vin number to get parts, which i doubt, then it shouldnt be too much of a problem. I guess the issue is finding someone who knows what they're doing and therefore knows if a) it can be done or not and b) HOW to do it..

but if its possible then i reckon itd be awesome :D

also this is from the rpw website, they say this is a possible replacement engine for a gen3 magna:
6G74 DOHC 24 valve Mivec - rated 220kw factory

note the 6G74 bit.. same engine code as our engines.. so theoretically the heads should just be a bolt up fit!

also who knows what type of engine this is.. all i know is its in a gen3 magna and its a mivec..

this is a question I would love to know the answer to :confused: the intwernals of the block ie bore and stroke would haveto be the same, but the question is do water jackets, oil gallerys and head studs all match???
we need a pic of a mivec head both top and bottom sides, and same for sohc....
obviously there would need to be a longer cam belt, so we need to know where the tensioners sit and if there are the facing for the threaded holes on the sohc block to mount them on. If im not mistaken, earlier 6G engines were imported so might even have threaded holes already....

if the two engines have the same engine code then surely the blocks have to be the same...

im not even sure if a supercharged 2.4L would be quicker than a V6 TE :nuts:

MATE My 2.4L can EASLY KEEP UP WITH A V6 DOOD iTS NOT AS SLOOW AS YOU THINK....


then again i have disconnected a balence shaft and optemised the timming...

MATE My 2.4L can EASLY KEEP UP WITH A V6 DOOD iTS NOT AS SLOOW AS YOU THINK....


then again i have disconnected a balence shaft and optemised the timming...

what mods have you done?

also this is from the rpw website, they say this is a possible replacement engine for a gen3 magna:
6G74 DOHC 24 valve Mivec - rated 220kw factory

note the 6G74 bit.. same engine code as our engines.. so theoretically the heads should just be a bolt up fit!

also who knows what type of engine this is.. all i know is its in a gen3 magna and its a mivec..

those intake runners and plenum look huge, possibly flowed for the high rpm cam profile and then some, could it be the 3.5 evo pajero Dakar mivec???

those intake runners and plenum look huge, possibly flowed for the high rpm cam profile and then some, could it be the 3.5 evo pajero Dakar mivec???

i think it would be nearly impossible to get your hands on one of them wouldnt it?

dont forget brakes, whats power if you cant stop! thats 1000 right up for decent rotors and atleast 2pot calipers. and suspension gear.

also this is from the rpw website, they say this is a possible replacement engine for a gen3 magna:
6G74 DOHC 24 valve Mivec - rated 220kw factory

note the 6G74 bit.. same engine code as our engines.. so theoretically the heads should just be a bolt up fit!

also who knows what type of engine this is.. all i know is its in a gen3 magna and its a mivec..
That info isn't right.

The Mivec 3.0 is quoted 198kW from factory.
The Mivec 3.5 is quoted 194kW from factory.

Theoretically those heads might bolt up but the way to check, (I think), would be to compare either, heads v block (ideally), or easier, compare head gaskets.

This photos is the 3.0l Mivec. It was found in the Diamante 30M. The Evo Pajero was the only Mitsu vehicle to have a 3.5 Mivec.


those intake runners and plenum look huge, possibly flowed for the high rpm cam profile and then some, could it be the 3.5 evo pajero Dakar mivec???
They aren't much bigger than what we use. They do use a different plenum than out 3.0's though. The engine utilises MVIC which is also found on our 2nd gen V6's.

starting to sound like too much bullsh!t to me, ill just work the SOHC head in the magna

I'd just get a 3.0l Mivec. Straight swap.

I'd just get a 3.0l Mivec. Straight swap.

yeah but i wanna take advantage of the extra capacity of the 3.5... is their atleast some DOHC heads (non mivec) going around for the 3.5 i wonder..

yeah but i wanna take advantage of the extra capacity of the 3.5... is their atleast some DOHC heads (non mivec) going around for the 3.5 i wonder..
I think there is but don't know if the engine's based on the 2nd gen or 3rd gen engine. They're in the Pajero. They've also supposedly got 3.8 engines. Don't know a whole lot about them but a mate has an older one with what looks like an engine very similar to the 2nd gen but with a different plenum arrangement.

At least with the 3.0 you'd know it's a direct swap. I think I'd prefer a 7200rpm redline than a 5500 - 6200 redline.

I think there is but don't know if the engine's based on the 2nd gen or 3rd gen engine. They're in the Pajero. They've also supposedly got 3.8 engines. Don't know a whole lot about them but a mate has an older one with what looks like an engine very similar to the 2nd gen but with a different plenum arrangement.

At least with the 3.0 you'd know it's a direct swap. I think I'd prefer a 7200rpm redline than a 5500 - 6200 redline.

true true.. so whats the stock power and torque of the 3ltr mivecs, anyone have some specs on it? and also do you mean it would be a direct swap with a 2nd gen or a 3rd gen magna? cos i have a TL

also how much would a decent mivec engine cost anyway? obviously it would cost heaps to get a new one from mitsubishi.. but what about a second hand one from japan.. also a 5sp manual to come with it would be good! :D

finally, whats the legalities with swapping motors.. isnt their some rule with capacities, your not allowed to go too far up with capacity or too far down.. i dunno.. never looked into engine swaps before

i emailed that RPW mob about this very thing yesterday and i just got the reply, basically they are saying that yes they could get the mivec heads but he would need to look at one side by side with the 3.5 sohc heads to work it all out and how it could be done, also midifications to the block may need to be made.

He basically said that yes it can be done, but he doesnt know how it would be done, how much it would cost and how long it would take.

So thats kinda promising i guess...

true true.. so whats the stock power and torque of the 3ltr mivecs, anyone have some specs on it? and also do you mean it would be a direct swap with a 2nd gen or a 3rd gen magna? cos i have a TL
198kW and 301Nm - 6G72 DOHC Mivec
140kW and 255Nm - 6G72-S4 SOHC
163kW and 317Nm - 6G74 SOHC
180kW and 333Nm - 6G74 SOHC (Ralliart)

Don't know whether I'd swap the Mivec for the 3.5. Headswap might be worth considering if it's possible.


also how much would a decent mivec engine cost anyway? obviously it would cost heaps to get a new one from mitsubishi.. but what about a second hand one from japan.. also a 5sp manual to come with it would be good! :D
I've seen them for $3000 - $3500 for a front cut. You won't be able to get them new. MMAL never produced them and Mivec was superceeded by GDI in Japan around 97. The Mivec's only were mated to an auto.


finally, whats the legalities with swapping motors.. isnt their some rule with capacities, your not allowed to go too far up with capacity or too far down.. i dunno.. never looked into engine swaps before
Not sure. You'd have to check with QT. Can't see a problem with going from a 3.0l to a 3.0l or a 3.5 to a 3.0l.

Maddog, just a quick response as I'm in a bit of a hurry but:
1) Depends on the car. As a general rule of thumb, supercharging will wear out your engine less quickly (or more quickly, depending on the engine and the supercharger).
4) The same sort of fuel consumption losses you'd expect from a turbo, what with the engine working harder to drive the belts.
5) Side effects: Supercharging a FWD (front wheel drive) is a no-no if you want the car to remain driveable.

1. Wrong. It's dependent on the engine's state of tune and how you drive it, not the type of forced induction.

4. Wrong. Fuel consumption depends on how you drive it. Pretty much any modern supercharged setup (using a positive displacement blower) will use a clutch and bypass valve. At low throttle position the SC will be disengaged and the bypass valve open. No, extra load on the engine and no extra resistance to air flow in the inlet tract = normal fuel economy. With a centrifugal supercharger, at the revs you normally put around town, it will only put a small extra load on the engine, and hence only a small if not negligible increase in fuel usage.

5. Wrong. A supercharged FWD would be [i]much[i] easier to drive than a turbocharged FWD.....that's unless you for some reason don't know how to modulate the throttle. A supercharged engine will give a linear powerband and instant throttle response, exactly what you want in a car with limited traction. The turbocharged car is quite the opposite, always having to balance wheel spin against dropping off boost. Sure it can be done....but the supercharged setup will always be more driveable.

IMAGINE THE TORQUE FROM A 2.4L 4cyl :| oh yeah !


Trust me this nothing special,

one of the members of our club owns a mazda eunos 800m, one of those 2.3l Supercharged things

dam car cant even do a burnout, dam thing gets eaten allive by a stock standard vp commo, and in the tj auto i was 2 carlengths ahead of it by 100m.
(understandably the commo driver is to scared to race the tj :D )

Superchargers are overrated dude, plus they arent as fun to play with as turbos :cr

petemal2000: That would be the 2.3L miller cycle engine right? They aren't built with performance in mind. They are built to achieve increased efficiency. You simply can't generalise on the performance of supercharged engines based on this one..... apples and oranges.

Go and have a read over at how stuff works....they have a good write up.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question132.htm

petemal2000: That would be the 2.3L miller cycle engine right? They aren't built with performance in mind. They are built to achieve increased efficiency. You simply can't generalise on the performance of supercharged engines based on this one..... apples and oranges.

Go and have a read over at how stuff works....they have a good write up.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question132.htm


ive read the miller cycle info and im aware of how they work i work on the dam thing for him regularly.
the general characteristics of a supercharger are there, its kinda like a 4cyl and a v6, they have very different characteristics, 4 cyls love to rev their tits off, v6's usually dont, they also have something about the powerband that just isnt as exciting as driving a boosted little 4banger :D
quite simply, superchargers are boring, :nuts:

I can understand your last comment perfectly. Somthing with a linear power band will never give you the rush of a big turbo coming on boost. Hey I love the feeling when my mates old RB20 powered R31 skyline (with a rather large turbo) hit full boost at 5000rpm. But the thing is, it certainly doesn't make it driveable.

I suppose I am sort of spoilt in my zed as far as throttle response goes, so it really ****s me when I get in the mates turbo cars, put my foot down and there's nothing there.

Regarding your comments on 4s vs 6s. How they rev is always going to be dependent on the specific engine. There's plenty of 4s that don't want to rev and plenty of 6s that do. A good example of an aussie family car 6 that revs hard is the KL03 in the mazda 626 (basically same engine, drive train and chassis as the MX6 and probe).

I can understand your last comment perfectly. Somthing with a linear power band will never give you the rush of a big turbo coming on boost. Hey I love the feeling when my mates old RB20 powered R31 skyline (with a rather large turbo) hit full boost at 5000rpm. But the thing is, it certainly doesn't make it driveable.

I suppose I am sort of spoilt in my zed as far as throttle response goes, so it really ****s me when I get in the mates turbo cars, put my foot down and there's nothing there.

Regarding your comments on 4s vs 6s. How they rev is always going to be dependent on the specific engine. There's plenty of 4s that don't want to rev and plenty of 6s that do. A good example of an aussie family car 6 that revs hard is the KL03 in the mazda 626 (basically same engine, drive train and chassis as the MX6 and probe).

the old mazda 2.5 V6 NEEDS revs to get ANYTHING out of it, quite gutless for a V6 really.
id heard the "miller cycle" was just a fancy name for rotary to go with the "eunos" fancy name for mazda that was there for a while??? :confused:

Altera98: I have to disagree. I think it's quite torquey (for a 2.5L). The VRIS (variable resonance intake system) really does give the engine great flexibility through the entire rev range. Mind you, when my mate bought his, one of the VRIS solenoids wasn't working. Without that it dropped a lot of bottom end and mid range torque. I hear it's not an entirely uncommon fault. Maybe that had happened on the one you had driven/been in.


id heard the "miller cycle" was just a fancy name for rotary to go with the "eunos" fancy name for mazda that was there for a while???

I don't quite get what you mean here....but the miller cycle has nothing to do with a rotary.

the old mazda 2.5 V6 NEEDS revs to get ANYTHING out of it, quite gutless for a V6 really.
id heard the "miller cycle" was just a fancy name for rotary to go with the "eunos" fancy name for mazda that was there for a while??? :confused:

Miller cycle is definettly not a rotory angine. It basically utilises high boost from the SC to keep the air/fuel mixer within the combustion chamber without having to close the inlet valves to achieve better efficiency :)

The KL03 is a nice engine, but with only 121kW isn't special, but the Jap spec version of that angine the KL-ZE is about 150kW and pulls allot better but still feels like it could do with some torque (friend did a transplant in his MX-6)
:P

Miller cycle is definettly not a rotory angine. It basically utilises high boost from the SC to keep the air/fuel mixer within the combustion chamber without having to close the inlet valves to achieve better efficiency :)

The KL03 is a nice engine, but with only 121kW isn't special, but the Jap spec version of that angine the KL-ZE is about 150kW and pulls allot better but still feels like it could do with some torque (friend did a transplant in his MX-6)
:P

yes it was an MX6 i drove and that one at least didnt have the go to match its show,agree its flexible enough but definitely not grunty at all under about 4000rpm, not the kind of car u needed to watch the speedo on. just from the look of the car being that sleek and sexy u expect more sting in the tail.

yes it was an MX6 i drove and that one at least didnt have the go to match its show,agree its flexible enough but definitely not grunty at all under about 4000rpm, not the kind of car u needed to watch the speedo on. just from the look of the car being that sleek and sexy u expect more sting in the tail.

I agree, it is exacttly what I thought when I drove my mates MX-6 (before the conversion), still the leather interior and sunroof look the part, real supportive seats to, and the shift is allot smoother than my TFs shift feel.

yes it was an MX6 i drove and that one at least didnt have the go to match its show,agree its flexible enough but definitely not grunty at all under about 4000rpm

Well considering it's only 2.5L and is setup to make power to over 7000rpm, I wouldn't except it tohave stump pulling torque either. Next year I'm seriously considering a KLZE swap into my Sunny. 150kW pushing 850kg would be quite interesting. :D