If that's what it's going to be like I'd rather have na, what's the point of an engine If it sucks balls below 6000 rpm? I want it like my mini challenge car that spools up at 2500 rpm and is well on the go by 3500.. I've never driven a mini that has sounded happy at high revs.. Maybe I need to spend even more money

You can build the engine to power on from 2500rpm or from 6000rpm. The mini challenge car was designed to be how it is. You can design your engine to be how you want it to be (within reason). Throwing a big turbo onto a motor and expecting results isn't how it works. Just like you can build a n/a engine that "sucks balls" below 6000rpm.

And as for rpm, thats part of the "design" as well. Depending on how you build the motor it might only manage 5000rpm or it might do 10,000rpm and how you build it depends on how long its going to last.


If you want to get more power cheap, then sure go and find the right size turbo, plumb it all up and enjoy. But if you want it to be the best performing, most responsive and nicest to drive then you have to do lots of research, planning, work etc.

check this out.. looks mental to me mate... a supercharger has more grunt as it is on boost all the time so makes a 1.3 feel like a 2L

http://www.youtube.com/user/johnnyst1?b ... TkIpM2Ib90

small turbos are pretty good now the gt17 is used alot and spools up at about 2,00 to 2,500 revs.

i think turbo is more high a rev engine, a charger is low down torque monster and low down grunt but all over by 6k make sure you get a good cam to work with it, that is the key.

i have driven my mates metro turbo race mini *t25 turbo i think, has a phase 2 cam running 3psi only and it made 93 ATW and i tell you what the pull on it was mental, i loved it pulls harder then my swift gti mini and mine has more power.

it pulled all the way upto 6k he runs a 3.7diff and helical gear kit but wants to go down to a 3.1 as the 3.7 is to hard to drive.

with a longer diff ratio you can hold onto boost in the same gear longer.

low rev engines live longer fact... a charger is a lower rev range driver i think.
my set up will be below just need to hook the last bits up.

sc12 10psi pulley
re83T cam
quaife diff
Forced induction fully ported flowed head 8.4.1 comp
roller rockers 1.3
sc components injection kit and ignition
std bottom end wont be revving it past 6k
normal hypatech pistons wish i bought better but im sure these will be ok
helical gears & drops shot peened gears & cryo treated. "" running in car no problems**

once i get this spec up & running ill post up what power it makes, ill be buying the sc kit tonight.

I am a big fan of turbo chargers, Garrett GT12 would be best choice if you want low down power without wasting any power to make some.
All the builders(for turbo) recons GT12 is the best choice for what I wanted( more power at the bottom end)
And turbo you can blow through so you can inter cool it too

_________________
Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak

good find a GT12 does look good

I didn't build it for longevity, that's what a crappy daily, or jap car car is for. I built it for fun and drive it mostly at high speed in the country, so it only see the high rpm shifts a handful of time per drive. Just so happens it became a daily and is still going strong after over 20,000kms of supercharged abuse with plenty more milage of the motor pre-boost. And remember it doesn't make that much power.

There is no real need to shift at such a high rpm as the power is very linear from idle until 6000rpm where it starts to slow down. It definitely does not suck balls under 6000rpm. But shifting while it's still accelerating like a mofo is no fun at all, which is the purpose of the car and A-series do love the revs! The car sounds and feel amazing over 6 grand (not much over as it'll stopping making power very soon and only for a short time as it is loud as all hell). If your going to light foot it around in the low rpm range then you might be taking away the best feature of the supercharged (or any performance Mini engine for that matter designed for decent rpms). You may as well drive a commi or something instead.

Or just be happy with what you have already.

_________________
1964 Morris 850, 1330 Supercharged - 81.8hp atws.
1975 Leyland Mini S 1100S powered - Nice and reliable.
1977 Leyland Mini LS - Project LS-T

I didn't say I was going to light foot it around just because the revs aren't off the clock doesn't mean ur not driving hard.. Just not wearin the engine out as much

Yeah, fair enough. For a different engine build than mine that would be an acceptable thing to say. But unfortunately, my car accelerates too quickly in low gears so getting the full power band out of the car makes driving it a lot quicker. Not so much the case in 3rd gear. but definitely in 1st and 2nd as my 1st gear is way too short for the car. It's a Mini K 'box with a 3.4 diff and 1st dissappears in an instant. An S gearbox which I think have a longer 1st gears, or a close ratio 'box would be much better.

_________________
1964 Morris 850, 1330 Supercharged - 81.8hp atws.
1975 Leyland Mini S 1100S powered - Nice and reliable.
1977 Leyland Mini LS - Project LS-T

MK1 S (3 synchro) has a nicer 1st gear, MK2 S is much the same as yours.... and yes, it just vanishes. I think a 3.2 diff makes a lot of sense

For me, I'd rather have a turbocharger on a small engine and a supercharger on a big engine. The reason is that a supercharger uses something silly like 30% of an engines poer just to run itself, and on a small car that will give a bit of a choked effect below certain revs until it kicks in and does something.

I took an Abarth 500 Esseesse for a drive the other day. It may have only had a 1368cc engine but ****** hell did that thing move when you put your foot down!
I like the whine or a good blower, but prefer the smoother power delivery you can get from a turbo.

I think supercharges have a smoother delivery of power in my opinion. Constantly running applying power in comparison to the kick you get when a turbo hits boost . Each to their own i guess.

_________________
http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71255

I'm seriously considering a SC12 on one of my 2 1100 or maybe on the next 1275 build

_________________
Stop Licking the Dog...I Don't Care Who Started It

if anyone wants a brand new Eaton blower (aka MINI supercharger) then give us a yell, we`re not going to use it

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Well well well,

All I can say is... Big turbo with big lag... might not be practicle.... But nothing brings a bigger smile as the massive hit that holds you in your seat.

Or if you were going to use it as a track car... maybe a predictable superchager is the way to go...

But a BIG WHOLY F smile can be priceless.

_________________
Baracade
Relationships! The only time you get to sleep with the enemy!
1972 US Export Moke in Bundaberg QLD

It`s all about "Designing" the """PACKAGE""" for a certain """POWER-DELIVERY""" of an engine

all these people who go on & on about how a supercharger is better for down-low & a turbo is better for up-top,,, is basically crap ... they either-> don`t know what they`re talking about & have listened to too many others who also don`t know what they`re talking about.... or--> they have simply taken a general rule-of-thumb approach , which can also be quite miss-leading & ill-informed --->(or they`re still living in the 60`s)

A baby turbo like a little CT20-Gt12 will give power almost immediately on a mini engine,,, there`s virtually no lag to speak of & certainly won`t give you a pig to drive, then suddenly a big Hit

alternatively a huge supercharger will work quite well up high in the revs, no problem what-so-ever, with the correctly sized blower with the correct pulley ratio

it`s all "do-able" tho,,,, you """CAN""" have a turbo that works down low & you """CAN""" have a supercharger that works up top. . . . simple as that

But!!!!---> its the power curve, or the delivery of the power that is what were really after... the quality of performance combined with the drive-ability is what makes a nice package

If you want awesome power with a turbo, then yes you would "Up-size" (hybrid) the turbo to suit higher revs to work the higher boost range & yes you will sacrifice low down power & drive-ability

you can have a supercharger set-up with a pulley ratio for big boost down low, but you`ll probably break gearboxes & have almost no usable power in the higher revs

sooooo,,, the trick is to """Design""" the system to work well for your intended purpose---> """""""""As A PACKAGE"""""""

Just simply bunging on a blower, """around-about""" the right-ish size will (if you did it well) work quite well for all round performance & drivability & most probably scare the average Joe/Jane enough to poo their pants & obviously the pub bragging rights are good too, because everyone goes "Wow that car is awesome" & it won`t cost you an arm & a leg

But put it on a race circuit & watch a decent N/A car flog it... unless it`s been """Designed""" well.

Traction & gearbox reliability are both huge issues for minis & it needs to be addressed within the designed "Package",,, hence why the factory did the metro turbos & ERA turbos with slightly larger turbos than optimum, simply to save the gearboxes from being "over-torqued" & busting pre-maturely from the torque produced down low from a "Well-designed" power curve, ... resulting in a bit of a "Hit" in the back when boost finally rises, but they were only soft boosted things from the factory with most of them only having 4 or 5lbs boost,,, add more boost tho & you have a weapon, higher in the revs, because that`s where the turbo map is suited to be working for that engine package

this "design" (for want of a better description) allowed the factory to use minimal mods to the std 1275 engine to obtain a fairly reliable & fairly drivable power unit, but still have some decent poke for the average boy/girl racer

But it`s not "optimum" for power "Delivery",,, it was a """""Compromise""" & thats often what is needed to be done to keep them both drive-able & reliable, (Back in the day)

things have moved on tho since then,,, far better stuff is available now-days

Add a "decent" cyl head (7 or 8 port or twin-cam) to a later designed turbo or supercharger & you have a whole new ball-game... smooth & drivable & heaps of grunt , all the way through the entire rev range (Low & High) whether you turbo or supercharge,,, but yet again i have to say that if you stuff-up the "design" & get a few things wrong which don`t quite suit your intended application & you can easily end up with a pig to drive that fails with breakages

so it`s more about the "Package" ,,, & a better "Package" starts with a better cyl head design & better valve control (Cam-s) ,,, & a later designed charger (whether it be exhaust driven or belt driven)

Anyone can bung a lung onto a dirty old 5-port & make it work ok,,, but to make a really nice power curve that is both drivable & powerful, that also happens to last , comes down to a well thought out & well """""Designed Package"""" ,,, whether it`s turbo-d or supercharged means diddly squat , apart from what it looks like under the bonnet

superchargers don`t give you free power,,, they use engine power to drive them so they`re not the "Best" thing, & they FILL an engine bay quite full,,,, turbos don`t take much power from the engine to drive them, & these days are far better design compared to the old ones, so they spool up far quicker with very little lag (if any) when designed to suit your own intended "Package", but do tend to create more under-bonnet heat (compared to a super-charger)

However, & yet again, these days we have had the benefit of years & years of research & development thrown into the "forced-induction" swimming pool & under-bonnet heat can easily be reduced to a minimum causing almost no issues what-so-ever,,,, & add to the fact that the ability (through simple design) to have a far cooler inlet charge (more simply) via the use of a decent intercooler (Air or water) makes for far greater power efficiency, so you really can have your cake & eat it with a turbo these days

There is a Garrett turbo package available to suit "Any-ones" needs/wishes & as long as the """WHOLE power-unit PACKAGE""" is designed & sorted well,,, before the engine lands in the engine-bay,,, then you`re going to have a wonderful drive-able smooth torque-y engine that will deliver the power """"the way YOU want it"""" --> low or high , or all the way through the rev range

this can also be done with a super-charger

either way, they`re both do-able & will both work very well, provided it`s "Designed" well to suit your intended application

not everyone wants a super-charged, overly-full, complicated engine bay

not everyone wants to spend the amount of money needed to have a well sorted turbo donk either

but to just "generalize" about one being better than the other is just stoopid & simply shows a lack of knowledge/experience,,,, """"Especially""" when we`re talking such small engines as ours & with such a plethora of later, well designed, forced-inductions systems now avaliable

don`t get me wrong,,, i`m not sick of hearing it all the time,,, but i must admit, i am sick of hearing it all the time

super-charge or turbo charge,,, do whatever you want,,, heck you can do both if you want & have massive power the entire way through the entire rev range, if you wanted & if you were willing to throw enough money at it to do so

Just be ready to repair/replace gearboxes, whether you supercharge or turbo charge ,,, if you have more than 160hp on tap,,, you`ll be repairing/replacing gearboxes at some stage,,, either way

so it really dont matter which one you have, provided you`ve set it up ("Designed") the """"PACKAGE"""" to suit your intended purpose/application.



end rant

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.