|
Post by V6 on Jul 31, 2016 9:02:05 GMT
I have heard that sc systems can be a pain to set up and get running well. So this got me thinking... Which is generally the most trouble free tuning on a five? Turbo, sc, na ITB?
|
|
|
Post by myothercarsa2cv on Jul 31, 2016 9:49:27 GMT
I've had my car 2 years, it was already supercharged, and the only hassle I've had is unrelated (as far as I can tell) to boosting, apart from threading the tensioner bracket, which was my fault On the other hand, Ron at the Flock Shop has had seemingly no end of troubles with his setup. The hardest bit of setting up a supercharger is getting the belt alignment right, I think. That said, to DIY, I reckon a turbo is probably easier and with newer turbos spooling so rapidly these days lag is less and less of an issue. Of course it's all a bit 'how long is a piece of string' and how deep are your pockets as to how far you want to go. It's also probably easier to go the turbo route with lots of suppliers about. I'm certainly tempted to convert...
|
|
|
Post by V6 on Jul 31, 2016 10:00:02 GMT
My game plan so far was to get some decent fun poke, but nothing mad. I also LOVE the sound and looks of ITBs. So that is my aim, for now. My thought was it should be enough to put a smile on my face, but not cause issues - reliability or going through a hedge backwards, or losing my liscence! I want to use the car 99.9% on road, for short local blasts and to tour all over the place. Next year I want to go all around Scotland and well into Europe. So getting a problem 1000 miles from home would not be ideal!
But we all want different things from our cars. So I want to hear all YOUR REASONS for the route you took. Did you change your mind afterwards? Was it worth it? Etc...
|
|
|
Post by mplsblack on Jul 31, 2016 15:15:25 GMT
I went the turbo route and ended up with 176WHP (thanks to Skuzzle) which is healthy and puts a smile on my face and a frown on those that don't expect it the car has been reliable since it was modified but I don't use it as a daily and I pamper it some what. It was capable of putting me backwards in a hedge or losing my license before the mods that's in the hands of the driver (boring old man words) My next 5 will be NA not because I don't like the FI but because I want to try something else and ITB'sound great.
|
|
|
Post by V6 on Jul 31, 2016 15:20:26 GMT
Yep, the sound is mad fun isn't it. Bwaaarrrpppp...! I think I could enjoy that all the time, without getting into mega high speed trouble
|
|
|
Post by bombercounty5 on Jul 31, 2016 20:09:18 GMT
Totally depends on you're driving style in my opinion. I've never owned a turbo'd car, I've driven plenty, just not for me. Unless they rev like a NA car then I wouldn't be interested. For me there is nothing better than getting the most from an engine, keeping a car in the revs and in the power band. I love the characteristics of the tuned NA engine. The throttle response and the crisp sound is something else.
But it's personal opinion. With a turbo/charger you are unlocking a lot more power. more value for you're money as such.
But the way I see it, do you get in the car and think 'I really need an extra 100bhp to make this fun?' Can you get the most out of the car with the power it has now? I'd use the car for a while, get used to how it drives and really get yourself settled into the 5, exploit the power it has now and then go from there. I have just as much fun in my standard 1.6 than I have had in my 200bhp DC2. Agreed I do think they need a tad more oomph, but personally, I also think you've gotta be one hell of a driver to get the most out of a 250bhp > Mx5.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jul 31, 2016 21:31:40 GMT
i'm in same position for my track car. normally wouldn't consider turbo, but modern ones look better. reliability is key for me. many past threads don't indicate this, but that's probably a combo of diy and old ebay kit?
i'm looking at Blink Stage 1 which is drive-in drive-out for 2k fitted. i'll be realistic and say that gives 25hp. Turbo probably a bit more for good one and extra 40+hp (rather have less hp but lag-free and reliable)
This is a good thread for people to give updates as threads from 2012 probably aren't relevant anymore.
|
|
|
Post by joeytalent on Aug 1, 2016 8:08:04 GMT
Totally depends on you're driving style in my opinion. I've never owned a turbo'd car, I've driven plenty, just not for me. Unless they rev like a NA car then I wouldn't be interested. For me there is nothing better than getting the most from an engine, keeping a car in the revs and in the power band. I love the characteristics of the tuned NA engine. The throttle response and the crisp sound is something else. But it's personal opinion. With a turbo/charger you are unlocking a lot more power. more value for you're money as such. But the way I see it, do you get in the car and think 'I really need an extra 100bhp to make this fun?' Can you get the most out of the car with the power it has now? I'd use the car for a while, get used to how it drives and really get yourself settled into the 5, exploit the power it has now and then go from there. I have just as much fun in my standard 1.6 than I have had in my 200bhp DC2. Agreed I do think they need a tad more oomph, but personally, I also think you've gotta be one hell of a driver to get the most out of a 250bhp > Mx5. Agree 100%. I have plenty of fun in my ITB'd MX5, and I am definitely the restriction in the car, not the amount of power. Sure, some more straight line speed might be nice. But straight lines are boring.
|
|
|
Post by V6 on Aug 1, 2016 8:18:50 GMT
My car is bog standard and it is great fun as it is. I may not be setting the world on fire, but I am still smiling. I don't want to ruin the car. I just want a bit more. So what seemed the most sensible was going the ITB route: very simple with not much to go wrong, no real extra weight added, keeps the character of the car, looks the best, sounds the best (to me). The only downsides I can see are it costs a lot and all other conversions offer more power. But...
If I wanted the fastest thing on the road I'd probably be in a tuned up Evo or similar. So sheer speed alone is not everything. (I've owned a tuned Subaru and it was ok at best).
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 1, 2016 8:34:55 GMT
agree with bomber. best to go slowly and build up. way more fun than doing everything in one go. you learn (and enjoy) each mod. i've done wheels, tyres, suspension, timing, harnesses this way. next is the Blink optimised AFR, supposedly quite good and more than a spring adjust. after that i'm thinking head, cams, ecu (ie stage 1 Blink, maybe piecemeal) or turbo, but i'm really not convinced on FI my 1.6 keeps up very well at Brands, Snett, Cadwell. it definitely was down on power at Dony. i need just a little bit more ;-)
|
|
|
Post by V6 on Aug 1, 2016 9:34:07 GMT
My car will be done in stages anyway due to cost! Initially it will be fully serviced and refreshed then set up (suspension etc). The initial tuning will only be Racing Beat intake, manifold, exhaust, cats. Then I will save for stage 1.
|
|
|
Post by bombercounty5 on Aug 1, 2016 9:48:39 GMT
It's an age old argument at the end of the day. There's nothing stopping people modifying their cars for more power, without the intention of even driving the car in anger/to it's full potential, some people simply modify because that is the fun part for them.
There's always been a lad local to me, obsessed with just power power power. More BHP the better, pub talk bragging rights. He had a (circa) 470bhp toyota glanza, which is currently being rebuilt, and the damn thing was Canoeing usless in all fairness. Around the twisties something with that much power is rendered pretty much useless, I dare say so the same on a track too.
I remember having a go in a mildy tuned one he had to break. was circa 200bhp. TD04 turbo, map, intercooler etc, I took it around the local backroad route we have, it's a seriously twisty set of roads, probably get up to about 80mph MAX, mostly second gear corners. It was that much of an event I didn't enjoy it. The car comes on boost/off boost/on boost/off boost. that transition you get a thump in the back. Just made for a really unpredictable, un steadied drive. I could no way near get the max out of that car, take the turbo off it and i'd of had more fun. I did a back to back got straight into my (at the time) Standard 106 s1 rallye, Tired old girl with 160k on the clock. Ripped up around the back roads and with a megre 100bhp I was grinning like a chesire cat. Power comes in just how you expect and can use every single ounce of it.
OK so they are FWD car's but it's a like for like comparison in that one was standard power and another only mildly boosted.
I've found with a lot of turbo builds the power is just like an on/off switch. great for hooning down that long straight at snetterton/silverstone and round your local dual carriageway, but pretty damn scary for anything else.
These little cars were never designed to go FAST, they just need to get upto their max speed faster! 110mph is AMPLE in an mx5, unless you are building a serious race/endurance car.
I'd like to see someone who has a 250bhp + boosted 5 do some laps in their car, then stick them back out in a well sorted, mildy tuned NA car, around somewhere like blyton/cadwell or on a sprint, I bet you would be surprised at the little difference in lap times. I've watched videos of boosted 5's around tight tracks and most seem to spend half the time shutting off the throttle!
|
|
Tim
New Here
Your local friendly corporate shill!
Posts: 79
|
Post by Tim on Aug 1, 2016 10:03:37 GMT
To not split hairs, i'm gonna make an attempt at the OP's question as asked.
THE MOST RELIABLE tuning method, will and likely always will be N/A tuning.
100% in agreement though that the prefered type of power delivery is exactly that; a personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by bombercounty5 on Aug 1, 2016 10:04:36 GMT
My car is bog standard and it is great fun as it is. I may not be setting the world on fire, but I am still smiling. I don't want to ruin the car. I just want a bit more. So what seemed the most sensible was going the ITB route: very simple with not much to go wrong, no real extra weight added, keeps the character of the car, looks the best, sounds the best (to me). The only downsides I can see are it costs a lot and all other conversions offer more power. But... If I wanted the fastest thing on the road I'd probably be in a tuned up Evo or similar. So sheer speed alone is not everything. (I've owned a tuned Subaru and it was ok at best). I think you'll find that with a decent head skim, cams, exhaust system, ECU (me221) You will have a cracking little engine. Although bodies would be nice all that cash laid down to buy them doesn't really translate into mega BHP. Yes they are going to be beneficial and add that holy sweet throttle response, but you can always add them after. I reckon you'd do well to have the stage one kit from blink/skuzzle and then go from that point. you're going to be gaining an extra 30bhp, with a properly mapped set up it's going to be an absolute corker. It's what I plan on doing, I just need to decide whether to keep my wobbly short nose crank 1600 or slap an 1800 in there.
|
|
|
Post by bombercounty5 on Aug 1, 2016 10:08:50 GMT
To not split hairs, i'm gonna make an attempt at the OP's question as asked. THE MOST RELIABLE tuning method, will and likely always will be N/A tuning. 100% in agreement though that the prefered type of power delivery is exactly that; a personal preference. This is also true. Not much to go wrong with the NA tuning, All you're doing is eeking out extra ponies from the setup you already have. adding boost, you're adding more components which have the ability to break, Not that they will if set up and bought correctly! It's one thing worth thinking about though, If you do have issues with a turbo'd build and aren't the best with the spanners, it's more expense to have it booked in somewhere to get rectified. You essentially turn the car into something specialist that you can't (or shouldn't) really drop off at your local garage for them to have a prod with, it will need to go back to skuzzle or whoever has mapped it.
|
|