PDA

View Full Version : throttle bodies or turbo???



Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 01:33
right i wanna gain some more power out of my valver but debatin on which 1 to have, the more opinions the better!!
basically i already have:
stage 2 chip
piper fast road cams
vernier pulleys
port, polished head
and the usual straight through exhaust, decat air filter ect
they were all done at hillpower!!!

which would be the better of the 2 for my car and what would the difference in price and power be???
Cheers all

clean16v
22-06-2005, 01:36
Depends on how you want to use the car i supose. I opted for T/B's because the power delivery is very managable and instant. Imagine going around a corner, on the verge of grip, then all of a sudden your turbo comes on boost. Or launching for example, a big hit of boost, or progressive power?
Big power and torque for the strip, no doubt turbo all the way, but for a drivers car, where handling is an issue, T/B IMO.
Also, the stresses on the 'box, clutch driveshafts etc etc are ten fold with a turbo because of its hard hitting power nature.

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 01:40
i c, how much did your throttle bodies cost clean and where did you get em from, if i had em done ill go to hillpower (no offence to any other company im sure your all good 2) coz nick did a great job on my other mods!!!
im not really a twisty sorta person, i much prefer straight line, off the lights type of stuff so ur probably sayin a turbo would be better for that???
ive seen a vid of your clean n thats some awsome machine, im lovin it :wink:

clean16v
22-06-2005, 01:56
I got mine done at AngelWorks Technology, through BenR.
It depends as i said, the stresses on the already weak 'box are tenfold on turbo application, and i'd much rather launch an N/A car then a turbo one, throttle response is instant and power is progressive.
I'm gonna give a biased opinion though as i hate turbo motors, only good for big torque, no top end power, ver unpredictable, lazy throttle response etc etc

StevieP
22-06-2005, 03:35
I'd go for T/B's mate, still gonna make it shift like a bastard down the strip, around a track it'll be nice to know the boost won't throw you into a tirewall, plus its going to be more reliable (in my humble limited-experience opinion)...

I'm guessing putting a turbo onto a 16v lump will cost a lot more than TB's anyway, althou once it IS turbo'd you'd get more bhp for your quids.....

Ignore that last comment, get her throttle bodied!!! Then you might be able to get away from me :wink:

Rich
22-06-2005, 09:02
TB's all the way for reliability issues as well cos IMO if a car aint turbo'd from the factory obviously it aint gonna like it afterwards! as a much used car it will be in bits all the time replacing parts before they break etc more regularly imo so i would go for TB's :)

2 live
22-06-2005, 09:09
personally id go for a 2.0 first, then take it from there. starting off with 2.0 power is a bit of a shortcut to higher power/torque, and can always be improved on at a later date.

but imo both routes are expensive for the gains.........i.e bang for buck.....is it worth it??

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 09:44
rich has hit the nail on the head, reliablility is definatly an issue!!!
i do love turbos, the dump valve and the turbo winding up, sounds awsome!!!
but then ive also heard that throttle bodies sound awsome 2!!!
and a 2.0l has also crossed my mind, i think at the minute mines runnin 120bhp at the wheels, not sure what that is at the flywheel, its ok but i have got used to it now and want something really quick again!

And steve we will definatly have that race as soon as i gain more power lol

Dave BB
22-06-2005, 09:47
For More information on the Turbo conversion from us, PM me. Or failing that, pop down and see us and have a look at our turbo valver and judge for yourself.

Dave BBT

northy
22-06-2005, 09:50
imo 120bhp is around 140 145 at the fly mate.

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 09:59
so its not far off williams power then, i have thought about havin a 2.0l before but could never afford it, what about modifications cams ect do they have the same reliablity as the valver engines coz mine runs perfect and havnt had any problems???
who else on the site has throttle bodies, would love to know their opinion!!!
i know they may be biest, but would like to know their exsperience with t/b's!!!

northy
22-06-2005, 10:04
my williams 3 with manifold decat and cat back is 134 atw & 177 at the fly.

Rich
22-06-2005, 10:12
rich has hit the nail on the head, reliablility is definatly an issue!!!

well by all means go look/ talk to dave @ BB and see what he has to offer but i'm sure with a turbo it wouldn't be that long before the box is blown to smitherines!

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 10:12
and i bet that didnt cost half of what the guy paid that did the mods in my car lol, yet you have gained more power!
what bout a williams engine on throttle bodies, good idea-bad idea?

Rich
22-06-2005, 10:13
williams engine on TB's would be super cool mate if you have the pennies to do it :twisted:

KingStromba
22-06-2005, 10:15
Im strongly in the same camp as Mark Ritchspeed on this. Spend the money on brakes and suspension.

£ for £ money spent on renewing / upgrading suspension will make the car faster than spending on engine.


Id get Williams front track and a brake conversion. That will make your car more fun than any engine mod.

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 10:18
well wen my 6 numbers come up ill get it done, alond with the evo and skyline lol.
wll at the minute im swaying towards a 2.0l conversion and then go from there!
ive always wanted a turbo, before i bought this car i was thinking about the ktec turbo'd clio but this car came up so i had it, plus it was my girlfriends brother who i bought it off so i knew how it had been driven and how well it was looked after so i bought ut!
ppppppsssstttttttt

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 10:20
i have tar-ox grooved discs on the front and the avos handle pretty well!!! :wink:

KingStromba
22-06-2005, 10:20
But youve spent so much on your engine alread? Dont you want to enjoy it?

Nothing wrong with the 1.8 engine. :D

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 10:24
well i might borrow my mums car for a week, nice deisel estate, nice n slow, that should help me appriciate my car more lol!!

is anybody goin to pod on the 16th??? would love to see some of the cars on t/b's!!!

Slithers
22-06-2005, 10:31
If you have the turbo kicking in low down you should be able to keep it on boost while thrashing it, + they sound amazing, mind you so do throttle bodies, and they free up soooooo much space in the engine bay it must make the car so easy to work on, as well as dishing out more power.

Tough choice young Jedi

northy
22-06-2005, 10:32
there are the usual suspects going to the pod mate...my 1st time aswell.

plus there is the chance to witness stromba getting panned by a girl. :lol:

KingStromba
22-06-2005, 10:33
How much is a throttle body conversion then?

Could you get a throttle body conversion to say 200 bhp and go for reliablity instead of outright power?

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 10:38
thats what im thinkin stromba, both t/b's and turbo have there yays and nays!!!
turbo gives you awsome power and sounds great with more potential to get higher power but throttle bodies still give you good power and you still have the reliability!!!
yep this is my first time at pod so ill need some practice, how much does it cost to get in?

KingStromba
22-06-2005, 10:39
But if power is your goal, it has to be a 2 litre conversion first.

2 live
22-06-2005, 10:40
yes you could...


bodies can be set up to however u want, some ecus even let you have 2 maps that you can switch between, an economy map and race map


but like i say.bang for buck....is it worth it??

northy
22-06-2005, 10:40
think its £20 to run for the saturday and sunday...add your name to the list on the post under meetings and events page mate.

KingStromba
22-06-2005, 10:41
For a 13.9, not really.

northy
22-06-2005, 10:43
For a 13.9, not really.

1st run of the day - i recon there is alot more to come !

2 live
22-06-2005, 10:44
id prefer to look at it as a cost/performance thing.

fair play to mehdi, and ben, cos the t/bd beasty is quick.......just not £000s quicker than std if u know wot i mean. i know mehdi does lol

mehdis is quicker than i was expecting tbh, but for the amount outlayed on it...id be a bit disppointed with the results IMHO

clean16v
22-06-2005, 11:32
I would def go 2l first. I've been modding Clio's for a while, and the next step to cams, headwork, re-map etc is T/B's, so when i bought the white one, instead of messing around with cams, headwork, re-map etc etc that can cost thousands of pounds, i just went straight for the T/B conversion.
The car rana 13.7 at York, making it the fastest 1/4 miling N/A clio that the forums know of, that will do for me. On the roads not a lot can touch it either.
I'll be at Pod in July, you can have a look for yourself mate, also be hoping to beat my 13.7!

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 12:08
yeah thatll be great clean cheers mate!!!
well ive just emailed dave at bbpt and he has given me aload of details on the turbo conversion and it does seem pretty damn good tbh!!!
but i wanna see both, do u know if there will be any turbo'd clios at pod?

2 live
22-06-2005, 12:24
nick read would usually be there, his is about the quickest turbod f7 we know of, runs 13.3s at pod, but unfortunately hes selling i believe.

nice looking motor too

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 12:49
yeah id love that car it looks the nuts!!!!
i have a vid of it from a guy that made a vid on williams and sold them on ebay, good dvd lol

can somebody explain super chargers to me as i have never really looked em up before!!!

Zollo
22-06-2005, 12:59
can somebody explain super chargers to me as i have never really looked em up before!!!

There are actually three different types of supercharger installation. These are the Centrifugal, Roots and Screw type systems. Although none are able to provide the same power increase as a turbocharger system, and they all, to some extent, sap power by driving off the crank, they do have some significant advantages over a turbocharger.

Firstly, turbo-lag is non-existent, as they don’t have to wait for exhaust-gas-induced boost to build in the system. Not only do you get rid of the lag, but you also get rid of the sudden massive surges in power. This makes the car easier to drive, improves traction, and is less stressful on engine components and drive-train.

Secondly, as they are not using extremely hot exhaust gases, operating temperatures are much lower and therefore reliability and efficiency is better. Combine these factors together and it means additional cooling is not necessary, strengthening of components is not as necessary, and maintenance and fitment is easier because they have less moving parts. Of course, this is the theory and in some instances theory don't always translate into real world practice! :roll:

Most manufacturers use Roots and Screw type chargers (like Jag XKs, Cooper Ss). But most aftermarket kits aim for value for money, so go for the centrifugal type. Centrifugal units (unlike Roots and Screw chargers that work by pulling compressed air through intermeshing lobes – similar to gears – via a crank driven belt) work much like a turbocharger, with an impeller (spun by the crank) forcing compressed air into the intake system. The system is much simpler than the other two, and so is cheaper to produce (and therefore buy) and easier to install. It also works at even lower temperatures, improving efficiency further.

The drawback of the centrifugal system, however, is that boost pressure increases relative to engine revs, and it cannot offer the linear, low-rev output available from roots and screw systems. So although not suffering nearly as much lag as a turbocharger system, it needs revs to make power.

Phew. :D

Jamie.
22-06-2005, 13:08
looks like u copied and pasted that from somewhere mate :wink:

Zollo
22-06-2005, 13:09
Copied and Pasted, but not from the internet! Wrote it all by myself :D

Andyvalver
22-06-2005, 13:18
Turbo's sound good but i hate the lag. Put ya foot to the metal and :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: your off like a rocket.

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 13:46
looks like u copied and pasted that from somewhere mate :wink:

took the words right out my mouth lol

zollo thanks very much mate quality write up

so how much to super chargers normally cost and the big question is ARE THEY WORTH IT?

has anybody supercharged their clio on here?

Zollo
22-06-2005, 13:53
I know that a centrifugal type conversion cost about £4000 from Regal Autosport, but that's for Vauxhalls. Quite a popular mod for Saxo owners - might be worth looking in those circles.

I'd go for throttle bodies anyway. Most reliable power and cheapest by some way. If you want to be different, a supercharger is the way forward though!

Mark_Ritchspeed
22-06-2005, 13:57
If your seriously considering turbo power in a Clio, I would be more tempted to go with an engine swap from an earlier Evo matched to a fwd Mitsubishi gearbox with lsd as standard.

The lump and box will probably work out at around £1500 including ecu and then it will have to be fitted.

The pros are, its an engine designed to take well over 250bhp as standard and the fwd Mitsu gearboxes are strong and the conversion cost whould work out cheaper than doing the Clio engine. The cons, well it will take more fabrciation to make it fit compared to turboing the Clio lump.

What does the turbo conversion cost on the F7r lump anyway?

Zollo
22-06-2005, 13:58
Think it was £5500 from BB tuning. :shock:

northy
22-06-2005, 14:06
yep...but i recon we could get it a bit lower..davids a good lad. :D

Mark_Ritchspeed
22-06-2005, 14:32
Still, even if it was £4k. You could easily do an Evo engined conversion for that and put a stronger box in at the same time and have a completely reliable 300bhp. Unless you uprate the Renault box seriously its going to fall apart with the torque. I reckon to do the conversion properly and with a suitably strong box your not going to see much change from £7k.

2 live
22-06-2005, 14:43
or you could fit the engine from a meg 255. standalone ecu. 172 box i think will fit if mem serves me right.

i looked into this option but decided i couldnt do with having my car off the road for however long it took.....and i dint wanna be cuttin a perfectly good shell up

see matt j3ned about the engines he has in stock

Winston
22-06-2005, 15:20
My next big engine con .......few years like lol

j3ned style and join my dub brothers 20vt stylee

or

F7R with a Eaton Cooper S supercharger

Winston
22-06-2005, 15:21
Charger con link :D

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=it_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2flnx.protoxide.it%2fStats_017%2f click.php%3fid%3d1

northy
22-06-2005, 15:38
how the hell does he close the bonnet over that blower ?

Zollo
22-06-2005, 15:43
Did you not notice the state of his bonnet?!

Crazy stuff :shock:

northy
22-06-2005, 15:43
:shock:

http://www.protoxide.it/preparazioni/clio%20volumetrico/CLIOELABORARE.jpg

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 15:43
hahaha its massive looks good though, no room for anything else in that engine bay

Winston
22-06-2005, 15:43
WOW lol

edde
22-06-2005, 20:40
or you could fit the engine from a meg 255. standalone ecu. 172 box i think will fit if mem serves me right.

see matt j3ned about the engines he has in stock

The 172 box doesn't fit the 2.0 turbo engine. You'd have to use the boxes they use as standard which arn't small.

What about sequenchial box and T/B'd 2.0? There a sequenchil box for sale on rallycar.net for £2k.

kj16v
22-06-2005, 21:34
Well not much more to add to what's been said except:
I've owned both turbos and twin 40s (kinda like prehistoric T/B) and for me it's gotta be T/Bs all the way.

With turbo's you have to make a compromise: Huge midrange torque but its all over by about 5k rpm. poor low-end torque, worse fuel economy, and the bigger the boost the worse it all gets.

Well set up T/Bs will allow you to cane it practically from idle to as high your engine will let you

I'd rather have 200bhp N/A than 200bhp turbo

Huffing chuffing wastegates and dump valve sound cool, but gurgling T/B sound f*ing quality!

Dancliovalver
22-06-2005, 21:50
so its a mixed crowd then some same throttle bodies, some say turbo's..........i should have put a poll on it lol :D

Mark_Ritchspeed
22-06-2005, 21:53
If your going to use the F7R engine as a base then stick to TB's IMO. If you want turbo power then stick a 4G63T Mitsi lump in there.

Neither will be very cheap though.

KingStromba
22-06-2005, 22:00
Throttle bodies, throttle schmodies :D

kj16v
22-06-2005, 22:17
Charger con link :D

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=it_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2flnx.protoxide.it%2fStats_017%2f click.php%3fid%3d1


OMG!!

KingStromba
22-06-2005, 22:21
Bonnet looks:


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/King_Stromba/toz.gif

BenR
22-06-2005, 23:57
centrifugal, or compressor type chargers i'm not an avid fan of, easy to fit, use little space, but their adiabatic efficiency is poor. Exit temps reach well over 100 deg C, which requires an inter or after cooling system simply for reliability and power sake.

I would run a screw type, its doesnt work on compressing air, its only a volume mover, so adiabatic efficiency is high, but the unit is a bigger.

edde
23-06-2005, 00:04
Is it juts me who has a problem beliving that sights claims that .35 bar pressure gives 208hp?
Surely even if there no heating of the air and a stock engine gives 160hp 1.35 * 160 is 200hp. Since air heats up when compressed surly they cannot be getting 160hp.
Also surly a better raditor which is slimmer and you'd be able to move that superchrager under the bonnet better?

BenR
23-06-2005, 00:10
Not sure what you trying to get at.

Boost and flow are not linear, and thus combustion process will not yeild linear outputs to boost increases above atmospheric.

Dancliovalver
23-06-2005, 00:16
youve all lost me lol :oops:

edde
23-06-2005, 00:21
Not sure what you trying to get at.

Boost and flow are not linear, and thus combustion process will not yeild linear outputs to boost increases above atmospheric.
I was under the impression .35 boost meant 35% more air pressure than stock ie a cylinder of air pressurised at 1.35 bar has 35% more than the same bottle at 1 batr ie atmospheric pressure. Surly if you throw 35% more air into an engine then you cna only hope to get 35 % more power (other things being equal)

BenR
23-06-2005, 00:27
You do not pressurise the cylinder, you pressurise the inlet manifold, or rather the area between compressor and inlet valve. The head will flow a certain volume, a t a certain rpm with a certain positive pressure. Boost pressure is a measure of restriction, if you could flow exactly the same or more than the compressor could supply, then you wouldnt register boost at all.

My point being, that if you increase boost by 50%, you are not increasing the amount it flows by 50%.

All things being equal is precisely the problem, they arent and cant.

VIPERONE
23-06-2005, 00:36
i doubt the £ per bhp of chargers outweight the tb option without a radical redesign of intercooling...something which myselfand winston will be looking at for our next project..

BenR
23-06-2005, 00:41
yup, to get a charger system working is easy, to get it working well, as a system is another matter.

KingStromba
23-06-2005, 00:45
Ive done 4

BenR
23-06-2005, 01:02
as in broken?

KingStromba
23-06-2005, 01:06
No. Conversions. Piece of piss. Do one in an afternoon now ive had the practice, First one took a whole day, but i could work out where to put the brown coolant bottle.

Purple
23-06-2005, 01:21
Other than TBs and turbos, can we increase the F7R engine displacement to improve performance (with an appropo remapp)? 2.2L or something like that. Should be a reliable and conservative upgrade. Can that be done?

BenR
23-06-2005, 02:01
yup

you can overbore a little bit to just under 2.1, but the crank requires a stroke increase with a new crank.

2.2ltr is not a cheap excercise as all the relative geometry is altered and steel everything is required.

King, good to hear someone knows what they are doing! :lol:

2 live
23-06-2005, 09:02
yeah there has been a couple 2.1 and 2.2 willy motors about.funnily enought ho.they not reliable from what iv heard, and dont really produce the goods

mines goin down to stromba tom afternoon for the charger fitting, il let u know how long it takes the aa man to come get me lmao

KingStromba
23-06-2005, 10:13
The first car i did, managed to get the car started. But shortly afterwards it burst into flames. The ones i did after that wernt so good though.

ballcrusher
24-06-2005, 22:08
ya all full of shit every one goes on about figgers but weres the proof just all talk

Martin
24-06-2005, 22:10
I think you'll find all the quick cars on here have been proven down the strip and on track.....more than can be said of the turbo'd beasts which are conspicious by their absence. Nick Read's car is the only one I know of that has been proven...and even then it broke down....a lot!

ballcrusher
24-06-2005, 22:30
thats all they are is track cars boring. people go on about we can do this we can do that but all you can do is go in a strait line and the odd bend well cool not :evil:

Martin
24-06-2005, 22:41
I don't get your point? :? Who's all talk as well? Stromba..? :wink:

KingStromba
25-06-2005, 00:05
Im all talk, i think thats been established