Joined
·
401 Posts
I hear all different amounts of power from both ends. Lets say they both have cams N/A a 276 and the 2.8 256 both have chips, both have exhaust, headers etc. Who would win in the 1/4 mile???
![]()
N/A cars (3.1) vs. Supercharged VR6 (2.8)
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Joined
·
829 Posts
Re: N/A cars (gholland93)
also depends on the drivers and the wieght....its hard to say. Maybe you should ask which would have more HP.
also depends on the drivers and the wieght....its hard to say. Maybe you should ask which would have more HP.
Re: N/A cars (Sleeper6341)
supercharged would make more power definately, no doubt about that, we dont drive iVTEC Hondas here making 100hp/L (imagine 280hp VR6s
![]()
)
Overall the supercharger would be faster on the highway and most tracks. Quarter mile however might be differnt as launching a car with that much low end power because very difficult on the driver AND drivetrain. So quarter miles could be very close between SCs and even heavilly moded 2.8L blocks
supercharged would make more power definately, no doubt about that, we dont drive iVTEC Hondas here making 100hp/L (imagine 280hp VR6s
Overall the supercharger would be faster on the highway and most tracks. Quarter mile however might be differnt as launching a car with that much low end power because very difficult on the driver AND drivetrain. So quarter miles could be very close between SCs and even heavilly moded 2.8L blocks
Re: N/A cars (gholland93)
Depends a lot on the driver.
Centrifugal superchargers don't make much more than stock torque down low,
and only really come on up high. I can testify to how hard it can
be to launch one at the track, because it'll bog at low rpms, and spin
the tires at high, so it ends up having a lot to do with how
well you can feather the clutch while holding the rpms constant
at about 3500-4000 rpms. I still think the S/C VR6 will have the
advantage 3 times out 4, but it's not 100% given. The Jersey folks
have shown how fast NA VR6's can go, and I know a lot of S/C VR6's
that don't run times that fast or consistently.
On the highway, it's a whole different story. S/C VR6 runs
away every time.
ian
Depends a lot on the driver.
Centrifugal superchargers don't make much more than stock torque down low,
and only really come on up high. I can testify to how hard it can
be to launch one at the track, because it'll bog at low rpms, and spin
the tires at high, so it ends up having a lot to do with how
well you can feather the clutch while holding the rpms constant
at about 3500-4000 rpms. I still think the S/C VR6 will have the
advantage 3 times out 4, but it's not 100% given. The Jersey folks
have shown how fast NA VR6's can go, and I know a lot of S/C VR6's
that don't run times that fast or consistently.
On the highway, it's a whole different story. S/C VR6 runs
away every time.
ian
Re: N/A cars (2manvr6)
If it's a sprint from 0-70, it's all about hp/weight, and you may take a blown VR6. At higher speeds, it's all about
max hp and drag. The weight advantage becomes less and less relevant the faster you go. Your Mk2 VR6 has 50
less hp, minimum, and is a brick aerodynamically even compared to a mk3 or mk4 Golf.
I've run with a number of Mk1 and Mk2 VR6's on group drives here in Colorado, and while
they're very quick, they tend to be compromised by their even worse weight distribution (lighter car,
but same heavy engine), in the twisties, and on the highway they'll hit the wall about where my car
is starting to really stretch its legs.
ian
quote:[HR][/HR]
On the highway, it's a whole different story. S/C VR6 runs
away every time.
unless the vr6 is built and sprays the happy juice (like i intend to do)
[HR][/HR]
Can add nitrous to a S/C VR6 too.. But then the original question wasn't about S/C VR6 versus nitrous was it?On the highway, it's a whole different story. S/C VR6 runs
away every time.
unless the vr6 is built and sprays the happy juice (like i intend to do)
[HR][/HR]
quote:[HR][/HR]
besides my NA mk2 vr6 would run a blown mk3[HR][/HR]
I don't want to turn this into a pissing match, but the physics just doesn't agree with this statement.besides my NA mk2 vr6 would run a blown mk3[HR][/HR]
If it's a sprint from 0-70, it's all about hp/weight, and you may take a blown VR6. At higher speeds, it's all about
max hp and drag. The weight advantage becomes less and less relevant the faster you go. Your Mk2 VR6 has 50
less hp, minimum, and is a brick aerodynamically even compared to a mk3 or mk4 Golf.
I've run with a number of Mk1 and Mk2 VR6's on group drives here in Colorado, and while
they're very quick, they tend to be compromised by their even worse weight distribution (lighter car,
but same heavy engine), in the twisties, and on the highway they'll hit the wall about where my car
is starting to really stretch its legs.
ian
Re: N/A cars (Daemon42)
To jump back into this covo i stand by what i said about the quarter mile of even highly moded 2.8L NAs (let alone 3.1Ls) can still win on 2.8L SCs, its a drivers race.
On the highway totally different story, you dont have to worry about launches and getting all that power to the road off the line. Power and drag coefficiant come into play, and with drags being equal, the one with the more average power output wins.
In other words, VR6 SC pulls on a maxed out NA 2.8L-3.1L VR6 all day long on the highway
To jump back into this covo i stand by what i said about the quarter mile of even highly moded 2.8L NAs (let alone 3.1Ls) can still win on 2.8L SCs, its a drivers race.
On the highway totally different story, you dont have to worry about launches and getting all that power to the road off the line. Power and drag coefficiant come into play, and with drags being equal, the one with the more average power output wins.
In other words, VR6 SC pulls on a maxed out NA 2.8L-3.1L VR6 all day long on the highway
Re: N/A cars (Daemon42)
Can add nitrous to a S/C VR6 too.. But then the original question wasn't about S/C VR6 versus nitrous was it?
-i doubt a S/C vr6 would be able to handle to amount of no2 im gonna shoot unless its a built motor (like mine) but then your talking about a $10K vr6 motor
on the highway they'll hit the wall about where my car
is starting to really stretch its legs.
-hehe why dont we go out and see how fast our cars will go
![]()
i dont see how your car will have a higher top speed unless you have different gearing cuz at this point my car is only limited by the gears and its good ol box shape
![]()
[Modified by 2manvr6, 2:46 AM 3-23-2003]
Can add nitrous to a S/C VR6 too.. But then the original question wasn't about S/C VR6 versus nitrous was it?
-i doubt a S/C vr6 would be able to handle to amount of no2 im gonna shoot unless its a built motor (like mine) but then your talking about a $10K vr6 motor
on the highway they'll hit the wall about where my car
is starting to really stretch its legs.
-hehe why dont we go out and see how fast our cars will go
[Modified by 2manvr6, 2:46 AM 3-23-2003]
Re: N/A cars (gholland93)
![]()
quote:[HR][/HR] Who would win in the 1/4 mile??? [HR][/HR]
so if this is the original ? ill stick to this, in the 1/4 mile both are mk3 bodies lets say, the S/C should win IF it can hook up the power to the ground, but my money is on the 3.1.....only cuz i love NA
Re: N/A cars (2manvr6)
I think an interesting way of comparing NA with 2.8 supercharging is to compare the dynos. This is a Matrix 3.1 dyno. (If anyone knows how covert a pdf file to jpg, please email it to me,and I'll post it: [email protected]):
http://www.matrixengineering.cc/dyno/31vs28.pdf
Then contemplate the addition of a CCH Big Valve Head:
![]()
Now compare the two with the VF dyno:
![]()
With the 3.1 job, the torque comes in earlier and appears from the dynos to be pretty close to the VF supercharger's numbers.
Bear in mind though that dynos are notoriously different in the way in which they measure torque and power.
[Modified by mdt, 9:18 AM 3-23-2003]
I think an interesting way of comparing NA with 2.8 supercharging is to compare the dynos. This is a Matrix 3.1 dyno. (If anyone knows how covert a pdf file to jpg, please email it to me,and I'll post it: [email protected]):
http://www.matrixengineering.cc/dyno/31vs28.pdf
Then contemplate the addition of a CCH Big Valve Head:
Now compare the two with the VF dyno:
With the 3.1 job, the torque comes in earlier and appears from the dynos to be pretty close to the VF supercharger's numbers.
Bear in mind though that dynos are notoriously different in the way in which they measure torque and power.
[Modified by mdt, 9:18 AM 3-23-2003]
Re: N/A cars (IwannaGTI)
Yeah. Thats because his car weighs next to nothing. I think hes only making like 190whp or in that range.
The basic question was a 3.1 vr6 versus a 2.8SC'd vr6. Once you take into variables like nitrous, weight reduction, etc. the comparison becomes futile.
BTW- This question would be better to compare a certain brand of SC. Any of the 10psi kit will be alot quicker than the new 6psi VF kits.
Yeah. Thats because his car weighs next to nothing. I think hes only making like 190whp or in that range.
The basic question was a 3.1 vr6 versus a 2.8SC'd vr6. Once you take into variables like nitrous, weight reduction, etc. the comparison becomes futile.
BTW- This question would be better to compare a certain brand of SC. Any of the 10psi kit will be alot quicker than the new 6psi VF kits.
Re: N/A cars (leebro61)
Those just prove what everyone is saying, SCs make more power and will always win on a highway race.
in a quarter mile its all the launch, launch is more important that anything. If you cant get power to the ground your not going to get good times. A heavily tuned NA VR6 can run same numbers or better than a VR6-SC, but the SC may have higher traip times to prove it.
By the way, that dyno of the VR6 SC vs. "bone stock" is wrong actually, that isnt a bone stock VR6... look at the torque curve it has a Schrick intake manifold...
I gotta give props to VW's MK4 manifold its way smoother
Those just prove what everyone is saying, SCs make more power and will always win on a highway race.
in a quarter mile its all the launch, launch is more important that anything. If you cant get power to the ground your not going to get good times. A heavily tuned NA VR6 can run same numbers or better than a VR6-SC, but the SC may have higher traip times to prove it.
By the way, that dyno of the VR6 SC vs. "bone stock" is wrong actually, that isnt a bone stock VR6... look at the torque curve it has a Schrick intake manifold...
I gotta give props to VW's MK4 manifold its way smoother
Joined
·
401 Posts
Re: N/A cars (phinn)
Well lets say this... I would like the best of both worlds. if you had a S/C and then something that increases your low end torque, then you mihght beat a 3.1L vehicle...
Well lets say this... I would like the best of both worlds. if you had a S/C and then something that increases your low end torque, then you mihght beat a 3.1L vehicle...
Re: N/A cars (gholland93)
![]()
That happens to be the car of my future.
ian
quote:[HR][/HR]Well lets say this... I would like the best of both worlds. if you had a S/C and then something that increases your low end torque, then you mihght beat a 3.1L vehicle...[HR][/HR]
Ya. It's called a supercharged R32.
That happens to be the car of my future.
ian
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!