Silly thread tangent
 

If money were no object I, too, would go with 2.6L T4 ... but ...

The reason I started a new thread was because I'd like to know why turbocharged and not supercharged? I understand the differences between the two despite being a technoklutz as I have investigated this issue for my h2o-VW when it gets closer to warranty expiration.

I also realize that a turbocharger can be "tuned" and/or upgraded whereas a supercharger is basically a bolt-on. Is this the reason or is/are there other(s)?

The reason I ask is I find the off-and-on spooling of the 1.8T in everyday traffic very annoying, and I don't much care for the turbo-lag either.

(For the record and for whatever it's worth, the 1.8T is currently in a Passat. Also, I have a Golf TDI. It does not have the same noticeable characteristics. The car in question currently has a good ol' 2.0 in it.)

Thanks,
René

2 reasons why I think turbo charge T4 would be great:

1. T4 is very torquey, so there should be enough grunt down low to make up for the lag.

2. Turbo is very tunable

Superchargers vs Turbochargers
 

Good one this, it will always create a split between the closest of friends.

I like both of the forced induction ideas but I think the general consensus has been that a Supercharger can produce boost all the way through the rev range where as a turbo can't.
You can get around this by using Sequential turbos which is very expensive and very difficult to achieve (Subaru did it with the Legacy Twin turbo B4).

On the street I am more into Superchargers but when it comes to racing.. a huge or even 2 huge (not sequential) turbos are hard to beat. Just think about the Porsche 935/78!

MG

I'm with Michael on this one.

I believe that Turbos are more efficient, a supercharger robs quite a bit of horsepower (in comparison of course), however,
since a SC is driven off the crank, as soon as the RPM's go up, so does the power.

So for an autoX engine, SC is the way to go, for drag and/or road racing, Turbo is probably the best solution.

As to the 'bolt on' statement, yes, a SC is easier to install, because there is not piping from the exhaust etc to install, however, depending on how much boost you run, you still need to (re)tune you engine, mess with the ECU, fuel pressure, timing, etc.

Rob.

Great replies, guys. Thanks.

An additional addendum without starting yet another new thread: Would either require body modifications using a Type IV* with a Super Beetle?

* - It is likely that I will opt for a 2270 when the time comes given my anticipated budgetary constraints. I imagine the 2563 and the newly added 2739 will be out of reach -- besides, the only forced air the latter two would need is the downward force to keep me on the road.

You might have to put stand-off on you r decklid, or remove it completely.
A SC will generally take up less space than a turbo, but since engine bay space is already limited, I'm pretty sure there will be a clearance problem.

Rob.

Moggy has an eaton M62 blower on his bug, no body mods (If I remember right!)


I have this, just waiting for time, money and inclination:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/vdubhub/a_temp/all_bits.jpg
Eaton M45 blower, fuel injection manifolds and various gubbins :D


Cheers for now,
Sam C

If you really are interested in supercharging:

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/blownbugs/

Blown Bugs Yahoo group :D
There are pictures of moggies bug in the photo album (must be a member!)

Cya,
Sam c

With 911 cooling a small supercharger will fit without standoffs.
ken


Hmmm tried to attach a pic but it didn't work....
ken