TURBO, SUPERCHARGER or NITROUS

[TC M3]

If you had to choose one of those power upgrades, which one would you choose?

[MPower95]

It all depends on the money you have, im assuming most people would go w/ Turbo if they had the money to buy and maintain it, then SC then nitrous. It really depends on how much money you can invest in it.

[TC M3]

Let's suppose money was not a problem, which one would you choose and why?

[outkast]

Turbo of course because of the major power increase. You have to love the sound of the blow off. But with the turbo, it can spool up early, say around 2.5k rpm's where a supercharger helps the top end.

[TC M3]

Tru

[TC M3]

Why isn't anybody picking Nitrous as an option???

[Ablahad]

Because its extremely risky, harms the engine, and lasts for a VERY short time between fill ups.

[MPower95]

b/c it is a very short spurt of power...turbo and SC are working all the time...

[TC M3]

Originally posted by MPower95
b/c it is a very short spurt of power...turbo and SC are working all the time...

True

[sec edh]

Originally posted by outkast
Turbo of course because of the major power increase. You have to love the sound of the blow off. But with the turbo, it can spool up early, say around 2.5k rpm's where a supercharger helps the top end.

You kind of have that backwards. Superchargers are wonders for mid-range and low-end, not top-end. Their parasitic drag and low boost are not conducive to a great top-end. Turbochargers, on the other hand, are fantastic on top end (check out www.to4r.com and look at the twin-turbo Supra dyno charts).

[mrsha007]

we should add NA power to this. but i picked the turbo. i love turbos, im probobly gonna go with a s/c on my car tho. oh well. but if i had the money, there is no doubt that id go NA.

[tecnodianoetic]

Turbo... but I may be a bit biased.

[Spencer]

Originally posted by Ablahad
Because its extremely risky, harms the engine, and lasts for a VERY short time between fill ups.

I would like you to explain this. I would really love to hear why Nitrous is riskier and more harmful on the engine compared to turbos or superchargers.

[Brad D.]

Originally posted by sec edh


You kind of have that backwards. Superchargers are wonders for mid-range and low-end, not top-end. Their parasitic drag and low boost are not conducive to a great top-end. Turbochargers, on the other hand, are fantastic on top end (check out www.to4r.com and look at the twin-turbo Supra dyno charts).

Not when you are talking about the supercharged BMW's. This type of supercharger makes linear power with RPMS. Look at someone who has a supercharger on their M3, check out their dyno charts, then look at this one. When you see a supercharger on the BMW's it rises linear with RPMS.

Check out the peak torque and horsepower numbers on my car. FYI, this is the old dyno graph...no more MAF problems maxing out and dipping power at 4k rpm.

[sec edh]

Originally posted by Brad D.


Not when you are talking about the supercharged BMW's. This type of supercharger makes linear power with RPMS. Look at someone who has a supercharger on their M3, check out their dyno charts, then look at this one. When you see a supercharger on the BMW's it rises linear with RPMS.

Check out the peak torque and horsepower numbers on my car. FYI, this is the old dyno graph...no more MAF problems maxing out and dipping power at 4k rpm.

You got the problems fixed with the power dips? That's good.

With your car as an example, how do other turbocharged M3s compare in their power delivery? Looking at AA's dyno charts, it looks like my initial point is fairly on target; turbos in their applications bring a lot of linear power right up to the top end.

Do you have a new dyno chart to show? Looking at yours shows a large drop in torque towards the top end whereas the AA charts show a much more mitigated drop in power (a drop, but not as great as shown by your dyno).

Damn that's a lot of torque...368 on the ground?!?

I wrote this entire thing thinking you had a supercharger, not a turbo...oh well.