Supercharges

[The Porko]

I reckon supercharges would be a great addition to GT4, its already got turbos etc. Why not have Supercharges. What does every1 else think?

 

[Larzzon]

Sure,they could add that

 

[vat_man]

They're actually in GT3 for Mercedes.

 

[Majarvis]

Yeah but you can't purchase them like you can with turbos

 

[TruenoAE86]

If they had SC I think it would completely remove the need for NA tunning. But it would be nice to have it anyways.

 

[Cobraking]

Supercharge Me Viper!!

 

[Majarvis]

Originally posted by TruenoAE86
If they had SC I think it would completely remove the need for NA tunning. But it would be nice to have it anyways.

I disagree, because in real life it doesn't. In GT3, NA Tuning raises the compression ratio by having a thinner head gasket, reinforced valve springs, and among other things. In real life, you would not raise the compression ratio, if anything, you would lower it if you were to supercharge or turbocharge your engine. However, if they do put SC's in GT4, I think that they should make it like in real life, where turbos put more strain on your engine, requiring more maintenence, but SC's, just like in real life, are lower maintenence and will last longer, also not putting as much strain on the engine in the long run. But if they don't do that, then there is really no point or use for SC's. Just my thoughts...

 

[TruenoAE86]

Originally posted by Majarvis
I disagree, because in real life it doesn't. In GT3, NA Tuning raises the compression ratio by having a thinner head gasket, reinforced valve springs, and among other things. In real life, you would not raise the compression ratio, if anything, you would lower it if you were to supercharge or turbocharge your engine. However, if they do put SC's in GT4, I think that they should make it like in real life, where turbos put more strain on your engine, requiring more maintenence, but SC's, just like in real life, are lower maintenence and will last longer, also not putting as much strain on the engine in the long run. But if they don't do that, then there is really no point or use for SC's. Just my thoughts...

Good points, I was just thinking that if SC were put in it would make just make NA pointless. Generally in GT3, bigger engines are more often NA tuned (cus turbos are unavailable) and smaller engines are turbo’d since they provide more power than NA. The SC would have every advantage over NA on bigger engines, more torque and HP on a very wide power band, and the engine could run at lower RPM’s meaning less stress and heat. Financially there is very little reason to NA tune a car when you can get better less expensive results with a SC, unless you are actually entering an event that requires an NA car. This is my impression I don’t actually know any facts, but I think it is much more expensive to NA tune an engine to the same HP as a super charged one.

Are there any advantages for NA vs SC? If there are please correct me cus even I think I’m wrong I just don’t know why. F1 cars are NA, and they are the fastest cars on the planet(around a track), but they are incredibly expensive.

 

[agentlongwood]

Top fuel dragsters run Super chargers and get upwards of 6000 horsepower. F1 cars are well under 1000 horsepower I think like 400-600 hp but not 100% sure on the F1 cars

 

[Majarvis]

Well actually, as far as I know, in real life superchargers are even more expensive than turbochargers. SC's are belt driving, meaning there is no "turbo lag" since it does not have to wait for the exhaust gases to spool up the turbine fan, producing the boost. Instead, it is linked to the drive belt, and that spins the turbine fan, giving you boost right away.

As you said, you usually only find turbos on smaller engined cars, this is true in real life as well, since for example an Integra Type R engine revs quite quickly, so a turbo is the best form of forced induction for it. However, bigger engines benefits from SC's because they rev lower, and produce more power to drive the belt, this would be ideal for let's say, the Z06.

NA is cheaper for one than forced induction (turbo/super charging), but doesn't produce as much power, since it is a pure mechanical upgrade and is better for high-revving, high-compression ratio cars, like an Integra Type R, because if you were to turbocharge an engine with an 11:1 CR, you would blow it in no time, since FI increases compression in the combustion chamber, that is why you always see turbocharged cars with slightly lower CR versus NA cars.

One side effect of FI is added heat from the turbine, requiring an intercooler to cool the turbine. There is also more maintence associated with FI, since it puts more strain on the engine to the high PSI being forced into the combustion chamber.

If they were to put this in GT4, they would most likely have to have Forced Induction races for cars that are turboed or supercharged, and then of course NA races for those that are not. Hope I helped

 

[Majarvis]

Originally posted by agentlongwood
Top fuel dragsters run Super chargers and get upwards of 6000 horsepower. F1 cars are well under 1000 horsepower I think like 400-600 hp but not 100% sure on the F1 cars

Not sure about the Top-Fuel Dragster figures, I don't follow them. But I do follow Formula One, and know quite a bit about it. Modern day Formula One engines are 3.0L V10 engines, and rev to over 18,000 rpm. The most powerful engine in F1 (BMW) produces an estimated 900 hp, and was recorded to rev at 19,050 rpm last season at Monza, so they could be close to 19,500 rpm by now with this seasons engine, and maybe closer to 925 hp, nobody really knows though. This is all of course without the aid of forced induction. The average engine in F1 produces around 850 hp (Ferrari, Mercedes, Toyota, etc...) However, the forthcoming Mercedes engine that will be used in their new MP4-18 chassis is rumoured to have in the range of 950 - 1,000 hp, and rev to an estimated 20,000 rpm, again, NA.

 

[TruenoAE86]

Originally posted by Majarvis
Not sure about the Top-Fuel Dragster figures, I don't follow them. But I do follow Formula One, and know quite a bit about it. Modern day Formula One engines are 3.0L V10 engines, and rev to around 19,000 rpm. The most powerful engine in F1 (BMW) produces an estimated 900 hp, this is all of course without the aid of forced induction. The average engine in F1 produces around 850 hp (Ferrari, Mercedes, Toyota, etc...) However, the forthcoming Mercedes engine that will be used in their new MP4-18 chassis is rumoured to have in the range of 950 - 1,000 hp, and rev to an estimated 20,000 rpm, again, NA.

What’s the compression ratio on a F1 car? They use methanol for fuel right? I guess it must be a lot less volatile and alows for much higher compression ratios then an engine that runs on high-octane fuel.

 

[Majarvis]

Originally posted by TruenoAE86
What’s the compression ratio on a F1 car? They use methanol for fuel right? I guess it must be a lot less volatile and alows for much higher compression ratios then an engine that runs on high-octane fuel.

Nope, actually Formula One uses "regular" gasoline, which I think is in the range of 100 octane. As for the compression ratios, these figures are kept secret by all the engine manufacturers, but they're probably around 15:1 I would guess, at least.

 

[TruenoAE86]

Originally posted by Majarvis
Nope, actually Formula One uses "regular" gasoline, which I think is in the range of 100 octane. As for the compression ratios, these figures are kept secret by all the engine manufacturers, but they're probably around 15:1 I would guess, at least.

Wow that's amazing, the technology must be insane not to get detonation at that high of a compression ratio.

 

[Majarvis]

Originally posted by TruenoAE86
Wow that's amazing, the technology must be insane not to get detonation at that high of a compression ratio.

Haha, I find it funny that you say that Last year at Spa, a Honda engine really went during the race, they were blowing all weekend.

 

[TruenoAE86]

Originally posted by Majarvis
Haha, I find it funny that you say that Check this out. This was at Spa last year, and it's a Honda engine, they were just trying to push too much power out of it, and that section is full throttle. You can see bits and pieces of the engine flying out the back Just right click, save as, and then tell me once you have viewed it since that's my personal FTP.

okay got it, thanks.

Edit: that was insane, that's one really blown up engine.

 

[Majarvis]

Haha, yeah I know, they were blowing up all weekend (the Honda's).

 

[Naet]

Not that this would ever come up in Gran Turismo, but I think superchargers lose their 'charging' capability after you've ran a car for a while, such as in a 2 or 3 hour race. This is mainly because you can't keep the temperature down to a suitable level and when that happens you have too much expansion during/before compression; detonation can also be a problem with supercharged engines.

 

[Majarvis]

Well I don't know if that is what causes the loss of power, but when you supercharge an engine, you put a lot of stress on the drive belt, so if you don't upgrade that to a high strength belt, it will stretch, and warp, and even snap, which will cause a loss of power. So ever so often you would have to replace the belt. As for the temperature, it would only be an issue if you were running without an intercooler.

 

[mindless_dude]

it would be cool that in GT4 we have tp repair parts in the engine ,EX:you are going 160 mph and you shift down to 1st gear,and the engine blows,you have to get another one... you get my point that would be great

 

[Majarvis]

I do get your point quite well, that's an excellent idea, it is in Sega GT 2002 for the Xbox. But since that game has damage, and GT4 probably won't, I doubt that will be implemented for the same reason damage won't

 

[XenotekTT]

Originally posted by Majarvis
Well actually, as far as I know, in real life superchargers are even more expensive than turbochargers

Wrong. Turbos need to re-route your exhaust and then route it back, requiring all sorts of manifolds and gaskets to be fabricated. SCing is cheaper.

Originally posted by Majarvis
SC's are belt driving, meaning there is no "turbo lag" since it does not have to wait for the exhaust gases to spool up the turbine fan, producing the boost. Instead, it is linked to the drive belt, and that spins the turbine fan, giving you boost right away

It's a compressor, not a turbine fan. You have the basic idea down, though.

Originally posted by Majarvis
As you said, you usually only find turbos on smaller engined cars, this is true in real life as well, since for example an Integra Type R engine revs quite quickly, so a turbo is the best form of forced induction for it.

Wrong. Turbos will make your ITR go boom. An haven't you ever seen the turbo Vipers and Z06's? They are the fastest/most powerful of their bunch.

Originally posted by Majarvis
NA is cheaper for one than forced induction

You have lost your mind. Getting power out of an NA engine is MUCH more expensive than getting that same power from a FI engine.

Originally posted by Majarvis
One side effect of FI is added heat from the turbine, requiring an intercooler to cool the turbine.

Wrong. The compressors do get hot but an intercooler cools the charged air, not the turbo.

Not trying to be too mean, just trying to educate.

 

[Majarvis]

Thanks for correcting me then, because my sources of information must have been wrong

 

[XenotekTT]

Who told you that stuff? Was it by mouth or a site?

When I explain things to people verbally I dumb it down to save breath.

 

[RallyF1]

BMW M3 E 30 EVO III
nothing comes closer to that car!!!!

 

[Majarvis]

Originally posted by XenotekTT
Who told you that stuff? Was it by mouth or a site?

When I explain things to people verbally I dumb it down to save breath.

Just from reading on my Civic forum, about people swapping K20A's into their 7th gen Civics and stuff, about which is best for upgrading, etc...