3-Series (E21, E30)Chat relating to the BMW 3-Series from 1975-1983 and 1984-1991 line. Specific models: BMW 315, BMW 316, BMW 318, BMW 318i, BMW 320/4, BMW 320i, BMW 320/6, BMW 323i, BMW 320i. E30 Family models include: BMW 325e, BMW 325i, BMW 325is, BMW 325ix.
i have a E30 with M50B25 (not Vanos) engine i want 2 improve it with a chip , headers , and Turbo or Super charger ...
the question is which is more suitable to this engine the Turbo or the super charger ?!
considering horse power,fuel economy ,and engine lasting ?! and any other notes u can give .....
plz try to answer me in hurry coz i'm very confused used:
Considering what you said about horse power, fuel economy, and engine lasting. I would suggest a supercharger, it's installation much less complex, it's rather reliable, and over boosting isn't a so much of a threat unlike a turbocharger. Turbochargers provide loads of power at the cost of complexity.
I'm with Starmavin on this one. The supercharger is the much safer and easier way to make HP reliably! Installation is much simpler as is the tuning required. You don't have to make a bunch of exhaust modifications like you would with a turbo and you have less chance of having boost spikes that can severly damage your engine. A supercharger is going to give your the most bang for your buck in everday driving situations because you have boost immediatly upon hitting the throttle whereas you have lag with a turbo setup. The turbo will tend to make more top end HP whereas the supercharger will make more low end torque and give you a broad flat powerband to play around with! Plus you don't need a turbo timer or pre-post oilers or any of that stuff. Generally speaking the supercharger is a set it and forget it type of thing whereas a turbo is a pretty high maintenance thing as far as aftermarket installs go.
Here this artical I found should shed more light on your choice.
"It makes no sense to build a naturally aspirated engine if what you are looking for is good power output."
THE CASE FOR SUPERCHARGING
Since a crank driven s/c (s/c = supercharger) is what people are normally talking about when they use the term supercharger, I will no longer say "crank driven" to make the distinction between it and a turbo. Now using a supercharger makes a ton of sense simply because it only has a direct effect in pressurizing the engine on the side we want it to, the induction side. Since pressures will always be higher here than in any other part of the system (except of course during the engine's power stroke, but that's always sealed off from the rest of the system so we can forget about that complexity), it's very easy to make this combination a powerful one. NA engines often use large amounts of valve overlap to get the whole system to work properly at higher RPM, which has obvious drawbacks in that it's possible for the intake system and exhaust systems to interact in a negative way (since they operate at similar pressures). It's sometimes just as easy to get air flowing backwards through the system as it is to go forwards in an NA setup, which is one reason camshaft choice is so important to where in the RPM band best power will be produced. And here is where the beauty of supercharging is; neither valve overlap amounts nor perfect exhaust system designs are completely essential to keep everything flowing in the right direction. No matter how long the exhaust is exposed to the intake system through valve overlap, air should NEVER pass backwards through the system unless the supercharger stops working.
THE EVIL OF SUPERCHARGING
The evil of supercharging is that some of the power we finally get from combusting the air/fuel mixture must go back into powering the supercharger. So here we have designed this whole system that works so well, yet we have to power it with some of our hard earned torque. This is not a good thing, but then again nothing so simple is ever going to come for free. Do superchargers work? Of course they do, which is why many racing engine uses the technology unless the rules prohibit it. The net result is more total power from the system, but a portion of this power must be sapped from our output to make it all work.
THE CASE FOR TURBOCHARGING
This section is easy to write, because it's exactly the same thing as the supercharger portion. We have all of the same advantages, except for one major benefit. That benefit is that turbocharging runs off what is largely wasted energy, so that damn drawback of needing to power the system with some of our hard earned torque is removed. In this way, a turbocharger addresses the one main drawback to using a supercharger, but as you will see in a second the supercharger addresses the one main drawback of turbocharging.
THE EVIL OF TURBOCHARGING
Hopefully you now understand why it makes so much sense to forgo designing engines for NA use and just supercharge the sucker instead, at least when we are talking about how to best make power. And if you have been following what I have said, you will also understand the bad effect turbos have on our little perfect world of pressure variation.
A turbo is an ingenious little design that harnesses the wasted kinetic energy we dump out through the exhaust system to actually force more air into the engine. This is good for the same reasons that supercharging is good, but it has one major drawback: it of course increases the pressure within a portion of the exhaust system. While turbocharging a motor increases the amount of air that can be flowed into it, it has a negative effect on how easily we can flow it back out again. This weakens our positive pressure difference between these two fundamental sides of the engine, and causes both cam timing & exhaust system design to again become extremely important to making good power. This is most certainly not a good thing, but can a turbo overcome this drawback with the other inherent good it possesses? It certainly seems so, because in most current forms of racing where the rules don’t probihit the use of tubos or slap restrictions on their use, the turbo reigns supreme in terms of engine power output.
i am very thankful 4 ur advices
as i c from the many replies i got, it will be the SC and it was my preferred but consultation is good in the case .... although that the sound of the Turbo is pretty good
RAIES HOPES 2 ME PLZ
i rememmberd something how many HP's i'll got in the end (approx.) with
case1: chip,headrs and sc
case2: just a sc......
i know it's kinda stupid question and it needs a dyno 2 know but i want an approximate value if someone can estimate.....
this thread should be called, apples or bananas...because its just as ludicrous lol...its all about personal pref
i am biased to superchargers, dont know why, just like the idea that its belt driven and not exhaust driven, and i like the sound...the immmediate power on demand it offers...dunno, granted less peak power...but thats fine by me, im not that greedy
__________________ Kyle Sutherland
1995 BMW 540i/6: The Calypso Beast Vid 0-70ish 1987 BMW 325es: Face & Butt Lifted/M50tu Swapped*Sold* 1985 VW Scirocco: Too many mods, money pit*Sold* E34 Plate Filler Wanted!
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.