21 replies to this topic

[WazzaVX220]

All this talk about modifications........ Has anyone actually figured a Stage I/II supercharged car to 60 - 100 - Quarter mile? Would love to know!!!!!!!

[SteveA]

Did some tests on my Stg2 turbo using race chrono and a GPS device. 0-60 - 4.5 (I recon very low 4's would be possible if i could avoid the rev limit in 1st ) 0-100 -10.1 1/4 Mile 13.7 I'm not very good at the launch thing. Edit - 245 BHP BTW

Edited by SteveA, 19 June 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[Sutol]

I would be more interested in comparitive lap times bearing in mind the difference in weight between tubby and s/c.

[SteveA]

Race Chrono does lap timing comparisons so I will get some data at the national. Any SC owners with similar power are welcome to borrow the kit for comparison. I think the difference will be more down to driver than power or weight. Just FYI a stg2 SC N/A isn't a lot lighter than a stg2 turbo.

[WazzaVX220]

Yes, lap times with the same professional driver would be interesting....... Just wondered if there was much difference in a straight line? Any Supercharged owners want to come forward with hard Data? I'm on your side!

[techieboy]

Best lap at Abbeville in my old 180bhp NA was 1.8 seconds slower than my SC'd car a few months later according to my data logging. Hard to make a direct comparison as on the trackday when it was an NA I was running on 888's and the SC'd run was in the wet (or probably more like moist in Top Gear speak) on T1R's. I've only just run the car in after rebuilding the bottom end but I can safely I gave a TVR Griffith the fright of his life on the autoroute on the way back from Le Mans on Monday. Exceedingly childish but was very funny when I backed off and the TVR pulled up beside me with the driver mouthing WTF? I might try some mid-range measurements now RaceChrono has configurable performance timing. Never bothered with their 0-whatever times as I've got too much respect for the clutch and engine mounts.

[chris]

Normally, with a similar power, car with turbo engine is quicker than car with supercharged engine.
If you compare the curves of torque, you can see that the turbo curve is higher in the major part of the engine rev. range, so in acceleration there is a difference in favor of turbo engine ...

If you are not convinced, I have compared performances of VX220 turbo (270 HP) and Lotus cup (260 HP) found in two articles of a French magazine (Echappement)
Perfomances of the cars are measured with on board radar.

VX 220 turbo (270 HP - 420 N.m - 887 kg - two persons on board + 150 kg => 1037 kg)
0-200 km/h => 16,8 s
1000 m 23,7 s



Lotus cup (260 HP - 240 N.m - 920 kg - Driver alone + 75 kg => 995 kg )
0-200 km/h => 18,2 s
1000 m 23,9 s



The two cars have Yokohama AO48 LTS

During the runs of the VX220 the journalist didn't stress the car, when he had performed the starting.
But the car was able to save a few 1/10 s from 0-100 km/h
(at this date it was able of 4,5-4,6 s for 0-100 km/h, so you can substracted 3/10 s to the figures of the VX220)
Moreover you have to take into consideration that gearbox of VX220 have 5 speeds against 6 for the Lotus ...

Edited by chris, 20 June 2009 - 04:33 AM.

[MartinS]

At Abbeville recently Jimmy Jam and I had many occasions to compare performance. We both have cars with around 148 bhp, mines a supercharged stage 2 and Jimmies a tweaked VXR (sorry dont know exactly what hes had done). We were absolutely matched. Jimmies cars power comes in hard and fast when boost comes whereas mine is just like a loud electric car. He said that following me, he could my acceleraion was just seamless and that he would drop back then gain again as his boost come in, following I couldnt see much difference, but think that of the two the sc is the easier proposition to drive and may work better on track in the wet. In real terms, no difference, but both great. Martin s

[VIX]

Martin, If you only got 148bhp I'd take it back to Courtenay!

[PaulCP]

At Abbeville recently Jimmy Jam and I had many occasions to compare performance. We both have cars with around 148 bhp, mines a supercharged stage 2 and Jimmies a tweaked VXR (sorry dont know exactly what hes had done). We were absolutely matched. Jimmies cars power comes in hard and fast when boost comes whereas mine is just like a loud electric car. He said that following me, he could my acceleraion was just seamless and that he would drop back then gain again as his boost come in, following I couldnt see much difference, but think that of the two the sc is the easier proposition to drive and may work better on track in the wet. In real terms, no difference, but both great.

Martin s

It's always going to depend on which track you compare with due to gearing.

At Abbeville which i know well there are some corners that the VXR will take in 2nd which if you use 2nd in the SC car will cause you to hit the limiter too soon on the exit. 3 years ago ShinyAndy & i compared the differences on track and to take out driver ability swapped cars for a time.

Don't forget that the SC car will not suffer from lag like the turbo. Whilst lag wasn't as bad on the VXR as the std "T" the initial pick was still not a good as the SC car

Edited by PaulCP, 20 June 2009 - 10:49 AM.

[Guy182]

thing is the way they generate the power.. if you are talking max bhp figures being the same the turbo will have a lot more torque as it has to create that power figure at circa 5600rpm (iirc) whereas the s/c will be making its peak power figure at nearer 7000.. though after being out in a supercharged 2.2 on track, they seem alot more controllable and driveable the turbo is a great road car though with all that torque at your toes.

[XXX]

Martin, If you only got 148bhp I'd take it back to Courtenay!

I didn't know they did a 1bhp supercharger....

[MartinS]

Oops, as you all gathered, I meant 248 bhp. I think vocky summed up the sc best when he said to me it will be just like driving a 3.3 na,and it is. Martin s

[WazzaVX220]

Cool.

[JimmyJamJerusalem]

Cool.

Yeah, mine and Martins cars have identical power (mine is a stageII VXR with a few other extras under the hood ).

There's a vid from Abbeville if you go straight to 2:58 you will see we drag race down the back straight, and there's simply nothing in it!

My accelleration gradient is steep but short, where Martins is less steep but long. Translates to much the same thing in real life. I do appreciate the extra torque you get with the turbo though (278lbs/ft).

Only thing that lets my car down is weight. She's a bit of a porker!

Edited by JimmyJamJerusalem, 21 June 2009 - 10:46 AM.

[WazzaVX220]

FatAss.

[southpaw]

Only thing that lets my car down is weight. She's a bit of a porker!

you could start by taking the hard top off

having pax rides in both I think I prefer the feel of the s/c (not sure I could cope with too many torques) but both are quick and great fun

[The Batman]

I do appreciate the extra torque you get with the turbo though (278lbs/ft).

still waiting for the swap Mr White

[JimmyJamJerusalem]

still waiting for the swap Mr White

Well come to a bloody track day then!!

[MAXR]

I've driven a stage 2+ tubby at Castle Coombe. It felt every bit as quick as my car but I still was lapping at least 3 seconds quicker in my S/C VX. But I just put that down to the fact that I drive my car more often. Also, my car's suspension, Geo & setup is very different, I found the tubby understeered more & the gearing was very different...It did sound sweet! I have also had several encounters on track with various tubbies including vxr's and stage 4's. In my opinion, the driver makes the biggest difference making comparisons tricky. If I was to buy another VX as a track car only, then I would still go for a S/C NA over a tubby.