Hot Rod Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

Hi ...

I'm working on my second HotRod project. My first is what led me here for a question.

My first project was and still is a 2016 Juke Nismo RS. Stock, this car has 168 ft-lbs of torque delivered from a 1.6L factory turbo engine. I had it tuned (cold air intake, all new fatter connection tubing, new intercooler, new downpipe, blowback valve and UPRev tune). The result was a Dyno value of 209 ft-lbs "at the wheel", which is equal to roughly 245 ft-lbs at the engine (Juke is a CVT vehicle and 18% is a ballpark figure for loss to the wheel). So, this summary tells us that my tune, of an existing turbo engine, increased torque by ~50%.

My next project is adding a Supercharger to a 2.0L conventional engine which is rated to have 143 ft-lbs of torque.

What net increase can I expect from this Supercharger upgrade?

I know KIA has a 2.0L turbo (non-supercharger) out there that delivers 260 ft-lbs of torque. So does Land Rover. Even if my net increase for my project was 100% (143 --> 286), I'm surprised by that figure. Either the guy who tuned my Juke was a wizard, or what I'm finding is that if I increase the displacement of my engine by 25% (1.6 --> 2.0) and if my Supercharger gives me a 100% improvement, I only get less than 20% torque improvement over the smaller engine. (1.6L = 245 ft-lbs vs. 2.0L = 286 ft-lbs).

Can anyone out there help explain these figures to me?
And, can anyone give me their real world experience of what torque increase they got when they added their supercharger?

TIA.

 

Attachments

·
Race it, Don't rice it!
Joined
·
8,281 Posts
Boost pressure isn't always linear to power out put AND you assumptions above are pretty generic so answering you question is kinda hard.
Much of the power improvement comes from how bad the engine was to start with. IE, some engines really respond well and others don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Can you even add a material amount of boost to this 2.0L motor - what's its current compression ratio? Depending on that, you might not be able to safely add enough boost to make any difference in performance. And if its CR is low enough that you could add enough boost to increase performance, is the motor's internals up to handling it? What about the cooling system? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,803 Posts
Some engines are built stronger then others.
For instance a chevy 2.0 LSJ factory superchargerd with additional bolt ons and programming has a bottom end that can hold 350lb crank of torque reliability.

While the 2.2 L61 which can also be supercharged. It has a bottom end that is only good for 220 lbs reliability.

You can install diffrent rods and such basically rebuilding that entire 2.2 to support boost. Or you can start with the 2.0 with a proven plan and use that factory bottom end.

Just see what is out there.

This all being said if your really looking for power a larger engine is the way to go.

The honda 3.5 v6 is highly favored by me vs a 2.0.
Look the below link over. The 3.5 spanks the 2.0 in every way.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-ca...a-accords-new-turbo-motor-against-the-old-v6/

Now you can play with the 2.0 more. But you can also play with the 3.5 more.

Just do a buttload of research on what will work with you. Also consider what your transmission will hold. I would not run additional boost on any CVT. Much better to use a transmission meant for v6 power or use a v6 from the start to avoid adapters.

Look into swaps in what your looking to run. Find what works for you to get the results that you are after. Be realistic in what you needs are. Dont just be after horsepower numbers. Be after the important numbers like 0-60 and quarter numbers.
Having a high power to weight ratio with a flat curve can make even a low hp ride fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Some engines are built stronger then others.
For instance a chevy 2.0 LSJ factory superchargerd with additional bolt ons and programming has a bottom end that can hold 350lb crank of torque reliability.

While the 2.2 L61 which can also be supercharged. It has a bottom end that is only good for 220 lbs reliability.

You can install diffrent rods and such basically rebuilding that entire 2.2 to support boost. Or you can start with the 2.0 with a proven plan and use that factory bottom end.

Just see what is out there.

This all being said if your really looking for power a larger engine is the way to go.

The honda 3.5 v6 is highly favored by me vs a 2.0.
Look the below link over. The 3.5 spanks the 2.0 in every way.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-ca...a-accords-new-turbo-motor-against-the-old-v6/

Now you can play with the 2.0 more. But you can also play with the 3.5 more.

Just do a buttload of research on what will work with you. Also consider what your transmission will hold. I would not run additional boost on any CVT. Much better to use a transmission meant for v6 power or use a v6 from the start to avoid adapters.

Look into swaps in what your looking to run. Find what works for you to get the results that you are after. Be realistic in what you needs are. Dont just be after horsepower numbers. Be after the important numbers like 0-60 and quarter numbers.
Having a high power to weight ratio with a flat curve can make even a low hp ride fun.

Thank you for your response.
I have a fair amount of experience amping up a CVT platform. I like the way CVTs glide and accelerate.

My new project platform is 3,300 pounds. There are not many cars that light that offer a 2.0L engine, and that was one of the determining factors in my choice. I'm not interested at all in horsepower numbers, but torque. And I'm not looking to Dyno this project, so I'm not interested in the pure numbers either. But numbers have a way of setting goals. My interests are Zoom! between 25 mph and 90. Hence, torque, weight and CVT.

The engine I'm doing this to, in non-NorthAmerican markets, is deployed with a Supercharger, so (as someone else mentioned) I am confident the internals of the engine can handled the added pressures.

That being said, my basic question still remains unanswered. It is odd that an engine already delivered with a turbo can get a roughly 50% torque increase with a tune and exhaust, while adding a Supercharger to a conventional engine "seems" (via supercharger articles) to fall short of that. That's the key issue I'm looking to be addressed.

Thanks for reading.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
Hi ...

I'm working on my second HotRod project. My first is what led me here for a question.

My first project was and still is a 2016 Juke Nismo RS. Stock, this car has 168 ft-lbs of torque delivered from a 1.6L factory turbo engine. I had it tuned (cold air intake, all new fatter connection tubing, new intercooler, new downpipe, blowback valve and UPRev tune). The result was a Dyno value of 209 ft-lbs "at the wheel", which is equal to roughly 245 ft-lbs at the engine (Juke is a CVT vehicle and 18% is a ballpark figure for loss to the wheel). So, this summary tells us that my tune, of an existing turbo engine, increased torque by ~50%.

My next project is adding a Supercharger to a 2.0L conventional engine which is rated to have 143 ft-lbs of torque.

What net increase can I expect from this Supercharger upgrade?

I know KIA has a 2.0L turbo (non-supercharger) out there that delivers 260 ft-lbs of torque. So does Land Rover. Even if my net increase for my project was 100% (143 --> 286), I'm surprised by that figure. Either the guy who tuned my Juke was a wizard, or what I'm finding is that if I increase the displacement of my engine by 25% (1.6 --> 2.0) and if my Supercharger gives me a 100% improvement, I only get less than 20% torque improvement over the smaller engine. (1.6L = 245 ft-lbs vs. 2.0L = 286 ft-lbs).

Can anyone out there help explain these figures to me?
And, can anyone give me their real world experience of what torque increase they got when they added their supercharger?

TIA.
One aspect of your question probably requires an engineer who can talk about airflow, heat efficiency...
I myself see a couple of things to say about your question:
-- Manufacturers pretty much never go for max output, they go for comfort, ease of driving, reliability, max torque RPM... As a result, it is difficult to compare numbers between a stock OEM engine and a modified/tuned engine. This is also connected to the use of the car: for instance, a big torque number at high RPM will not help you pull a heavy trailer.
-- An OEM manufacturer can also use a low boost turbo, which do not give big numbers but simply improve an engine and make it more pleasant; as opposed to a manufacturer designing a turbo engine for big numbers and heavy use.
-- It is also difficult to compare numbers between an OEM turbo engine and an OEM N/A engine on which you add a turbo, if you do not rebuild the N/A engine for the turbo. The N/A engine has a fairly high compression ratio, in order to make good numbers and be efficient; this compression is too high to receive a turbo "as-is", it will limit the boost the turbo can deliver, therefore the gain will be small. On the other hand, an OEM turbo engine will be designed with lower compression ratio, allowing more boost, and more efficiency, seemingly a big "gain".
Hope this helsp a bit your thinking, it becomes quickly a wide topic!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,699 Posts
The ability of the turbo to deliver torque at a certain RPM in a modern car also depends on how the computer is programmed. I used to drive Honda NA vehicles, which were fun to drive, but needed higher RPM before they had good torque. This meant they really needed a manual transmission to feel quick.

I now have a BMW 328 with a turbo 2.0L and its factory tune develops high torque at a low RPM. I found one testing site that shows the BMW 2.0L turbo developing near maximum torque as low as 1200 RPM, which means it feels very quick in normal driving. BMW pairs it with an 8 speed automatic and the option to use sport mode where downshifts are very quick and it holds RPM longer on upshifts. My point is that they have developed a complete package of turbocharger, engine tuning and transmission tuning. It is not just a 2.0L with a turbo.

Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,338 Posts
If your 2 liter engine has any Rally car heritage then do what they do, Build a 600 hp 2 liter and use a restrictor plate for a 400 hp race application. The engine makes torque first on its way to making big power on the top end. Short shifting, usually way under 7k you will have reached max torque of a 600 hp engine without the rpm. Not cheap to build,,,
share your parts list and prices before you start,,,curious
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top