RCZ

hey man sorry for the wrong info i don't know were i read that

I took it down for fear of who is keeping track of this board. I know its been getting a lot of outside attention lately and I don't want any nasty surprises.

RCZ, Im upset where did your video of the stillen intakes go I LOVEEEEED that video do you have it still?

Hey! I was a bit of a ****, please accept my apologies. Always liked your journal thread. Peace.

I don't know for sure yet, I will most likely go through my journal. I just wanted to immediately pull attention from your thread so people wouldnt flood it with questions about cf bits.

looking forward to seeing what you develop on carbon rear diffuser and other bits... you going to keep us updated here or through your journal ?? thanks!

Well, two ways to look at it. Turbo allows you to go up in the revs without really going into boost because of a low throttle position. (Im trying to explain this without getting technical) Meaning you can go up the revs without using more gas than you would without a turbo. With the Superchager, you build boost mechanically with the revs of the motor so you cant really do this. The reason I think sc is better is because you have better response down low and more torque down low. That lets you do what you need to do with less revs and with less time on the gas. (passing, accelerating normally, etc) Granted this is more the case for smaller displacement motors, but its still the case. To use the power of a turbo you have to go up in revs more and be on the gas harder.

I can definitely see why someone would argue sc uses more gas, but I think in practice for someone who uses this power a lot, the sc is more efficient.

Well that changes things, Ive been reading that supercharging is worse

Turbo is worse for fuel economy

Which do you think is worse of the fuel economy?