shark2

Can someone point me in the direction of a thread concerning supercharging vs turbocharging tibs? I've searched but found nothing.

I also wanted to know why a 2.5" exhaust would be better than a 3" exhaust.

And a stock m/t tib's 0-60mph is about 8.4 sec, what would be an estimate on the new 0-60 if that same tib was given a turbo and exhaust?

mb1604

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shark2 @ Apr 19 2005, 08:14 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Can someone point me in the direction of a thread concerning supercharging vs turbocharging tibs? I've searched but found nothing.

I also wanted to know why a 2.5" exhaust would be better than a 3" exhaust.

And a stock m/t tib's 0-60mph is about 8.4 sec, what would be an estimate on the new 0-60 if that same tib was given a turbo and exhaust?
<div align='right'><{POST_SNAPBACK}></div></div>


id prefer turbo since its not on all the time(saves gas) superchargers actually take some power from your engine because it runs on a belt and pulley.

2.5 is better for turbo because you need some back pressure. 3" is too big.

0-60, not sure, maybe 5-6 range

paperstsoapco

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shark2 @ Apr 20 2005, 12:14 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Can someone point me in the direction of a thread concerning supercharging vs turbocharging tibs? I've searched but found nothing.

I also wanted to know why a 2.5" exhaust would be better than a 3" exhaust.

And a stock m/t tib's 0-60mph is about 8.4 sec, what would be an estimate on the new 0-60 if that same tib was given a turbo and exhaust?
<div align='right'><{POST_SNAPBACK}></div></div>


DEF covered before. BOTH topics.

http://www.rdtiburon.com/index.php?showtopic=5300&hl=

http://www.rdtiburon.com/index.php?showtop...hl=supercharger

http://www.rdtiburon.com/index.php?showtop...1&st=&p=&#entry

and theres even more...a lot more search bro man

shark2

Okay I'm sorry. Nevermind then.

mb1604 thanks man

'treezy

no need to search for first question. turbo, no question.

only go 3in. exhaust if you are pushing some serious horsepower.

Casper

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mb1604 @ Apr 19 2005, 08:17 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>2.5 is better for turbo because you need some back pressure. 3" is too big.
<div align='right'><{POST_SNAPBACK}></div></div>

For N/A, yes, you want some backpressure.

For Turbo, no, backpressure is bad.

3" is only needed for high output applications (as you will be running N/A most of the time unless you drive like a maniac)

shark2

When you say 2.5", that means the piping right? and not the diameter of the muffle tip?

Casper

Correct. 2.5" refers to the size of the piping from the cat back to the muffler (in a cat-back system).

The tip does not affect anything but tone/sound.

'treezy

yes, 2.5 is the diameter of the piping. Most aftermarket mufflers have a 3in. outlet (but a 2.5 in inlet).

<beat me to it>

backpressure can put extreme pressure on, and even ruin, your turbo. That's why most turboed cars have 2.5 or larger if they boost a lot. If you go 3in. Naturally Aspirated or low boost you will have loud backfires and your car will drive like a tank at low rpms.