ND MX-5

what about supercharging, doesn't that kinda keep the NA feel?

Isn't there a condition which causes people who have it to want to be crippled? Like they cut their own legs off and shit because they feel the need to be crippled, no matter the cost. What is that called? I feel a connection here.

independent throttle bodies

Turbos feel fun when they kick in, superchargers get you right off the line faster, turbos end up giving you more practical power though.
Getting a set of cams and a tune is always a valid option.

Why not all three

>turbos end up giving you more practical power
>more practical power
is this going to be a race car? because in any other situation a supercharger is "more practical power"

Could have just bought a 124 spyder instead and $600 on a tune to 230 hp....

maybe if you are some retard who keeps rpms at like 1k

T. Skip barber

you think a supercharge runs out after 1000rpm?

>turbo is only good once you hit redline otherwise it does nothing

thats how dumb you sound

Ill take a Camaro V6 1LE

At least it has actual power

>twice the hp
>only 0.8 faster to 60
lmao

Well I assume someone buying a Miata wants to take it on a track semi frequently.

holy shit, you really are retarded

costs money to not blow up an engine within 20000kms

skip barber (the actual guy) doesnt own skip barber racing school and hasnt owned it since 1999 ya dumb cuck

>these 0-60 figures
Camarocucks on suicide watch sponsored by miatafags

>Boost
Sell it and get a 124 instead.
>Cams
Obvious coice if you want a patrician naturally aspirated ND.

No, it just adds intake heat. Why the hell would you use an inefficient heat gun like a Roots supercharger to throw air into a Skyactiv engine with extremely high compression? It's just a recipe for distaster when even a bad intake or exhaust can cause preignition on these engines.

Sadly, there aren't any centrifugal kits for the ND (yet). That'd be ideal, because you'd have a linear boost curve that just keeps on building towards redline. In my experience, centrifugals create boost that makes you want to chase redlines. Meanwhile, they have near-turbo efficiency and you can easily put an air-air intercooler on them. The only place for a PD supercharger on a modern car is on a big American V8.

>Turbo costs
>Chiptune gainz
Nah.

>you think a supercharge runs out after 1000rpm?
You don't? A typical PD supercharger hits peak boost at about 2000-2500RPM. After that, it tapers off in PSI and rapidly loses efficiency. Depending on the sizing, they're usuallly just heat pumps at the top end of their RPM band.

T. Current owner of skip barber who's not skip barber

LS

My advice is get a fast car for straight lines and commuting and just enjoy the MX-5 for what it is on the occasions that you hit the mountains or need to park somewhere tight

Can't afford

V8.

Actually IRL.

(Or turbo, I've literally driven the V8, turbo, and SC. Turbo is best for the money)

What the living fuck is wrong with you? This isnt some pigfat unreliable piece of shit thats good in a straight line. This is something a lot more sophisticated. Redneck fucking monkey

...

Hang yourself

>turbo lag, no low end, no top end, nothing but mid-range
>Fiat reliability and depreciation
Only if I can get a big fat discount on one

that 1.4t has plenty of low-end when it isn't slapped into a fat piece of shit like the Dart.

worse looking than mx-5 RF

Skip Barber went out of business, I went to their liquidation. Cheap Miata tires.

Engine is caca

Has no low end power or highs

Its all mids, tuning isnt gonna get rid of the core problem.

Miata has the better engine

plus you get better throttle response, something that can never be fully solved on a turbo car.

Honestly the 2.0 engine is really pretty gud. The ND has a shit ton of low end torque, and stong mids. 0-60 in 5.9 is damn good for a miata, and you really feel it because of how light the car weighs. The cars set up is Perfect for a roadster.

Only downside is that top end top end power, but I dont miss it to much have a blast with the car as is. Car has stupid good handling for the price, with cheap mawds your can get some elite handling out of it.

10/10 would buy a second ND

>But muh 124 has no top end!
Guess what, the 124 appears to have no top end in comparison to the ND, because the 2.0 skyactiv has a powerband of 1400RPM. The Fiat not only has a powerband almost twice the size (3000RPM), it also has the gearing to take advantage of it, 5 more hp, and almost 25% more peak torque. All that is BEFORE the tuners get their hands on it, which massively imrpoves both low and top end. Also, throttle response is improved because a good tuner can use Multiair II to do 95% of what Freevalve can do, in particular quickly spooling that turbo from part throttle.

>Fiat reliability
Chassis built by Mazda, only the engine is Fiat. Guess which is more reliable: the ND or 124 (pro tip: it's not the one with the glass transmission).

>Miata has the better engine
No. In every single objectively measurable way (power, torque, powerband), you're utterly wrong.

Also, if you're not in the US market, you won't get the monkey model 160hp models, but you can actually get a 170hp Abarth, which beats the snot out of the 2.0 ND in the engine department.

>the camaro literally weighs 7 million pounds more

>GM garbage
>ever

Just use water-meth cooling

Why cool an inefficient process, using resources that can and will run out, when you could just use a more efficient process that doesn't create as much heat?

Because it offers a different driving experience experience to turbos. I much prefer the instant torque of a supercharger but I'd personally go with a twin screw. You'll still want cooling on a turbo anyway and water-meth is great for preventing knock

>only 0.8 second difference
>weights 100 times more than the mx5
>pigfat bulk
>can't turn
>driven by illegal spics
WHY, GM SHOULD JUST GIVE UP. IF A TINY JAP ROADSTER IS BETTER THEN THEIR "beast" THEN THEY SHOULD ALL JUMP AND DIE

but the ND is for autismos

>outperform by the camaro
>still somehow better than the camaro

Guise I'm thinking about getting a NB SE that's the turbo charged one.

>RF

Just wait one month to see the 124 RF at Geneva

Why do we have a bunch of retards translating a language that should die like the people?

For a miata, I would say Supercharger for short track, drag, or solo events. Unless you are doing mountain road, daily, and track driving, then turbo.

holy fucking shit please tell me if you're b8 and not an actual retard.

Explain to me how the car that performs worse is better.

'Better' is not the right term I agree but with just little difference that has gorrilion times the HP is fucking unbelievable.

How is it unbelievable that a heavier car would require more power to achieve similar acceleration? Also 0-100km/h doesn't give you the whole story. The jap car level off after 100km/h while the camaro keeps going strong.

The problem is that mass doesn't stop acting after you accelerate. It also affects deceleration and handling.

I'd think that it's an acceptable trade off when the camaro can still make its way around a track faster.

>runs out after 1000rpm
>hits peak boost at 2000-2500rpm
>thinks 2000-2500rpm is lower than 1000rpm

super chargers are for low end power, turbo for high end power.

if OP is going to spend all day in the high end, then go turbo, if he's going to spend the majority of his time in the low end, then go supercharger.

not hard.

Who cares about laptimes in cheap roadster? Less weight means more fun, and if you want good laptimes screw the V6 1LE and just get an SS or ZL1 1LE.

youtube.com/watch?v=l0NMCMcdVp4

oh wow a video about mx5s, turbo's and superchargers

No, you can size both accordingly to where you want them to deliver power. You can have tiny turbo's that choke an engine above the midrange (commonly found on ecoboxes nowadays), or a centrifugal supercharger that builds boost throughout the rev range.

Just buy a go kart then

Those aren't road legal.

Why attempt to translate if you don’t know the fucking language

Lmao. So your dream fun car is a road legal go cart?

>So your dream fun car is a road legal go cart?
Yours isn't?

No

not my fault the grammar consists of throwing a bunch of words at random into a sentence and calling it good

OP asked for supercharging, turbo-charging or cams.

if he wanted to turbo/supercharge for economy, he'd probably had said so, he also probably wouldn't be buying a mx5.

so, chances are, he's probably going for power and fun on the street and/or track.

so, he's either going to want power down low, for fun around town, or power up high, for the track and the twisties.

so, you think he wants a small turbo set up for economy driving?

you literally don’t know the language I fail to see how it’s not your fault

>Reddit spacing
Figures. Anyways, turbocharging for economy needs a different (low compression) engine, and guess what, the MX-5 is a fuel efficient sportscar so it might be an option if you wanted power and fuel economy. See: Fiat 124.

OP can have a one of the following:
>Small turbo: power down low
>PD supercharger: power down low
>Big turbo: power up high
>Centrifugal supercharger: power up high
And then there's variations in all of these, including brand, specific sizing, intercooler piping, available kits, etc. Any of these can be fun around town: a properly sized big turbo will still spool quickly enough for street use. A good PD supercharger will still make power up top, hence the rise of the Roots blown K24 in Honda FWD track racing.

You can't just use one blanket statement (superchargers for low RPM, turbo's for high RPM) to answer this problem. There are superchargers that work great at high RPM (centrifugals will do 40K+), and there are turbo's that provide good boost at low RPM (see: turbodiesel).

>getting that butthurt over common generalisations
>crying over spacing

the autism is strong.

You're right. I rolled the dice twice, not thrice for figuring out the sentence structure.

The problem with generalisations is, surprise, that they're common and don't improve the debate.

Sell it for an 86.

remember to google if the bugatti veyron is turbo'd for economy or power.

It might as well have centrifugal superchargers, but VAG doesn't have experience with those. They do have experience with turbo's, thanks to their economy cars.

Also, by comparison to other modern 7+L, multi-turbo engines, it makes very little power and gets great fuel economy. It's as economical as an 8L quadturbo will get.

>centrifugal superchargers
not even once

Why? It's just a belt-driven turbo. All of the efficiency, none of the lag.

not all the efficiency. definitely wrong there.

Centrifugal superchargers deliver power over the whole rpm range and more power the higher the rpm is....

So it's limited by a fixed ratio to the crankshaft. Whilst a turbocharger's boost threshold can be applied to a greater RPM range, the centrifugal blower is limited to being spun progressively as revs are increased. Great for high end power, shit for the low-mid range.

Actually, a centrifugal can get better efficiency. It's the same compressor, but you can better keep it in it's efficient RPM range.

>Deliver more boost the higher the RPM is
FTFY. Boost does not always equal power.

You could also just make a centrifugal hit peak boost at 3K RPM, and use a BOV to bleed the excess boost from 3K to redline.

Alternatively, ProCharger is currently making the I1, which puts a transmission between the pulley and the wheel, instead of the usual gearset. You can then gear it for both low and high RPM, or low and high boost levels depending on octane availability. Rotrex is working on CVT units, too. If you know how a Prius drivetrain works, kinda like that. They use a pulley and a 12V (or 48V) input to basically keep the supercharger at high RPM, no matter the engine RPM. So no, centrifugals aren't limited by a fixed ratio.

if so, please explain whilst the vast majority of engines made for efficiency are all turbo'd and not supercharged?

Because manufacturers have very little experience with them. Also, turbo cars right now use the fact that they're out of boost at low RPM to cheat emissions and fuel testing, yet make good HP once they hit boost. Once the variable drive centrifugal gets more market share, we'll see that change. Just an example:
>avl.com/-/avl-hyper-200-concept-engine
Better MPG, 475hp from a twincharged system, all in a manual 4C. Twincharging here is a centrifugal plus a 12/48V electric supercharger, which sounds suspiciously like that new Rotrex unit.

Not him, but because they're cheaper than what he's talking about. A cheap shit turbo can cost $350 retail. A procharger with a cvt will likely be 4 grand if not more.

>only comparing peak hp when comparing turbos and superchargers
post dynos nigger

>V6