@DuhuKaralius attached to the engine with a strap. Superchargers cost more, but they eat up yuor cars economy like 30-40%. And where a turbo even decreases your economy like 20-30%. So turbo is better and easier to add, but for this alfa it requires too much work to do and too much money. So it's impractical :>
@mrjim145 You see, my alfa is an early model. It is dated since 1993, not 94 when the full complect models came on the market. About the turbo. Yes it is less expensive to make it turbo and in a way it's better to make it turbo, but differently from the supercharger, it requires a lot more work to do. Basicly a turbo doesn't need an alternative generator, because it uses the exhaust used air to press the air. And a supercharger needs an alternative generator, that's why it's attached to engine.
@mrjim145 btw the 145 alfa has 8v not 16v and well it can't handle a turbo it can handle only a supercharger. So that's the difference I was tryting to tell you.
@mrjim145 well first of all, my 145 1.6 engine doesn't have a right diameter turbo head shaft. I mean the place where you put yuor turbo on. Get yourself a picture of a 145 boxer engine :> and try to fit a turbo there.
OK!But you said boxer engines!And whats the difference between 16v boxer of 33 and 145?Just the injection systeme the cams and a little mobification at the gearbox 9/35 to 9/37 differential second for the 145 and 1rst and second gear longer to the first 33 16v.Engines are excactly the same pistons metal valves engine blocs etc etc etc....
e uan alfa ...subaro..chi ti pare ...machine cinesi...alfa e...alfa,,qm e un motore aspirato...nn un subaru..turbo...hahhaha...
westboyflavio 2 months ago
@alfadennis is that a new spaceship? :D
DuhuKaralius 4 months ago
@DuhuKaralius have you ever heard about Subaru Impreza?
alfadennis 4 months ago
@DuhuKaralius attached to the engine with a strap. Superchargers cost more, but they eat up yuor cars economy like 30-40%. And where a turbo even decreases your economy like 20-30%. So turbo is better and easier to add, but for this alfa it requires too much work to do and too much money. So it's impractical :>
DuhuKaralius 11 months ago
@mrjim145 You see, my alfa is an early model. It is dated since 1993, not 94 when the full complect models came on the market. About the turbo. Yes it is less expensive to make it turbo and in a way it's better to make it turbo, but differently from the supercharger, it requires a lot more work to do. Basicly a turbo doesn't need an alternative generator, because it uses the exhaust used air to press the air. And a supercharger needs an alternative generator, that's why it's attached to engine.
DuhuKaralius 11 months ago
OK!You know better!Buy!
mrjim145 11 months ago
I have the same car too and i agree with that!But in any case is difficult to make it turbo but not impossible!
I suppose you have the model version:930 A2 with the GM mcu
mrjim145 11 months ago
@mrjim145 btw the 145 alfa has 8v not 16v and well it can't handle a turbo it can handle only a supercharger. So that's the difference I was tryting to tell you.
DuhuKaralius 11 months ago
@mrjim145 well first of all, my 145 1.6 engine doesn't have a right diameter turbo head shaft. I mean the place where you put yuor turbo on. Get yourself a picture of a 145 boxer engine :> and try to fit a turbo there.
DuhuKaralius 11 months ago
OK!But you said boxer engines!And whats the difference between 16v boxer of 33 and 145?Just the injection systeme the cams and a little mobification at the gearbox 9/35 to 9/37 differential second for the 145 and 1rst and second gear longer to the first 33 16v.Engines are excactly the same pistons metal valves engine blocs etc etc etc....
mrjim145 11 months ago