Гласање

Supercharger ili Turbocharger ???

Supercharger
8 (14.3%)
Turbocharger
21 (37.5%)
Twincharged
10 (17.9%)
Атмосферец
17 (30.4%)

Вкупно гласови: 56

Автор Тема: Supercharging VS Turbocharging  (Прочитано 20736 пати)

Отсутен djidji

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 10568
Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« на: Мај 21, 2011, 15:38:47 pm »
Еве нешто корисно, извадено од Wiki, како основа за понатамошна дискусија:

A supercharger is an air compressor used for forced induction of an internal combustion engine.
The greater mass flow-rate provides more oxygen to support combustion than would be available in a naturally-aspirated engine, which allows more fuel to be burned and more work to be done per cycle, increasing the power output of the engine.
Power for the unit can come mechanically by a belt, gear, shaft, or chain connected to the engine's crankshaft.
When power comes from an exhaust gas turbine a supercharger is known as a turbosupercharger[1] – typically referred to simply as a turbocharger or just turbo. Common usage restricts the term supercharger to mechanically driven units.

Types of supercharger

There are two main types of superchargers defined according to the method of compression: positive displacement and dynamic compressors. The former deliver a fairly constant level of pressure increase at all engine speeds (RPM), whereas the latter deliver increasing pressure with increasing engine speed.

Positive displacement

An Eaton MP62 Roots-type supercharger is visible at the front of this Ecotec LSJ engine in a 2006 Saturn Ion Red Line.

Lysholm screw rotors with complex shape of each rotor which must run at high speed and with close tolerances. This makes this type of supercharger expensive. (This unit has been blued to show close contact areas.)
Positive-displacement pumps deliver a nearly fixed volume of air per revolution at all speeds (minus leakage, which is almost constant at all speeds for a given pressure, thus its importance decreases at higher speeds). The device divides the air mechanically into parcels for delivery to the engine, mechanically moving the air into the engine bit by bit.
Major types of positive-displacement pumps include:
Roots
Lysholm screw
Sliding vane
Scroll-type supercharger, also known as the G-Lader


Compression Type

Positive-displacement pumps are further divided into internal compression and external compression types.
Roots superchargers are typically external compression only (although high-helix roots blowers attempt to emulate the internal compression of the Lysholm screw).
External compression refers to pumps that transfer air at ambient pressure into the engine. If the engine is running under boost conditions, the pressure in the intake manifold is higher than that coming from the supercharger. That causes a backflow from the engine into the supercharger until the two reach equilibrium. It is the backflow that actually compresses the incoming gas. This is a highly inefficient process, and the main factor in the lack of efficiency of Roots superchargers when used at high boost levels. The lower the boost level the smaller is this loss, and Roots blowers are very efficient at moving air at low pressure differentials, which is what they were first invented for (hence the original term "blower").
All the other types have some degree of internal compression.
Internal compression refers to the compression of air within the supercharger itself, which, already at or close to boost level, can be delivered smoothly to the engine with little or no back flow. This is more efficient than back flow compression and allows higher efficiency to be achieved. Internal compression devices usually use a fixed internal compression ratio. When the boost pressure is equal to the compression pressure of the supercharger, the back flow is zero. If the boost pressure exceeds that compression pressure, back flow can still occur as in a roots blower. Internal compression blowers must be matched to the expected boost pressure in order to achieve the higher efficiency they are capable of, otherwise they will suffer the same problems and low efficiency of the roots blowers.


Capacity rating
Positive-displacement superchargers are usually rated by their capacity per revolution. In the case of the Roots blower, the GMC rating pattern is typical. The GMC types are rated according to how many two-stroke cylinders, and the size of those cylinders, it is designed to scavenge. GMC has made 2–71, 3–71, 4–71, and the famed 6–71 blowers. For example, a 6–71 blower is designed to scavenge six cylinders of 71 cubic inches each and would be used on a two-stroke diesel of 426 cubic inches, which is designated a 6–71; the blower takes this same designation. However, because 6–71 is actually the engine's designation, the actual displacement is less than the simple multiplication would suggest. A 6–71 actually pumps 339 cubic inches per revolution.
Aftermarket derivatives continue the trend with 8–71 to current 14–71 blowers. From this, one can see that a 6–71 is roughly twice the size of a 3–71. GMC also made −53-cubic-inch series in 2-, 3-, 4-, 6-, and 8–53 sizes, as well as a “V71” series for use on engines using a V configuration.

Dynamic
Dynamic compressors rely on accelerating the air to high speed and then exchanging that velocity for pressure by diffusing or slowing it down.
Major types of dynamic compressor are:
Centrifugal
Multi-stage axial-flow
Pressure wave supercharger

Supercharger drive types
Superchargers are further defined according to their method of drive (mechanical—or turbine).

Mechanical
Belt (V-belt, Synchronous belt, Flat belt)
Direct drive
Gear drive
Chain drive

Exhaust gas turbines
Axial turbine
Radial turbine

Other
Electric motor
All types of compressor may be mated to and driven by either gas turbine or mechanical linkage. Dynamic compressors are most often matched with gas turbine drives due to their similar high-speed characteristics, whereas positive displacement pumps usually use one of the mechanical drives. However, all of the possible combinations have been tried with various levels of success. In principle, a positive displacement engine could be used in place of an exhaust turbine to improve low speed performance. Electric superchargers are all essentially fans (axial pumps). A form of regenerative braking has been tried where the car is slowed by compressing air for future acceleration.

Temperature effects and intercoolers

Supercharger CDT vs. Ambient Temperature. Graph shows how a supercharger's CDT varies with air temperature and altitude (absolute pressure).
One downside of supercharging is that compressing the air increases its temperature. When a supercharger is used on an internal combustion engine, the temperature of the fuel/air charge becomes a major limiting factor in engine performance. Extreme temperatures will cause detonation of the fuel-air mixture (spark ignition engines) and damage to the engine. In cars, this can cause a problem when it is a hot day outside, or when large amounts of boost are being pushed.
It is possible to estimate the temperature rise across a supercharger by modeling it as an isentropic process.


For example, if a supercharged engine is pushing 10 psi (0.69 bar) of boost at sea level (ambient pressure of 14.7 psi (1.01 bar), ambient temperature of 75 °F), the temperature of the air after the supercharger will be 160.5 °F (71.4 °C). This temperature is known as the compressor discharge temperature (CDT) and highlights why a method for cooling the air after the compressor is so important.
In addition to causing possible detonation and damage, hot intake decreases power in at least one way. At a given pressure, the hotter the air the less dense it is, so the mass of intake is decreased, or for the same mass it takes more power to drive the compressor.

Automobiles

1929 "Blower" Bentley. The large "blower" (supercharger), located in front of the radiator, gave the car its name.
In 1900, Gottlieb Daimler, of Daimler-Benz (Daimler AG), was the first to patent a forced-induction system for internal combustion engines, superchargers based the twin-rotor air-pump design, first patented by the American Francis Roots in 1860, the basic design for the modern Roots type supercharger.
The first supercharged cars were introduced at the 1921 Berlin Motor Show: the 6/20 hp and 10/35 hp Mercedes. These cars went into production in 1923 as the 6/25/40 hp (regarded as the first supercharged road car[5]) and 10/40/65 hp.[6] These were normal road cars as other supercharged cars at same time were almost all racing cars, including the 1923 Fiat 805-405, 1923 Miller 122[7] 1924 Alfa Romeo P2, 1924 Sunbeam,[8] 1925 Delage,[9] and the 1926 Bugatti Type 35C. At the end of the 1920s, Bentley made a supercharged version of the Bentley 4½ Litre road car. Since then, superchargers (and turbochargers) have been widely applied to racing and production cars, although the supercharger's technological complexity and cost have largely limited it to expensive, high-performance cars.

Supercharging versus turbocharging

Positive-displacement superchargers may absorb as much as a third of the total crankshaft power of the engine, and, in many applications, are less efficient than turbochargers. In applications for which engine response and power are more important than any other consideration, such as top-fuel dragsters and vehicles used in tractor pulling competitions, positive-displacement superchargers are very common.
There are three main categories of superchargers for automotive use:
Centrifugal turbochargers – driven from exhaust gases.
Centrifugal superchargers – driven directly by the engine via a belt-drive.
Positive displacement pumps – such as the Roots, Twin Screw(Lysholm), and TVS(Eaton) blowers.
The thermal efficiency, or fraction of the fuel/air energy that is converted to output power, is less with a mechanically-driven supercharger than with a turbocharger, because turbochargers are using energy from the exhaust gases that would normally be wasted. For this reason, both the economy and the power of a turbocharged engine are usually better than with superchargers. The main advantage of an engine with a mechanically-driven supercharger is better throttle response, as well as the ability to reach full-boost pressure instantaneously. With the latest turbocharging technology, throttle response on turbocharged cars is nearly as good as with mechanically-powered superchargers, but the existing lag time is still considered a major drawback, especially considering that the vast majority of mechanically-driven superchargers are now driven off clutched pulleys, much like an air compressor.
Turbochargers suffer (to a greater or lesser extent) from so-called turbo-spool (turbo lag; more correctly, boost lag), in which initial acceleration from low RPM is limited by the lack of sufficient exhaust gas mass flow (pressure). Once engine RPM is sufficient to start the turbine spinning, there is a rapid increase in power, as higher turbo boost causes more exhaust gas production, which spins the turbo yet faster, leading to a belated "surge" of acceleration. This makes the maintenance of smoothly-increasing RPM far harder with turbochargers than with engine-driven superchargers, which apply boost in direct proportion to the engine RPM.
Roots blowers tend to be 40–50% efficient at high boost levels. Centrifugal superchargers are 70–85% efficient. Lysholm-style blowers can be nearly as efficient as their centrifugal counterparts over a narrow range of load/speed/boost, for which the system must be specifically designed.
Keeping the air that enters the engine cool is an important part of the design of both superchargers and turbochargers. Compressing air increases its temperature, so it is common to use a small radiator called an intercooler between the pump and the engine to reduce the temperature of the air.
In the 1985 and 1986 World Rally Championships, Lancia ran the Delta S4 which incorporated both a belt driven supercharger and exhaust driven turbocharger. The design used a complex series of bypass valves in the induction and exhaust systems, and an electromagnetic clutch so that at low engine speeds boost was derived from the supercharger, in the middle of the rev range boost was derived from both systems, whilst at the highest revs the system disconnected drive from the supercharger and isolated the associated ducting.[10] This was done in an attempt to exploit the advantages of each of the charging systems whilst removing the disadvantages. In turn this approach brought greater complexity and impacted on the cars reliability in WRC events, whilst also increasing the weight of engine anciliaries in the finished design.
The Volkswagen TSI engine (or Twincharger) is a 1.4 litre direct injection motor that also uses both a supercharger and turbocharger.

Effects of temperature

Supercharger CDT vs. Altitude. Graph shows the CDT differences between a constant-boost supercharger and a variable-boost supercharger when utilized on an aircraft.
As discussed above, supercharging can cause a spike in temperature, and extreme temperatures will cause detonation of the fuel-air mixture and damage to the engine. In the case of aircraft, this causes a problem at low altitudes, where the air is both denser and warmer than at high altitudes. With high ambient air temperatures, detonation could start to occur with the manifold pressure gauge reading far below red line.
A supercharger optimized for high altitudes causes the opposite problem on the intake side of the system. With the throttle retarded to avoid overboosting, air temperature in the carburetor can drop low enough to cause ice to form at the throttle plate. In this manner, enough ice could accumulate to cause engine failure, even with the engine operating at full rated power. For this reason, many supercharged aircraft featured a carburetor air temperature gauge or warning light to alert the pilot of possible icing conditions.
Several solutions to these problems were developed: intercoolers and aftercoolers, anti-detonant injection, two-speed superchargers, and two-stage superchargers.


Turbocharging

Main article: Turbocharger
A mechanically driven supercharger has to take its drive power from the engine. Taking a single-stage single-speed supercharged engine, such as the Rolls Royce Merlin, for instance, the supercharger uses up about 150 hp (110 kW). Without a supercharger, the engine would produce 750 hp (560 kW); with a supercharger, it produces 1,000 hp (750 kW), a total increase of 400 hp (750 hp — 150 + 400), or a net gain of 250 hp (190 kW). This is where the principal disadvantage of a supercharger becomes apparent: The engine has to burn extra fuel to provide power to turn the supercharger. The increased charge density increases the engine's specific power and power to weight ratio, but also increases the engine's specific fuel consumption. This increases the cost of running the aircraft and reduces its overall range.
As opposed to a supercharger driven by the engine itself, a turbocharger is driven using the exhaust gases from the engines. The amount of power in the gas is proportional to the difference between the exhaust pressure and air pressure, and this difference increases with altitude, helping a turbocharged engine to compensate for changing altitude.
The majority of WWII engines used mechanically driven superchargers, because they maintained three significant manufacturing advantages over turbochargers. Turbochargers, used by American aero engines such as the Allison V-1710, the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 were larger, involved extra piping, and required rare high-temperature alloys in the turbine and pre-turbine section of the exhaust system. The size of the piping alone was a serious issue; the Vought F4U Corsair and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt used the same engine but the huge barrel-like fuselage of the latter was, in part, a result of the necessary piping to and from the turbocharger in the rear of the plane. Turbocharged piston engines are also subject to many of the same operating restrictions as gas turbine engines. Turbocharged engines also require frequent inspections of the turbocharger and exhaust systems for damage due to the increased heat, increasing maintenance costs.
Today, most general aviation aircraft are naturally aspirated. The small number of modern aviation piston engines designed to run at high altitudes generally use a turbocharger or turbo-normalizer system rather than a supercharger driven from the crank shaft. The change in thinking is largely due to economics. Aviation gasoline was once plentiful and cheap, favoring the simple but fuel-hungry supercharger. As the cost of fuel has increased, the supercharger has fallen out of favor. Equivalently, depending on what monetary inflation factor one uses, fuel costs have not decreased as fast as production and maintenance costs have.

Effects of fuel octane rating

Until World War II all automobile and aviation fuel was generally rated at 87 octane or less. This is the rating that was achieved by the simple distillation of "light crude" oil. Engines from around the world were designed to work with this grade of fuel, which set a limit to the amount of boosting that could be provided by the supercharger, while maintaining a reasonable compression ratio.
Octane rating boosting through additives was a line of research being explored at the time. Using these techniques, less valuable crude could still supply large amounts of useful gasoline, which made it a valuable economic process. However the additives were not limited to making poor-quality oil into 87-octane gasoline; the same additives could also be used to boost the gasoline to much higher octane ratings.
Higher-octane fuel resists auto ignition and detonation better than does low-octane fuel. As a result, the amount of boost supplied by the superchargers could be increased, resulting in an increase in engine output. The development of 100 octane aviation fuel, pioneered in the USA before the war, enabled the use of higher boost pressures to be used on high-performance aviation engines, and was used to develop extremely high power outputs – for short periods – in several of the pre-war speed record airplanes. Operational use of the new fuel during World War II began in early 1940 when 100-octane fuel was delivered to the British Royal Air Force from refineries in America and the East Indies.[13] The German Luftwaffe also had supplies of a similar fuel.[14][15]
Increasing the knocking limits of existing aviation fuels became a major focus of aero engine development during World War II. By the end of the war, fuel was being delivered at a nominal 150-octane rating, on which late-war aero engines like the Rolls-Royce Merlin 66[16][17] or the Daimler-Benz DB 605DC developed as much as 2,000 hp (1,500 kW).












Отсутен RikiRulz

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 10651
  • *** UNDERCOVER ***
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #1 на: Мај 21, 2011, 18:20:35 pm »
Ти реков, додека си на боловање... многу нови работи не научиш за коливе...

Отсутен djidji

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 10568
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #2 на: Мај 21, 2011, 18:27:37 pm »
Ти реков, додека си на боловање... многу нови работи не научиш за коливе...

Хах На 30 Мај здравје Боже пак почнуам со работа :) После нема форум-морум ;)

Отсутен Jordan

  • Јуниор
  • **
  • Пораки: 217
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #3 на: Мај 21, 2011, 19:18:57 pm »
главна предност на supercharger-от наспроти турбото е тоа што има зголемување на силата на целиотопсег на работа на моторот , за разлика кај турбината каде може да се јави турбо-лаг ( турбо каснење ) и подоцна силата се добива многу експлозивно , додека кај superchargerot таа е достапна уште од најмали вртежи и нема такво турбо каснење , но затоа пак со турбината може да се покачи повеќе силата на моторот

Отсутен Deni

  • Photo & Light
  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 52527
  • Махер
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #4 на: Мај 21, 2011, 19:30:21 pm »
Јордан, суперчарџерот ќе ја намали основната сила на моторот. А турбината не ја намалува истата. Со други зборови турбото е поефикасно. Како и да е, со даунсајзингот на моторите и со конечно посветување внимание таму кај што треба, може и да начекаме нешто асално од индустријава. Конкретно на дизел агрегатите да се изведе суперчарџер верзија - во помали коли. Ем ќе немаат турбо лаг, ем нема да има потреба од 2 турбини. Ама здравје боже.
Штом тргнала работава накај еклогија, суперчарџери - тешко.
Поентата на турбо е што дава природен „хибрид“ од моторот. Значи кога стоиш, во лер и на ултра ниски вртежи се однесува како многу мал мотор. А кога треба сила и моќ, се однесува како голем мотор. Тоа е многу позитивно во поглед на потрошувачката. Посебно делот што ја поставува силата на моторот на многу достапно подрачје - па уште дополнително ја зголемува економичноста.

Отсутен Stratro

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 22223
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #5 на: Мај 22, 2011, 19:17:13 pm »




I rest my case... :)

Отсутен RikiRulz

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 10651
  • *** UNDERCOVER ***
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #6 на: Мај 22, 2011, 20:33:06 pm »
Turbocharger !

Поубаво ми е :)

Отсутен LosiPatista

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 12136
  • Duh sa TDI-jom
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #7 на: Мај 22, 2011, 22:48:17 pm »
Site si imaat svoja ubavina.

-Turbo:
pros: apliciran vo mal (pa i golem)  motor pravi cuda, go smiruva, go stisuva, go pravi poekonomicen i mu dava zivot. Lesen za instalacija, proizveduva maksimalna snaga koja e realno upotrebliva.
cons: skap za odrzuvanje, turbo dupka, turbo edinicte vo novite avtomobili gi pravat od plastelin, se rasipuvaat na 150.000km. treba da se ceka 30 sekundi pred da se izgasi dokolku turboto bilo aktivno.

-Kompresor:
pros: snaga vo site rezimi na rabota od ler do 6000 rpm, nema turbo dupka. Mehanicki mnogu ednostaven i izdrzliv, nema sto da se rasipi na nego, ke trae cel zivot.
cons:malku pogolema potrosuvacka, pomala snaga vo odnos na turboto

-Twin charged:
pros: najdobro od dvata sveta, snaga na niski obrtai, snaga na visoki obrtai,
cons: preskap za odrzuvanje.


-Atmosferec:
pros: ako e ogromen atmosferec od tipot na LS7, odlicen e. Mehanicki najednostaven i najevtin za odrzuvanje
cons: Ne se epreporacuva atmosferec vo malo pakuvanje. Slabite atmosferci se glasni, bucni, baraat postojana rabota so manjacot i vozenje vo visoki vrtezi sto znacitelno go skratuva vekot na motorot. Malite atmosferci se poznati pod kodnoto ime: kosilici!


Site si imaat pozitivni strani, treba da si odberis ona sto odgovara na tvoite potrebi.

Torsion Beam - The Only Axle You Will Ever Need

Отсутен marjanot

  • Следен од Hammond на Инстаграм.
  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 10612
  • 430i
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #8 на: Мај 23, 2011, 00:12:52 am »
Site si imaat svoja ubavina.

-Atmosferec:
pros: ako e ogromen atmosferec od tipot na LS7, odlicen e. Mehanicki najednostaven i najevtin za odrzuvanje
cons: Ne se epreporacuva atmosferec vo malo pakuvanje. Slabite atmosferci se glasni, bucni, baraat postojana rabota so manjacot i vozenje vo visoki vrtezi sto znacitelno go skratuva vekot na motorot. Malite atmosferci se poznati pod kodnoto ime: kosilici!

Јас па мислев само бензинците ги нарекуваш косилици ;D

Отсутен gOJDO

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 7693
  • Хорска Секција
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #9 на: Мај 23, 2011, 01:41:19 am »
За мое големо изненадување еволуирал ЛП...Сега поделбата ја прави не само на типот на гориво, туку и на типот на аспирација...

Јас само нема да се сложам дека потрошувачката кај компресорот е поголема, ако тоа се однесува во однос на атмосферец. Помала е.

Како и да е, најдобри се оние и со супер и со турбо чарџер. Колку ќе биде скапо одржувањето зависи од тоа колку добро е дизајниран моторот, како и од тоа колку е лакома компанијата која го продава.
Ум шо идит отпосле не јет ум!

Отсутен LosiPatista

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 12136
  • Duh sa TDI-jom
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #10 на: Мај 23, 2011, 08:39:16 am »
Site si imaat svoja ubavina.

-Atmosferec:
pros: ako e ogromen atmosferec od tipot na LS7, odlicen e. Mehanicki najednostaven i najevtin za odrzuvanje
cons: Ne se epreporacuva atmosferec vo malo pakuvanje. Slabite atmosferci se glasni, bucni, baraat postojana rabota so manjacot i vozenje vo visoki vrtezi sto znacitelno go skratuva vekot na motorot. Malite atmosferci se poznati pod kodnoto ime: kosilici!

Јас па мислев само бензинците ги нарекуваш косилици ;D

Ne, no 95 % od benzincite po nasive patista se kosilici  ;D

Ne stanuva zbor za evolucija, ovie ubeduvanja gi imam 1 decenija. problemot kako i sekogas e vo komunikacijata, koj kako kogo svatil...pogresno.

Torsion Beam - The Only Axle You Will Ever Need

Отсутен LosiPatista

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 12136
  • Duh sa TDI-jom
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #11 на: Мај 23, 2011, 08:47:16 am »
Kompresorot poveke trosi od turbo izvedbata i od atmosferecot, istrazi malku na taa tema ke vidis. Efikasnosta vo potrsuvackata mu e poslaba strana, no zdraviot odziv na pedalata vo sekoj moment e garantirana, duri i na 800 rpm. Mehanickiot stroj e neunistliv, pa za tie sto sakaat performansi i trajnost a ne marat za potrosuvackata ova e najdobriot izbor.

Jas dolgo se mislev za sto da glasam i se odluciv sepak za turbo zatoa sto e:
-najekonomicen.
-ja transformira masinata, celosno ja stisuva, imas necujni rezimi na rabota. (Od traktor dizel pravi necujno vozilo)
-kick in the seat, odlicen izliv na snaga.
-ne e preskapa tehnologija.

znaci koga gi zemam vo obzir ekonomicnosta, performansite i odrzuvanjeto, turboto e za mene najdobra opcija. Sekako dokolku parite se neograniceni, twin charging, charger-turbo ili turbo-turbo kombinacijata e neprikosnovena.
« Последно менување: Мај 23, 2011, 08:49:36 am LosiPatista »

Torsion Beam - The Only Axle You Will Ever Need

Отсутен Stratro

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 22223
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #12 на: Мај 23, 2011, 09:10:01 am »
Ete, me pretrkal LP vo prednostite na superchargerot pred turbochargerot.
Apsolutno se slagam.

Отсутен LosiPatista

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 12136
  • Duh sa TDI-jom
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #13 на: Мај 23, 2011, 09:30:05 am »
Neznam koj ima podobar zvuk i podobra pojava, Interceptorot ili Camaroto.

Torsion Beam - The Only Axle You Will Ever Need

Отсутен Stratro

  • Легенда
  • *****
  • Пораки: 22223
Одг: Supercharging VS Turbocharging
« Одговори #14 на: Мај 23, 2011, 11:15:06 am »
Neznam koj ima podobar zvuk i podobra pojava, Interceptorot ili Camaroto.

Ova...