supercharger vs turbocharger which is better??

[dsm tuner 21]

the old age question which is better im just interested in what ppl prefer i urley enjoy the turbocharger but the supercharger has its rights also ......let me know what think......be free to leave stats, dyno charts and times ....battle this thing out

[ryanman]

I guess it would depend on what your gonna use the vehicle for. I'd have both. A supercharger for the bottom end and then a turbo for the top end. Nothing like having 5 lbs of boost at idle.

[David]

supercharges are kind of dumb IMO. First off they dont make as much power as a turbo, they rob the engine of some of this power first, people say its down low where you need it...when your trying to make power your not going to be below 3K RPM, especially if your ridding around in a 4banger.

and a turbo sounds cooler:)

[dsm tuner 21]

yes but what about on bigger engines i mean it does depend on what kind of car you got.......but if any one here watches SPIKE tv and watches Supertuner And NOPI and hot rod there was one nice 67 mustang with twin turbo on a v8 which i can't argue with producing 564 horsepower and 660 lbs of torgue is nice...turbos can produce more power and when racing who does race at 3000 rpm great point by 4g63

[sillyme]

usualy supercharger are better or they work better on big V8s and turbo are for the smaller engines, like honda etc... Not many V8s uses turbo. IMO turbo are alot better because u can do more with it. IMO

[john]

Small displacement motors would give a lot away via a supercharger, as they are parasitic. Turbochargers are "free".

However, on a big block, that parasitic drain is drastically reduced. It all depends on the motor.

Superchargers can't make as much power as a turbocharger? Says who? That's a load if you ask me.

[David]

Originally posted by dsm tuner 21
yes but what about on bigger engines i mean it does depend on what kind of car you got.......but if any one here watches SPIKE tv and watches Supertuner And NOPI and hot rod there was one nice 67 mustang with twin turbo on a v8 which i can't argue with producing 564 horsepower and 660 lbs of torgue is nice...turbos can produce more power and when racing who does race at 3000 rpm great point by 4g63

well this is an import site so I was going off of imports;)

[95GSRB18C]

yea i look at it as a supercharger taking power to make power and a turbo being "free" power, i guess you could call it.

[ryanman]

Originally posted by john

Superchargers can't make as much power as a turbocharger? Says who? That's a load if you ask me. :werd:

[stu]

I really don't understand how a supercharger could make as much power as a turbo when you get to high boost pressures. You can only make a pully so small right?

[ryanman]

Yeah but you can make the s/c bigger.

[hotrod]

I think there is a place for both. The supercharger is a parasite and the turbo is free is not really accurate. Its a nice advertising gimic but not entirely true. The turbo also has a price to pay in the form of exhaust gas back pressure, which reduces the "real boost" because your net boost is determined by how much fresh charge you can get in the cylinder. In a turbocharged engine (especially most factory setups like the WRX) the hot side is undersized to give a hard hit at mid rpm and it chokes the engine on the top side. I would say the only place the "free power" concept becomes reasonably true is in the case of the super big lag monsters that will not hit their stride until your halfway down the strip.

The super charger also gives back some of that crank shaft power (especially at low rpm where a turbo would not do squat) by providing positive cylinder pressure on the intake stroke.

The newer screw compressor designs are about as effecient as a modern turbo compressor ( in the range of the high 70% thermal effeciency).

If cost and fabrication issues were no problem, my choice would be a low boost supercharger in cascade with a big hummer turbo.

Larry

[dsm tuner 21]

but when it comes to bigger engines twin turbo engines can make more power with dual ball bearing turbo's then any supercharger i personally think

[marcrx5]

yeah, I have a supercharged crx, and I'm in the process of building a turbo kit for it. Boost is addictive, and I can't simply turn up the boost on my supercharger. I wanted the supercharger for autox, but lately I've been thinkin the same way 4G63 was, even in autox, I probably wont drop below 3K rpm. Don't get me wrong, my car hauls with the supercharger, but I'd just like more power.

[David]

Originally posted by ryanman
Yeah but you can make the s/c bigger.
yea but you have a limit because sooner or later the engine wont be able to run the s/c

[ryanman]

s/c = no lag

But I'm still a turbo guy myself.

[exciv2000]

Originally posted by hotrod
I think there is a place for both. The supercharger is a parasite and the turbo is free is not really accurate. Its a nice advertising gimic but not entirely true. The turbo also has a price to pay in the form of exhaust gas back pressure, which reduces the "real boost" because your net boost is determined by how much fresh charge you can get in the cylinder. In a turbocharged engine (especially most factory setups like the WRX) the hot side is undersized to give a hard hit at mid rpm and it chokes the engine on the top side. I would say the only place the "free power" concept becomes reasonably true is in the case of the super big lag monsters that will not hit their stride until your halfway down the strip.

The super charger also gives back some of that crank shaft power (especially at low rpm where a turbo would not do squat) by providing positive cylinder pressure on the intake stroke.

The newer screw compressor designs are about as effecient as a modern turbo compressor ( in the range of the high 70% thermal effeciency).


Someone finally knows what he's talking about!! I like reading this rather than some 16yr old turbo nutswinger.

[LeonZ]

Originally posted by exciv2000
Someone finally knows what he's talking about!! I like reading this rather than some 16yr old turbo nutswinger.

;OwnEd;

[SleeperZ]

Well it sounded good anyway. :rolleyes:

[ryanman]

No it didn't.

[exciv2000]

Originally posted by marcrx5
Boost is addictive, and I can't simply turn up the boost on my supercharger.

Maybe not "simply" but you can turn up the boost on an SC. If you don't know how, I can help or point you in the right direction. My suggestion: you made your bed, now lie in it. i.e. you made the decision to go with the SC, so keep it until you sell the car. Reason being, unless you like to throw money away, you'll never get the amount back that you paid for it 1st of all, 2nd of all, if you do sell it and start piecing together a turbo for the rex, chances are the sale of the SC and any complementary components won't equal the amount of money you need for even a junkyard turbo, let alone a kit, so you'll be coming up with more money to complete the conversion project. Even then, you'll be able to run more boost on an SC than an intercooled turbo on a stock block honda. That changes basically vice-versa when you build the block, however. In all honesty, I've raced turbo civic EXs at bandimere running 5 PSI when I was running 8psi and our times were marginally close. Add nitrous for the intercooling effect on an SC and I'm basically pushing 11 PSI on a stock block, and the engine is handling it fine, and my times are significantly faster than like cars with turbo. Now, this isn't a rule of thumb because different drivers mod their cars in different ways, added to the fact that the turbo flow maps may be different from one car's turbo to another, but I'm just basing this on three or four experiences that I've had at the track with similar cars and after talking to their drivers. Turbos flow more CFMs than SC's usually regarding import 4 cylinders, hence why they can usually only run about 7 psi on stock blocks reliably.

Sorry for the long winded suggestion, but the end of it is that when you sell your car, go for a factory turbo car where the ecu and engine is actually built for it. It will be more reliable, less expensive in the long run, and drive so much smoother.

[Mario]

What does your car run here Scott?

[ryanman]

Ok here's my smart side on this topic.


The reason for doing it is that boost is exponential, not compound.

if you have a SC or a turbo pushing 1Bar (double Atmospheric pressure, or 14.7 PSI) it is effectivly doubling the amount of air being ingested by the engine. if you have a turbo boosting at 1Bar you double the air density, if said air is then fed into a supercharger with a 14.7 PSI pully, you have doubled the (already doubled) density, so with a turbo pushing 1bar and a SC pushing 1Bar you are actually seeing 3Bar or 44.1 PSI or 4 times atmospheric pressure, and thusly 4 times the air ingested by the engine, without having to wait for the MONSTER lag that a turbo pushing 44PSI would have, and without having all the annoyances of trying to spin a supercharger to 44PSI...


I hope I explained that well enough... and I just typed it quickly... if I made a mathmatical error, or somthing, someone with more time please correct me...


On a side note, the real world figures would be different from the theoretical. Mileage may vary.

[hotrod]

The other issue that needs to be considered is that all else being equal a multistage supercharging system ( being generic here either turbo or postitive displacement) will be more effecient thermodynamically than a single stage supercharging system that achieves the same pressure ratio. Especially if you have proper interstage intercooling.

That is why high pressure ratio compressors in industry are typically multistage. The down side is the added plumbing / complications to get all that crap under the hood.

Most automotive systems are right on that dividing line when the get above a pressure ratio of about 2.5:1. Above that it is difficult to find a compressor that will be happy at that high pressure ratio and not have some really evil surge problems at low boost.

Superchargers don't have to deal with surge at low boost and will happily run at 2 psi boost across the rev range.

Sort of a choice of evils question. Which poison would you prefer to drink.

Larry

[David]

Originally posted by hotrod
The other issue that needs to be considered is that all else being equal a multistage supercharging system ( being generic here either turbo or postitive displacement) will be more effecient thermodynamically than a single stage supercharging system that achieves the same pressure ratio. Especially if you have proper interstage intercooling.

That is why high pressure ratio compressors in industry are typically multistage. The down side is the added plumbing / complications to get all that crap under the hood.

Most automotive systems are right on that dividing line when the get above a pressure ratio of about 2.5:1. Above that it is difficult to find a compressor that will be happy at that high pressure ratio and not have some really evil surge problems at low boost.

Superchargers don't have to deal with surge at low boost and will happily run at 2 psi boost across the rev range.

Sort of a choice of evils question. Which poison would you prefer to drink.

Larry

damn...your smart:C

[jojo]

I've actually run a supercharger, twin turbo and single turbo on the same motor. The turbo setups have the potential to make the most peak hp but I've found the twin screw compressors give you the best overall driveability - particularly on the street. Full boost by 1800rpm makes for lots of fun in stop and go traffic ;) The biggest problem with the twin screw setups (at least in the Mustang world) is finding one that is large enough for your particular application and intercooling it effectively.

The downside to turbos - on my setups anyway - is that they tend to be more maintenance intensive and harder to work on - a big part of that though is the fact that my engine compartment was not laid out with a T70 in mind =(

Overall I'm getting a little tired of the cost and maintenance of big power adder setups. There's something to be said for the old school simplicity of a stroked big block. A 557 Ford will make just under 600hp and 600ftlbs on pump gas..... hmmmm...

[exciv2000]

Originally posted by Mario
What does your car run here Scott?

My best was 15.35 at IDRC in June or whenever the earlier one was on 8 PSI and a 25 shot. That was spinning through first. I've yet to run on the 35 shot and if I can maintain some level of traction high 14s should be in order... I would have hit those 14s on the last test and tune of the season had I not nearly fractured my hand, that's what I was most pissed about, cause now I have to wait until next year.

[Pang]

I LOVE TURBOS!

[exciv2000]

Also, lets not forget:

"At a redline of 7,000 rpm, a twin-screw supercharger uses 11 hp, and a roots uses 11 hp (9 hp in the Jackson Racing unit). At 3500 rpm, the horsepower drain is 5 hp (4 hp in the jackson racing unit). At cruise speed, the required horsepower of the Jackson Racing unit can be as little as one-third of one horsepower drain. Turbochargers require a 2 hp drain to drive the unit. Out of boost, turbochargers can use up to 10 hp, depending on the efficiency of the exhaust manifold."

So, unless you've got an equal runner length exhaust manifold, you're losing HP at idle and until you start seeing positive pressure on the intake manifold with a turbo. SC's don't have this problem.

[john]

On which motor?

Originally posted by exciv2000
Also, lets not forget:

"At a redline of 7,000 rpm, a twin-screw supercharger uses 11 hp, and a roots uses 11 hp (9 hp in the Jackson Racing unit). At 3500 rpm, the horsepower drain is 5 hp (4 hp in the jackson racing unit). At cruise speed, the required horsepower of the Jackson Racing unit can be as little as one-third of one horsepower drain. Turbochargers require a 2 hp drain to drive the unit. Out of boost, turbochargers can use up to 10 hp, depending on the efficiency of the exhaust manifold."

So, unless you've got an equal runner length exhaust manifold, you're losing HP at idle and until you start seeing positive pressure on the intake manifold with a turbo. SC's don't have this problem.

[Mark_H]

4 cyclinder-single turbo
8 cyclinder- twin turbo
My 0.2
Mark

[newt2]

The fastest cars in the world are supercharged.

[V8SpankR]

Originally posted by newt2
The fastest cars in the world are supercharged.


That pretty much says it all. :p

[stu]

Originally posted by newt2
The fastest cars in the world are supercharged.

Yeah, but only because turbos are illegal in that class. :p

[newt2]

Originally posted by stu
Yeah, but only because turbos are illegal in that class. :p

What class? I was talking about my car. ;)

[CXhatchboy520]

And dont forget, turbos make power out of waste fumes, so IMO, they are more environmentally-friendly.Instead of producing more fumes to get power, it uses the same amount.

[exciv2000]

Originally posted by CXhatchboy520
And dont forget, turbos make power out of waste fumes, so IMO, they are more environmentally-friendly.Instead of producing more fumes to get power, it uses the same amount.

What?! How does that make them more environmentally friendly? I think Weston would call you a ricer for that statement. The more air you put into an engine, whether through an SC or turbo, the more "waste" you're going to get out. The turbo may "use" the fumes to spin the turbine, but in the end, the "waste" that the turbo uses is still going out the exhaust pipe. A turbo doesn't automagically use less exhaust, nor does it eliminate tailpipe emissions.

[ryanman]

Originally posted by CXhatchboy520
And dont forget, turbos make power out of waste fumes, so IMO, they are more environmentally-friendly.Instead of producing more fumes to get power, it uses the same amount.

Go back to ricer school and get some learnins, RICER

[djet820]

Bigger engines usually create more torque (stock, I think?). So I was thinking turbos would be better for bigger engines because the engines can spool up the turbo faster (but I could be totally wrong). And the smaller engines could go with the supercharger so they have boost throughout the whole RPM range.

But I'm still new to cars....

[stu]

torque doesn't spool turbos.

[djet820]

Well I didn't mean the torque spooled it. But it'd be able to go through the bottom RPMs a lot quicker....

[ryanman]

Originally posted by djet820
But I'm still new to cars.... You have 2000++++ post on this board and you don't know much about cars? What the hell do you do on here? I say we BAN HIM.

[LeonZ]

Originally posted by ryanman
You have 2000++++ post on this board and you don't know much about cars? What the hell do you do on here? I say we BAN HIM.

:rofl: printer boy is pretty cool. he's knowledgable about printers and stuff :D

[ryanman]

Printer boy eh?

[exciv2000]

Originally posted by ryanman
What the hell do you do on here?

He's the biggest post whore the likes of which HAI has never seen before. Probably not any web board for that matter.

[djet820]

Originally posted by ryanman
You have 2000++++ post on this board and you don't know much about cars? What the hell do you do on here? I say we BAN HIM.

Well most of my posts are in off-topic and tech zone...But I'm learning.

[-=[Juztin]=-]

I've been debating about going with a turbo or supercharger on my car for a while. The fact is this stuff costs quite a bit of money so I got time so I might as well use that for planning. Originally I would of liked to of gone with a supercharger for the immediate down low grunt for launches in terms of street races and what-not's. However, the only roots type positive displacement blower is made my stillen and is non-intercooled, and only adding an additional 80hp at 5.4 psi, I think I will pass. The second option is a ATI centrifugal supercharger which has characteristcs similar to turbos. At 7psi I will see around 360rwhp, which is definately nice. But the centrifugal SC is not positive displacement, so it also has an inherent spool up time. However, boost does kik in around 1800rpms - redline, but boost is also linear in it's incrementation. So I will only be seeing ~7psi at ~6000rpms which has been measures in other cars. This can potentially be a good thing cause you have to take into account have 310rwtq will lite the tires and make me go no where. So if I had full boost down low, then I would be having a traction head-ache (but I wouldnt mind that :D ). But the SC's are also inherently less effecient in design as turbo's. There' no way around that. I wouldn't mind swapping pulleys for more PSI, but in terms of potential for output numbers, a TT kit is what I have decided to go with. Spool up time with a TT kit is not of concern to me as my car already has torque down low to let me worry about shifting and keeping traction rather than wonder when is boost gonna kik in. The PE TT kit on a built VQ35DE should be seeing around 550 rwhp @ 14psi. This is retaining the 10.3:1 compression, which I am well aware is a balancing act in itself. (When I get around to doing the TT I'm going to do a engine rebuild from the ground up) I dont wanna go above 14psi cause the stock drivetrain is only rated at 600hp. I would already be seeing ~610hp at the crank so I'm already pushing my luck when I get there. Now, one thing to think about is the ATI centrifugal SC will be producing only around 480rwhp at the same PSI level. This is an example of the inhert ineffeciency between the two (turbo[exhaust driven so reliant on spool from exhaust which only starts when engine is under load] & sc[parasidic loss through driven system]) and both turbos & SC's have wide variances based upon design in adibiatic effeciency which plays a key role in power output. But the PRO with the ATI is you will see boost earlier in the rpm band. Of course if this was a twin screw positive displacement, you'd see full boost all the time. But a TS SC is something I'm still open upon, but I havent seen any out on the market that are capable of running 14psi on 10.3:1. The 5.4psi stillen has already been known to detonate! Even intercooled I can only think of seeing another 5-7psi, but with the parasidic loss, it's still not quite flexible. Although having 400rwhp&tq all the time can be even quicker than the ATI and run with a PE TT for a little bit before being overcome with sheer power. But the PRO with the PE TT is you will see full boost around 3200-3600rpms according to tests. That is 550rwhp and 530rwtq at 3600rpms. That's a LOT of power for that early in the rpm band. And that should present some very interesting traction problems. I'm already happy with having 230ish rwtq @ 1200rpms from the engine itself, so launch ability is not a concern which makes me not concerened with spool up time being in the 3k rpm range. However honestly having 530rwtq at 1200rpms in a street drag scenario would amount to a whole lotta squeeling on street tires. Of course you could then launch in like 5th gear lol, which would be humbling but yeah. I would have to be running around 17-18psi on the ATI get to get performance out of a more reliable 14psi on the PE TT kit. Of course then you can argue heat as well, but a twin screw positive displacement is not cool either. The centriugal does have more flexiblity going for it in my opinion in the SC realm but you loose that immediacy of the positive displacement. So in terms of generating as much horsepower and torque as effeciently as possible and within a moderately reliable PSI, I would go with TT. But getting 500ish number in rw hp & tq at 3000ish rpms is something to both enjoy and worry about as that will create some "interesting" stress on the drivetrain lol. But if a race occured between a ATI & PE TT kit both running 14 psi, the ATI would get the jump on launch, but once the TT kit's boost kicked in, the ATI car would be seeing tail lights.

Then if you weigh in costs, and maintenance, that's where the TT kit takes a knock and the SC kit gets points. SC's are usually cheaper because they are simpler, TT kit's are more complex and more moving parts with higher heat stresses which amount to more preventative maintenance.

It's simply the price you gotta pay when you want power, and how crazy of a car you want :D

In a nutshell:

TT=more efficient=most power @ less PSI=more heat=more complex=more maintenance=more expsensive

centrigual SC=more effecient=less heat=more power@less PSI=less complex=less maintenance=moderately expensive

twin screw +dis. SC=less effecient=less power@more PSI=more heat=way less complex=way les maintenance=way less espensive


--Justin

(F*ck that was a long post, time to go play some UT :D )

[john]

FWIW, here (http://www.dynopro.com/mhhr_detail.asp?ID=150) is a turbocharged dyno chart. It was my daily driven street car. At "medium" boost, and running pig rich. A/F ratio fell below 10.1:1 around 5k rpm.

As far as which is better, neither. They both have their applications.

Originally posted by dsm tuner 21
the old age question which is better im just interested in what ppl prefer i urley enjoy the turbocharger but the supercharger has its rights also ......let me know what think......be free to leave stats, dyno charts and times ....battle this thing out

[john]

SCs are simpler? ? ?

[-=[Juztin]=-]

I also do agree that neither is really better, they both have their applications.

[newt2]

SCs are simpler? ? ?

I guess it depends on your perspective. You don't have all the piping, BOV and wastegate with a roots blower like you do with a turbo, and since it operates across the entire powerband tuning is a little simpler too.

[stu]

Justin: Since when are turbos "hotter?" You keep contridicting yourself by saying that turbos are more effecient, but produce more heat as well. When in actuallity, the effeciency of turbos referes to them creating less heat than a supercharger would at the same boost level.

[DrJones]

I'd have to say neither.... give me a v8 anyday :D

[-=[Juztin]=-]

Stu,

Good point as that's my whole thought process of planning. I like thinking in a contradicting fashion so I can figure out what I'm willing to live with and need to worry about/work around/anticipate. Pick which one offers the best PRO's and least CON's for my own application (I have to argue myself out of and which one to go with lol :D). The effeciency proportional to heat factor isnt the whole picture although a VERY big one :D as you also have to look at the abiatic(blower) effeciency of each type of blower in general out there which also plays a key role. Of course turbo's are hotter as they driven by exhaust gases which is a lot hotter than ambient air temperature plus the spinning heat sink that it acts as, but you can get around that by IC, water injection, bla bla.. A roots/centrifugal gets it's heat from the compression process alone, not in addition to already running on hot air. Either way both create heat, just more reliably on the turbo end due to the exhaust driven system cause of the constant source of heat. That's a property that we can't get around during the process of compressing something, but we can get around it by cooling it afterward. The only real thing I'm trying to kick around is if I would like an intercooler or aftercooler cause both cool the air temp, but is one method better than the other, cooling before then running through a hot turbo, or cooling after it has passed through the turbo? hmm... :p

I would personally welcome Cadillacs 1000hp/1000tq auluminum V16 that tipped the scales at 490 lbs :D :D :D

L8te!
--Justin

[stu]

Wait a minute slow down, you are confusing a feew things here.
1) running hot exhuast gasses through a turbo housing and through a normal exhuast header is the same thing, that's still not the heat that you are talking about. The ONLY efficiency that you are talking about so far is the blower efficiency, and that's really the only heat that you should have to worry about.

2) An intercooler and an aftercooler BOTH cool after the air has been compressed. I don't know why they have different names since they are both the same thing. All an intercooler does is get the compressed air closer to ambient temperature, so if you put it before the compressor, all your doing is creating an unecessary pressure loss.

3) The heat that goes through the exhuast side of the turbo housing does not really affect how much the compressor side heats up the intake charge.

4) How are you figuring that turbos compress air more reliably because they are exhuast driven?

[sillyme]

Originally posted by newt2
The fastest cars in the world are supercharged.

what do u mean by THE FASTEST CAR? mainly big V8s dragster uses supercharger, but every other type of car uses turbo. e.i... Cart. F1. WRC. and so on.

[DrJones]

I think the reason a lot of the REALLY fast cars use super charges is because in a 4 second race, a second is a long time to wait for your turbo to spool.... Doesn't mean they are better all the time, just means they apply better to that situation.

[ryanman]

Originally posted by sillyme
what do u mean by THE FASTEST CAR? mainly big V8s dragster uses supercharger, but every other type of car uses turbo. e.i... Cart. F1. WRC. and so on. I know WRC cars use turbos but I think Cart and F1 cars are straight motor. But yeah I wonder what car they are talking about?

[stu]

They are talking about top fuel dragsters, because they ARE the fastest accelerating cars in the world, but turbos are illegal to use at that level.

[Weston-work]

Like john said, they both have their applications, you can't just label one as better than the other.

I can't speak about drag racing yet, but if the racing involves turns, then you do have to adjust your driving style a bit for a turbo, even when it has only a small amount of lag like mine. And it takes some getting used to.

I wouldn't expect that with a supercharger, but I chose to go turbo because of advantages such as having an intercooler, being able the adjust the amount of boost on-the-fly, better cooling of the compressor, and so on.

[Skaterkid]

F1 are all motor, CART is turbo for the next two or three years. IRL is all motor.

Now I'm just going off of memory here, but there was a turbo'd funny car that ran in the 80's. It didn't do much because the turbo was outlawed in the NHRA before the car could be sorted out.

Now if you've got NOS you can prespool the turbo. Or run an antilag system to get the turbo spooled at the line. Funny cars and dragsters are supercharged cause that's the only option for them.

[newt2]

what do u mean by THE FASTEST CAR? mainly big V8s dragster uses supercharger, but every other type of car uses turbo. e.i... Cart. F1. WRC. and so on.

None of those cars go 0-300mph in 4 seconds except for the top fuel cars.

I did a little comparison one day that I'd like to share. Here's a hypothetical drag race. In one lane we've got a Top Fuel car. In the other lane, but 2 full miles back is an Indy car with a Top Speed of 200mph. Let the Indy car get going so that when it crosses the starting the line it's already at its top speed. When the Indy Car reaches the starting line, the Top Fuel car can leave. The Top Fuel car will still reach the finish line first.

Stu,

You're not supposed to let silly things like rules detract from a good point. ;)

[SleeperZ]

Yeah Pat! It's sorta like saying, if my V8 had a turbo it'd be twice as fast as your (small displacement) forced induction engine!

Coulda woulda shoulda, run what you brung!

[dsm tuner 21]

lets just put it this way ppl turbo's and supercharger both work i seen a honda crx gain 100 horsepower offa sc...........if you took a stock body on a import car then took an american muscle car you could shove more horsepower in an american car for the same amount of money......yes nos on a import car who said you couldnt shove nos on a american car and for that matter turbo's so everything that you can shove on a import car can be shoved on a american car......in the end it don't matter what you have ......its your time in the 1/4 mile no matter the horsepower or boost what matters is the time from the starting line to the finish line personally who cares which is better as long as your running well

[sillyme]

"None of those cars go 0-300mph in 4 seconds except for the top fuel cars.''
that very much true, but only in drag racing supercharger are widely use and can only be use for a short distance. what i mean is that supercharged car are not the fastest car in other kind of races. i didnt know what kind of race u ppl were talking about.

[V8SpankR]

OK,maybe a better word for the top fuel car would be quickest since nothing accelerates faster......nothing. 0-100 in just under 8 tenths of a second.

Fastest would be those rocket powered cars out at Bonneville. They just recently broke the sound barrier on land.

[-=[Juztin]=-]

I never mentioned turbos compress are more reliably because they are exhaust driven. That'd be like saying the hotter the air is the better you can compress it lol. And if I some how came across as that, that was not my intent :D . But in general turbo compressors are more effecient than supercharger compressors. I used the general word because there are superchargers that are just as effecient as turbos. What my perspective is Stu is how much the compressor heats up the air in relation to compressing it ala adibiatic effec. For instance you have a Eaton blower at ~65% effec. and a Vortch centri. SC @ ~72% effec and a turbo at ~74% effec. The turbo compressor is gonna see the most power output as it's going to heat the air less during compres. and retain a more of the air density which in turn would lead to more numbers on the dyno when running all three systems at the same PSI plus take into account the parasidic loss through exhaust driven(less)/mechanically driven SC's(more). The next in line would be the centrifugal SC cause of its higher effeciency rating than the Eaton resulting in part 1 of the turbo explanation. Plus you could have a Eaton blower @ 78% effeciency and still come out only on par or even lower than the turbo because you have the parasidic loss.

Yes turbos run hotter, but that aint a problem with a good IC/AC. Most of the time you will never really need to worry about the above stuff, only if you wanna build your own system, or figure out which is best for your car rather than go of vendor claims on dyno numbers. All the goods depend on what type of compressor you go with, along with the IC and it's effeciency rating etc. Fun stuff to think about :D

[SC-MECHAM-WS6]

http://www.dynopro.com/ (Dyno Pro)

Out the the top 10 cars in CO. (of those that have dynoed) 6 out of the 10 are SUPERCHARGED!

6 supercharged
2 turbocharged
1 nitrous
1 n/a

[tsitim]

damn only one import we need to start building up our cars so we can hang with the cool mustang

[SC-MECHAM-WS6]

Originally posted by tsitim
damn only one import we need to start building up our cars so we can hang with the cool mustang

there are 2 supras :)

[SC-MECHAM-WS6]

Originally posted by -=[Juztin]=-
For instance you have a Eaton blower at ~65% effec. and a Vortch centri. SC @ ~72% effec and a turbo at ~74% effec.


VORTECH V-4 X-TRIM SUPERCHARGER
The entry level supercharger of choice among top racing teams for performance and durability
Straight cut spur gear
Fits engines up to 1,300 horsepower
Maximum airflow: 1,700 CFM *
Maximum boost pressure: 29 PSI *
Absolute maximum impeller speed: 58,000 RPM
Adiabatic efficiency: 79% **

[tsitim]

Originally posted by SC-MECHAM-WS6
there are 2 supras :)


oh yea I knew that I was just testing! :rolleyes:

[stu]

Justin so far I've already known everything you've said, and you are correct. What I don't understand is, you just gave me an example of abiatic efficiency, and how a turbo doesn't heat the air as much when compressing it, which I already knew, but then at the end of every one of your posts, you always say that turbos run hotter. Why do you keep saying that? What do you mean they run hotter, if you just explained that they don't?

[-=[Juztin]=-]

Stu lol, I meant that they do run warmer in a skin-deep kinda way. I can sit on a centrifugal sc, but not on a turbo. I wouldnt try my luck with a roots type blower either :D (that kinda skin-deep). But just because I can't sit on one doesnt mean it's going to put out less power. If that was the case you wouldnt see turbo's around now would you :D . You always hear the heat argument being thrown in the equation to counter the SC's belt driven loss dealio. I was shooting to make valid points on both sides so some can realize that it really just matters on what is best for their particular application and what they're trying to accomplish, rather than one is ultimately better than the other. My perspective is somewhat biased as on this particular car I am leaning constantly more towards a turbo because I want the most power possible rather than raw acceleration below 3k rpms, but the cost is what makes it like swallowing nails and something that shouldnt be overlooked when considering a kit.

--Justin

[-=[Juztin]=-]

"Adiabatic efficiency: 79% ** "

Damn that's good! :D :D :D Sorry about the incorrect number before but I was generalizing :D .

[stu]

Yeah, but that's like saying that you could sit on an intake manifold and not on an exhaust manifold.

[SleeperZ]

Originally posted by -=[Juztin]=-
Stu lol, I meant that they do run warmer in a skin-deep kinda way. I can sit on a centrifugal sc, but not on a turbo. I wouldnt try my luck with a roots type blower either :D (that kinda skin-deep). But just because I can't sit on one doesnt mean it's going to put out less power. If that was the case you wouldnt see turbo's around now would you :D . You always hear the heat argument being thrown in the equation to counter the SC's belt driven loss dealio. I was shooting to make valid points on both sides so some can realize that it really just matters on what is best for their particular application and what they're trying to accomplish, rather than one is ultimately better than the other. My perspective is somewhat biased as on this particular car I am leaning constantly more towards a turbo because I want the most power possible rather than raw acceleration below 3k rpms, but the cost is what makes it like swallowing nails and something that shouldnt be overlooked when considering a kit.

--Justin

I dont think your "turbo hot" point is valid. The only issue is how efficient the forced induction is, and everyone knows nothing touches a turbo for efficiency (well, that centrifugal that Mecham just mentioned, but that's the first I've heard of that. and it only turns 58k rpm, so I'm not sure I believe it yet).

[jojo]

Originally posted by SleeperZ
and everyone knows nothing touches a turbo for efficiency

Lysholm compressors have exceeded 80% AE.

[SleeperZ]

Originally posted by jojo
Lysholm compressors have exceeded 80% AE.

Well, that's news to me too, that's pretty damn good. Too bad the superchargers take more hp to drive them. Of course I'm biased toward turbos as I drive one. :D