Turbo vs Supercharger!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jerry phipps]

Hey guys and girls!!

I was thinking. What if you had your very own mechanic. And he gave you the option. To fit a turbo kit to your car or to supercharger it.

And there was no money involved ?

which bad boy would you fit ?

Now I'm sure everyone has got there own thoughts on which unit is the best.

So dont be shy let have a vote!!!

Come on I would love to see which is the more favored mod!!

Jerry :)

[jimma]

sc every time, you have to wait for a turbo to spin up! sc spins up as soon as the wheels are moving. Had a G60 Golf for a while and loved it!:P

[ep82]

I'd choose a turbo over a supercharger everyday. You can’t get as much power out of a supercharger, unless you get one of those Mad Max style ones that stick out your bonnet.

You might have to wait for a turbo to spin up but it'll keep spinning for a lot longer than a supercharger.

[Monster-Mat]

not true....superchargers are turning all the time

superchargers are reliable for very very long times.

modern s/c need no maintaining

its a lot easier to get more boost and cheaper from a s/c

s/c put less strain on an engine

[ep82]

What I meant was that you can rev a turbocharged engine a lot longer than a supercharged one, superchargers are for lazy drivers.

If superchargers are better why do you get more turbos fitted on racecars than superchargers? Why does the 1000 brake Top Secret Supra have one big fat turbo instead of a supercharger?

[Monster-Mat]

why are superchargers fitted as standered to...........

mercedes benz

jaguar

ford trucks

and to drag cars

the reason turbo's are fitted is there cheaper to manufacture....on mass produced cars, and take up less room, in "hot hatch" type chassis

[toyotasera.co.uk]

Turbochargers run all the time, but only enough boost is built after 3000rpm or so...

Superchargers are quite lossy - they are mechanically driven and a proportion of power gained is lost driving the supercharger. Even when the supercharger isn't producing much boost to make its effect felt, it is using power, with a consequential knock on fuel economy.

They however put less stain on the engine, and proving there is suffience room for the mechanical drive to be fitted as well, they are easier to fit.

Turbochargers are really best on diesel engines as combustion temperatures are lower. Heat is one of the major problems with a turbo - how do you dissipate this heat - after a "session" your turbo may well be red hot - literally!

Because they are not mechanically driven they can be regarded as almost "something for nothing" as power isn't lost physically turning the turbine.

Because they are not mechanically driven, they are easier to fit from a packaging point of view, and tend to be cheaper because of this.

They put more strain on an engine and require more modifications to an engine in order to fit one to a previously normally aspriated engine.

Boosting a supercharger can be done simply by changing the pulley size or gearing.

A superchargers effect is more predicable than a turbo.

Solution: One of each - a supercharger for low down grunt, and a turbo to take over at higher RPM. This is what Lancia did with the S4, the road version as standard developed 250bhp from a 1.7 litre engine, the rally versions developed in excess of 450 bhp from the same layout.

[ep82]

A turbo engine produces more power overall than the same engine fitted with a supercharger, mainly due to the fact that the supercharger uses power to create it's power (being driven off a belt, etc), unlike the turbo which uses waste gas to generate more power. And superchargers weigh a lot more.

Really none’s better than the other, if you don’t like lag and don’t mind sacrificing a bit of power superchargers are for you but if you don’t mind lag and want more power get a turbo. And you could always fit anti lag to a turbo and then you’ve got the best of both worlds.

What about compound charging?

[ep82]

I didn’t see toyotaseras post before i replied.

[Monster-Mat]

superchargers are heavier than turbo's........

untrue...a centrifugal supercharger is lighter than a turbo

turbos generate more boost on the same engine compared to the s/c

again untrue....the power lost through driving a supercharger really only effects the eton type blowers .....centrifugal blowers sap very little power.....compared to the gain.

at the end of the day a s/c can be geared to create just as much power as a turbo...........the discussion boils down to reliability in which case a s/c wins hands down

[yaristpot]

and nobodys mentioned dump vavles! is it me being to young again! lol

[jerry phipps]

Hey keep it up?

This is really getting interesting. This is just what i expected what would happen.

Keep coming with those important post this is great.

Jerry :D

[ep82]

As far as I know there are three different types of supercharger, and one sort of turbo so it’s unfair to say this supercharger’s better than the turbo at this and the other superchargers better at that.

Like I said the all have their pros and cons and none’s better than the other but you get more power from a turbo, which is what most people want.

[ep82]

What sort of superchargers in yours? A centrifugal?

Centrifugal compressors build boost as rpm increases in close to an exponential fashion. Turbo's come up to speed very quickly (almost instantly if properly sized), and once a desired boost level is reached, excess exhaust gas is bypassed around the turbine by a 'waste gate'. What this does is limit the speed of the compressor (and turbine) and therefore boost. The point where the waste gate opens can be set so as to produce a desired rpm and boost level. With a turbo then, as soon as there is sufficient exhaust flow, the turbine will come to speed, and you can have full boost within a fraction of a second. A properly sized turbo can achieve its maximum boost setting at almost any rpm you desire, on a 6000rpm motor, this can be as low as about 2500rpm.

A supercharger on the other hand relies on engine rpm to come up to speed, so maximum boost wont 'come on' until higher rpm. If you buy a supercharger marketed as an 8psi kit, that generally is the maximum boost on a stock engine. But due to it exponential nature, boost will quickly drop with rpm. If your kit makes 8 psi at 6000 rpm, it will generally make less than 2.5 psi at 3000rpm.

It takes power to pump (compress) a large volume of air (700+cfm). The supercharger's power is derived directly from the crank shaft, where as a turbo's power comes from energy contained in the exhaust gasses. On a typical 8 psi supercharger, the power used can be in the neighborhood of 40-60hp! On a 1500hp engine, the power used by the supercharger can be as much as 300hp! This would leave only 1200hp to accelerate the car.

Basically an 8 psi turbo kit will produce more peak power due to the fact that a supercharger is using a fairly large amount of power just to get it spinning. What is more important for a street car is 'power under the curve' meaning the average horsepower produced. This is where the turbo really shines since you can have full boost at as little as 2500 rpm! This will make the turbo car feel like it has 50% more cubic inches (or more). The difference in torque at low rpm's can be as much as 100 lb ft in favor of the turbo due to the additional available boost....now that's performance!

[starletsy]

Option 3 both but if i had to choose Turbo

Simon

[jerry phipps]

I think it's fair to say that this is a good subject to talk about. At the end of the day i would be just gratefully to just have any one of the mods done to my car.

I was reading a article in a motoring mag. And it was about the seat leon cupra R. With 210bhp on tap they claim the turbo kick in at 2100rpm. Now to me thats dam mad!!!.

Now with a supercharger you are all saying that this is a constant burst of power right up to the red band s**t I like the sound of that.

Well before I wrote this post up. I really didn't know about turbos and superchargers. And you guys have really educated me on how a turbo & supercharger work.

Cheers guys

Jerry :)

[ep82]

Originally posted by jerry phipps Now with a supercharger you are all saying that this is a constant burst of power right up to the red band s**t I like the sound of that.

It might be constant but a superchargers power is relative to your engines speed, so you’ll only get full boost at max revs. For example if your getting 8psi at 6000rpm you’d be making 2.5psi at 3000rpm,

Whereas a turbo is powered by exhaust gasses, which means you get no boost to begin with and have to wait for it to spool up (lag) but once it does and your turbo kicks in you’d get the full 8psi all the way to the redline, so with the Seat Leons turbo you’d get 8psi from 2100rpm to +6000rpm.

[jimma]

Originally posted by yaristpot

and nobodys mentioned dump vavles! is it me being to young again! lol

Yep, blow offs are just for people who want everyone to look at them....psssssh:D All I know is that the G60 went like greased s**t off a wet shovel and was a hell of a lot of fun - mid range was the best although i'm a good boy and never had it above 100:cool: Had the G Lader standard but would have liked to try an aftermarket (eaton etc) but they are EXPENSIVE.

[dawesy]

ive got a turbo in my rolla and its well on boost by 3000 rpm (too much really).

i dissagry with the cooment that s/c's put less strain on the engine they do put a lot of extra strain on the crankshaft due to harmonic vibrations, extra turning forces etc so its all comes down to personal choice and intended use for the engine

by the way if youve got a turbo but find the blow off valve embaracing get a recirculating one!

[Unity Jon]

ep80 from your own posts you seem to have skirted around the point that a supercharger delivers a smooth power curve from the offset all the way to (for arguments sake) 8psi but a turbo will not kick in until a pre destined rpm (after lag) but will still only be set at 8psi boost so they are infact the same, the supercharger is just smooth where as the turbo is like a kick in the back (which adds more stress in an instant to drive train than the supercharger does by graduall increase)

given the choice i'd got for a twincharge ;) but with the lack of availability form TRD and the like i'll go with a super charger for now, and whoever posted about the 'big thing sticking out of the bonnet like mad max' thats a BLOWER (roots type) made by B&M not a supercharger (similar effect but different routine)

:)

[TheNissanMan]

How about changing the argument slightly and go for two smaller turbos rather than one big one....

Two small turbo's feeding 2 cylinders rather than 1x 4 would provide better boost and less lag :)

Hmmm wonder how much it would cost to put two small turbos on a mk2 mr2

[Unity Jon]

!Removed! hell... a split intake system, that would be trick & a nightmare to set up/machine, might just as well stick to having two (inline) and have them spool up at different rpm so that the first one assists the second, this way you can run a larger turbo at the rear !