I don't think any forced induction person would ever come up with such a generalization. Both are going to vary on their application and implementation. I use a turbo charger in mine because its better for my uses than a supercharger, but neither is more powerful.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,967
- 19
- 81
It depends purely on application. Also superchargers are a relatively broad category....you have Roots, Whipple, Eaton, Centrifigual type, etc.
Generally speaking both are equal as units in and of themselves....however the wrong choice can ruin the application.
Generally speaking both are equal as units in and of themselves....however the wrong choice can ruin the application.
Wider powerband, no special exhaust piping.
Granted, turbo's can probably give greater peak HP, but that means nothing to me. I want a wider powerband over a higher peak HP.
- Feb 16, 2003
- 26,107
- 4
- 81
Thanks for the explanation, I'm starting to read those now. I read on the things that interest me of those and then I usually don't understand some words or concepts so I read up on those which keeps leading on to others. Thanks for those links, I've already bookmarked them and the next chance I get, I'll read up on them.
The power band difference can be incredibly minimal. So you don't have different exhaust piping, just different intake and accessory belt/mounting setup. Whats the difference?
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,459
- 854
- 126
Both are basically pumps which force air into the engine, turbo uses exhaust gases to drive it and supercharger runs off a serpentine belt (off the main crank pulley). Some Formula One cars in the early 80s (BMW) used a small displacement 4 cylinder engine with turbos which created massive amounts of power (we're talking in excess of 1000hp).
Turbo applications are more costly than superchargers though especially if you get into intercooling.
Turbo applications are more costly than superchargers though especially if you get into intercooling.
Exactly. Theres ALWAYS going to be some lag on the turbo, fact of life.
Not to say one is really better then another, rather they just perform differently and have different characteristics. Think of it as application indepedent.
And for me, low end oomph is what I want. Thus, I would take a supercharger over a turbo charger. Gettin the wheels turnin in foot and a half deep mud is what I need. Both will provide substantial power gains under full boost so once there goin its gravy. But I like the low end muscle.
Now if I had a car with short gearing and was always running 5000+ RPM, I'd for sure want a turbo. But thats not my application.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 30,885
- 12,391
- 136
For maximum generation of power it has already been conceeded that Turbos rule in this category.
They both have good and bad points but Turbos are considered best for ultimate HP generation.
Normal roots type blowers increase power in a linear fashion, whereas Turbos and centrifugal SCs increase HP geometrically.
They both have good and bad points but Turbos are considered best for ultimate HP generation.
Normal roots type blowers increase power in a linear fashion, whereas Turbos and centrifugal SCs increase HP geometrically.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,967
- 19
- 81
with the right turbo you will have no percieved lag, you will also have plenty of low end torque. The turbo lag problem came from many of the original cars that had them being geared for autobahn speeding and not american stop and go.
Look at the latest offerings and you will see 0-60 times in the sub 5 ranges, many once dynoed the torque numbers don't add up to a 454 V8, but I guarantee it will feel like it if you can duplicate those times.
Look at the latest offerings and you will see 0-60 times in the sub 5 ranges, many once dynoed the torque numbers don't add up to a 454 V8, but I guarantee it will feel like it if you can duplicate those times.
Supercharger + Turbo = shizznit.
I believe Toyota is developing one along with suing the massive instantaneous torque of an electrical motor at the start.
I believe Toyota is developing one along with suing the massive instantaneous torque of an electrical motor at the start.
I disagree. You HAVE to have lag, its the nature of the beast. The turbo relies on exhaust gases, and if you dont have an increase in exhaust pressure you dont have a spooling of the turbo. Yeah, it can be set really damned low for fast spooling but then you lose the high end go-go. I'v always veiwed turbo's as one big comprimise. You can have it spool fast and minimize lag, or spool slow for a good kick in the rear higher in the powerband. But you really cant get both, unless you go sequential which opens up other problems.
I'll stick by my guns, its application dependent as both turbochargers and superchargers have there strong points.
mAd Indian is the only one who said it right.. it depends on the application.
they both have pro's and con's PERIOD
they both have pro's and con's PERIOD
How about a variable nozzle turbo then? The point it you can have a turbocharged car where you wouldn't notice the lag.
use a vortec supercharger... It uses a gearing system to greatly increase the speed of the turbine (which it uses instead of an Eaton/Roots type lobed blower. Vortec's operate in the range of 75% efficiency, other supers run ~40%. Turbos can have very little lag, depending on the length of exhaust runners that feed them. If done correctly, they can (see the VW 1.8T) be very quick responding, and highly efficient.
A little more info: Superchargers deliver a set amount of air/revolution... they are correctly called blowers, as they dont actually compress the intake charge. Turbos use a pair of turbine blades, one driven by exhaust, the other compressing the intake charge. They are correctly called compressors or turbine compressors, as the air is actually compressed to a higher pressure. In general, turbo's are only effective at higher RPM, where enough exhaust is being fed thru them to generate a good pressure of boost. Many superchargers operate effectively at <3000 rpms, but are less effcient at higher RPM.
Turbos use a DV (diverter valve), or BOV (blow-off valve) to waste air pressure at too low RPM, and to controll air pressure at higher RPM. This process is called wastegating. If you want more info, get a copy of sport compact car's forced induction volume.
also: here
and here
SharkyTM
A little more info: Superchargers deliver a set amount of air/revolution... they are correctly called blowers, as they dont actually compress the intake charge. Turbos use a pair of turbine blades, one driven by exhaust, the other compressing the intake charge. They are correctly called compressors or turbine compressors, as the air is actually compressed to a higher pressure. In general, turbo's are only effective at higher RPM, where enough exhaust is being fed thru them to generate a good pressure of boost. Many superchargers operate effectively at <3000 rpms, but are less effcient at higher RPM.
Turbos use a DV (diverter valve), or BOV (blow-off valve) to waste air pressure at too low RPM, and to controll air pressure at higher RPM. This process is called wastegating. If you want more info, get a copy of sport compact car's forced induction volume.
also: here
and here
SharkyTM
A blow off valve is not the same as a wastegate. The wastegate control the level of boost. The blow off valve vents the pressure in the intake to the atmosphere during a shift so the turbo stays spooled up (other wise you have a condition known as stacking, which is also hard on the turbo).
I'm not sure how signifigant of an impovement it makes in defeating turbo lag. I myself am more impressed with the control it allows, helping to eliminate lag as well as controlling sporadic boost pressures under long duration WOT. However, again I havent heard much on it so I cant make any relevent comments. I can tell you I'm highly interested in the longevity. Turbo's are incredibly sensitive, and if the blades become misaligned or some other unatural behavior, you could have one hell of a disater on your hands. I've heard about what happens when turbines become unbalanced, and it isnt pretty. Course, that was on a tractor that had a large dose of dirt get around the air filter, so it was a rare occurence. But the point was made in my mind, they require fairly controlled operating environments or it goes to hell FAST.
Anyways, again, I dont have enough info on them to comment one way or the other.
very true... my mistake, i'm just used to the VW setup... which i WISH i had.
and yes, both can be good... In larger displacement engines, where torque is a concern, often superchargers are used. In other, often smaller displacement engines, where lag isnt an issue, turbo's are more preferred... it mainly comes down to whats available for your car/truck/boat, and how much you want to pay.
Also, no one has mentioned inter/aftercooling. Because the forced induction system is not 100% efficient, the air is heated... Intercooling and aftercooling cool off the air to make a more densely packed intake, and yeld higher HP.
I would never put a centrifical or a turbo on my setup. The pro's of a positive displacement blower fit my needs more.
great! Eaton/roots type twin lobe blowers are great. They make full boost at low RPM, and are easy to install. You will want an inter/aftercooler though, as their low efficiency heats the intake a bit.
160bhp from a supercharged car is less than 160bhp from a turbocharged car. The supercharger still requires engine power to turn it whereas the turbo does not. You can get some superchargers with magnetic clutches which will de - clutch to stop this problem, mazda had one on its diesels about 4 years ago. Personally the best setup is the sequential turbos as per the supra and the BSK subaru (not sure you got that in the states) 1 low pressure turbo followed by a larger turboat high revs.
I would do anything to intercool my setup but there is no room betweent he screw and the manifold
I'm gonna have to take the water/alc injection route if I can find a good kit that I like.A lot of people who've installed the Bell Aerodyne (VATN?) turbo comment on its lack of perceivable lag. Anyway, there are many ways to combat lag.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter