does synthetic give more HP?
- Thread starter OS
- Start date
Yes. Less friction = more power. Less friction = less heat, which means more heat energy is being used to drive the engine.
etc.
etc.
Originally posted by: NutBucket
Sure. Afterall, you'll want to use synthetic after you bolt up that turbo
He should want to use synthetic even without the turbo.
It's not like the turbo is the only thing engine related that sees temperature extremes.
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: NutBucket
Sure. Afterall, you'll want to use synthetic after you bolt up that turbo
I'm more of a nitrous kind of guy.
I'm more of the S/C kind of guy.
Originally posted by: John
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: NutBucket
Sure. Afterall, you'll want to use synthetic after you bolt up that turbo
I'm more of a nitrous kind of guy.
I'm more of the S/C kind of guy.
Can you combine a supercharger and a turbocharger on the same engine?
Could they work together and produce like 30lbs of boost, or does it not work like that?
<-- blower n00b.
No, it doesn't. Not anything noticeable at least. Most dyno's vary by a few HP between runs, and any increase would be masked by the dyno's margin of error.
EDIT- the increase they listed on their page is outrageous. It's typical misleading marketing. 12 HP on a 240 hp engine?
By the way, the info on that page is very misleading. The way that test was performed was not very objective.
Thinner oil will have less viscosity than thicker oil. So no matter what type of oil you used, the thinner oil would be less restrictive. I noticed that they used thinner oil of their brand vs. thicker oil of their competitor's brand. Why not use the same weight oil of both brands?
That info is worthless. They are just marketing their product.
Thinner oil will have less viscosity than thicker oil. So no matter what type of oil you used, the thinner oil would be less restrictive. I noticed that they used thinner oil of their brand vs. thicker oil of their competitor's brand. Why not use the same weight oil of both brands?
That info is worthless. They are just marketing their product.
I didn't bother to read the site, I just answered the question.
I agree with you completely though, the site is full of it.
Originally posted by: Eli
Can you combine a supercharger and a turbocharger on the same engine?
Could they work together and produce like 30lbs of boost, or does it not work like that?
<-- blower n00b.
Yes, you can. It has been done on the older Toyota MR2's... they were supercharged stock, but people "dualcharged" them by adding a turbo after the supercharger.
But really it's more of a novelty than anything else. You can easily get 30 psi just by using a bigger supercharger, or just by using a bigger turbocharger... no need to have one of each. Your engine can only take so much boost, I'm sure you could blow up your engine using just a turbo, or just a SC.
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: John
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: NutBucket
Sure. Afterall, you'll want to use synthetic after you bolt up that turbo
I'm more of a nitrous kind of guy.
I'm more of the S/C kind of guy.
Can you combine a supercharger and a turbocharger on the same engine?
Could they work together and produce like 30lbs of boost, or does it not work like that?
<-- blower n00b.
No, that'd be veeeeerrrrrry bad.
Personally, I find superchargers to be inferior, from an engineering standpoint. You're taking a limited resource (Crank power) and using it to generate more crank power. However, by doing so, you're actually drawing more energy than you would normally be, and are seriously stressing the engine. Superchargers typically take 35% of the power from the crank to generate the extra power.
A turbo on the otherhand works off backpressure. By increasing the backpressure, you're lowering the efficiency a bit, but the boost greatly offsets it. Typically, turbos decrease the efficiency of an engine by 20%.
Allow me to work it down to numbers to make my point more clear.
Let's say an engine puts out 200 HP naturally aspirated. We want to run 15 lbs of boost, which in theory, should increase power by 85%.
With a supercharger, amount of raw power going to the driveshaft is decreased by 35%. You then add the boost, so the engine is putting out an extra 85% of the previous net.
200 * .65 * 1.85 = 240 HP.
With the turbo, the efficiency of the engine decreases 20%, then the boost adds 85% to that net.
200 * .8 * 1.85 = 296 HP.
This is all in theory, of course, and these numbers aren't always exactly 20% or 85% and whatnot, but the fact remains - Superchargers are less efficient then turbos, and they put more stress on the drive system because they refocus its power to generate more power instead of using waste power to generate the power.
Of course, this really only applies to mild boost uses. You don't see too many dragsters using turbo systems because turbos don't scale as effectively as superchargers. But when you're dealing with less than 800 HP, I'd rather put my money on a turbo.
Turbos are slightly more efficient than superchargers. But with newer superchargers, it's pretty close. Close enough for car manufacturers to sometimes choose superchargers over turbochargers, such as Ford.
But I like turbos. In fact I like them so much my car has two of them!
But I like turbos. In fact I like them so much my car has two of them!
Actually, it's not even close.
They choose superchargers because they are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to maintain, and less prone to failure.
Superchargers are not less prone to failure than turbochargers. With superchargers, you have a belt, gears, and fluid to worry about. Turbos are very reliable.
Also, the efficiency IS pretty close. Look at the gas mileage of similar HP cars, one with turbo, one with supercharger. If one was less efficient, it would use more gas. I'd say your figures are right, a 20% loss vs. a 35% loss. The turbo is more efficient, but only by 10 or 15%.
So does your car have a turbo or a SC on it?
Neither. I don't have money, and drive a shitheap that spends more time in the shop than parked outside my house.
If I had money though, I'd fashion me a custom Twin VNT-turbo solution and build the engine from the block up. But I don't have the money, so there's no use drooling over something I'll never have.
If I had the money I'd upgrade my turbos to TD05's or something. I'd also buy the playboy mansion, including the contents and occupants.
Why buy the playboy mansion when you could just hire the girls out from under Hugh Heffner and leave him high and dry?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,393
- 8,552
- 126
friend of mine's father has had 4 supercharged vehicles now... 3 of them trucks (a navigator and two escalades), with the superchargers doing something a turbo can't do, make low end power. and the 4th a blown trans am with something like 750 crank HP.
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Turbos are fine as long as you have a little nitrous to overcome the lag.
My turbos don't lag too much. I'm not a fan of nitrous, unless you're using it at the track. It's just not practical on the street (nor legal).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter