Superchargers vs Turbochargers

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
This isnt to debate the merits of each, but rather a question about their cost. Why does a supercharger cost more (as least, I've heard they do)? It seems like a simpler design (one less turbine needed, no need to deal with exhaust gases, etc)
 
E

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
I always get the two mixed up.

One last time, which is which again? ;)
 
geno

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
I'm not familiar with the cost of blowers, but you need to replace moer with a turbo setup, mostly due to the exhaust re-routing aspect of it, also it's more common than not to install an intercooler, so you need to make arrangements for that too. You also need electronics to control the boost. There's a lot that you have to do to accomodate for a turbo setup. You also need to allow for coolant and oil flow to and from the turbo. different valves may be in order when converting from NA to forced induction.
 
S

Salvador

Diamond Member
May 19, 2001
7,058
0
71
Turbo's cost more. The big difference is that the turbo is driven off of exhaust gasses and takes a while to build boost. Depending on the size of the turbo, you will feel some lag before the boost builds. Most cars these days are running 2 smaller turbo's instead of 1 large one. The powerband is more linear because the smaller turbo's build boost faster and the lag isn't that noticeable.

A Supercharger is belt driven off of the crank on your car. It turns an impeller, which forces air into the engine. Superchargers take power to create power because it's running off of your engine as an accessory. Because it starts spinning when your engine is spinning, you create instant power and there is no lag associated with turbo's.

Sal
 
X

XCLAN

Platinum Member
Mar 22, 2001
2,401
0
0
Superchargers are cheaper. a lot less components.
Turbos, are not for instant horsepower off the line like a supercharger.

if you want either just for some weekend racing...get a supercharger , cheaper and instant horsepower.
 
geno

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
Most cars these days are running 2 smaller turbo's instead of 1 large one
Click to expand...
Most? I don't know about that.... even when there's 2, there's the difference between sequential and parallel turbos.
 
H

Heisenberg

Lifer
Dec 21, 2001
10,621
1
0
Superchargers are cheaper than turbos, but both cost a good chunk of change. I prefer superchargers for several reasons.
 
A

Antisocial Virge

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 1999
6,578
0
0
Originally posted by: geno
Most cars these days are running 2 smaller turbo's instead of 1 large one
Click to expand...
Most? I don't know about that.... even when there's 2, there's the difference between sequential and parallel turbos.
Click to expand...

Just as the name says. Sequential runs then in the same airflow with one , you hope, spooling up at a lower rpm than the other reducing lag. Parallel run along side each other and usually are 2 smaller turbos allowing faster spooling and reduce lag.
 
S

Spac3d

Banned
Jul 3, 2001
6,651
1
0
Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
Originally posted by: geno
Most cars these days are running 2 smaller turbo's instead of 1 large one
Click to expand...
Most? I don't know about that.... even when there's 2, there's the difference between sequential and parallel turbos.
Click to expand...

Just as the name says. Sequential runs then in the same airflow with one , you hope, spooling up at a lower rpm than the other reducing lag. Parallel run along side each other and usually are 2 smaller turbos allowing faster spooling and reduce lag.
Click to expand...
Yup.

 
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Turbos are better because they are favored by foreign car manufacturers and they have generally superior engineering and R&D.

I have to go now.
 
Zenmervolt

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
22
81
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think an advantage of superchargers is lower heat production.
Click to expand...
Actually, superchargers (at least, roots-type superchargers) heat the incoming air charge more and are less efficient at compressing the air than are turbochargers.

ZV
 
H

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
10
81
I'm not sure why one method of compression yields more heat for any given boost.

Temperature is proportional to pressure, is it not?
 
Zenmervolt

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
22
81
Originally posted by: Howard
I'm not sure why one method of compression yields more heat for any given boost.

Temperature is proportional to pressure, is it not?
Click to expand...
Roots-type compressors in superchargers beat the air into discrete packets and basically tear/shear the air more than a turbine or a centrifugal supercharger. More adgitated air = more heat.

ZV
 
Evadman

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
If you are looking for an off the shelf forced induction system, in general terms a supercharger will be less expensive. Turbos can require some custom metal work and fabrication since both the exaust and intake are messes with. Superchargers are only intake and a belt.

Turbos will also raise underhood temps quite a bit comparied to a supercharger.
 
H

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
10
81
Originally posted by: Evadman
If you are looking for an off the shelf forced induction system, in general terms a supercharger will be less expensive. Turbos can require some custom metal work and fabrication since both the exaust and intake are messes with. Superchargers are only intake and a belt.

Turbos will also raise underhood temps quite a bit comparied to a supercharger.
Click to expand...
Of course, it all depends on how well you insulate the turbine housing (and exhaust manifold(s)/header(s) if you want better emission control/power).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom