Turbocharging

[VeXation]

What I meant to ask is wether people preffer turbos to Superchargers...

 

[HannibalX]

Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

They're both high speed air compressors, hardly apples to oranges.

 

[ICEVaPa]

I like cows.......

U got a cow picture...

Moo,,,,"Ha Ha" Moo,,,, *<Realising how dumb i sound,i turn in my chair and pick my nose(o-well"i do like cows)>*

Moo Moo Bwaaaaaaaa!

 

[PricklyPete]

I was always under the impression that they worked under the same principle, but I've never really known exactly how they work. From what I understand they both blow "cold" air into the cumbustion chamber and some how this cold, compressed air causes more energy to be produced...I don't quite understand it though. Regardless, my car has a supercharger and I enjoy the extra power.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Depends on the characteristics you're looking for. A supercharger provides more linear boost, but it's less efficient and it heats the incoming air more than a turbocharger does. A turbocharger is much more efficient but it makes almost no boost below about 3,000 RPM, and when the boost comes on it's sudden, which can make the car peaky and difficult to drive.

ZV

 

[iamwiz82]

a supercharger is belt driven while a turbocharger is powered by the exhuast, normally.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

They're both high speed air compressors, hardly apples to oranges.

Turbo chargers compress exhast fumes and superchargers make air from outside the engine more dense. They mount different, have different internals, spool different, tune different, wear different - everything is different. They are similar because they are forced induction, you are correct there.

 

[CraigRT]

I prefer turbo.. I like the idea of recycling

 

[Bignate603]

Turbo-chargers tend to leech less power, they're powered by what's normally thought of as free power. They are spun by the exhaust fumes, which causes some back pressure which the engine has to overcome but it's relatively small in comparison. The downside is that turbo chargers have to get up to speed which takes a little bit.

Superchargers are spun by the engine like an accessory, with a belt drive or the like. This leeches power more because it's taking power that usually goes to the wheels but makes it so the supercharger (if it's a roots style) doesn't have to spin up. It gives more power down low in the RPM range.

Here's an article on turbos

Here's an article comparing the two

 

[toant103]

superchargers, faster accel at low speed

 

[VeXation]

Turbo's generally provide more power dont they, because superchargers are run using some of he engines power to turn the compressor..

But, nothing beats a superchargers whine from under the hood!!!

 

[LotharJade]

Im a centrifigal supercharger fan my self. Places like Novi 2000 or what not. I hate the piping crap of a turbo. Supposedly the new novis and paxtons have a better boost curve than older superchargers of the 80's and before.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Trinitron

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

They're both high speed air compressors, hardly apples to oranges.

Turbo chargers compress exhast fumes and superchargers make air from outside the engine more dense. They mount different, have different internals, spool different, tune different, wear different - everything is different. They are similar because they are forced induction, you are correct there.

The bold part is very, very, very wrong. Turbochargers are driven by exaust pressure, but a turbo compresses fresh air, just as a supercharger does.

ZV

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: Ali3nator
SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED

ALL i want is SPEED SPEED!!!

My god, just stop posting for 2^717 days.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Trinitron

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

They're both high speed air compressors, hardly apples to oranges.

Turbo chargers compress exhast fumes and superchargers make air from outside the engine more dense. They mount different, have different internals, spool different, tune different, wear different - everything is different. They are similar because they are forced induction, you are correct there.

You've never owned nor installed either one, have you?

 

[Quixfire]

Supercharges are fine if you have a torque engine to drive them, offset the power loss. But for small displacement engines, six & four cylinders, a turbo is a better fit. To overcome the lag you can use a NOS booster set between 1K to 3K rpms, I did this on my brother Celica 20R engine.

 

[Howard]

Honestly, Trinitron, for somebody who supposedly worked on cars during his early teens, you sure don't know much about cars. Stop posting, you're just embarassing yourself.

*grammar erer*

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

They're both high speed air compressors, hardly apples to oranges.

High speed, eh?

A turbocharger is a supercharger, not all superchargers are turbos.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Trinitron

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

They're both high speed air compressors, hardly apples to oranges.

Turbo chargers compress exhast fumes and superchargers make air from outside the engine more dense. They mount different, have different internals, spool different, tune different, wear different - everything is different. They are similar because they are forced induction, you are correct there.

The bold part is very, very, very wrong. Turbochargers are driven by exaust pressure, but a turbo compresses fresh air, just as a supercharger does.

ZV

Hey, I can see how the initial exhaust charge gets slightly pressurized because of the added backpressure.

 

[atom]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

They're both high speed air compressors, hardly apples to oranges.

High speed, eh?

A turbocharger is a supercharger, not all superchargers are turbos.

Honestly, Trinitron, for somebody whose supposedly worked on cars during his early teens, you sure don't know much about cars. Stop posting, you're just embarassing yourself.

...I'd heed your own advice, cuz that makes no sense. A turbocharger ain't a supercharger. They are both turbines however.

 

[Howard]

Text

Supercharger

A compressor that pumps air under pressure into an engine's induction system. When mixed with fuel, the charge is denser than in an un-supercharged (or normally aspirated) engine and produces more power during combustion. The term is frequently applied only to mechanically driven compressors, but it defines all compressors, including turbochargers.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: Howard
Honestly, Trinitron, for somebody whose supposedly worked on cars during his early teens, you sure don't know much about cars. Stop posting, you're just embarassing yourself.

...I'd heed your own advice, cuz that makes no sense. A turbocharger ain't a supercharger. They are both turbines however.

Actually, the proper, technical, term for a "turbo" is "turbo supercharger". In a strictly technical sense, a "supercharger" is any mechanical device used to compress the intake air charge. In common useage there is a differentiation, but in strict technical terms a turbocharger is simply a subset of supercharger.

ZV

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Trinitron
Apples to Oranges... I don't prefer one over the other because they are too different. Superchargers are easier to tune however.

They're both high speed air compressors, hardly apples to oranges.

High speed, eh?

A turbocharger is a supercharger, not all superchargers are turbos.

Honestly, Trinitron, for somebody whose supposedly worked on cars during his early teens, you sure don't know much about cars. Stop posting, you're just embarassing yourself.

...I'd heed your own advice, cuz that makes no sense. A turbocharger ain't a supercharger. They are both turbines however.

Back in the 40's they called turbochargers "turbosuperchargers".

 

[aphex]

<-- loves it when his car spools