Which one is "better"? Does it depend mostly on the application, or is a SC just flat out better than a turbo? (or vice versa) By application I mean engine size/cylinders - I see a lot more turbos on smaller displacement cars (Porsche's, WRX's) as opposed to SC's on larger displacement cars (S351, Lightning, tons of modified Mustangs/LS1's with SC's) And which one is more reliable in the long run? I hear a lot about how you shouldn't buy older turbo-ed cars because they're going to need an engine overhaul, but I never hear that about SC-ed cars. And the overall difference (in general) is that a SC is belt driven while a turbo is driven by air, both of which just force feed more air into the engine?
Whats "better" - a supercharger or turbocharger?
- Thread starter Angrymarshmello
- Start date
A supercharger has no lag when you step on the gas pedal. The power is always there so to speak. When you shift, a turbo spools down some and has to be spooled back up a bit after shifting.
A SC is better because it delivers compressed air into the intake almost immediately off idle. Whereas a turbo needs to spool up, and won't supply a significant compression until say 2500rpm or more.
However, during normal driving SC's are noisier and get lower gas mileage, and are generally more expensive and arguably less reliable.
Smaller engines don't provide as much power at the lower rpm's, so there's not much a SC will do for them in the low range, anyway.
(Yes, I know there are exceptions for everything I just said... But I'm talking in general terms.)
However, during normal driving SC's are noisier and get lower gas mileage, and are generally more expensive and arguably less reliable.
Smaller engines don't provide as much power at the lower rpm's, so there's not much a SC will do for them in the low range, anyway.
(Yes, I know there are exceptions for everything I just said... But I'm talking in general terms.)
Is that possible?
<< If I recall correctly a supercharger gives power on the low end and turbochargers on the high end.
Ideally the best combo would be a car with both, a supercharger to get the car going and a turbocharger once the car is up there. >>
<< If I recall correctly a supercharger gives power on the low end and turbochargers on the high end.
Ideally the best combo would be a car with both, a supercharger to get the car going and a turbocharger once the car is up there. >>
Btw, Freejack... A SC will give just as much power on the high end that a turbo will.
The reason that a turbo doesn't provide much boost at lower rpm's, is because it's driven by exhaust. So, the exhaust must get up to speed before the turbo will. Since the SC is driven by a belt, there's no waiting necessary. And since it's being driven even faster at high rpm's, there's no decrease in intake compression.
On both variations, the boost is "capped". Both could easily supply too much, causing engine damage.
Of course, this is also a benefit for the turbo cars. During normal driving, you get little or no boost which helps in gas mileage and ease of driveability.
The reason that a turbo doesn't provide much boost at lower rpm's, is because it's driven by exhaust. So, the exhaust must get up to speed before the turbo will. Since the SC is driven by a belt, there's no waiting necessary. And since it's being driven even faster at high rpm's, there's no decrease in intake compression.
On both variations, the boost is "capped". Both could easily supply too much, causing engine damage.
Of course, this is also a benefit for the turbo cars. During normal driving, you get little or no boost which helps in gas mileage and ease of driveability.
<< Btw, Freejack... A SC will give just as much power on the high end that a turbo will.
The reason that a turbo doesn't provide much boost at lower rpm's, is because it's driven by exhaust. So, the exhaust must get up to speed before the turbo will. Since the SC is driven by a belt, there's no waiting necessary.
Of course, this is also a benefit for the turbo cars. During normal driving, you get little or no boost which helps in gas mileage and ease of driveability. >>
Wouldn't a supercharger give a much smoother power band?
I can see a supercharger being more manageable in inclimate conditions (snow & ice mainly) than a turbo, from the standpoint that there's no sudden power hit when the turbo spools.
Viper GTS
<< Btw, Freejack... A SC will give just as much power on the high end that a turbo will.
The reason that a turbo doesn't provide much boost at lower rpm's, is because it's driven by exhaust. So, the exhaust must get up to speed before the turbo will. Since the SC is driven by a belt, there's no waiting necessary. And since it's being driven even faster at high rpm's, there's no decrease in intake compression.
On both variations, the boost is limited. Both could easily supply too much, causing engine damage.
Of course, this is also a benefit for the turbo cars. During normal driving, you get little or no boost which helps in gas mileage and ease of driveability. >>
Interesting...so for a daily driver, a turbo makes more sense?
Also, does that sorta mean that your car will be just like a N/A one until you hit the speeds?
<< However, during normal driving SC's are noisier and get lower gas mileage, and are generally more expensive and arguably less reliable >>
Is that because a SC has a lot of mechanical parts and such? And aren't some switch activated? (The Super Stallion Mustang Ford made a couple years back had a switch activated SC)
a SC might give instantaneous power, but a SC is parasitic. and while SCs can give a lot of power, i seriously doubt that they can provide as much boost as a large turbo.
there is no one better than the other, it depends on the application. You are right when you say that superchargers are powered by the crankshaft itself(usually belt driven) and turbos are powered by exhaust gasses. It depends on your application. Say for drag racing, some people prefer superchargers, some prefer turbos, it's a matter of taste as they will both get the job done. The SC provides dependable boost at the same place every time, and usually throughout the powerband, whereas turbos are usually for upper end power. Buying older turbo cars(probably goes for SC's are well) isn't a good idea because they don't take punishment/lots of miles as well as other components in your car, plus they put more stress on your engine parts
From what I know superchargers tend to like big V8s better where as turbos like smaller displacements.
Superchargres give power throughout the entire powerband.
Neither is really better. Both have practical applications. In pure effiecency, whipple superchargers are near unbeatable as they trasnfer 99% of their power effectively.
Depending on the motor, some work better than others.
Neither is really better. Both have practical applications. In pure effiecency, whipple superchargers are near unbeatable as they trasnfer 99% of their power effectively.
Depending on the motor, some work better than others.
"Interesting...so for a daily driver, a turbo makes more sense?"
For a smaller engine, yes. For a larger engine, not necessarily.
"Also, does that sorta mean that your car will be just like a N/A one until you hit the speeds? "
Actually, since forced induction engines have lower compression than naturally aspirated engines, it'll have less power than a "N/A one". That's what "Turbo lag" is... The lack of power from idle until the turbo spools up fast enough to provide boost.
"...while SCs can give a lot of power, i seriously doubt that they can provide as much boost as a large turbo. "
Well, like I said before... Either one provides more than the engine can handle, and the boost pressures are "capped".
"Wouldn't a supercharger give a much smoother power band?"
Yep. There's a definite "lag" with turbo engines.
"I can see a supercharger being more manageable in inclimate conditions (snow & ice mainly) than a turbo, from the standpoint that there's no sudden power hit when the turbo spools."
Since turbo engines have less power (during low throttle conditions), it can be argued that they are easier to manage in snow.
For a smaller engine, yes. For a larger engine, not necessarily.
"Also, does that sorta mean that your car will be just like a N/A one until you hit the speeds? "
Actually, since forced induction engines have lower compression than naturally aspirated engines, it'll have less power than a "N/A one". That's what "Turbo lag" is... The lack of power from idle until the turbo spools up fast enough to provide boost.
"...while SCs can give a lot of power, i seriously doubt that they can provide as much boost as a large turbo. "
Well, like I said before... Either one provides more than the engine can handle, and the boost pressures are "capped".
"Wouldn't a supercharger give a much smoother power band?"
Yep. There's a definite "lag" with turbo engines.
"I can see a supercharger being more manageable in inclimate conditions (snow & ice mainly) than a turbo, from the standpoint that there's no sudden power hit when the turbo spools."
Since turbo engines have less power (during low throttle conditions), it can be argued that they are easier to manage in snow.
Turbos will take a higher toll on the engine because you usually have to get the rev's up much higher than with a supercharger to get them making their power. This compliments smaller engines well since they too need to start turning high rpm's to start making power. This is also why you don't see many superchargers on smaller engines. Since they are belt driven, they don't handle higher rpm's as well. Also, since they are belt driven, they actually take a good bit of power away from the engine to run. Sure, you'll probably net 100hp or so to the rear wheels with one, but keep in mind it's probably costing 30-40 hp to actually run the thing. These are the reasons you see superchargers on bigger engines. They can spare the power to run the thing and don't have to hit extremely high rpm's to start making power. As for which is more reliable, I'd have to say overall superchargers are. When you turn a turbo'd engine off, that turbo still spins for a bit without oil being pumped to it. The mechanism is also exposed to a lot more heat since it is running off exhaust. Superchargers stop when the engine does and stay about as cool as your engine.
Btw, if anyone is curious... Prior to my employment at Intel, I was a drivability mechanic for 12 years, and heavily into weekend drag racing with my 340 Duster. So, this conversation is making me a bit nostalgic. 
"From what I know superchargers tend to like big V8s better where as turbos like smaller displacements."
(Wingz wonders if some people even bother to read the first 15 posts.)
"From what I know superchargers tend to like big V8s better where as turbos like smaller displacements."
(Wingz wonders if some people even bother to read the first 15 posts.)
<< Actually, since forced induction engines have lower compression than naturally aspirated engines, it'll have less power than a "N/A one". That's what "Turbo lag" is... The lack of power from idle until the turbo spools up fast enough to provide boost. >>
hmmm... are you trying to say that you lose some of the engine's "natural" power if you add a turbo? turbo lag is the time from when you start accelerating until the turbo finally spools isn't it? aren't the engine's natural characteristics unchanged otherwise?
<< Turbos will take a higher toll on the engine because you usually have to get the rev's up much higher than with a supercharger to get them making their power. This compliments smaller engines well since they too need to start turning high rpm's to start making power. This is also why you don't see many superchargers on smaller engines. Since they are belt driven, they don't handle higher rpm's as well. Also, since they are belt driven, they actually take a good bit of power away from the engine to run. Sure, you'll probably net 100hp or so to the rear wheels with one, but keep in mind it's probably costing 30-40 hp to actually run the thing. These are the reasons you see superchargers on bigger engines. They can spare the power to run the thing and don't have to hit extremely high rpm's to start making power. >>
Excellent points, Gonad. Although I think the benefit vs cost is significantly less than 30-40% (if you were being literal with your numbers.) But yes, they definitely do use horsepower just to run, whereas a turbo is "free".
<< When you turn a turbo'd engine off, that turbo still spins for a bit without oil being pumped to it. The mechanism is also exposed to a lot more heat since it is running off exhaust. Supercharger stop when the engine does and stays about as cool as your engine. >>
Not only that, but the oil sitting in the turbo will "coke" from all the heat and eventually (long term) cause bearing failure. That's why it's a good idea to let your turbo engine idle for 30 seconds or so, before shutting it off. Especially, if you've been running it hard. They actually make accessories that will keep your engine running (for a timed duration) after you shut off the key and walk away.
<< hmmm... are you trying to say that you lose some of the engine's "natural" power if you add a turbo? turbo lag is the time from when you start accelerating until the turbo finally spools isn't it? aren't the engine's natural characteristics unchanged otherwise? >>
Not if you add a turbo to a normal engine. But when engines are designed for a turbo from the start, they use lower compression (to compensate for the higher intake pressure).
Take the older (mid-90's) Mitsubishi Eclipse's for example. The 2.0 DOHC engine had a higher compression than the 2.0 DOHC Turbo engine. (Don't ask me to recall the exact numbers, but I think it was around 7.5:1 compared to 9:1.)
<< Btw, if anyone is curious... Prior to my employment at Intel, I was a drivability mechanic for 12 years, and heavily into weekend drag racing with my 340 Duster. So, this conversation is making me a bit nostalgic.
"From what I know superchargers tend to like big V8s better where as turbos like smaller displacements."
(Wingz wonders if some people even bother to read the first 15 posts.)
>>heh. funny that you posted that, cuz that's what i was thinking about.
<< Take the older (mid-90's) Mitsubishi Eclipse's for example. The 2.0 DOHC engine had a higher compression than the 2.0 DOHC Turbo engine. (Don't ask me to recall the exact numbers, but I think it was around 7.5:1 compared to 9:1.) >>
that's what i thought. this might interest you - Install prices may vary if your car is a star in the Dope Show. All prices are doubled if you have a bunch of messed up parts from the 909 area code land that leak, fall off, or cause an injury. $100 charge for every time your alarm goes off, on a slow day we reserve the right to set it off just for the extra cash so be sure it will NOT work when you drop it off.
<< Of course, this is also a benefit for the turbo cars. During normal driving, you get little or no boost which helps in gas mileage and ease of driveability. >>
this is the same on a supercharged car. If you don't beleive me, I'll give you a ride in my car. You can watch the boost gauge showing 15in/vacuum under normal conditions.
I knew a guy who had an AWD Eclipse that (he claimed) had over 400hp. Judging by the modifications he had, it wouldn't surprise me. That thing was a crazy ride.
I had one that I modified a little... Got it up to around 245hp (from 195 stock). I really liked that car. It wasn't AWD, though... Made for some nasty torque steer. (Punch the throttle and be ready for the harsh pull to the right.)
I had one that I modified a little... Got it up to around 245hp (from 195 stock). I really liked that car. It wasn't AWD, though... Made for some nasty torque steer. (Punch the throttle and be ready for the harsh pull to the right.)
<< I knew a guy who had an AWD Eclipse that (he claimed) had over 400hp. Judging by the modifications he had, it wouldn't surprise me. That thing was a crazy ride.
I had one that I modified a little... Got it up to around 245hp (from 195 stock). I really liked that car. It wasn't AWD, though... Made for some nasty torque steer. (Punch the throttle and be ready for the harsh pull to the right.) >>
That's a problem that I have with my Eclipse GT. I can take turns w/o touching the wheel. The primary reason why I'll be selling it and getting a 350z (RWD) or Evo (AWD) when the time comes.
<< this is the same on a supercharged car. If you don't beleive me, I'll give you a ride in my car. You can watch the boost gauge showing 15in/vacuum under normal conditions. >>
A ride? Sweet! Wait... unless you are coming up here to pick me up, that is.
Like I said, I was talking in very general terms. I'm sure there are exceptions to everything I've stated.
What kind of car do you have, btw?
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter