Why don't car makers supercharge all cars?

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
98,837
17,310
126
As the engineering in cars improve, I don't see why the cars are not ALL superchaged? Is there anything inherently bad for the car? I understand their lifespan would be reduced, but most car are scrapped before then anyway.
 

iamwiz82

Lifer
Jan 10, 2001
30,772
13
81
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
It adds cost, complexity, wear and tear, and noise.

But other than that you are saying it's perfect for all vehicles? :p
 

fbrdphreak

Lifer
Apr 17, 2004
17,555
1
0
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
It adds cost, complexity, wear and tear, and noise.
And of course increased fuel consumption over an NA engine if you're going to get any power out of it.

Asking why they don't SC every car is like asking why every car just doesn't get a bigger engine. Cost, fuel economy, consumer preference, etc etc etc

EDIT And not every engine in every car right now is a good candidate for forced induction.
 

Steve

Lifer
May 2, 2004
15,945
11
81
I for one would love a supercharged Geo Metro. I could parallel park into those tight parking spaces in the blink of an eye, and so efficiently too!
 

Demon-Xanth

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
20,551
2
81
They made Turbo Chevy Sprints (the predecessor to the Metro), they were all made by Suzuki anyways (Known as the Forza/Swift)
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Heh.. It would have been nice if my GTO had been supercharged from the factory, with something like 550hp instead of merely 400...
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,965
140
106
Originally posted by: sdifox
As the engineering in cars improve, I don't see why the cars are not ALL superchaged? Is there anything inherently bad for the car? I understand their lifespan would be reduced, but most car are scrapped before then anyway.

most people don't need that level of performance. And too many others are miserably reckless with present state of the art and need not increase the risk of accident thru agressive speeding on public roads and hiways. What's the hurry??

 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: vi_edit
This thread blows

Ohhhh, so that's how you get Elite status. Good to know.

lol, if he of all people wrote that, this thread probably does.
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Lets just say that all cars became supercharged tomorrow.

The smartest car company would say "We can cut the cost of our lower end models by removing the supercharger. We can offer both models and let the people who want to pay less do so." . Then the rest of the car makers would start to lose market share on the low end because they don't have a competing product. So they would start to offer one as well.

In other words, not everyone wants to pay for a supercharger in their car.
 

fbrdphreak

Lifer
Apr 17, 2004
17,555
1
0
Originally posted by: gregshin
turbo > supercharger
No, a turbo is more efficient than a supercharger. Each has their adv & disadv, making it unique to everyone's situation.
 
S

SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: sdifox
As the engineering in cars improve, I don't see why the cars are not ALL superchaged? Is there anything inherently bad for the car? I understand their lifespan would be reduced, but most car are scrapped before then anyway.

I recommend that you think for a minimum of 2 seconds before posting.