Turbocharger V Superchargers

[Waatz]

These are the kind of cars that make 8000 hp

http://www.project33.com/forum/Index...=view&TID=1874

It's worth a read

[fpv_gtho]

russky ure wrong as it is easyer to supercharge an engine than turbocharge ask any mechanic they will tell u the same thing

installing either of them is by no means an easy task, so really depending on who you talk to, you'll get a different opinion, but turbo's need a new exhaust header or extractor and non centrifugal superchargers need a new intake manifold, but the easiest out of the lot to install would be a centrifugal kit like a Vortec blower that would go straight into the existing intake manifold

[SilverArrowZ]

I guess everyone here vote according to their own perception and knowledge. I personally think turbocharger are better because it is cheaper and easier to install (i read it from howstuffworks.com, and i think the person who do the previous post few weeks ago made some mistake). A supercharger need alot more space and how much boost it can provide depends on what engine you use. Car mods in my country all try to mod small engine to give big power output. A stock super charger on a 4A-GZE gives only 6psi of boost, even with a modifiend pulley it only increase it by 2psi, where as a turbocharger can give out way higher than that.

I do not know anything about V8 as it is just not popular here. You wont impress anybody with a V8, but people will envy you if you own a 2liter S4 engine running on 40psi(i'm not joking).

However, they both got good parts and bad parts.. a supercharger take some power out of the engine to produce more power; On the other hand, turbocharger might create resistant in exhaust flow, which is the same reason you want to swap that stock muffler with a free flow one. So effeciency wise, they all seems to be not that good to me. Miss fire system seems to help turbocharger from spining down when changing gears, but might worn out the charger faster.

while providing alot more boost than supercharger, i did heard a number of complain from turbocharged car's owner saying that their engine leaks oil alot and it is harder to maintain a turbocharged car. Well i guess it should be true as most owner probably force too much boost inside their engine. Supercharger on the other hand doesn't seems to have too much problem. I personally think a supercharger suits those driver who want to get the feel of driving a car with more displacement as it makes the engine reaching optimum peformance at lower rpm instead of having to rev up to the limit in NA engines (whoops i'm going off topic into NA, sorry). This suits driver who want more power on normal driving, and i guess that is why Mercedes uses supercharger on their car(kompresor).

Turbo provide more power, but at a price. People in my country prefer turbo because.. well.. i don't know.. they just like it and show off. I don't understand why US driver like mussle car so much also, the road tax will kill me. ...

what am i bragging about now... zzz.. ok one vote from me for turbo

[V8turbo4me]

Well I really don't understand why anyone would say that V8's shouldn't be turbocharged. The Ferrari F40 wasn't a good car or something? And also there is a new Bentley in the works that utilizes four yes four turbos on a big 16 cylinder engine that produces just over 1000 horse power. My vote goes to the Turbo because I think that it has much more potential than the supercharger. In the near future advancements in turbo housing that utilize VATN technology to control AR ratios will revolutionize the performance car market. The supercharger will become a thing of the past, a relic or a lost era, and yes even the Big Block Chevy 572's and such will be running dual VATN's that produce nice flat torque curves that offer almost limitless power.

Also the most successful drag cars that didn't run on alcohol were turbocharged. Turbo "Lag" is always the scapegoat used by supercharger fans that don't understand the Carbs and improperly sized A/R ratio turbo's are a thing of the past.

[Waatz]

I still think Superchargers make more power, suerly top fuel drag racing is the most powerful form of motorsport (unless you have some friends with concords) and they use superchargers.
This Vs thread has many variables and I think the only "best" can be best for your particular need or purpose.
If I wanted to turn a Nissan Laurell into a drift car I would go for a turbo, but on the other hand if I wanted to turn a EA Falcon into a 1/4 mile dart I would go LS1 Chevrolet with a 671 supercharger.

[SilverArrowZ]

Well I really don't understand why anyone would say that V8's shouldn't be turbocharged. The Ferrari F40 wasn't a good car or something? And also there is a new Bentley in the works that utilizes four yes four turbos on a big 16 cylinder engine that produces just over 1000 horse power. My vote goes to the Turbo because I think that it has much more potential than the supercharger. In the near future advancements in turbo housing that utilize VATN technology to control AR ratios will revolutionize the performance car market. The supercharger will become a thing of the past, a relic or a lost era, and yes even the Big Block Chevy 572's and such will be running dual VATN's that produce nice flat torque curves that offer almost limitless power.

Also the most successful drag cars that didn't run on alcohol were turbocharged. Turbo "Lag" is always the scapegoat used by supercharger fans that don't understand the Carbs and improperly sized A/R ratio turbo's are a thing of the past.

What is VATN tech? I never heard of those before.

With ball bearing turbocharger turbo lag had been significantly reduced. Smaler turbo have less lag while large ones have more, but if you are going for the large one, that means you are going to race and you probably be staying in the high rev range. Who cares about lag at that time? just my thought tho..

[mulan]

ok for drift u want a very samll turbo but if u have seen some of the best drifters the run supercharged engines

[DB9Vantage]

This may be a bit arrogant of me but this thread is getting a bit lengthy so I skipped to the last page. These are my views : Turbochargers are better for large power gains wheras Superchargers are more for luxury vehicles because of their silence and instant reactions. However, superchargers use power from the engine meaning the power gains aren't as large. Turbos nowadays can be made to react in miliseconds so there really is no argument about turbos having serious lag ... unless your talking Jag XJ220 but that was 1994; not 04. Turbo's give more torque and are very useful for powering up hills (boost just before you touch it so you get more power and torque to the wheels). Well thats everything ive picked up from fitting DSBC's, BOV's and various other bits.

[Coventrysucks]

Superchargers are more for luxury vehicles because of their silence

Superchargers tend to be louder than turbo's

[V8turbo4me]

Silver Arrowz,

A VATN turbocharger stands for Variable Area Turbine Nossle this is as revolutionary as the automotive aftermarket gets right here. If you understand a basic turbo set up you have your turbo, be it a T3, TO4, T-series or whatever, they all have a locked in A/R ratio. The A/R ratio is what dictates how fast your turbo will spool up, how much power it will produce, and of course how much back pressure the turbo will create. Small A/R ratios spool quickly, produce less horsepower, create tons of back pressure at high speeds. A Large A/R ratio hower will produce massive horsepower and virtually no back pressure but takes a while to spool up. What the VATN system does is it uses thrust vectoring to change the A/R ratio progressively in acordace to you exhaust put out to optomize the A/R ratio of the turbo at every second of operation. What this does is to allow for instantaneous spooling and then nearly limitless power with no back pressure what so ever. The other great thing about the VATN system is that it will eliminate the use of the wastegate to control the boost level of the system. The VATN Computer will automatically adjust the A/R ratio to allow the turbo to produce the programmed level of boost without any waste of energy like with a wastegate. Dont look for this system to be mainstream yet, but it will soon be. There is a company by the name of Aerocharger that makes small VATN turbos for snowmobiles right now. They are the ultimate performance upgrade! ever seen a snowmobile with 200HP? I have! lol

[SilverArrowZ]

OIC.. thanks for the info.. seems like if that happens no more sequential turbo setup in the future anymore. I hope there will still be blow off, they are cool, i like SQV.

[AllAmerican ss]

Ok people here you go
Is it possible to have a super charger then a turbocharger taking out the 'wasted' air? and if so how much psi would it possibly have

and im not sure but i read that putting a big supercharger on a muscle car u need a big ass blower


[email protected]

[SilverArrowZ]

Supercharger use a belt to turn it. The setup is similar with the air-cond compressor on your car. They both use some power of your engine to run the compressor.

About using wasted gasses to turn the supercharger's compressor, i don't really have any idea. What i can think of right now is connect a belt to a (modified) turbocharger(which harness the power from wasted gas, and mount a normal size puley)

turbocharger are already spining at about 15000rpm (is it? i'm not sure) and normal ratio between the puley and the compresor are already big, you probably get 60000rpm on your supercharger .

With this setup, you probably get alot of horsepower or you are going to spoil your compressor. Ofcourse, if the setup work, but it doesn't seems to be logic for me, it just came out of my mind.

I heard of someone using both turbo and super charger under the same hood, they do it with their project car, i'm not sure about the performance. They say with that setup they can use a big turbo(with alot of turbo lag, but big output when it kicks in) and the supercharger take care of low rpm power. Thats what i heard, i never get to see the pic of the setup engine, i don't know, don't look at me.. aahh~~=.="

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

i didnt take the time to read all the other posts so im just going to submit my 2 cents

to me i think turbo chargers are superior to super chargers because of 2 things
- turbo's can generate more boost (they opperate at higher rpms which superchargers would have difficulty reaching since there is no "direct" connection between the turbine and engine crankshaft)
- today's turbo's dont suffer from turbo lag as much as the turbos of old because they integrate the use of lighter than steel components in the construction of the turbines which allow them to spool up at lower rpms

[Waatz]

Still say superchargers make more power. TOP FUEL!!!
Is Boost Directly proportional to power output? I dont know if it is. . . .. .

anyway everyone should read this.

http://www.nhra.com/streetlegal/funfacts.html

I want some proof that turbo's can compare to this.