PDA

View Full Version : Turbocharger V Superchargers



Need4Speed
04-03-2004, 01:13 AM
Lets discuss the difference between the two, chip in all you know about them and lets find out which one is better.

Personally I thing turbo is more popular and efficient because it uses the energy in the exhaust stream for its power source, where as supercharges use the engine as the power source, and it is also usually more expensive (to install).

And vote for what you prefer on the voting poll, Turbo or Super. :rolleyes:

Need4Speed
04-03-2004, 01:30 AM
by the way the poll is supposed to say
Turbochargers OR Superchargers

eyebrows
04-03-2004, 02:31 AM
i voted both the same even tho they rn't. ummm it depends on what ur looking for ie burnouts, 1/4mile, street racing, show. and it also depends on what engine u have ie 4cly V8 V6 etc. i can't really think of a way of finishing this so i let someone else just confurm what i said (i really hope im right other wise i just made myself look like an idiot)

fpv_gtho
04-03-2004, 04:43 AM
theres different setups for different cars, engines and waht you want to use them for. for a V engine you would probably rather have a twin-turbo setup or a supercharger and if you wanted outright peak power you wight rather a single turbo as ive heard big single turbos give more power than 2 turbo's. if you want turbo and driveability though you'd go twin turbo

henk4
04-03-2004, 05:35 AM
For diesel engines turbo charging is the only option. For petrol engines the turbo option is probably also better, as it allows you to better manipulate turbo pressure. The mechanical compressor/superchargers have the advantages of immediate response, although turbo charging has been greatly improved over the years. I also have the feeling that turbo engines have higher output potential than supercharged engines.

eyebrows
04-03-2004, 05:44 AM
I also have the feeling that turbo engines have higher output potential than supercharged engines.

that right. because it's bassed on how much ur engine breaths and if u get a big turbo its going to put through more fuel making more exhaust pushing the turbo faster and in the end u just get bigger power

heres a question for u. how much potentail psi do u think this turbo has?

henk4
04-03-2004, 05:59 AM
that right. because it's bassed on how much ur engine breaths and if u get a big turbo its going to put through more fuel making more exhaust pushing the turbo faster and in the end u just get bigger power

heres a question for u. how much potentail psi do u think this turbo has?


Which one of them?

Matra et Alpine
04-03-2004, 07:55 AM
that right. because it's bassed on how much ur engine breaths and if u get a big turbo its going to put through more fuel making more exhaust pushing the turbo faster and in the end u just get bigger power

Sorry eyeborws, but EXACTLY the same applies to a bigger compressor.
But the power is taken out of the engine directly rather than by exhaust. There is a small advantage in that the exhaust is 'lost energy' anyway.
But it's not significant as the power and pressures increase.
You can't take all of the power out of the exhaust or you stall the gasses in the impeller. So there ARE limits :)

DwZX35
04-03-2004, 11:34 PM
I like them both (turbocharger sounds cooler :D ) but it depends on the car and the engine.

I'd prefer a supercharger over a turbo, but a twin-turbo, now that i'd pick.

henk4
04-04-2004, 12:48 AM
If a I remember correctly the Lancia Delta S4 (the ultimate group B car) used both, although in Lancia terminology the supercharger was named Volumex and may have in slightly different way. Just wondering why noboby else has considered using the best of both worlds.

Need4Speed
04-04-2004, 02:52 AM
heres a question for u. how much potentail psi do u think this turbo has?

i would say that turbos got about 8 psi? :rolleyes:

eyebrows
04-04-2004, 03:45 AM
Sorry eyeborws, but EXACTLY the same applies to a bigger compressor.
But the power is taken out of the engine directly rather than by exhaust. There is a small advantage in that the exhaust is 'lost energy' anyway.
But it's not significant as the power and pressures increase.
You can't take all of the power out of the exhaust or you stall the gasses in the impeller. So there ARE limits :)

thanks. still learning, getting there though


Which one of them?

the Big one :D

Ferrari Tifosi
04-10-2004, 06:50 PM
I perfer turbocharging, because it uses wasted energy unlike a supercharger which feeds off energy being made by the engine. Although the supercharger does have better response than a turbocharger. However in the racing world this doesn't really matter since revs are kept high most of the time.

byronleehk
04-13-2004, 01:52 PM
I perfer turbocharging, because it uses wasted energy unlike a supercharger which feeds off energy being made by the engine. Although the supercharger does have better response than a turbocharger. However in the racing world this doesn't really matter since revs are kept high most of the time.

Quoted from another forum...
"there are 2 different designs of turbos, not one.. there is your typical turbo, and the ball bearing turbo. and a true ball bearing turbo has superior response to any supercharger, the ability to reach maximum boost ( anything from 15-50 psi depending on the engine and the size of the ball bearing turbo ) before 1800 rpm..an example of this is the incon systems turbo."

You can read the whole THREAD here... (http://www.automotivehelper.com/topic417.htm)

I'm going to do a little research on this myself :rolleyes:

kko
04-13-2004, 02:04 PM
If im not mistaken cant a roots style supercharger put out more tourqe?
this is what if been told
also if u have a muscle car (60's and 70's) theres noway in hell ur gonna turbo it, u got have the super stickin out the hood
i'd like to point out most of the top fuel racers use roots superchargers

fpv_gtho
04-13-2004, 06:43 PM
Quoted from another forum...
"there are 2 different designs of turbos, not one.. there is your typical turbo, and the ball bearing turbo. and a true ball bearing turbo has superior response to any supercharger, the ability to reach maximum boost ( anything from 15-50 psi depending on the engine and the size of the ball bearing turbo ) before 1800 rpm..an example of this is the incon systems turbo."

You can read the whole THREAD here... (http://www.automotivehelper.com/topic417.htm)

I'm going to do a little research on this myself :rolleyes:


1800rpm is pretty good, but positive displacement type superchargers reach maximum boost as soon as the engines running, so theyre making maximum boost already at idle

Sweeney921
04-26-2004, 06:46 AM
i think i read on howstuffworks.com that superchargers are generally easier to install, provide more boost, and are cheaper than turbos. i think they're easier to install because the parts are only in the front of the car, while turbos are spread out along the bottom. they provide more boost because the forced induction runs much faster. i'm not sure about prices though


ide take a supercharger any day over a turbo

fpv_gtho
04-26-2004, 06:50 AM
a good ball bearing turbo might reach speeds of about 200,000rpm whilst most superchargers will only do about 65000rpm, so higher boost levels are achievable through turbo's

1000bhp1000nm
04-26-2004, 07:13 AM
i think i read on howstuffworks.com that superchargers are generally easier to install, provide more boost, and are cheaper than turbos. i think they're easier to install because the parts are only in the front of the car, while turbos are spread out along the bottom. they provide more boost because the forced induction runs much faster. i'm not sure about prices though


ide take a supercharger any day over a turbo



what was that???????????????????????
well, i din meant to be hard on you, but that mistake of yours, i have to correct...:)
turbo charges provides more boost then super chargers.
and it runs on power that would other wise be wasted flowing down the pipe.
therefore, it's more efficient. harder to install, yes, but when you're really into power, do you really care?

Sweeney921
04-26-2004, 07:48 AM
no, i dont really care, but if you're gonna say someone's wrong, then say that the person who wrote the article is wrong.

Coventrysucks
04-27-2004, 12:31 PM
I don't really mind either, but I think that supercharging has more of a prestige image.

Jaguar XJ/XK R - Supercharger
Koenigsegg CCR - Supercharger
McLaren SLR - Supercharger
TVR Sagaris - Supercharger
TVR Typhon - Supercharger

And you get the added bonus of supercharger whine, much nicer than all that rubbish whooshing you get with turbos :D

cls12vg30
04-27-2004, 12:55 PM
It seems to me that a turbo is more appropriate to a smaller, higher-revving engine, a 4 or 6 usually, since they are more likely to spend more time in the higher rev-ranges where the exhaust pressure is sufficient to create significant boost.
On a larger engine, like a big-block V8, a supercharger is more effective since these engines are designed to make power at lower rpm's, and place more emphasis on torque. Also, the inherent power drain from an engine-driven supercharger has less effect on a larger, torqueier engine.

henk4
04-27-2004, 01:01 PM
It seems to me that a turbo is more appropriate to a smaller, higher-revving engine, a 4 or 6 usually, since they are more likely to spend more time in the higher rev-ranges where the exhaust pressure is sufficient to create significant boost.
On a larger engine, like a big-block V8, a supercharger is more effective since these engines are designed to make power at lower rpm's, and place more emphasis on torque. Also, the inherent power drain from an engine-driven supercharger has less effect on a larger, torqueier engine.

Diesel engines that will hardly run over 5000 revs and get there maximum torque in 1800-2200 range, are generallly assisted by a turbocharger, I never heard of a supercharged diesel, which makes me doubt the validity of your theory.

mulan
04-27-2004, 03:41 PM
ok 1st thing most of u talk rubbish, superchargers are better on torque at low rpm were as turbos suffer from lag so drag racing the supercharger is the way to go andif ure going for power weight and a better power to weight ratio go for the turbo also a supercharger runs off the engine so it takes more power than its worth. ball bearing turbos are only better for oiling dont run much faster than thrust washers all u people that know what ure talking about this post does not apply, but all u amature car enthusiasts who think u know alot u got to learn. ok there is such thing as a supercharged deisel.the maclarren was natruly aspirated. oh and henk the lancia delta s4 did have both turbo and supercharger, i dont belive that the lancia delta s4 was the ultimate grp b rally car but it was very good. the rs 200 evo is the fastest acelorating car in the world and thats turboed so it also depends on size of the turbo something like a t4 is huge and takes ages to spool up somthing like a t3 wont

Coventrysucks
04-27-2004, 05:12 PM
I never heard of a supercharged diesel, which makes me doubt the validity of your theory.

There are some supercharged diesels, but they tend to be large displacement two stroke jobs, used in '40s/ '50s trucks, tanks etc:
Napier Deltic, 3 crank 18cyl
Commer TS3

I have also heard that the Mazda 626 had a supercharged diesel, but I don't know how true that is.

Also Jaguar might be using a s/c'ed diesel in the X type replacement in the near distant future

Imagine how much torque you could get from a well set up s/c diesel :eek:

mulan: Please could you use some sort of punctuation, otherwise it makes it incredibly difficult to understand what you have written. Thank you. :)
Also try to keep the number of insults to a minimum :rolleyes:

Sweeney921
04-27-2004, 06:41 PM
Where'd you get the idea that you get a better top speed with a turbo?

bballmikey105
04-27-2004, 08:31 PM
how about a car super and turbo charged? that would be so great!

I think superchargers are better because they have lower maintenence and no exhaust backflow, but superchargers take power from the engine. they both have their good/bad points.

cls12vg30
04-27-2004, 08:53 PM
That's been done. It's called twincharging. The idea is that the supercharger is mounted upstream of the turbo, so that the supercharger eliminates turbo lag. It's very difficult to get right, from everything I've read.

bballmikey105
04-27-2004, 09:01 PM
I never heard of that but I thought it would be neat if it could be done. It sounds very simple.

henk4
04-27-2004, 11:50 PM
From what I could understand from Mulan's contribution is that the Lancia S4 had both, which is actually correct, Lancia had their own supercharging system, called Volumex, which they combined with an exhaust turbo. For the rest I am eager to find out what the truth really is, Mulan's contribution was a bit on the negative side and as already pointed out, very difficult to read, in spite of it having been edited. There could well have been some valid points in there.

Thanks for the reference to old commercial supercharged diesel vehicles, I didn't know that.

I doubt that Jaguar will be developing a supercharged diesel, as they belong to Ford, which is doing all its diesel development work together with PSA. (The Jaguar diesel you will also find in some new Peugeots and Citroens). Mazda is using a common rail turbo diesel.

fordfan2
04-28-2004, 03:55 AM
Overall i'd rather go for th supercharger although our boat has twin volvo penta 165hp diesels which are both turbocharged and they are verrrrrrry quick so

Coventrysucks
04-28-2004, 07:09 AM
I doubt that Jaguar will be developing a supercharged diesel, as they belong to Ford, which is doing all its diesel development work together with PSA. (The Jaguar diesel you will also find in some new Peugeots and Citroens). Mazda is using a common rail turbo diesel.

I know that it is a 'customer' engine for Jag, but as the replacement X type is supposedly either a small sport hatch (RD6), or coupe/ roadster (F type) I think they would want to have something special, rather than turbos, maybe having a type R supercharged diesel.
This could also make it more attractive to use in the XJ and XK class, as I don't think that the current 2.7 is powerful enough to compete with Merc and BMW.

I wasn't really sure about the Mazda, I think it would be from some time ago, but I mentioned it just in case. :)

henk4
04-28-2004, 07:16 AM
I think they would want to have something special, rather than turbos, maybe having a type R supercharged diesel.


Is this what you "want" or do you have more real indications :)
The power of the 2.7 is surely not large enough, (225 BHP might be the currently obtainable maximum, but in the same spirit as you"want" a supercharger, i might "want" a V8 version of the 2.7, which would make it a 3.5. I don't know what liberties they in increasing bore or stroke in the current engine configuration.

Coventrysucks
04-28-2004, 12:30 PM
Is this what you "want" or do you have more real indications :)
The power of the 2.7 is surely not large enough, (225 BHP might be the currently obtainable maximum, but in the same spirit as you"want" a supercharger, i might "want" a V8 version of the 2.7, which would make it a 3.5. I don't know what liberties they in increasing bore or stroke in the current engine configuration.

I don't have any confidential sources if thats what you mean ;)

I do think, from visiting a couple of the factories, where they bombard you with the Jaguar "image" of sport + luxury, that a supercharger would be much more in keeping with the brand image. :)

I do think that being owned by Ford may put all of the PAG group in danger though.

Being American, Ford has no real need to develop a large (6 or 8 cyl) modern diesel. :rolleyes: However if Jag, Land Rover, and Volvo are to compete in Europe, they need a good, big diesel quick.

Hopefully the increase in S-type diesel sales will convince someone high enough up the food chain.

henk4
04-28-2004, 12:55 PM
I do think, from visiting a couple of the factories, where they bombard you with the Jaguar "image" of sport + luxury, that a supercharger would be much more in keeping with the brand image. :)


Do you think that a supercharger has more prestige than a turbo? Is that because some prewar cars were fitted with these? It may be so, but I just remembered that when F1 allowed blown engines, under the 3 litre rule (66-87), the turbo efforts of Renault were eventually copied by everybody, and not a single team opted for a mechanical solution. Did they remember the BRM V16? (Ever heard that engine running?, it can be found somewhere on this site)

May be Mercedes is using superchargers because of their SSK's heritage but Bently is using a turbo on the Arnage, while they also have a tradition in superchargers. As far as Jaguar is concerned, may be I forgot one but I can't remember a single old car fitted with a supercharger.

So in short I see no objective reason for a supercharged diesel, but marketing is all about subjective issues, isn't it ;)

Coventrysucks
04-28-2004, 01:13 PM
Do you think that a supercharger has more prestige than a turbo?

Yes. I think that turbos are more associated with Subaru, and Mitsubishi (which don't have the same prestige as Jag), whereas, like you say, s/c's hark back to the "good old days" of pre war Merc', and Bentley.


As far as Jaguar is concerned, may be I forgot one but I can't remember a single old car fitted with a supercharger.

Neither can I, but I was thinking more of the current supercharged type R range.

henk4
04-28-2004, 01:49 PM
Yes. I think that turbos are more associated with Subaru, and Mitsubishi

Don't forget the MG Metro but you are right, modern Benzes write in full Kompressor on their behinds, while I removed the TRD Turbo badge from my old BX diesels.

mulan
04-29-2004, 09:23 AM
ok the f1 cars of years ago were 1.5 litre turbocharged with a bmw thing setting best laps on allmost every f1 course with was blown and if a car wasnt fitted with a turbo it could be 3 litre

Ru$$ky
05-13-2004, 05:15 AM
Supercharger is the only way for drag racers and whenever else immediate engine response in needed as turbo takes time to spin up to speed. Even today.
However, turbo is generally easier to install. Although given its operating temperatures (just under meltdown) is requires more cooling, etc. Thats why you cant just switch off turbo engine after a hard work out. You should leave it for a minute or 2 at idle to cool down.
Anyway, imho, a naturally aspirated engines are the real thing! ;) Give me an M engine anyday, cant wait for a new high revving V10 BMW M5!

mulan
05-14-2004, 10:25 AM
russky ure wrong as it is easyer to supercharge an engine than turbocharge ask any mechanic they will tell u the same thing

Waatz
05-14-2004, 01:39 PM
If you want big block, big grunt (1000 hp per cylinder) you have to have a supercharger. But if you want somthing to zap your little four banger up a few hundred ponys I would use a turbo and an anti-lagg system.
I drive a Turbo but I wish I had a BIG FAT SUPERCHARGER!!

KnifeEdge_2K1
05-14-2004, 03:08 PM
If you want big block, big grunt (1000 hp per cylinder) you have to have a supercharger. But if you want somthing to zap your little four banger up a few hundred ponys I would use a turbo and an anti-lagg system.
I drive a Turbo but I wish I had a BIG FAT SUPERCHARGER!!

you cant get 1000 horsepower per cylinder, its friggin impossible
the amount of boost needed would equal to that of containing ur stupidity in ur own head. 1000 horsepower in an engine? where the hell you get that from, 100 horsepower per cylinder fine but 1000?

megotmea7
05-14-2004, 05:08 PM
there is a drag integra 4 cylinder making 4000hp... not impossible :)

ace
05-14-2004, 06:18 PM
http://www.bandag.com.au/bandag_bullet_wmISDN.htm#view
Two V8 92-Series Detroit Diesel engines fitted with two blowers, four turbo chargers and injected with nitrous oxide. The original 75mm injectors have been increased to 260mm. Pistons, conrods, crankshaft and camshaft have been balanced. Cylinder heads and air boxes have been ported and polished.
Watch the video!!!
2800hp

Coventrysucks
05-14-2004, 06:58 PM
I wouldn't want to get the tyre bill. :)

Waatz
05-15-2004, 01:44 AM
These are the kind of cars that make 8000 hp

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

It's worth a read

fpv_gtho
05-15-2004, 05:59 AM
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
05-15-2004, 09:28 AM
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
05-16-2004, 08:20 PM
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
05-16-2004, 11:18 PM
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
05-17-2004, 02:36 AM
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. :confused:

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
05-17-2004, 09:53 AM
ok for drift u want a very samll turbo but if u have seen some of the best drifters the run supercharged engines

DB9Vantage
05-17-2004, 11:16 AM
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
05-17-2004, 02:52 PM
Superchargers are more for luxury vehicles because of their silence

Superchargers tend to be louder than turbo's

V8turbo4me
05-17-2004, 07:27 PM
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
05-18-2004, 02:25 AM
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
05-18-2004, 05:09 PM
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 :D


[email protected]

SilverArrowZ
05-18-2004, 05:57 PM
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) :confused:

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 :confused: .

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
05-18-2004, 08:57 PM
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
05-18-2004, 10:17 PM
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.

SilverArrowZ
05-19-2004, 10:18 PM
With aerodynamically enhanced carbon-fiber bodies that loosely resemble the production cars on which they are based, these supercharged, fuel-injected, nitromethane-burning machines travel the quarter-mile in 4.7 seconds at more than 325 mph, slightly slower than a Top Fuel dragster. Most teams use an aluminum version of the 426 Chrysler Hemi engine that produces an estimated 8,000 horsepower.


no need prove, these babies use nitromethane, and we are talking about normal petrol. These are already disqualify. :D Now turbo still rulez with majority post

Waatz
05-19-2004, 11:01 PM
Take at the look at the start of this thread, It doesn't say anything about pump gas.

I think that means that Superchargers are still produce more poneys! :D

SilverArrowZ
05-19-2004, 11:12 PM
=.="

they haven't try turbos on it yet.. maybe their exhaust gas is too much for turbos.. any prove that turbo don't work on those dragster?

Waatz
05-19-2004, 11:26 PM
No I dont have any proof that Turbo's wouldn't work in that particular case but im sure if they were better they would be getting used.

The exhaust gasses are hot enough to burn hydrogen in the atmosphere so maybe turbo's wouldn't handel the heat.

SilverArrowZ
05-19-2004, 11:49 PM
my guess is that either their engine is powerful enough or rev high enough to make the supercharger work as good as turbo or they need straight flow in their exhaust that turbo is just not a choice

Waatz
05-19-2004, 11:56 PM
my guess is that either their engine is powerful enough or rev high enough to make the supercharger work as good as turbo or they need straight flow in their exhaust that turbo is just not a choice

That's interesting, a fan of turbo's finaly saying that a turbo is "not a choice" fot the fastest wheel driven vehicles on the planet.
I have to agree there.

Matra et Alpine
05-20-2004, 01:31 AM
That's interesting, a fan of turbo's finaly saying that a turbo is "not a choice" fot the fastest wheel driven vehicles on the planet.
you forgot to add in a straght line.
THe cars are no use to man nor beast beyond bragging rights !!

I have to agree there.and superchargers aren't used in jet engines.
The point of agreeing is what ??????? :)

SilverArrowZ
05-20-2004, 06:18 PM
That's interesting, a fan of turbo's finaly saying that a turbo is "not a choice" fot the fastest wheel driven vehicles on the planet.
I have to agree there.


LOL this is a car forum not a dragster forum. If you think supercharger is best for dragster(and what you say the fastest machine on earth) then be it. I'm hoping to see you on a circuit track with 20 corners on a 20 lap race and i'll let you run 3 lap first.*giggle*. But the thing is that u need to use a dragster with a supercharger and i'll settle with a V8 turbo charge with just 10psi.*giggle*

I wonder who will win... :rolleyes:

SilverArrowZ
05-21-2004, 03:31 AM
Hey.. i know why turbocharger can't be used on those dragster you mention. Turbocharger is not an option because they give out too much extra horses that the dragster's engine will blow up because they already have too much power so in order to boost it a little bit more they are forced to use supercharger :D

Waatz
05-21-2004, 01:36 PM
you forgot to add in a straght line.
THe cars are no use to man nor beast beyond bragging rights !!
and superchargers aren't used in jet engines.
The point of agreeing is what ??????? :)

Why Would I add in "straight line" Im talking about FASTEST here if I wanted to talk about fastest mid corner speed I dont think it would matter if it was turbz or supercharged, and as for this "THe cars are no use to man nor beast beyond bragging rights !!" you could argue that about all motorsport or any extravagant car if you wern't a fan of motorsport or cars.
As for Jet engines, do they drive the wheels? I havent seen one that does, I may be wrong. :D

Waatz
05-21-2004, 02:01 PM
Ok I wont use Top Fuelers if they are proving to much of a challenge to beat, how about. . . . I suppose Funny Cars arn't cars either? lets say they are because it does say "car" in the name. well basicaly almost the same stats as TFD but with a body that more resembles a "Hot Wheels"
You dont have to get all personal and say you would like to see me on a track with corners because then we would have to start a thread "Waatz V SilverArrowZ" and this one is Turbochargers (OK) V Superchargers (Most Definitaly the best)


Hey.. i know why turbocharger can't be used on those dragster you mention. Turbocharger is not an option because they give out too much extra horses that the dragster's engine will blow up because they already have too much power so in order to boost it a little bit more they are forced to use supercharger :D

The Above would only prove that turbochargers arn't the best for making cars go reeeealy reeeeealy fast ;)

V8turbo4me
05-21-2004, 05:03 PM
This thread has gotten rediculous! How can anyone expect to reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into?!? All this talk about top fuel dragsters and road cars is making me sick, which one can handle better? which can actually turn? what the hell does that matter neither one of these two things has anything to do with a turbocharger nor a supercharger! The fact is there is at this point and time a time and situation where each application may dictate which form of boosting is most conducive to perform the task at hand. Until there are some radical improvements in either system, someone finds a way to make turbos have a more ideal low end power curve or someone finds a way to get past all the limitations of a supercharger (face it there are limits, you blower loving fools out there who will stand up and protect your supercharger like it came from ye own womb). So until then, stop all the useless bickering!

megotmea7
05-21-2004, 05:33 PM
i skipped pretty much half the 2nd page but as far as teh top fuel argument turbo's arnt used as they would create such a restriction that the EG's would litteraly push the manifold apart. it would bent and eventually break off to fee up the restriction in the exhaust because of the force of the gasses coming out of the engines

SilverArrowZ
05-21-2004, 09:20 PM
This thread has gotten rediculous! How can anyone expect to reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into?!? All this talk about top fuel dragsters and road cars is making me sick, which one can handle better? which can actually turn? what the hell does that matter neither one of these two things has anything to do with a turbocharger nor a supercharger! The fact is there is at this point and time a time and situation where each application may dictate which form of boosting is most conducive to perform the task at hand. Until there are some radical improvements in either system, someone finds a way to make turbos have a more ideal low end power curve or someone finds a way to get past all the limitations of a supercharger (face it there are limits, you blower loving fools out there who will stand up and protect your supercharger like it came from ye own womb). So until then, stop all the useless bickering!

Okay okay i think i'll go with NA until there is some change in the force induction industries. But i'm still with turbo *with evil grin in face*

Waatz
05-21-2004, 10:02 PM
This thread has gotten rediculous! How can anyone expect to reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into?!? All this talk about top fuel dragsters and road cars is making me sick, which one can handle better? which can actually turn? what the hell does that matter neither one of these two things has anything to do with a turbocharger nor a supercharger! The fact is there is at this point and time a time and situation where each application may dictate which form of boosting is most conducive to perform the task at hand. Until there are some radical improvements in either system, someone finds a way to make turbos have a more ideal low end power curve or someone finds a way to get past all the limitations of a supercharger (face it there are limits, you blower loving fools out there who will stand up and protect your supercharger like it came from ye own womb). So until then, stop all the useless bickering!

Gee you sure are a bit anal, I thought this is was what forums like this are about, debating the subject, Im having fun and I think SilverArrowZ is having fun. But if you want me to stop I will just for you.

SilverArrowZ
05-22-2004, 09:46 AM
ok.. maybe he just want us to debate in a more polite way? hmm.. lets look at things objectively.. here goes..

waatz hope you can answer my question here(and anybody else too), just to see what you think and a little bit of why i think turbo is better:

1. Why do you think funny car use supercharger?
2. Why do you think mercedes use supercharger too?
3. Why is japanese rally car, evo and wrx, use turbo?
4. If supercharger can charged more power, then why is mercedes' bhp/displacement ratio?
5. Why is there more mags talking about turbo rather than supercharger?
6. Why is that the major aftermarket manufacture such as HKS/Greddy/Apexi and others sell turbo, and not supercharger? well at least i don't know if they sell or not.

And here is a few question that will neutralize things abit, not siding with any charger, and question i've been thinking lately:

1. If one of them is better than the other one, why did they both still available? If one is better than another one, won't the bad one be discarded?

2. I've see a patern here. Do you think that way of charging depend on the design of the car? Somehow i see a patern that western car do more supercharging and eastern car do more turbo charging. eg: Mercedes use supercharger, your funny car use super charger(asian don't play much with that kind of dragster, we mod a stock car to drag), your mustang svt cobra use supercharger. On the other hand, most high peformance japanese car uses turbocharger, like skyline, supra, nsx, evo, wrx and so on. Do you think design affect charging?

well.. thats all for tonite.. i'm sleepy now.. hope someone can answer the questions and we will get to continue debating

johnnynumfiv
05-22-2004, 01:01 PM
1 and 2. they use superchargers because the engines they start with already have power, it takes power to make power, ricers don't have much power to start with so they use turbo's.

3. Turbo's produce power quickly. sometimes they kick in at a certain RPM, since superchargers are spun by something similar to a serpintine belt, they run all the time.

5. Seeing how the whole ricer fad is going strong, turbo's are more popular because of them.

6. They might be targeting the ricer people.


1. Its the application that the person wants to use or thier personal preference.

2.The funny cars use superchargers cause they have the power to waste on turning them, its more efficent in this case because of the setup, they would weigh much more if they had to put as many turbo's on to produce as much as the supercharger does and since they have open headers, it might back up the exhaust with the turbo. Not many muscle cars have turbos on them,it might because they can put superchargers on but i don't know why but that is the way it is.

Coventrysucks
05-22-2004, 01:42 PM
1. Why do you think funny car use supercharger?
2. Why do you think mercedes use supercharger too?
3. Why is japanese rally car, evo and wrx, use turbo?
4. If supercharger can charged more power, then why is mercedes' bhp/displacement ratio?
5. Why is there more mags talking about turbo rather than supercharger?
6. Why is that the major aftermarket manufacture such as HKS/Greddy/Apexi and others sell turbo, and not supercharger? well at least i don't know if they sell or not.

1 - Superchargers have a faster response time, important when you are accelerating to 100 mph in a few tenths of a second. Also Drag cars have pretty much nothing in the way of exhaust, therefore nothing to attach a turbo to.

2 - USP, or Unique Selling Point. Every one else uses turbos, so why not use a kompressor. It also recalls the old racing cars which ran with kompressors.

3 - Rally cars use turbos rather than superchargers because they have small engines which don't suit the demands of the supercharger. Also strict Japanese emission laws favour turbocharged cars.

4 - that question doesn't really make sense to me

5 - More magazines talk about turbos because more cars have turbos than superchargers.

6 - More people want superchargers? Turbos are probably more popular aftermarket add ons because they are quite compact.
There is a company selling a supercharger kit for the 350Z, but it has to have a modifyed bonnet (hood) so that the supercharger will fit.


1. If one of them is better than the other one, why did they both still available? If one is better than another one, won't the bad one be discarded?

2. I've see a patern here. Do you think that way of charging depend on the design of the car? Somehow i see a patern that western car do more supercharging and eastern car do more turbo charging. eg: Mercedes use supercharger, your funny car use super charger(asian don't play much with that kind of dragster, we mod a stock car to drag), your mustang svt cobra use supercharger. On the other hand, most high peformance japanese car uses turbocharger, like skyline, supra, nsx, evo, wrx and so on. Do you think design affect charging?

1 - Neither one is "better". It is dependant on the application, sometimes turbocharing is a better solution, sometimes supercharging is a better solution.

2 - Supercharging is more suited to large, powerful engines.
With a general agreement to keep power limited to 276bhp, not many Japanese cars are powerful enough to benefit from supercharging, due to the fact that the supercharger is powered by the engine.
The turbocharger doesn't add any extra load to the engine, and is more emmision friendly.

Superchargers are used on large engines to boost power, and are used on more "upmarket" cars as they give more power, and importantly, torque across the rev range, which creates a smoother driving car, although a good twin turbo set up will do the same.

Drag cars ideally want as much power and torque as possible, and quickly.
As most dragster engines are so powerful, the supercharger is the best way to attain this, and the "drain" of the supercharger is not so much of a problem.
:)