I am a little confused here guys..

[Ferrari p4\5]

Hey , can any body tell me the difference between a "Turbo" and a "Supercharger"?? well i don't know the differece exactly but i heared it's something about their pour supply
AND I DON'T WANT ANY SMARTASS TO TELL ME THEY ARE THE SAME , THEY ARE NOT !!

[man 430gt]

Hope this helps
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...G=Search&meta=

[Piacki_117]

They are the same.

[Ferrari p4\5]

WELL THANKS ANY WAY .. THOUGH I COULD SEARCHED IN GOOGLE MY SELF..
I JUST WANT UR EXPIRENCES .. ANY ONE DRIVEN BOTH ..CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE IN DRIVING EXPIRENCE BETWEEN BOTH ............

[Ferrari p4\5]

They are the same.

LOL !!!

[Jack_Bauer]

Both of them essentially perform the same function (i.e. providing forced induction), but the way in which they are driven is different. With a turbo the compressor is driven by the engine's own exhaust gasses, whereas with a supercharger it is driven from the engine's crankshaft via a belt.

Simple tutorial on superchargers - http://auto.howstuffworks.com/supercharger.htm

Simple tutorial on turbocharging - http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

[Jack_Bauer]

WELL THANKS ANY WAY .. THOUGH I COULD SEARCHED IN GOOGLE MY SELF..
I JUST WANT UR EXPIRENCES .. ANY ONE DRIVEN BOTH ..CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE IN DRIVING EXPIRENCE BETWEEN BOTH ............

Traditionally the big difference between the two in terms of driving characteristics is that turbos can suffer from "lag". What that means is that there is a brief pause after opening the throttle until the turbo starts to kick in because you have to wait for the exhaust gasses to spool the turbos up. This gives a turbo engine something of a 'spikey' power delivery, the engine's torque curve is not very flat. Modern technology in newer turbo engines has all but eliminated this problem though with things like sophisticated engine mapping, twin turbo sytems, and in a few cases the turbo even has variable turbine geometry (the new 997 Turbo for instance).

The big advantage of a supercharger is that there is no lag between engine revving and compressor spinning due to the direct mechanical connection between the two.

The choice between the 2 systems for a designer/engineer often has as much to do with packaging concerns as much as anything else, as in performance terms both can be as effective each other.

[Gtek-i]

And then Twincharging is another story...Turbocharged AND Supercharged (seems pretty pointless to me...).

[Ferrari p4\5]

Thanks for your help jack .
but the question now is : " are normally aspirated engines are better than turbo charged ones ?!!!

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

And then Twincharging is another story...Turbocharged AND Supercharged (seems pretty pointless to me...).

You are ignorant.

And also totally wrong...

The point of that is to allow an amazing powerband from a smaller engine, whilst keeping most of the economy. The turbo uses exhaust gases at higher revs to create the fantastic midrange ability, whilst the suprcharger delivers brute force right from the point where you touch the pedal.

A case in point would be the VW Golf GT- it's a 1.4... with 168bhp and 177lb/ft of torque. This is more than the 2.0 FSI Golf. It's about the same as a 4.0 V6 that's used in the Jeep Wrangler.

The supercharger is used for power all the time, the turbo is used for more midrange-based business. End of. Hope you learnt a lesson

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

are normally aspirated engines are better than turbo charged ones ?!!!

Depends on what you want from a car. If it's a diesel, you'll ideally want a turbo slammed on it so you get more horsepower and a nicer amount of torque. They pretty much need the turbo for better acceleration- hence why you see so many diesels with turbos...

On a normal car, it'll send your insurance sky-high if you're relatively inexperienced. One case in point is my 206- it produces a startling 60bhp from a 1.1 engine at the moment...

If I added a decent Garrett turbo, I could double the output, whilst also keeping MOST of my fuel economy.

However, a turbo does ensure a distinct loss of character. A Porsche Cayenne S has an amazingly throaty, harsh exhaust note. The Turbo version sounds more muffled, as if it's not breathing properly. The 110bhp increase from the forced induction would suggest otherwise...

[henk4]

hence why you see so many diesels with turbos...

On a normal car......

a diesel is a perfectly normal car....in some major markets diesels outsell petrol engined cars...

Anyway part of the superchargers power comes from the engine itself, so the net BHP gain is not as significant as via an exhaust gas blown turbo.

[Mr.Tiv]

a diesel is a perfectly normal car....in some major markets diesels outsell petrol engined cars...

Anyway part of the superchargers power comes from the engine itself, so the net BHP gain is not as significant as via an exhaust gas blown turbo.

But a supercharger isn't as stressful on the engine; I prefer a turbo and proper maintenance myself, but it really depends on the application. A turbo is capable of a much larger power increase than a supercharger, yet the supercharger is much less likely to burn your engine up.

[henk4]

But a supercharger isn't as stressful on the engine; I prefer a turbo and proper maintenance myself, but it really depends on the application. A turbo is capable of a much larger power increase than a supercharger, yet the supercharger is much less likely to burn your engine up.

in other words, power comes at a price...

[Mr.Tiv]

in other words, power comes at a price...

And that price is reliability/longevity, but reliability/longevity come at the price of power.