Turbocharger V Superchargers

[Need4Speed]

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.

[Need4Speed]

by the way the poll is supposed to say
Turbochargers OR Superchargers

[eyebrows]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I like them both (turbocharger sounds cooler ) 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]

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]

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

i would say that turbos got about 8 psi?

[eyebrows]

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

[Ferrari Tifosi]

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]

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...

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

[kko]

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