View Poll Results: What’s better overall, Turbochargers of Superchargers?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Turbochargers

    26 48.15%
  • Superchargers

    25 46.30%
  • Both the same

    3 5.56%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

Thread: Turbocharger V Superchargers

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Australia,Perth
    Posts
    237
    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
    320kw Ford DJR falcon
    Ford = FIRST ON RACE DAY

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4
    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.
    Thanks for all the fish

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    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.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4
    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. 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.
    Thanks for all the fish

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    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
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by henk4
    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.
    Thanks for all the fish

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    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.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    27
    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

  9. #39

    Depends

    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!
    Have you ever noticed how people disappear when you start 'talking cars'? Thats because you are a http://www.powermaniac.com

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    27
    russky ure wrong as it is easyer to supercharge an engine than turbocharge ask any mechanic they will tell u the same thing
    ok the best car is a for rs200 evo this is a quick car not as quick as some ferraris but there notasquickas ulot think they all this wraps up to a very fast car the calerway sledge hammer

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    93
    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!!

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Waatz
    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?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,336
    there is a drag integra 4 cylinder making 4000hp... not impossible
    UCP's Most Hardcore Burro!

    Being human explains everything but excuses nothing

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    QLD AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    189
    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
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by ace; 05-14-2004 at 06:21 PM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,272
    I wouldn't want to get the tyre bill.
    Thanks for all the fish

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •