spiderman01980
|
| posted on 9/8/11 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
Which is better? turbo or supercharger!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGdg2Fd2WQY
|
|
|
|
|
Toniq-r
|
| posted on 9/8/11 at 06:59 PM |
|
|
Superchargerrrrrrrrrrrr of course power all the way through the gears! Thats If you have some spare $$$
|
|
|
TheGiantTribble
|
| posted on 9/8/11 at 08:02 PM |
|
|
For me principly because the best sounding engine of all time was a R/R Merlin
I vote Supercharger :-)
Admitidly Turbos have overcome most of the things I don't like about them, but hell I like living in the past 
|
|
|
Doctor Derek Doctors
|
| posted on 9/8/11 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
F1 Engine Suppliers and All of the OEM's have chosen Turbochargers.... so theres your answer.
Turbochagers have overcome their limitation of lacking low end power but Superchargers cannot (by design) overcome their limitation of sapping engine
power to run and being massively more expensive.
The supercharger (somewhat sadly) will soon be confined to Drag Racing, some 'halo' brands and the history books.
Designer and Supplier of the T89 Designs - Single Seater Locost. Build you own Single Seater Racecar for ~£5k.
Plans and Drawings available, U2U or e-mail for details.
Available Now: The Sports Racer Add-On pack, Build a full bodied Sports Racer for Trackdays, Sprints and Racing.
www.t89.co.uk
www.racecarwings.co.uk
callan@t89.co.uk
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Litemoth
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 09:33 AM |
|
|
Both.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmcTY2erGCk
and...
LINKY
[Edited on 10/8/11 by Litemoth]
|
|
|
westy turbo
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
Turbo 
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 10:15 AM |
|
|
For road use, a supercharger wins out. There is no lag, the power is ther at all RPM in every gear which means less changing gears to keep it on
boost. Supercharger will build boost prgressively with RPM as well.
For racing a turbo is cheaper and more reliable as there is no complex drive system to maintain.
Production cars use primarily turbos solely for cost reasons, so citing that as a reason for them to be better because 'all production cars use
them' is quite frankly horse crap. But the new TFSI VW range all use both a supercharger and turbo.
The most powerful internal combustion engines built in terms of bhp/litre (top fuel dragsters) use superchargers as they want power all the way up the
rpm range as they only have 1 gear.
So pay your money and take your choice really. A supercharger install will likely be more expensive but more refined in terms of power delivery.
Both are capable of making the same peak BHP with the same level of boost. But the torque curve from a good supercharger install will be much smoother
than a good turbo install.
[Edited on 10/8/11 by flak monkey]
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
Doctor Derek Doctors
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 11:59 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
Production cars use primarily turbos solely for cost reasons, so citing that as a reason for them to be better because 'all production cars use
them' is quite frankly horse crap. [Edited on 10/8/11 by flak monkey]
Its not horse crap as it depends on what your definition of 'better' is.
If you class 'better' as looking at the whole range of factors (Peak Performance, Rev Range Performance, Cost, Simplicity, Economy, Noise,
Manufacturing Time, Maintainance, etc etc etc) Then the Turbo has the Supercharger licked in every area apart from low end grunt and nowadays thats
not really even true as the new range of turbos have nigh-on eliminated that problem and the next generation of turbos will have totally eliminated
lag anyway.
Working closely with IHI at the moment (a Turbo and Supercharger manufacturer) has thrown up a lot of info on Turbo and Superchargers, and the sad
fact that superchargers now no longer have any real advantage over a turbo, most are sold at a loss and only used for the name and Halo brand effect.
As said the new F1 rules allow forced induction but none of us are going for a Superchager, its Turbochargers all the way.
Designer and Supplier of the T89 Designs - Single Seater Locost. Build you own Single Seater Racecar for ~£5k.
Plans and Drawings available, U2U or e-mail for details.
Available Now: The Sports Racer Add-On pack, Build a full bodied Sports Racer for Trackdays, Sprints and Racing.
www.t89.co.uk
www.racecarwings.co.uk
callan@t89.co.uk
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
westy turbo
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 12:46 PM |
|
|
Throw us a dyno sheet Flak
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 01:19 PM |
|
|
Here you go dyno result from my 2 litre duratec with Rotrex supercharger, 0.67bar peak boost (blue line), power in green and torque in red
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 01:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doctor Derek Doctors
F1 Engine Suppliers and All of the OEM's have chosen Turbochargers.... so theres your answer.
Turbochagers have overcome their limitation of lacking low end power but Superchargers cannot (by design) overcome their limitation of sapping engine
power to run and being massively more expensive.
The supercharger (somewhat sadly) will soon be confined to Drag Racing, some 'halo' brands and the history books.
Turbochargers still have a definite boost threshold below which they don't do much. Turbochargers also require plenty of engine power to drive
them, though not as much as a supercharger.
|
|
|
pewe
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 03:01 PM |
|
|
Having now driven both - tin-top turbos for years and supercharged Se7en for the last 3 my preference is for exactly that.
Turbos on tin-tops give great performance when you need it but for sheer low down grunt, hair trigger throttle and linear acceleration there's
nothing quite like supercharged 650kgs.
Cheers, Pewe 
|
|
|
spiderman01980
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 05:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
Here you go dyno result from my 2 litre duratec with Rotrex supercharger, 0.67bar peak boost (blue line), power in green and torque in red
how much was your supercharger?
|
|
|
carnut
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 06:03 PM |
|
|
I'd say a turbocharger but with compounded drive to the crank so to extract maximum enthalpy from the exhaust gas.
|
|
|
DRC INDY 7
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 06:48 PM |
|
|
I say turbo because i have 1 in my mk indy and 1 in my vxr corsa
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462610273778799/
Puddle Dodgers Club
|
|
|
liam.mccaffrey
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 06:55 PM |
|
|
I don't care which is better really, I'm ditching my turbo on my volvo T5 and subbing in an Eaton charger because I like chargers more.
Don't know why but i guess its the same kind of thing as me liking odd numbers better than evens.
Build Blog
Build Photo Album
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 10/8/11 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by spiderman01980
how much was your supercharger?
Cant remember, think I paid about £800 for the kit secondhand.
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 11/8/11 at 07:21 AM |
|
|
I think that either works well - if i were driving long distances , or even short, on a trailing throttle with zero boost I think I would go for a
turbo to give great overtaking ability and low friction losses when cruising.
If most of my driving was track days I would go supercharger.
My personal preference is Turbos but I can see the advantages of superchargers as well.
|
|
|
westy turbo
|
| posted on 11/8/11 at 10:40 AM |
|
|
Just to have 2 dynos sheets for people that are intrested,
1st one with 0.45bar and 270 hp,and second is at 1.05 bar and 390 hp,
u ca see that if the turbo is right,the lag doesnt exist.
|
|
|
ianclark1275
|
| posted on 11/8/11 at 04:32 PM |
|
|
some useless info
turbos are used as this improves the CARNOT efficency. its that frenchman again.
a large capacity turbocharged engine has a better efficiency than a small non turbo.
thats why they are used on lots of cars now.
(the internal turbine on a ford turbo cost the ford motor company 55p to produce --so they are also cheap to build now.)
im sure i read something somewhere when a works rally mechanic was asked what he would prefer to fit to the car he said superchargers everytime. (it
was probably on here!)
IC
measure twice, cut once, scrap it, start again.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 11/8/11 at 04:58 PM |
|
|
WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?
Everyone knows that the electric superchargers on eBay are the best!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 11/8/11 at 07:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ianclark1275
some useless info
turbos are used as this improves the CARNOT efficency. its that frenchman again.
a large capacity turbocharged engine has a better efficiency than a small non turbo.
I think you have that backwards. A small capacity turbocharged engine is (or can be under certain circumstances) more efficient than a larger
capacity normally aspirated engine.
However, it's not the turbo that makes it more efficient; that is only bolted on in order to produce an adequate maximum power. To produce a
given amount of power, a smaller displacement SI engine will be throttled less which reduces pumping losses and increases thermal efficiency due to
increase in dynamic CR. The smaller turbo engines are increasingly having less cylinders as well (e.g. Fiat Multi-air and PSA 3 cylinder) which cut
down on friction.
Under boost the mixture has to be richened for cooling purposes, which hurts economy. This is why people report such vastly different economy figures
from these cars. Drive them gently, off-boost, and they can return impressive economy. Drive them like you stole them and they will be little better
or maybe even worse than a larger capacity NA engine.
|
|
|
westy turbo
|
| posted on 11/8/11 at 07:05 PM |
|
|
HP can be thirsty on demand 
|
|
|
westy turbo
|
| posted on 11/8/11 at 08:50 PM |
|
|
On this turbo,it maxes out it self at 1.35bar and 440,and we havent tried 2.2 bar with the new gtx3076 series that spools 200 rpm earlier and about
40-50 hp at the same boost,dont want to try that
|
|
|
