Announcement

**strobhen** · 10-18-2002, 12:08 PM

supercharger is by far easier to install

both are pretty low maint once installed

your going to open up a can of worms asking which gives more performance

Generally superchargers have less lag and will not heat the air as much as a turbo. But will also rob more power from the engine in its operation.

A turbocharger has lag, will heat up the air more (they get damn hot from running off exhaust gasses), but take less hp from the engine in its operation.

Assuming you do them RIGHT, a turbo will be much more complicated, but about the same cost (the turbocharger itself is less expensive than a supercharger generally)

All in all, I would bet on spending 4k on either. If you spend less and get a good product, more power to you.

**HAZ-Matt** · 10-18-2002, 01:44 PM

Ok most of the increased heat comes from compressing the air and really has little to do with the fact thata turbo is run off of exhaust. The thermal efficiencies of a centrifugal supercharger and a turbo (which happens to be a variation of the centrifugal supercharger) are nearly the same.

This might help you make up your mind.

Supercharger v. Turbo

**nocutt** · 10-18-2002, 11:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by HAZ-Matt:
[QB]Ok most of the increased heat comes from compressing the air and really has little to do with the fact thata turbo is run off of exhaust. The thermal efficiencies of a centrifugal supercharger and a turbo (which happens to be a variation of the centrifugal supercharger) are nearly the same.

This might help you make up your mind.

<hr></blockquote>

and I concor...

strobhen was about to open some serious can of worms...you are basically stating your opinion...definately not facts!

**strobhen** · 10-19-2002, 12:48 AM

I don't agree for a few reasons

First & foremost being that many Turbos are water cooled while Superchargers are not. A watercooled turbo is going to do a lot better w/ heat than ones without. Problem is, most watercooled turbos are pretty expensive.

Plus the fact that you have two "fans" (I use the term loosely) spinning, with two sets of bearings, one of the fans being spun by very hot gases.

A lot of the heat is generated by compressing the gas, yes, but the turbo just multiplies the problem.

I've also talked to people w/ turbos who comment on the enormous amount of heat they seem to eminate.

PLUS many turbos, even factory, require that you idle the car for a few minutes before shutting it off to allow the thing to cool properly -- unheard of in a supercharger.

I think its quite obvious the turbo itself gets hotter, and obviously some of that heat is going to go into the air it is pumping.

Notice that I did not say that the above fact cripples the performance of a turbo, however.

Let me put it this way -- I may not necissarily go w/ a bigger intercooler w/ a turbo (I would go with something quite large in either case). But if the turbo used the same oil my engine did (and it wasn't watercooled), I would invest in an oil cooler (though I'm sure plenty of people have installed turbos w/ out it and been just fine). On the other hand, I would be comfortable w/ putting a supercharger (that used engine oil) in w/ out an oil cooler.

If the Turbo is watercooled, then a lot of this isn't true because that water is going to soak up the heat like a sponge. But then there is always the problem of running out of radiator (probably wouldn't happen w/ just the turbo though).

I'm not going to get into a huge arguement over it though. You guys think what you want to. I will think what I want to. And whoever reads this can do the same. I really could care less.

But I would like to point out, nocutt, that last time I checked, posting an opinion wasn't a crime. And that just happens to be just exactly what your doing.

Check the attitude next time, I do not appreciate it -- regardless of whether what I said has any basis in fact or not.

**nocutt** · 10-19-2002, 02:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>
First & foremost being that many Turbos are water cooled while Superchargers are not. A watercooled turbo is going to do a lot better w/ heat than ones without. Problem is, most watercooled turbos are pretty expensive.
<hr></blockquote>

Let me keep it brief...if you really know what you are doing then adding a CHRA with a water jacket is not really expensive...I added my water jacket for 65 bucks...after rebuilding it with a kit for $75...the turbo cost $150.00 this is less than $300 for a t3/t4 hybrid (garret turbo)...in my book that is not only cheap but stinking cheap...and yes for the most part a watercooled turbo will "out cool" (for a lack of better word) one without...but this isn't really the crux of the water jacket...

<blockquote>quote:<hr> Plus the fact that you have two "fans" (I use the term loosely) spinning, with two sets of bearings, one of the fans being spun by very hot gases.
A lot of the heat is generated by compressing the gas, yes, but the turbo just multiplies the problem. <hr></blockquote>

I think you are really misinformed...you do seem to understand the theory behind this but when you apply fluid dynamics...you will come to see the term ..."the turbo just multiplies the problem" is very negligible..."multiply" has taken a very small percentage and magnified it!!

<blockquote>quote:<hr> I've also talked to people w/ turbos who comment on the enormous amount of heat they seem to eminate.
PLUS many turbos, even factory, require that you idle the car for a few minutes before shutting it off to allow the thing to cool properly -- unheard of in a supercharger. <hr></blockquote>

"enormous amount of heat"...from a turbo? NOooo!! I am only trying to lighten this up!...but a turbo uses heat to create more power hence more heat...but if you do some heat management in your engine bay then you shouldn't be bothered!...if "amount of heat" bother <you- generally speaking not your person> then yes I guess an SC is for <you>...
And as a rule of thumb when it come to <you> heavy footing a turbocharged car...you should always idle the car before shut down..."heavy footing"..."pedal to metal"..."spirited driving" is hte key word here...besides that is when you should go thru proper cooldown methods...and this is the sole purpose of a watercooled turbo...or just spend money on a turbo-timer...

<blockquote>quote:<hr> But I would like to point out, nocutt, that last time I checked, posting an opinion wasn't a crime. And that just happens to be just exactly what your doing.
Check the attitude next time, I do not appreciate it -- regardless of whether what I said has any basis in fact or not. <hr></blockquote>

You seem to have me at a disadvantage...I only used a comment you had stated..."a can of worms"...and I apologise if you feel threatened or my attitude bothers you...I am only scrutinizing your comments which I might add are based on other peoples opinions...I actually drive a turbocharged vehicle (actually two) and thus coming forward with first hand experience...well perhaps it could be called an opinion if you want...Facts and fiction are two seperate things...and if you did not want anyone disagreeing with you then you perhaps should have reconsidered that before posting...Anyhowz I will stay on my own side of the fence...for now! :rolleyes:

**strobhen** · 10-19-2002, 12:11 PM

I don't care that you disagree with me
I don't care that I may be wrong (I am all the time)

I do care about your pissy attitude towards me.

I still see some problems in your arguements, but I'll think I'll just leave the arguement where it is. Anything else I say on the subject will just add feul to your fire.

In fact, to make you happy, your right, I'm wrong.

Regardless, you could have approached the post initially with more of an attitude of adding to everyone's knowledge rather than tearing someone else's post down. Give it a little thought next time.

**HAZ-Matt** · 10-19-2002, 02:33 PM

Aren't we all supposed to be one big happy family? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think that you might get a littel higher intake temp with a turbo. But the thing is the exhaust turbine and the compressor might as well be isolated systems. There will be so little heat transfer between them compared to the heat generated by compressing the air that it the difference is insignificant.

As for letting the car idle before shutting it off after a bunch of WOT runs... this is to prolong the life of the turbo. You don't want to just turn the engine off with a hot turbo that isn't getting any oil flow. Especially if you have a tubo that uses oil as the main bearing. I think this would probably be a good idea for a supercharger that runs off engine oil too.

**Mighty Thor** · 10-19-2002, 02:43 PM

There is no doubt that Turbo is better than Supercharger. I can just list the reasons why but I want to go on forever. But Supercharger does have some advantages as well. Like not having any lag and the curve boost is better because it is belt driven and go along with the crank. Alot of companies now are going SC instead of turbo for some reason.

Turbos though have done very well with small displacement engine, so it would do fine with ours, and SC with big engines. How about a 2000 rwhp 455 1972 TA with a huge Weiland blower on top of it. :eek:

**12secondv6** · 10-20-2002, 01:20 AM

Psssst, there is something even better than a blower or turbo :D

**nocutt** · 10-20-2002, 03:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by strobhen:
I don't care that you disagree with me
I don't care that I may be wrong (I am all the time)

I do care about your pissy attitude towards me.

I still see some problems in your arguements, but I'll think I'll just leave the arguement where it is. Anything else I say on the subject will just add feul to your fire.

In fact, to make you happy, your right, I'm wrong.

Regardless, you could have approached the post initially with more of an attitude of adding to everyone's knowledge rather than tearing someone else's post down. Give it a little thought next time.<hr></blockquote>

Accept facts rather than bias...or be biased for the right reasons...I only corrected a biased reason not based on an actual fact...nevertheless I sincerly apologise...I read the post again...I seemed to have approached it sideways...although it might seem hash...it isn't, take it likely...i am very direct and abrupt. My apologise!! :D

**HAZ-Matt** · 10-20-2002, 08:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by 12secondv6:
Psssst, there is something even better than a blower or turbo :D <hr></blockquote>

Not really [img]smile.gif[/img]

**Formulao96** · 10-21-2002, 10:18 AM

I feel the biggest advantage of turbo over supercharger is that you can adjust the boost level from inside your car with a turbo as opposed to changing pullies to adjust boost with a supercharger, but thats just my 2 cents. I feel that there are more tuning advantages from a turbo. And as far as someone thinking there is something better than both, hint hint 12secv6, i never have to refill my turbo [img]smile.gif[/img]

**IFlyLow** · 10-21-2002, 01:31 PM

well couldnt you put a wastegate between the supercharger and manifold and control it from the inside also?

**HAZ-Matt** · 10-21-2002, 04:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by IFlyLow:
well couldnt you put a wastegate between the supercharger and manifold and control it from the inside also?<hr></blockquote>

A wastegate takes exhaust and routes it around the turbine in order to reduce or maintain the turbine rpm, which in turn limits the speed of the compressor, and the boost generated. You couldn't use a wastegate on a supercharger. You could run a blow off valve, and have it leak over a certain amount of boost, but I dunno how you'd hook an electronic boost controller to that.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: HAZ-Matt ]

Announcement

Turbo vs. SuperCharged

Turbo vs. SuperCharged

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Latest Topics

FORUM SPONSORS