Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums > Technical Discussion > supercharged vs turbocharged


Posted by: Raiden Jun 28 2003, 03:38 AM
hey people

pretty new here...just wondering what are the advantages and disadvantages to superchargers and turbochargers?


Posted by: |[ .tainted. ]| Jun 28 2003, 08:46 AM
is your question similar to this?
http://idforums.net/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=688

Posted by: Indecisive Jun 28 2003, 02:59 PM
actually..if anybody wants to help this guy out..just post here. this is a very good technical question. I'll pin it.

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku Jun 28 2003, 05:54 PM
super charger would be better for sohc engines that haf lower engine revs
and turbo would be a better set up on dohc engines as engine revs can go higher
but super chargers literally no lag, and turbo has lag

super chargers takes power away from engine to power itself
turbo takes power from exhaust gas and not engine

thats about all i kno about them, maybe more but cant think of it right now

Posted by: Tai-Mai-Shu Jun 28 2003, 07:06 PM
From all I know

Superchargers are great usually for big V engine block applications because of lack of room in the comparment. Superchargers are great for constant power in the powerband. They also have no lag so it's power is quick for low-end.

However, from what I heard superchargers also wear out quicker and don't create as much psi boost as do turbos do . But companies like comptech are damn close to creating tremendous amount of power.

Turbos are great for high end power and work well with the japanese inline motors. They lack low end power but make up for it high end rpms. However, there are many ways to reduce low end power loss (ball-bearing turbos, fine tuning the A/R ratio, twin turboing) to reduce lag in lower rpms. Turbos can create immense amount of power depending on it's engine tuning and turbo size. But the bigger the turbo, the longer it takes to kick in the power band.

Turbos are run by the flow of exhaust that powers the turbine and compressor

Superchargers I believe are ran by the rotational movement of the crankshaft(?) I forgot if it was the crankshaft or the camshaft pulley.

i'm gonna put this in bold

THERE ARE ALOT OF THINGS IN THIS POST THAT I AM UNSURE ABOUT. PLEASE DO NOT KILL ME IF I MAKE A FEW MISTAKES. I AM HERE TO LEARN

thank you. tongue.gif

Posted by: Raiden Jun 28 2003, 10:36 PM
hey thanx everyone...cleared me up on the subject biggrin.gif

Posted by: Indecisive Jun 28 2003, 11:56 PM
oh is THAT the point of a twin turbo?? for high and low end rpm applications?? I didn't know that....heh kool

Posted by: S15-guy Jun 29 2003, 12:51 AM
I thought it was because two smaller turbo's spooled quicker than a big fat one, could be wrong though, please correct me if I am

Posted by: Tai-Mai-Shu Jun 29 2003, 08:17 AM
Naw, S-15 is right. People get mixed up because people think TWIN TURBOS are Twin NORMAL sized turbos. While really there just both twin smaller turbos.

They're two ways at looking at it. Theres sequential twin turbos and..uh..forgot the other one. But anyway i'm too lazy to explain, they just activate at lower rpms than normal turbos.

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku Jul 1 2003, 12:56 AM
i thought twin turbos was one small turbo adn one big one, so the small one can spool up wen theres less exhaust gas, while the big one spools up after enouf exhaust has build up...then the small ones stops, or thats what i read from this one page...correct me if im wrong, cuz i think that this is jus one type of twin turbo, there are dozens of different twin turbo set ups, but the principal of twin turbo-ing is to reduce lag, so u can haf power through out the power band...plz do correc me if im wrong, but dun kill...

Posted by: Raiden Jul 1 2003, 03:42 AM
as trd-hachi roku said, there are a few different set ups of twin turbos. theres the one where a smaller turbo spins up in front, generating quick power whilst the bigger one takes it time to spin up, generating more power at high rpms. the other type i've heard of is just two same sized turbos spinning up to generate the same amount of power as a big one only cutting down on the lag time

-think that should be about right ^^*

Posted by: Wheels84ss Jul 2 2003, 05:59 PM
Ok just as an aside here. No accesory runs off your cam gear of pulley. They run off the crank. Manufacturers don't use the cam because you run the risk of the cam jumping time and doing serious damage to your engine.

The only things run off your cam besides your valvetrain is your distributor and in old V-8's your fuel pump. But they run off special lobes and gears on the cam itself not the pulley.

Just firgured it might be useful information.

Posted by: Tai-Mai-Shu Jul 2 2003, 06:46 PM
QUOTE (Wheels84ss @ Jul 2 2003, 05:50 PM)
Ok just as an aside here. No accesory runs off your cam gear of pulley. They run off the crank. Manufacturers don't use the cam because you run the risk of the cam jumping time and doing serious damage to your engine.

The only things run off your cam besides your valvetrain is your distributor and in old V-8's your fuel pump. But they run off special lobes and gears on the cam itself not the pulley.

Just firgured it might be useful information.

whoops. My bad. Don't know much about superchargers, I've always been accustomed to turbos and how they work instead.

Posted by: IntegraToast Jul 3 2003, 12:37 AM
the way i see it supercharger is less power no lag...turbo more power with lag...personally more power is worth it adn turbo lag isnt that bad

Posted by: Gearhead Jul 3 2003, 02:57 PM
I see there's some confusion on twin turbo setups. Most setups are designed to eliminate lag, using different methods.

A 'normal' twin setup, like on the Z32 300ZX and R32-34 Skyline GT-R use two turbos of the same size that spool independently, and ideally at the same time. The rationale is that the two turbos will spool up faster together than a large turbo.

Next are sequential twin turbo systems. There are two different types I have seen so far.
The JZA80 Supra uses a sequential system with two turbos of the same size. One turbo will spool for low boost. The second turbo will spool later, and both turbos provide high boost.

The FD3S RX-7 uses a sequential system with a smaller turbo for low boost, and a bigger turbo that kicks in later to provide higher boost levels.

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku Jul 5 2003, 10:02 PM
i would say that super chargers are good for pplz that want power through out the power band, and turbo for those who doesnt mind teh lag, but i prefer turbo, jus cuz itz turbo, lolz

Posted by: Tai-Mai-Shu Jul 6 2003, 09:47 AM
Well we could also wonder about which one is suitable for daily driving.

Posted by: Vash Stampede Jul 6 2003, 06:19 PM
The easiest way to figure out what is best for your engine ,is to take your power curves from a dyno ( tq / hp) now compare them to a tq/hp chart for various SC and turbos..

chances are you'll see one of two things, one curve will match up with a SC or turbo and one one won't ... now decide what you want to gain from forced induction? all out HP regardless of street performance or a well rounded street machine with power everywhere..

eg;1 a standard B16 vetec, has HP peaking above 2/3 power range, with a sharp short peak in torque, if you want to make a very streetable B16 then you use the FI device that is the opposite of the power graph for the B16, which would be a SC, a supercharger is a fixed ratio based on the gearing and pulley size attached to the belt system. the SC has very good low end power trailing off at the top end where the pulley ratio can't keep up with the volume of flow required to keep max boost. Putting a larger pulley on will rob more low end tq from the engine so your limited on how far you can push . If you want all out power and don't care about the bottom end. then go with a device that matches your curves, the B16 match is the turbo charger, it will add to the peak HP and peak TQ but rob low end power due to pack pressure and spool up delay.

take a ford zetec, the 2.0L in a ZTS, zx2, zx3,zx5, 4 cyl cougar and countour in north american and in the Ka, puma, fiesta in 1.3 ,1.5 and 1.7 L formats overseas. the zetec is a very stroked 4 cylinder producting more torque at 2300 rpm then a B18C5 can at 5500 rpm, however it is very low on HP in comparison, lower then a B16 vetec's.. adding a supercharger would give you more low end boost, and but very little top end, given the lack of hp in the zetec the SC would be the reverse of what you'd want, too much torque at the low end oes not help a car that already breaks loose in 1 to 3 becuse of it. however becuse of the missing top end Hp a turbo is what is needed to add in the hp it needs. with the torque at the bottom end and normal hp there the turbo will spool up and increase the hp output up top where a turbo works best.

this is a very basic conceptualizeation for those looking to figure out what's for them.

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku Jul 7 2003, 12:12 AM
thanks vash...that was so clear...i guess u really haf to kno the engine better to decide whether to sc or turbo charge it...thanks again...i learn something new everyday

Posted by: IntegraToast Aug 9 2003, 01:41 AM
yup good explanation!

Posted by: jlo mein Aug 21 2003, 12:48 PM
this is just hearsay from friends, so don't take my word for it, but this is what i have been told:

Superchargers work on ram air, while turbos work on exhaust. Because super's are using air from outside being sucked into it, it is bringing cold air into the engine. A turbo uses exhaust air, which is extremely hot, and puts that into the engine.

They say a Super is better for your engine (in terms of engine longevity), because it is blowing cold air, while a turbo will put more stress on your engine as it uses hot air.

I really have no idea about this stuff, and again this is just stuff i heard, so feel free to bash it if its wrong. smile.gif

Posted by: S15-guy Aug 21 2003, 04:52 PM
the turbo does not put the exhaust air back into the engine, it uses the exhaust air to drive a compressor to force fresh air into your engine.

not bashing, we are all hear to learn!

*edit* just thought i would throw in a few pics I stole from the prestige motorsport website http://www.prestigemotorsport.com.au/

user posted image

user posted image


Posted by: jlo mein Aug 24 2003, 12:12 AM
hey cool you learn something new everyday. smile.gif

another dumb question: are intercoolers only for turbo's? or can you use them for supers or NA engines?

Posted by: S15-guy Aug 24 2003, 11:38 AM
you cant use an intercooler on an NA engine, the intercooler is there because after the air is compressed by the turbo (or superchager) it is MUCH hotter, which hurts performance (the colder the air, the more dense it is, therefore it burns better) , so the air runs though the intercooler to cool it down before it enters the engine.

hope that helped!

Posted by: (RxR) .::DarkWoofer::. Aug 24 2003, 01:01 PM
can any car be equiped with a turbo? (for exemple : Honda Accord 97, cause it's my mom car, and it will be mine in a year or 2 biggrin.gif)

Posted by: S15-guy Aug 24 2003, 01:06 PM
pretty much any car can be, but it would more than likely require a lot of custom fabrication, and would probably be cheaper (and achieve better results) to either do an engine swap or buy another car.

You also would need to upgrade stuff like injectors and fuel pump etc to make it work.

Posted by: (RxR) .::DarkWoofer::. Aug 24 2003, 01:11 PM
Ok, so it don't really worth it... (sorry i don't know how to say this in english, i hope it's like this tongue.gif)

Posted by: Mirage4G63T Aug 28 2003, 12:59 AM
I would like to make a comment about the INITIAL D anime.

They have mentioned that the Lancer Evolution 4 has a twin turbo which is not true if not altered. The Lancer EVO series never came with a twin turbo setup. I think, even the actual rally cars didn't used that setup. The LanEvo series uses a single BIG 16G turbo. That kind of turbo can spool up easily just like small turbos and has a Killer kick at top ends.
In fact, all 4G63T equipped cars uses single turbos. For those who don't know, the 4g63t engine is used on Lancer Evos, 6th Generation Galant VR4's, Eclipses,DSM Lasers, Eagle Talons. It has different variants and in stock form the EVO series has the strongest HP rating at 260-280hp and can be modded up to 500+HP. In my thought, this is the most tuneable and definitely one of the strongest engines Mitsubishi has ever built.

In my memory, Mitsubishi cars that came with the twin turbo setups are the 6 cylinder engine cars. These are the 7th and 8th Generation Galant VR4's with a 6a12TT,6a13TT engine. Another is the 3000GT vr4 or the GTO. It has a 6G72 engine. All of these cars are AWD monsters and produces HP between 280-300hp+

Posted by: Raiden Sep 2 2003, 01:33 AM
QUOTE (S15-guy @ Aug 24 2003, 11:36 AM)
you cant use an intercooler on an NA engine, the intercooler is there because after the air is compressed by the turbo (or superchager) it is MUCH hotter, which hurts performance (the colder the air, the more dense it is, therefore it burns better) , so the air runs though the intercooler to cool it down before it enters the engine.

hope that helped!

intercoolers cant be used on naturally aspirated cars? i think ive seen a couple of civics driving around with intercoolers behind the front spoiler. are they just there for looks?

Posted by: S15-guy Sep 2 2003, 10:12 AM
QUOTE (Raiden @ Sep 2 2003, 02:31 AM)

intercoolers cant be used on naturally aspirated cars? i think ive seen a couple of civics driving around with intercoolers behind the front spoiler. are they just there for looks?

its all just for looks, and its a phenomenon that we call 'rice': where people would spend money to make their car LOOK like it goes fast.

they are normally the same people that have a 5" exhaust pipe, an enormous wing, and a speaker that makes a blow off valve sound.

Posted by: Raiden Sep 3 2003, 03:57 AM
lol...oh yeah i've read about those "naturally aspirated blow off valves"- do they actually operate everytime u take your foot off the accelerator like the proper thing?

Posted by: zeo Sep 16 2003, 12:22 AM
I hope this sheds some more light, lots of good stuff already posted.

Supercharging, turbocharging and Nitrous are all basically the same thing. Forced Induction. Engines basically contain a controlled burn, hence internal combustion. I'm going to simply this a bit, all car engines are 4 stroke motors so I might skip a stroke. First your intake valve opens up and in sprays a air/fuel mixture. Then the piston comes up, compression stroke, and compresses the mixture. Spark plug goes off and ignites the mixture and it burns evenly from closer to the spark plug to the piston. This burning front, continues outward and all the expanding gas pushes the piston down. From that you get work, turning crankshaft, differentials, driveshaft...whatever.

It's important to understand that first before you get the concept of forced induction.

What forced induction does is use an air compressor to increase the density of the incoming air/fuel mixture. You get more air, not necessarily fuel sometimes and this will be bad...very bad. But I'll mention that later. You can really think of the entire engine as an air pump. With a higher density of air, you can add more fuel. Thus creating a more potent mixture.

Your stock fuel injectors can handle most of the fuel requirements, turbo engines come with larger fuel injectors to handle increase fuel requirements of this denser fuel/air mixture. But once you reach a certain point, depending on the size of the turbo, you'll be pumping in an imbalanced air/fuel mixture. It's a ratio, which is different for every setup. Once this happens you could get detonation. Meaning instead of a predictable burn, the entire fuel/air mixture simply explodes. This is bad. So if you add a turbo, make you're fuel injectors are large enough to support the amount of boost you intend to use. Just a warning.

Now that you know that I'll go in to a SC and turbos. Turbos have higher potential than SC b/c of the size of the turbine housing. The size of the housing determines the size of the intake charge. SC use a fixed size air compressor to compress the intake charge. Oh yeah and there 2 types of SC as well. A roots type and centrifugal type...I'm not gonna go in to that. Generally, if you want to run more boost with a SC, it starts to get big real fast and you just don't have the room under the hood for it. The SC is also powered directly by your car's electrical system so it comes on right away, as soon as you step on the peddle. Top fuel dragsters use SC's.

Turbos have a "lag" associated with them and that's the time the turbine takes to spool up to power the compressor for the intake charge. Now you should see a problem. Inertia. The larger the turbine housing, the larger the turbine required to power it, the more rotational inertia is has. What's this mean? More lag. It'll take more exhaust gas going through the turbine to spool it up. This is why companies use twin turbo setups to reduce lag. Smaller turbo = smaller turbine = less rotational inertia = less lag.

Sometimes you'll see some twin turbo setups that use a smaller turbo and larger one. But the vast majority of the time you'll just see 2 of the same size. Why? Mostly cost really. Remember we're talking economies of scale here. The CT26 turbo that was in the Turbo MR2's was also the same turbo used in the Celica All Trac, and the same used in the 2nd generation Supras. In addition to that, 2 turbos will give you a much more predictable torque curve. That's why Porsche turbos use 2 instead of 1 as well. Sure a sudden surge of power is fun, but it's not particularly driveable.

Ok, so if 2 turbos are so nice, then why use 1? This is best answered by the amount of exhaust gas that a smaller engine can move, compared to a larger engine. 6 cylinders can move a lot of exhaust the 4. So it's really a matter of being practical. Plus, when you add more parts, like more turbos, that increases the # of parts that can break. So a single turbo is also more reliable than a twin setup, and far simpler to design and manufacture.

I should mention some of the fastest drag Supras replace the twin turbos with a single large turbo...and I mean big. Really big. I think a T-88's circumference is larger than a basketball's. To solve their lag problem, they usually use nitrous to get them going, by that point there's enough exhaust to spool up the huge turbo.

The WRC, world rally car championship, cars all use 4 cylinder turbocharged engines, but I think the Peugeot uses a SC, and I know that turbo spools up at like 1800 rpm. So it's nearly instantenous. Basically choosing the proper turbine housing and turbine can really negate most of the turbo lag issues. My MR2 Turbo spooled at 2800 rpm. But the smaller the turbo, the smaller the intake charge will be. So small turbos have a head room issue, once they get up to the higher rpms, they don't perform as well.

So what should you go with? I suggest find someone who has designed a bolt-on turbo or SC kit for your car. That way they've already done all the R&D work on it for you. Now that doesn't mean you can't strike out on your own and build your own, but it does mean you'll have to do all the R&D and pay for it. This means you have to figure out if your injectors are large enough and you have to map out the new air/fuel maps for the engine. Your stock ECU will try it's best, but you'll never get the full potential from the system until you tune it.

For you Honda guys check out Jackson Racing, they do a lot of SC setups. If you want a turbo, try a Greddy system, tons of places sell their kits. Garrett is a turbo manufacturer, and they make a lot of the WRC turbos. That's a GT25, but I don't know the exact turbine housing size and turbine size.

Now if anyone's interested, I could also explain the WRC anti-lag system. That's what the Evo guy, sorry forgot his name the leader of the Emperors, uses in his Evo3.

Posted by: netbizkit Sep 18 2003, 05:15 PM
yes please explain the anti-lag system, and wut would i have to do to put a s/c AND and turbo (I heard it was posible)

Posted by: S15-guy Sep 18 2003, 09:03 PM
QUOTE (netbizkit @ Sep 18 2003, 06:13 PM)
yes please explain the anti-lag system, and wut would i have to do to put a s/c AND and turbo (I heard it was posible)

its possible, but its expensive, and its a comprimise to both systems

Posted by: zeo Sep 19 2003, 09:29 AM
Hahaha...I can't believe someone here's crazy enough to try using a twin-charge system.

The anti-lag system is a pretty simple idea. It's not just parts, but also the ECU has to be programmed. In WRC cars, ALS, can be turned on and off with a switch. The reason to turn it off is b/c it does a lot of engine damage, specifically the exhaust manifold. When the system is engaged and the driver lifts his foot from the gas pedal, the ecu changes the engine timing, usually rolled forward a couple of degrees. This allows an unburned portion of the fuel/air mixture to escape in to the exhaust manifold. When the driver hits the gas again, timing returns to normal. This in turn ignites the unburned fuel/air mixture in the exhaust manifold, actually causes it to explode. This is that bang-bang sound you hear from rally cars w/ ALS. The explosion will then spool up your turbo to full speed, allowing for full boost at the exit of the corner. They typically use it for corners.

Here's the bad news with ALS, rally teams generally replace the exhaust manifold after 200 miles if the driver runs w/ ALS on. The exhaust manifold can't take that much punishment for long and eventually just breaks apart. So it's not really viable for non-racing applications.

Now it is possible to twin charge your engine. Running both a SC and a turbo. Though you've managed to pick the single most complicated setup to engineer. It's not installing the equipment that's the issue, as long as you've got space under the hood that's not a problem. A couple of MR2 Mk1 drivers have done this. The 4AGZE is already has a SC so they just add the turbo.

The problem w/ twin charging is that there is a real problem controlling the switch over from the SC to the turbo. No system exists to date that can gradually taper off the boost from the SC and replace it with the turbo. All systems currently turn off SC, then turn on the turbo. Getting this timing right is pretty complicated and so you get this lag where you have no boost, then...BAM! The turbo kicks in and you take off again. Not really good b/c let's face it you want a predictable torque curve.

The only way I see to be able to control the setup would be to custom program your own ECU. Let me tell you, that sounds ridiculously complicated. Though I did think about doing it, since I have a lot of programmer buddies who thought the idea was really cool. But this post is getting long enough already.

So there are a couple ideas. Twin charging is very expensive, lots of tuning involved. You better be independently wealthy if you wanna try that. Not to mention, very patient.

Posted by: 1slowsupra Sep 20 2003, 11:55 PM
QUOTE (zeo @ Sep 19 2003, 09:27 AM)
When the driver hits the gas again, timing returns to normal.  This in turn ignites the unburned fuel/air mixture in the exhaust manifold, actually causes it to explode.  

I believe this part of your explanation is wrong. Hitting the gas does not ignite the unburned fuel in the exhaust manifold.

True the timing is advanced and fuel is leaked into the exhaust manifold, at the instant the foot is lifted from the gas pedal. Once that fuel is inside the manifold the extreme heat of the turbo&manifold ignite the fuel...thus, keeping the turbo spinning and in boost. These combustion's kill the manifold and turbo, and would lay waste to an OEM turbo set up in a matter of mins. From your statement you would hear the bangs when they accelerate, which is not true..the bangs are heard only in the corner where the foot is lifted off the accelerator.


Posted by: netbizkit Sep 21 2003, 10:30 AM
would it be posible to have both s/c and turbo running at the same time?


P.S. im special


Posted by: funixxx Sep 21 2003, 11:34 AM
QUOTE (zeo @ Sep 19 2003, 09:27 AM)
All systems currently turn off SC, then turn on the turbo. Getting this timing right is pretty complicated and so you get this lag where you have no boost, then...BAM! The turbo kicks in and you take off again.

The AW11 Turbo/Supercharger is a sequential setup, not parallel. Both run continously at WOT, and do not "switch" from one to another. The only switch in the system is the factory WOT activated clutch for the supercharger.

When boost from the turbo exceeds boost from the roots blower, a pressure regulated bypass valve opens to route boost around the roots blower. It is not a computer controlled system and the blower continues to push air.

On a side note, Turbo-Supercharged/Turbo-Compound engines have been used in aero engines since the 1930s.

Posted by: zeo Sep 22 2003, 11:22 AM
Pretty cool, I didn't know that. But I have heard of a couple MR2 twin charge cars that have that issue, but I don't know how they have it setup.

When I had my MR2 Turbo I was interested in this kind of setup. It would have allowed me to run a bigger turbo without the associated lag. Would have been cool. But no one had done it with a 3sgte, so no info on it, I'm sure someone out there's at least pondered this with a 3sgte.

Posted by: Keiichi Tsuchiya Sep 22 2003, 04:16 PM
I prefer turbos,the unpredictable boost can sort of be cool.If you've ever seen a drift exhibition,then you've seen how those turbo cars are.

Posted by: dj Lott3 Nov 7 2003, 06:14 AM
QUOTE (zeo @ Sep 22 2003, 11:20 AM)
When I had my MR2 Turbo I was interested in this kind of setup. It would have allowed me to run a bigger turbo without the associated lag.

Hey fellow previous MR2 owner wink2.gif Yah, I jes got a medium sized turbo to compensate for this. A nice GReddy 20G, the TD06-SH I think it was called...can't remember, it's been a while...but the turbo that seems perfect for the MR2 was GReddy's TD06 Level II kit...stainless and polished tubular exhasut manifold and an external wastegate for the boost creep. Guy @ ATS Racing is running w/ this set up (the guy I bought my car from) and he's putting 400 down to the wheels. Not too shabby eh? If you wanna check it out hit up their http://www.atsracing.net

But back on subject, HKS made a twin charge system for the MKI MR2s, so a few of the boiz that shelled out the green for it have it. I believe there was one in Sport Compact Car in their first Sport Compact Car Challege a couple years back, so yes it's possible, I mean there's 18 wheelers running 2 superchargers and 4 turbos blink.gif Hehe, but those are the salt flat specials ;P. Top speed for a Supra in Salt Flats 249, 18 wheeler 300+ Haha...strange strange world that we live in. happy.gif Jes makes it that much more interesting. Pz.

Posted by: zeo Nov 12 2003, 11:49 AM
Nice setup you have on your MR2. A lot of guys choose the TD06 upgrade, and who can argue with it? 400 hp at the wheels is pretty damn fast. When does boost come on? Trying to remeber, but someone developed a turbo kit that used a Garrett dual ball bearing turbo, it spooled at 3300 rpm and the few guys who had it were putting down the neighborhood of 450 hp. Pretty slick.

As for the HKS twincharge kit, I've never seen an actual kit per se, but the twincharged MR2 you saw in the SCC Ultimate Street Car Challege was a Mk1. I believe that car ran a 4agze, which is more common for twincharging. Correct me if my memory is swiss cheese! It does that from time to time.

I miss torque though. Stock 4age is basically a torqueless wonder! But I have to admit, it has forced me to think of other ways of going fast other than hitting the gas pedal.

Posted by: Andrezneo Apr 24 2004, 03:36 PM
As far as what cars can be turbocharged, anything can really, provided you have the bucks to pay for it. It's like anything else, if you have the money, you can turbocharge a Jeep Wrangler if you want to, just be prepared to pay a bunch for it. Don't forget that one of the more popular things to do here in the U.S. is turbocharging the 5.0 Mustangs that you see roaring around at night. I've seen more than a few putting out over 400 at the wheels on just basic bolt ons and a turbo. Quite interesting to hear that infamous 5 Liter roar followed up by the 'woosh!' when they are ripping through gears. And the 5.0's are not cars that people typically associate with turbos, people have just found out that the 5.0 just responds very well to forced induction of any kind. ALso, this is my first post here, so hi everyone : )

Posted by: sideways Apr 24 2004, 04:51 PM
You dont have to pay big bucks to modify the drivetrain and manifolds of a non-turbo car to put a turbo on it.. just put a smaller turbo on it.

AS for which i prefer: Na, maybe a supercharger. If you get a chance go to a drift competition.. turbos arent the "best choice" for it, and easily get beat by supers and NAs.. As a driver takes his foot off the gas to break fro the turn the turbo spools down- as they get to the apex they put their foot back on the gas (or..wherever.. not always the apex really.. EITHER WAY!) this causes the turbo to spool back up... and can give the car a suddent boost in hp through the turn, not really where yo uwant it becuase this boost of power can really mess up a cars turn.

Posted by: Neo Xian Wu Apr 24 2004, 06:26 PM
well it's not really a matter of too much power coming on, it's more an issue of turbo lag. the turbo has to spool back up, like you said. turbos don't spool instantaneously (granted there are very quick spooling turbos, still doesn't mean boost is instant right when you hit the pedal). unlike a supercharger, which is in boost when you hit the pedal.

Posted by: sideways Apr 25 2004, 01:03 PM
Yep yep, all i meant was if they spool up through a turn (a drift for example) it can change the attitude of a car while its drifting, and make it spin faster

Posted by: AJS13 Apr 25 2004, 09:31 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Apr 26 2004, 10:03 AM)
Yep yep, all i meant was if they spool up through a turn (a drift for example) it can change the attitude of a car while its drifting, and make it spin faster

Yea I know what you mean by that, I went around a corner flooring it, and the turbo kicked in, and the whole rear-end slide out from under me. It hurt me because I didnt know it was going to do that, and the seat dug in to my ribs.

Posted by: Neo Xian Wu Apr 26 2004, 08:12 AM
it takes throttle modulation to keep the boost at a good level to where it doesn't send you out of control. a blow-off or bypass will aid in keeping the turbo spooled so you avoid lag coming out of the corner. the last thing you want is to go into a corner in front, then hafta wait for your turbo to spool up again when you exit. oh yeah, flooring it = bad idea unless your drifting.

Posted by: astrogameguy May 24 2004, 08:49 PM
Yes almost any car can be equipped with turbos, in fact most cars have a turbo bolt on kit that you can buy. but, mostly what you see is civics, eclipses, rxs and so on. as far as supercharger and turbo:


a supercharger is constant air, it completely replaces your air intake system. Its constant air, but its not as powerful, kinda like; more power at the beginning. It runs off of belts and the engine power. So, you lose some power there. but basically more power at the beginning.


a turbocharger is not quite so constant air; it does not replace your air intake system, basically, the turbo is bolted, most times, on your exhaust manifold because that is what powers the turbo your exhaust. so, there is no power loss, because your are recycling your air from your engine through the exhaust housing and pipes connected to your problem. Only problem is, turbos need to gain boost, and it releases that amount of air into your cam shat, and boom horsepower. so, you get turbo lag, basically when you step on the gas pedal, there is usually like 2-5 sec delay, then your ass is in the backseat. turbo is usually for high end speed.

supershcargers are usually put on engines that dont really need a high end kick, for example v6 and up.

turbo chargers are usually put on anything less than a v6. the idea is, v6 and up, you have quick hard torque at the beginning but your acceleration lacks, so the super charger comes in giving you that extra added boost. dont get me wrong, it still gives you power, but high end it is less powerful. a turbo, for most v6 and below, you usually have great accerleration but, when you get to 70-80 you start to slacken and accerlerate slowly.

twin turbo applications:
the idea behind this is:
you have two turbo chargers, one big and the other large. this is the true constant air intake system. while your smaller turbo takes less time to spool, you get a quick boost at the beginning; all the time your bigger turbo is spooling up from the helacious amount of exhaust coming from your engine now, and when it spools it gives the boost. so, basically there is no lag and your moving quick.

i only go with twin turbo applications, because in theory and actuality it is the best. my eclipse with the twin turbo application will go from 0-120 in about 8-9 seconds depending on the shift methods.

brandon

Posted by: sideways May 24 2004, 09:25 PM
id love to see that

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku May 24 2004, 09:36 PM
LOLZ!!!!!!!!!! where did you get the twin turbo set u pfor the eclipse???

Posted by: astrogameguy May 24 2004, 10:10 PM
a friend who owns a tranny shop and i put it together.
brandon

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku May 25 2004, 09:22 PM
ic...nice

Posted by: Neo Xian Wu May 26 2004, 11:05 PM
astro? pics, please.

Posted by: S13 GTO May 27 2004, 03:57 AM
I would also like to note that if your NA engine runs a high compression ratio you might want to look into lowering it if you want to SC or turbo it.

Posted by: the dude May 27 2004, 07:19 AM
QUOTE (astrogameguy @ May 24 2004, 08:49 PM)


i only go with twin turbo applications, because in theory and actuality it is the best. my eclipse with the twin turbo application will go from 0-120 in about 8-9 seconds depending on the shift methods.

brandon


Bullshit! There is no way you could or would want to TT an eclipse. If you did the whole DSM world would know about it. No one has ever TT an eclipse. I want pictures.

If you did it in a 1g or 2g eclipse it would be one mess of a job the way the 4g63 is set up. If you did it on a FWD v6 3g eclipse you would lose traction and there is no way in hell you would go 0-120 in 8 or 9 seconds. Unless you are a professional racer and can afford a insane suspension system

I want pictures!

Posted by: [ Mizerok ] May 27 2004, 08:53 AM
Twin Turbocharging is CRAP. TTing a car brings a TON of troubles, plenty of turbo lag, not the same amount of power and response that you get from one huge turbo. Supercharging is sooooo much better that it kicks everything else in the nuts. TTing ANYTHING is not what you want to do, and people need to get off of the, "The more turbos I have the better" deal.

Posted by: VRr1FD May 27 2004, 10:01 AM
QUOTE ([404 Error] @ May 27 2004, 08:53 AM)
Twin Turbocharging is CRAP. TTing a car brings a TON of troubles, plenty of turbo lag, not the same amount of power and response that you get from one huge turbo. Supercharging is sooooo much better that it kicks everything else in the nuts. TTing ANYTHING is not what you want to do, and people need to get off of the, "The more turbos I have the better" deal.

better tell porsche they are wasting time on the TT 911's then. grin2.gif

multiple smaller turbo's, aside from helping piping on V applications, aid responce because in a proper application there is less rotating mass than on a bigger single.

it's less to lower the spool range than it is for responce within the spool range and more power above. the entire point is for less lag, and it's rather effective.


however the point of diminishing returns on a straight 4 cyl engine is, oh, right around 2 turbo's. if someone really want's to get crafty they are free to do what they want, but if the gains were really worth the trouble on a 2L engine, i'd think alot more people would be doing it.

but BS without pics.

"supershcargers are usually put on engines that dont really need a high end kick, for example v6 and up.

turbo chargers are usually put on anything less than a v6. the idea is, v6 and up, you have quick hard torque at the beginning but your acceleration lacks, so the super charger comes in giving you that extra added boost. dont get me wrong, it still gives you power, but high end it is less powerful. a turbo, for most v6 and below, you usually have great accerleration but, when you get to 70-80 you start to slacken and accerlerate slowly."

-erm, no.

Posted by: the dude May 27 2004, 10:11 AM
If you use 2 small turbos it will not help power because they both have the same flow rates. Both will run out of breath at the same time. A single turbo will always be most effective. If you dont want to deal with the lag get a ball baring turbo.

Posted by: [ Mizerok ] May 27 2004, 10:32 AM
The thing that Porsche is thinking is that they already have an engine that owns all American and Japanese ass, which it rightfully does. They are adding the two "small" turboes to aid in the process of annoying the hell out of people that want to race. Also be noted that I believe the two sequential turbos produce less heat then the much larger one, which is also what Porsche is looking for, seeing that their cars are used for autocross and need to produce as less heat as possible but keep the power output coming. For street and beginner track purposes, as well as drifting, I believe that the single turbo setup is better seeing that they're less expensive of a setup and easier to maintain. Um, in the more professional settings, twin turboes are used because the companies can afford the two spinning things of doom.

Posted by: astrogameguy May 28 2004, 04:39 AM
ok. soon as my cam comes back from sony for sucking, i will get you pictures with bread and milk.
brandon

Posted by: VRr1FD May 28 2004, 11:57 AM
QUOTE (the dude @ May 27 2004, 10:11 AM)
If you use 2 small turbos it will not help power because they both have the same flow rates. Both will run out of breath at the same time. A single turbo will always be most effective. If you dont want to deal with the lag get a ball baring turbo.

no. if you double the turbo's you roughly double the air flow capacity. they don't run out of energy anywhere near the same time as one of them would. 1+1 does not equal 1.

FYI, most of the fastest skylines use high mount twins. not singles. these are drag cars too, well over 1k hp.

singles are great for simplicity, but if you are boosting so much you will need an awfully big compressor, which means more rotating mass. if you split the duty between two parallel turbo's then you are cutting each rotating mass, and therefor each turbo's inertia in half.


Porsche DID use single turbo's for a time on the 911, but decided that smaller twins would be more responsive.

-edit. the turbo's on the turbo 911's aren't sequential either. they are parallel.

Posted by: Knee Grow May 28 2004, 01:50 PM
<~~~Wishes he wasn't a automotive dunce!!! Must research more!! I wanna know how to tell what's going on in my new car when I get it, dammit!

Posted by: the dude May 29 2004, 05:55 AM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ May 28 2004, 11:57 AM)
QUOTE (the dude @ May 27 2004, 10:11 AM)
If you use 2 small turbos it will not help power because they both have the same flow rates. Both will run out of breath at the same time. A single turbo will always be most effective. If you dont want to deal with the lag get a ball baring turbo.

no. if you double the turbo's you roughly double the air flow capacity. they don't run out of energy anywhere near the same time as one of them would. 1+1 does not equal 1.

FYI, most of the fastest skylines use high mount twins. not singles. these are drag cars too, well over 1k hp.

singles are great for simplicity, but if you are boosting so much you will need an awfully big compressor, which means more rotating mass. if you split the duty between two parallel turbo's then you are cutting each rotating mass, and therefor each turbo's inertia in half.


Porsche DID use single turbo's for a time on the 911, but decided that smaller twins would be more responsive.

-edit. the turbo's on the turbo 911's aren't sequential either. they are parallel.

yes you would run out of energy. Take for example a small turbo like the T-25. It will max out at 5000 rpms around 15 psi. It doesnt matter if you have 2 of them. They are the same turbo they both will max out at the same time. If you are TT a 4 cylinder. Each turbo takes care of 2 exhaust ports (I think). How would that increase power? It's just making things more complicated.

Most of the fastest drag Supra's use 1 huge turbo.

Posted by: VRr1FD Jun 1 2004, 10:50 PM
QUOTE (the dude @ May 29 2004, 05:55 AM)
yes you would run out of energy. Take for example a small turbo like the T-25. It will max out at 5000 rpms around 15 psi. It doesnt matter if you have 2 of them. They are the same turbo they both will max out at the same time. If you are TT a 4 cylinder. Each turbo takes care of 2 exhaust ports (I think). How would that increase power? It's just making things more complicated.

Most of the fastest drag Supra's use 1 huge turbo.

while 2 turbo's spooling off of the gas that would normally spool one of them, will hurt the initial spool thresh hold, once they are spooled into their efficiency they will be compressing twice the air.

the decrease in back pressure from the engine gas hitting only one of their turbines, will help alot in top end too as there is roughly half the restriction.

that added to the bonus you get from the smaller rotating masses is why parallel twins are great in applications where you can spool them. as opposed to just sticking on one huge turbo.

Posted by: RakeRon Sep 5 2004, 07:41 PM
From what I've seen its all about setup with turbos and supers. Superchargers are great because of their zero lag time, but they're parasitic because you gotta have power to make power. Easy fix for this is an Underdrive pulley kit/idler pulley kit. Increasing PSI is the easiest on a super: put on a smaller pully on it and if need be a pulley kit & belt. Turbos are more effcient and put the highest boost, however, they suffer from lag time as we all know. Smaller turbo will cut the lag time, but will suffer from lower boost. Two small turbos can take the place of one large one puting out a combined psi rating of one at lower rpms. Or you can go hybrid twin turbo. One big for the highs, one small for the lows. If you got a 4agze you can also use both a super & turbo (a hybrid 4agze puts out 350hp+!!). Also intercooling is a must otherwise you run into detonation (for those who don't know, its when fuel ignites before the compression fase ends). For intercoolers you have a few options: Air-to-Air (most common), Liquid-to-Air, Spray (forget what its actually called but escentially nozzles mounted twoards an Air-to-Air intercooler sprays out a compressed gas like CO2 or Nitrous Oxide wich when released is extremely cold). Its all up to personal preference and what the car is gonna be used for which determines which one you should use.

Posted by: ExiL3 Sep 6 2004, 04:54 PM
ok i have a question, and its not from me, its from em and my friend arguing, he says that you can put a twin turbo on a 4 cylinder, and i thout thats impossible because i dont think theres enough cylinders for a twin turbo setup on a 4 cylinder.

Posted by: sideways Sep 6 2004, 05:16 PM
To be blunt: Your friend is right, your wrong.

Peopel have also done a Supercarger and Turbo on a straight 4 (Common to do to the Aw11s, uses the super for initial "go" and then gets the power from the turbo as it spools up)

http://www.nopi.com/ndra/ndra_rc_pro4cyl.cfm

2nd paragraph talks about a twin turbo civic

Posted by: ExiL3 Sep 6 2004, 05:41 PM
WOW, never knew that thanks for clearing it up

Posted by: AJS13 Sep 7 2004, 12:09 AM
its hardly done, as 4 cylinders dont flow so much to really get them to go.
Subaru Legacys are 4 cylinder twin turbo, well they were. But they a really really shit to drive, talk about your slow over weight bad handling cars.

Posted by: sideways Sep 7 2004, 12:56 AM
it can still be one- ive also seen some pretty good TT evos before (not talking bad translations from ID beofre)

Posted by: AJS13 Sep 7 2004, 01:54 AM
I said hardly done, I dout that its easy to find the right combination to work it. You cant just go along an throw on a second turbo, you would have to work out which would give you what you want.

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Sep 7 2004, 11:27 AM
yeah, someone explain why twincharging is crap... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: sideways Sep 7 2004, 11:41 AM
Uhm, they get REALLY hot

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Sep 7 2004, 01:44 PM
So does a twin turbo setup or any sizable FI unit for that matter.

Posted by: AJO Sep 9 2004, 12:21 AM
Swedish Opel Manta with Volvo 16V Dohc engine. Supercharger and a biiig turbo...

Pics:
http://www.hilmersson-racing.com/bilder/Bildgalleri/Galleri18.jpg
http://www.hilmersson-racing.com/bilder/Bildgalleri/Galleri8.jpg

If I don´t remember it all wrong, it has 578 bhp, making 10.5 or so on the 1/4 mile... He never liked the lag from the turbo, so he put on a supercharger. Almost everything on that car is selfmade. Respect.

Movies:
http://www.hilmersson-racing.com/bilder/Filmer/Manta_10,52.mpg
http://www.hilmersson-racing.com/bilder/Filmer/Manta_kinnekulle_2.mpg

(I think its best to rightclick and choose "save as")

Posted by: Thanos Sep 13 2004, 05:45 PM
I dissagree with you all on one point.....the fastest dragsters in the world are Supercharged...not Turbo. So my point is that Supercharging can make as much power as you want.....just change the pulley.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Sep 13 2004, 07:15 PM
that doesnt mean SC is better if you look now alot of the drag racers use turbo, not in funny car or top fuel, but any lower displacement car that drags uses turbo, why some may ask, because you can make a bigger power output with a turbo than an SC on smaller motors as far as bigger motors it is pretty much the same, its just that an SC makes boost at idle where a turbo makes none, also the top fuel dragsters have to have a great 60ft time in order to set up a 3-4 sec 1/4 mile therefore they need to use an SC in a way because with a turbo the tires would break loose down the track instead of at the begining(SP) because its a smoother power transfer its safer, especially when your fighting to keep the car straight the whole time.

Posted by: AJS13 Sep 13 2004, 10:26 PM
ok personaly, they are good for different applications.
You can a good % of the time use 1 or the other and get the same results. If you work out the balance then there is no reason to say one is better than the other.
So what if Drag cars use supers all the time, thats like saying V8s will always be faster than Rotaries down the 1/4, its just BS.
Get over it, and learn to accept differences in technology. Only Red Necks talk about V8s and Supers down the 1/4. Me I dont care. Thats just all BS

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 13 2004, 09:03 AM
you guys should read the new HOT ROD I think it was maybe a different magazine, anyways a very fast drag racer says he's going to run 5s! anyways though he said 5-10 years turbo will be the power adder of choice. Just thought I'd drop that line for those of you who said "Why do top fuel cars use a S/C?"

Posted by: Mbius Oct 13 2004, 11:55 PM
To throw a wrench in the TT vs. single debate...

What about a set-up like the Bugatti EB110?

4 small turbos for really small turbo lag...

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 14 2004, 12:48 PM
thats a whole different argument, plus I say that all depends on the size of the motor, I say single or double. They are both good and have theyre own strengths. But the bugatti is a V12 right? or v10 I forget at this particular moment. Anyways witch such a big engine four turbos are feasible since it has more than enough power to spool them all up, like I said before it all depends on the size of the engine, you can also get more technical and bring what type of turbos into the argument, but I wont get into that now. Anyways thats my opinion.

Posted by: Mbius Oct 15 2004, 12:41 AM
You're right... I forgot, to keep the argument valid, it has to be on the same ( or similar ) engine...

And the Bugatti cam with only that config...

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 15 2004, 10:39 AM
it was a good point none the less, maybe it will open up some peoples eyes thinking one turbo is better than two or vice versa.

Posted by: Cubits Feb 19 2005, 11:00 AM
For making an engine more driveable and extend the elasticity (a real world measure of performance), supercharging is good. It's best suited to cars that have NO bottom end, like hard tuned 16 valvers, vtecs etc. I thought the 4agze was a great decision on toyota's behalf, as it adds effortless pace to the aw11, effectively making the 1.6 feel like a much bigger engine.

With a supercharger, a 16v engine won't fall off the boil as readily, giving you more time in each gear, and more time accelerating harder. Turbo'ing will magnify the effect (as the flow through the head steeply increases when the cam comes on song), yielding better peak power (and torque) than the s/c, but with less elasticity (in gear acceleration).

Of course, this only really applies to small 4 cylinder engines, but the idea is to maximise the area under the torque curve.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Mar 10 2005, 10:08 AM
yes thats basically what I said. (good bit on the 4AGZE) S/C has 1 psi at idle (not always but eaton stlye chargers tend to have atleast 1 psi) see for a 1.6 litre engine you need to stick with a T-25 or somthing around that size of turbo if you wanted daily driveability. A turbo this size usually has full boost by 2000 RPMs wich isnt half bad considering. (I mean more than alot of people out there took that S/C off tthe 4AGZE and slapped turbo on there) I mean there are some perks to the S/C but the power tends to fall off at redline where a turbo may still be pulling. My main point is that if its not a V6-V8 I PERSONALLY would rather S/C you get great and reliable power, plus the powerband is smooth and not peaky. Thats just my opinion.(Not saying S/C a small motor is wrong, but it yields less rewards than with a larger motor, after all they usually give you a 40% increase. Bigger motor = bigger increase.)

Posted by: takahiro1985 Jun 23 2005, 02:21 PM
For you all. I was taught this all by a retired drag racer that teaches at the school I go to.
A turbocharger is a type of supercharger. It is just that the turbocharger is just more powerful. They are both compressors. The main difference is that a Supercharger runs off of your pully system from the crankshaft and a turbocharger runs off of your exhust. It just can produce more boost and runs off of your exhust.

Personally I perfer superchargers. The reason, no lag time and it is different. I mean, turbochargers are being overused so much now. About every street and drift car you see out there has a metal snail (the turbo) under the hood I just like to be different when I build up an engine. Sure turbochargers give you more boost and a greater increase in power and torque, but the supercharger is just like having a larger NA engine under your hood, but without all the weight.

You see them, superchargers, on drag cars because they need the 0 lag time. The first one off the line usually wins. They need the boost in less than a second and only a true supercharger can really do that. Even tho the peanuts( the turbine and compresor blades and common shaft) are getting lighter and lighter, there is still some lag of when the you hit the gas, when the exhust come out, and when it gets the turbo spoolled.
more later.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Aug 31 2005, 09:46 AM
QUOTE (takahiro1985 @ Jun 23 2005, 02:21 PM)
Personally I perfer superchargers. The reason, no lag time and it is different. I mean, turbochargers are being overused so much now. About every street and drift car you see out there has a metal snail (the turbo) under the hood I just like to be different when I build up an engine. Sure turbochargers give you more boost and a greater increase in power and torque, but the supercharger is just like having a larger NA engine under your hood, but without all the weight.

You see them, superchargers, on drag cars because they need the 0 lag time. The first one off the line usually wins. They need the boost in less than a second and only a true supercharger can really do that. Even tho the peanuts( the turbine and compresor blades and common shaft) are getting lighter and lighter, there is still some lag of when the you hit the gas, when the exhust come out, and when it gets the turbo spoolled.
more later.

Overused? I don't think so it's just the technology is getting better so the lag time is cut down. Some serious drag racing are leaning towards turbos. If you rerad one of my previous posts I saw a man that was a crazy drag race car builder, he used turbos and said "they will be the power adder of choice in 5-10 years" See now they have disco potato turbos and such. Giving you the power of a big turbo but the spool up of a small turbo. Granted both are good but it's more of a favoritsm battle. Not everyone is going to favor turbo and not everyone is going to favor a s/c. They are similar but when your teacher said a turbo is a type of s/c I wouldn't agree with that. A turbo has the same concept but does it differently. a S/C gives about 40% of what the engine already has as where a turbo can produce far more, in that aspect I could say very ignorantly "turbo is better" But I won't becasue the power delivery is different. I like the feel of a good sized turbo that does spool like crazy after 4000 rpm. Granted it may be alot of power and accelerate good but I would rather have a nice even pull through the powerband. Also with a s/c usually the higher the RPM the harder the s/c has to work more.(I'm just going with a roots style charger for example.) S/c give great bottom end but around the top the power seems to fall off. both have weaknesses and strengths. S/Cs arent really great for a small displacement engine becasue of yielding 40% or so (not saying exactly but a avg. estimate.) putting an s/c on a b16 or somthing isnt gonna give as much power as a turbo. Again niether is better or worse IMO.

Posted by: sideways Sep 1 2005, 10:40 AM
U did check the date on what u quoted i hope

Posted by: Pearce Sep 18 2005, 07:48 PM
think about it this way...like the max amount of boost you can get from a supercharger is 11lbs


from a turbo...as much as you can until it blows lol...a neon srt-4 stock..held up to 42 lbs of boost

Posted by: StRikEOnDriFteR Dec 3 2005, 02:15 PM
I have a question. I dont know much about cars so i was wondering since u can have twin turbos in a car is it possible to have a turbo and a supercharger in a car?

Posted by: Rudy Dec 3 2005, 02:27 PM
Yes, and it's been done before, on a couple of the Group A rally cars and also VW's new Twincharger 1.4 liter inline four engine that will be replacing the 1.8T and 2.0 fours, or so I heard.

Posted by: StRikEOnDriFteR Dec 3 2005, 02:48 PM
cool, but would it be better then having a twin turbo like in comparsion in lag and how much HP it and torque it gives u.

Posted by: Rudy Dec 3 2005, 02:57 PM
Heh, it's kind of hard to compare twin-charging to twin-turbocharging.

Mainly because the twin-charge setup is rarely used, even compared to twin turbo.

Can you give me an example engine to compare tt/tc?

Posted by: StRikEOnDriFteR Dec 3 2005, 03:11 PM
How about an sti engine or nsx? I dont dont really know any kind of engine types.

Edit by SidewaysGts: Double post fixed, youre new so dont worry much about it, but try and use that edit button wink2.gif Perry (top admin) pretty much pays for this place out of his own pocket, so any way we can save on space helps. Thanks

Posted by: sideways Dec 3 2005, 04:07 PM
You dont see it any more because honestly its not as useful as it once was. Newer cars, in specific newer turbos are much more efficient, and they spool pretty damn fast. Twin chargers (At least the ones ive seen) switch from the super right over to the turbo ocne its high enough, witha current turbo the swap would be so fast youd rarely be using the supercharger- and then yovue just got a couple hundred pounds tied up in having that supercharger.

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Dec 3 2005, 10:52 PM
QUOTE (AETRAN86 @ Oct 13 2004, 11:00 AM)
you guys should read the new HOT ROD I think it was maybe a different magazine, anyways a very fast drag racer says he's going to run 5s! anyways though he said 5-10 years turbo will be the power adder of choice. Just thought I'd drop that line for those of you who said "Why do top fuel cars use a S/C?"

another thing to keep in mind is that those top fuel dragsters arent hurting for more power and that even for their cars there is such thing as too much power becuase the tires simply wont be able to take advantage of it.
But tires improve as much as everything else so perhaps in 5/10 years you may see them change over(assuming its permited by rule books..)


To me, I look at it this way, if your trying to get a big improvement of horsepower/torque then turbo would be the choice. But if you have more humble power goals.. such as 470 to 600hp for a corvette(or depending on their humble setup lol) then I would personaly go with a supercharger...
then again the cars aftermarket options play a vast role in this.
This brings up a question... how do people use one turbocharger for a car with dual exhaust such as something with a V-layout engine(v6,v8 ect) I meen, I have heard of turbo(singular, one turbo) camaro's, mustangs and vettes but never saw how they rigged it up.. lol

Posted by: AJS13 Dec 3 2005, 11:03 PM
Dont most of the Single turbo Vee motors have the turbo on top of them, Ive seen some V8s rig up this way.

Posted by: TaksPandaHatch Dec 3 2005, 11:47 PM
well. you can have a single turbo on a V engine. On a dual exhaust setup it depends on how its setup. If you had both manifolds go into a Y then you could do a single turbo, I dunno about a dual setup with an H pipe tho. Most people dont turbo v8s they supercharge them.

Posted by: takahiro1985 Dec 4 2005, 03:40 PM
You'd have a Y-pipe leading into the turbo. I know that what they are doing to a friend's Eclipse with a V6 in it. The company that is doing is gonna use a Y-pipe setup modeled after his current exhust and mount the turbo infront of the engine, no room behind it.

Posted by: MAFD Dec 18 2005, 02:28 AM
Hi since this topic is about turbos and superchargers I would just like to ask a few questions about blow of valves. What are the advantages and disadvantages of an atmospheric BOV compared to a plumb-back BOV? My friend said that atmospheric BOV's can confuse sensitive Air/Fuel metres because of the sudden decrease in air, is that true? Also on some cars instead of the conventional WHOOSH or PSSSH it emitts a whistling sound, is that just a different kind of BOV? Thanks in advance for any info.

Posted by: sideways Dec 18 2005, 04:09 AM
Ya it can- the afm will have said t the ecu "theres this much air", Ecu goes "ok!" then the bov opens, and that amount of air is now much less, causing a pretty rich mixture to run through the engine (resulting in a back fire sometimes). And as for the sound- ya just different bovs. A lot of different factors can cause a different sound- The type of bov, the amount of boost, the shape of the piping on the vehicle, what engine, the way in which the throttle was released- etc.

Posted by: MAFD Dec 18 2005, 07:31 PM
Ah yep thanks for the info, I got another question regarding vtec turbos. Is it really that difficult to turbo a vtec engine? I heard that what you have to do is tune your vtec so it kicks in just as the turbo hits the peak so you can stay on the power. I thought that doing that will increase the wear on the turbo because say if the turbo maxes out at 6000rpms, but your engine revs to 8400rpms. It's going to be spinning at the same rate at 8400rpms and 6000pms since the turbo has maxes out. However since the engine revs are higher shouldn't that mean more exhaust gases are "trying" to flow through the turbo? If the turbo only lets 6000rpms "worth" of exhaust gases through and you try putting 8400rpms "worth" of gases through wouldn't there be a build up of pressure in the exhaust manifold/turbine section of the turbo? Sorry if that's completely wrong, if it is feel free to correct as I'm here to learn as well smile.gif

Posted by: sabishii Dec 18 2005, 08:07 PM
No, the revolutions-per-minute of the turbo compressor doesn't correlate like that to the rpm of the engine.

The main problem with boosting a Vtec engine is that Vtec ups the compression ratio of the engine when it's activated (I think), so with turbocharging you're adding even more pressure, making the engine much more fragile. Then again, when I visited the Clubrsx forums a few weeks ago, boosting the RSX-S seemed to be quite a popular mod.

Posted by: sideways Dec 18 2005, 09:49 PM
Vtak just changes the charecteristics of the cam shaft. Duration, timing, lift. Its very possible to turbo a vtec engine with great results- they however do use high compression pistons (doesnt change, not to my knowledge.. thatd be one hell of a feat), but you can boost it too high without going to lower-compression pistons.

Posted by: sabishii Dec 18 2005, 09:57 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Today at 12:43 AM)
Vtak just changes the charecteristics of the cam shaft. Duration, timing, lift. Its very possible to turbo a vtec engine with great results- they however do use high compression pistons (doesnt change, not to my knowledge.. thatd be one hell of a feat), but you can boost it too high without going to lower-compression pistons.

Yeah, you're right. I wasn't thinking correctly, woops. Not the first time I've misunderstood Vtec, either, heh... Do you know why Vtec engines use high compression pistons, though?

Posted by: MAFD Dec 18 2005, 11:10 PM
Yea thats another thing since Vtec engines usually have compression ratios of 10:1 or above, while turbo engines have lower compression ratios. How would you determine what the best compression ratio would be on a vtec turbo?

Posted by: AETRAN86 Dec 19 2005, 07:56 AM
yea I was gonna say v-Tak (Takumi) doesnt change the compression ratio otherwise it would of been alot bigger and more popular. Variable compression ratios would be sweet if it were possible with what we know today.

Posted by: zerocool_designs Dec 19 2005, 10:51 AM
QUOTE (sabishii @ Today at 12:51 AM)
Do you know why Vtec engines use high compression pistons, though?

It's not Vtec itself that ups the compression of the engine. The Vtec engines we usually think about (B18C's, B16A's, K's, F20/F22) are engines that Honda tried to get as much power out of, without boost. So they'll use a higher compression to get the power, because they have no plans to ever see these engines boosted. The relationship between Vtec and high-compression may have a high correlation, but it isn't cause-and-effect.

If you're looking to boost a Vtec engine I'd look at those crappy D-series engines from the EX Civics, or a LS Vtec creation. And if you really want to break axles, a B20 with a B16 head, then boosted would be pretty nuts.

Posted by: psychoazn Dec 20 2005, 10:52 AM
I see this has gone a bit off topic...

a crude explanation of vtec:

at low rpm, a certain set of timings and allow for more power.

at high rpm, a different set of timings and etc allow for more power.


VTEC is a solution for an engine to have the advantages of both.

e.g. if a viper, in theory, were to be able to rev to 9000 rpm, its torque would seriously drop off, because the engine is designed for lower RPM use.

on the other hand, if a s2000 were permanently stuck in vtec (which is actually done, although its not 'stuck' in race cars), it would have even LESS power in the low end than a civic dx.


vtec basically allows for a change in the rpm range which allows you to have the best of both worlds, at the cost of engine complexity and some weight.



on the other hand, im surprised the different types of superchargers havnt come up...

roots, twin screw, centrifugal, axial flow...

since i drive a s2000, i'd prefer the latter two, since they have a gas mileage impact similar to having your a/c on as long as you dont drive TOO spirited...

Posted by: sabishii Dec 20 2005, 11:20 AM
QUOTE (psychoazn @ Today at 1:46 PM)
I see this has gone a bit off topic...

a crude explanation of vtec:

at low rpm, a certain set of timings and allow for more power.

at high rpm, a different set of timings and etc allow for more power.


VTEC is a solution for an engine to have the advantages of both.

e.g. if a viper, in theory, were to be able to rev to 9000 rpm, its torque would seriously drop off, because the engine is designed for lower RPM use.

on the other hand, if a s2000 were permanently stuck in vtec (which is actually done, although its not 'stuck' in race cars), it would have even LESS power in the low end than a civic dx.


vtec basically allows for a change in the rpm range which allows you to have the best of both worlds, at the cost of engine complexity and some weight.



on the other hand, im surprised the different types of superchargers havnt come up...

roots, twin screw, centrifugal, axial flow...

since i drive a s2000, i'd prefer the latter two, since they have a gas mileage impact similar to having your a/c on as long as you dont drive TOO spirited...

Basically, VTEC makes it so the valves open for a longer time at certain higher RPMs so enough air can flow in, no?

But nobody was asking how VTEC works. whistling.gif

Posted by: psychoazn Dec 20 2005, 01:41 PM
meh.

as for the turbo vs suprcharger,

if the car is originally NA, well.... you got a lot of work to do if you turbo it... I'd budget at least 10k to get it done properly. If you dont, you'll end up regretting it.

If the car is already turbo from the factory, then basic work is a lot easier.


As for supercharging, well, it really depends on what youre after.


Posted by: sideways Dec 20 2005, 01:52 PM
no more talk of vtec tongue.gif.

a budget of at least 10k? huh.gif Make sure youre applying astro-glide as you bend over or that shit will hurt.

Posted by: zerocool_designs Dec 20 2005, 02:10 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Today at 4:46 PM)
a budget of at least 10k? huh.gif Make sure youre applying astro-glide as you bend over or that shit will hurt.

laugh.gif

My roommate is working on a "junkyard turbo-kit" with a budget of about $600. He already has most of the stuff he needs. We pulled a turbo from some SAAB, but it's the KKK26(iirc) which is the same used on a Porsche 944. He puts together his own fuel management systems (Megasquirt), already welded-up a manifold, very few things he's had to buy new (eg. FMIC). We should know how bad it fails within the next couple of months... Hopefully he'll have a fast car for at least a week... we'll get videos of the inevitable thrown rod(s)

I'd feel guilty about taking this thread off-topic, but the topic's kinda lame after the initial "what's the difference between the two" discussion.

Posted by: HorizontalMitsubishi Dec 20 2005, 04:12 PM
if you want to run high boost on a high compression motor you WILL need to run water methonal injection under boost to prevent predet. also you should upgrade the head gasket and the head bolts.

Posted by: psychoazn Dec 21 2005, 10:03 AM
high boost and high compression generally dont mix...

even the best build high compression motors were not originally designed for the additional stresses of having boost.

in addition to what he said, LOWER COMPRESSION PISTONS! =\

Posted by: sideways Dec 21 2005, 01:25 PM
When it comes to turbos, i trust starion like no other, his skill behind the wheel can be scary at times wink2.gif But his skills with mechanics are like no other (still wonder whos working for who, when it comes to u and kdm starion wink2.gif). methonal/alcohol injection to my knowledge is like running race fuel- you could def have some boost on a moderate compression engine without much worry.


Posted by: psychoazn Dec 21 2005, 03:17 PM
meh.

If for some reason I actually DID run high boost, I'd still like to keep it streetable/travelable...

I dont always have the ability to change maps when I find myself with lower-than-91 octane gas available...

or in the case of high boost, whatever octane fuel you're running.

Posted by: HorizontalMitsubishi Dec 21 2005, 03:53 PM
thats the wonders of running water methonal injection. you can buy the alcohol at any homedeopt or lowes and it allows you to run high boost on pump gas. my friend is running 30psi on a bone stock starion motor. he is using the water meth injection to fight knock it also help clean the cylenders and cool the charge. its like running rcae gas but its actually 91 pump gas.

Posted by: sideways Dec 21 2005, 04:19 PM
Not only that the stuff is dirt cheap, top it off each time you fill up your tank, no big deal. And if for some reason you cant, thats the nice thing about turbo- you can turn down the boost.

Posted by: Toshi Dec 28 2005, 07:01 PM
it all depends on what the original NA engine is. If it has a low compression a greddy turbo kit wil be fine for the job. Its all about the stock compression and internals when you turbo a NA car.

Posted by: Azuremen Mar 8 2006, 01:22 PM
Yup.

Now someone was talking about high RPMS and superchargers not being a normal thing...

And I have an article hear on a salt flat setup Mk2 MR2 with a 4AGE 20V supercharged at 45 PSI and destroked to 1.5L for class, and then running 9.1 compression for 600 plus HP. Spinning up to 11k RPM

Of course, it broke something that day biggrin.gif

http://www.bobnorwood.com/The%20Fastest%20Little%20Sports%20Car%20in%20Utah.htm

Posted by: DGoReck Mar 8 2006, 02:28 PM
That is a pretty interesting article. Good read on the MR2

Posted by: Smikey Mar 8 2006, 02:50 PM
Turbo so you get the awesome blow off sound.

Posted by: InitialAWD Mar 8 2006, 03:48 PM
QUOTE (smikey @ Today at 2:50 PM)
Turbo so you get the awesome blow off sound.

Superchargers have blow off/bypass valves to.

Posted by: SircatmaN Mar 29 2006, 03:02 AM
Heh, everyone wants a blow off valve with minor knowledge of why. You'd be better off without one. I'm running my rx7 without one as it performs much better without the bov for drift.

Posted by: sideways Mar 29 2006, 04:42 AM
explain please

Posted by: DGoReck Mar 29 2006, 05:01 AM
yeah that alittle confusing.

Hopefully you mean, that lots of people want an aftermarket BOV with little reason as to why it's no better then stock?

Having no BOV is a bad thing unless you want to destroy your turbo/supercharger.

Posted by: sideways Mar 29 2006, 05:24 AM
Why would it destroy a supercharger too?

Posted by: SircatmaN Mar 29 2006, 06:10 AM
No a bov isnt essential and contrary to popular belief you wont damage your turbo.
Most people think that the BOV is good because it releases the pressure and stops it going back through the impellers.
But you actually loose alot of throttle response, especially when drifting you need to be on and off the throttle alot (even more if you have alot of torque) if you have a fairly big turbo (I'm running a T70) you spool it up and as soon as your release your foot all the pressure is released and when you put your foot down again to "feather" the pedal you'll need to spool it up again (not that you wont need to but the differance is very noticable if you test it out).

Alot of big name drifters don't use a BOV for that very reason. James Vahoumis from Drift Australia for one.

A quick search found this article to back up what I was saying:
QUOTE
in Part 2 of our interview, we speak to a leading industry expert Simon Gishus about Nissan engines, Holden Gen 3 V8s, and directions for modifications...

What are some areas where people often make errors modifying their turbo car?

"The classic blow-off valve.

"The blow-off valve is designed as an emissions control device for OE manufacturers. It came about when smaller engines made more and more power using larger turbochargers and bigger intercoolers. As you close the throttle, the build up of pressure and the larger volume inside the intake has to go somewhere; it can't go into the engine because the throttle is shut. Instead, it has to do a U-turn and it comes screaming out the airflow meter. That creates the 'gobble-goggle' sound.

"The gobble-gobble sound is something the public has grown to love.

"The airflow meter is not all that smart and does not realise the air is going in the wrong direction; it therefore measures the air twice (once going into the engine and again going out in the wrong direction). The computer now tips in twice as much fuel as what's required, making it run rich - making it not pass emissions.


"Therefore, manufacturers fit a blow-off valve - or a recirculation valve as they are actually called. A recirculation valve opens when it senses manifold vacuum, returning the air trapped at the throttle body to between the airflow meter and the turbocharger. As such, the airflow meter does not take a double reading - the car now passes emissions.

"Unfortunately, we've had people ringing up and wanting the "audible gear change alarm".

""What audible gear change alarm?" we ask. "You know, when the Sierras were running around and just when they went to change gear it used to go whoda-whoda-whoda" they tell us.

""No pal, that is the dump valve..."


"Some people do think that at the absolute upper extremes of boost levels - about 30-plus pounds - the blow-off valve does, somewhat, save the compressor wheel and shaft from trying to rotate backwards. It doesn't actually rotate backwards at all - all you're hearing is cavitation. What happens is, you've shut the throttle, the turbocharger is doing 100,000 rpm and now has a boost spike of 50 psi. Because it's working in a higher region than what it's designed for, it slips; it basically does a skid like a car tyre does when you dump the clutch. That's the noise you hear - the whoof-whoof-whoof is the air doing a skid."

Is there any performance gain to a blow-off valve?

"We've tested one on a manual gearbox performance car run at Winton Raceway. I think it was running 1 minute 40s back then, but it would lose 2 seconds a lap putting the gobble-gobble valve on. When you look at data acquisition, what you find is - as you change gear - the blow-off valve dumps all the pressure built up through the intercooler and pipes. It then goes back to zero manifold vacuum when you get back on the throttle, you have to build all that boost back up.

"The fact that people think that they keep the turbo spinning is a problem. The people that suggest this have never had an engine on the dyno and never had a turbo tacho in their hands. What people don't realise is, when you shut off the throttle, you shut off the air supply to the engine - this shuts off the exhaust gasses coming out of the engine. When there is no exhaust flow, there is no energy to keep the turbine spinning - the turbo slows down at an alarming rate.

"If you change gears at quite a good speed, you can actually get a boost spike on changes; if you're trying to hold a constant 30 pounds, when you do a racing change you'll get 32-33 pounds when you crack the throttle open again. If everything's working well, you've got a full head of stream waiting to go into the throttle as soon as it's opened.

"I've done this on a rally car and it was quicker through every timed section without a dump valve. You'll never hear a World Rally Car going pssshhht because they don't use a dump valve - you get the woof-woof-woof noise instead."

Posted by: robots Mar 29 2006, 07:11 AM
Something new comes up everyday wink2.gif Rallies use als smile.gif not bovs lol

Posted by: WRX DEMON Type R Mar 29 2006, 07:47 AM
Blow off valves are tyte. im still getting one if i ever turbo motor swap my car... keep the revs up? pshht. ever hear of double clutch?

confused.gif

Posted by: SircatmaN Mar 29 2006, 07:59 AM
When feathering your not changing gear smile.gif

Posted by: Batmanbeyon Mar 29 2006, 08:13 AM
why would you double clutch sounds like a waste of time and the stock bovs are pos in any car your better of going with an after market one.

Posted by: rotary-fanaticism Apr 9 2006, 05:06 AM
QUOTE (SircatmaN @ Mar 29 2006, 06:05 AM)
But you actually loose alot of throttle response, especially when drifting you need to be on and off the throttle alot (even more if you have alot of torque) if you have a fairly big turbo (I'm running a T70) you spool it up and as soon as your release your foot all the pressure is released and when you put your foot down again to "feather" the pedal you'll need to spool it up again (not that you wont need to but the differance is very noticable if you test it out).

and i'm assuming that when you attached that T70 turbo, you thought that you'd be able to improve your throttle response or something? that lack of throttle response you're talking about isn't coming from the BOV you used to have attached to your car.

and first off...i'd rather believe car manufacturers and my own logic rather than something some guy said. i don't care if he's an expert. who said he's an expert? hell, anyone can say, "i'm an expert with when it comes to _________." and where's the credibility in that? if he's right, then why did the auto manufacturers ever bother with recirculation valves? that so called "expert" must be a fool. i particularly found this one to be amusing:
"The airflow meter is not all that smart and does not realise the air is going in the wrong direction; it therefore measures the air twice (once going into the engine and again going out in the wrong direction). The computer now tips in twice as much fuel as what's required, making it run rich - making it not pass emissions."

this so-called "going back to the meter and being read twice" i will flag as BS. the fool doesn't know wth he's talking about. before you go off and saying where's my credibility coming from? it's common sense to any tuner. there are basically two types of air measurement sensors. the AFM(air-flow meter aka flapper type) and MAP(manifold-air-pressure) and you know what? the AFM can NEVER read twice, and under NO circumstances will the MAP ever read twice. the only way it(the AFM) could read twice, is if air goes back and spins the compressor in the opposing direction and passes back thru it and back thru the pipe back to the AFM. so your expert is telling everyone that it's okay for a turbocharger to SPIN IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION? anyone who believes what he says is an idiot because turbos aren't designed to SPIN IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

do you even know how the engine measures air entering it? it's a damn electrical signal measured in volts by the sensor that is sent back to the ECU and charted on a pre-determined airflow map to determine the amount of air entering the engine. the ECU then sends a signal (yeah, another electrical pulse) to the fuel injectors which is also charted on a pre-determined fuel-map which then injects the proper amount of fuel. that "running rich" scenario isn't caused by a "double reading" when air passes thru the AFM. it's created by those STUPID car owners who run an AFM type sensor and want to have the PSSSSH sound...so they vent the excess pressure out into the atmosphere. but guess what, the engine runs rich because the AFM has already read the amount of air entering the engine before it was even compressed by the turbocharger itself. this means that the engine was already expecting "x" amount of air, so naturally it will inject fuel relative to that amount of air...but rather than giving up the PSSSSH sound and running a vacuum line back into the intake stream between the filter and turbocharger, they choose to just vent the excess air into the atmosphere after the throttle plates have closed, and that's what causes the "rich" mixture. how typical....NISSAN expert must know all about it. all of those popular turbocharged Nissan engines came equipped with an AFM. the MAP equipped engines do not have to deal with this issue because the sensor is located right before the intake ports of the engine (that's why they call it a MANIFOLD-air-pressure sensor) because it's mounted onto the intake manifold. manifolds always come AFTER the throttlebody. so even if a BOV was equipped on the car, and it was vented into the atmosphere, it wouldn't make a difference because that air it's releasing has NOT been measured by the sensor yet.

secondly, it makes me wonder why the hell you're running a turbo that is better suited for the 0-400m than it is for drift competition. that's exactly what you WANT to get away from. let me guess...the basis behind your tuning is POWER right? denial of my claims would be useless on your behalf because the size of the turbo you have attached to your engine is way oversized. unless you(or whoever planned your build) is a complete drag racing fan. you don't need gobs of power to drift; you only need ENOUGH. what's the point of saying, "my car makes 500hp and revs up to 8000rpm" when up until about 5500rpm you were making only 150hp? oh yeah, that 350hp jump in the final 2500rpm must be REALLY EASY AND THE BETTER CHOICE to use in a drift competition(on a side note, wataru's ae85 setup for shomaru with the turbocharger boost 2.0bar is TOTAL BS) no one in the right mind would try to use a car that powerful on the Touge. on the Wangan, maybe. on the Touge, i doubt it. the ideal drift setup is one that retains:
-throttle response
-a broad powerband
-good suspension geometry
-improved chassis dynamics

you're an idiot if you think your BOV reduced your throttle reponse. even if it did, the difference is such a small degree that it shouldn't even be noticeable. i bet you're one of those people who think that a FMIC will actually increase throttle response as well huh? wrong again. FMIC's increase power potential but that's still only in a general sense(certain factors must be met first) and they actually reduce throttle response.

i'm tired though, and won't be going into detail about that one just right now.

Posted by: SircatmaN Apr 9 2006, 05:58 PM
Have you ever even been on the track or are you one of those professional drifters who sits behind therecomputer all day telling everyone else how there car setup sucks?

Excuse me I need to go finish building MY car the way I WANT for MY driving STYLE ready for the drift comp later in the year...

Infact your username suggest you love rotories, do you even own one? Do you know the exhaust flow differances between a piston engine and a rotory? Do you know how that effects turbo spool? Do you know how Rear housings effect Turbo spool? Do you know what Engine my car is runnign before you tell me the T70 is to big for it? Do you know whats been done to said engine?

If you knew anything about building and driving a real drift car you wouldnt regurgitate the same unbased facts done by 12 year olds who play initial D at the arcade...

Posted by: DALAZ_68 Apr 12 2006, 04:29 PM
QUOTE (rotary-fanaticism @ Apr 9 2006, 05:01 AM)
(on a side note, wataru's ae85 setup for shomaru with the turbocharger boost 2.0bar is TOTAL BS) no one in the right mind would try to use a car that powerful on the Touge. on the Wangan, maybe. on the Touge, i doubt it.

thats my favorite part lol laugh2.gif

Posted by: sabishii Apr 12 2006, 04:37 PM
QUOTE (SircatmaN @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
Have you ever even been on the track or are you one of those professional drifters who sits behind therecomputer all day telling everyone else how there car setup sucks?

Excuse me I need to go finish building MY car the way I WANT for MY driving STYLE ready for the drift comp later in the year...

Infact your username suggest you love rotories, do you even own one? Do you know the exhaust flow differances between a piston engine and a rotory? Do you know how that effects turbo spool? Do you know how Rear housings effect Turbo spool? Do you know what Engine my car is runnign before you tell me the T70 is to big for it? Do you know whats been done to said engine?

If you knew anything about building and driving a real drift car you wouldnt regurgitate the same unbased facts done by 12 year olds who play initial D at the arcade...

I fail to see what "unbiased facts" he is "regurgitating." If you want a credible argument you should point them out and actually elaborate on your general statements instead of simply insulting the other guy's intelligence. You're arguing against his statements, not him as a person. When I read your post, all I see is "you're wrong because you're not a real racer and you're STUPID." In fact, what if he DOES own a rotary, DOES know the exhaust flow differences, etc., etc. What then? rolleyes.gif

I *am* interested in this topic but it's not helping at all when you're acting like such a moron.

Posted by: SircatmaN Apr 14 2006, 05:31 AM
I dont mean to sound like Im attacking him but I was pointing out that if hes going to say something about my choices in building a car (which I take as an attack) then he should have all the facts of the engine I'm building. But he obviously doesnt have that information. Even if he did have a rotor it doesnt mean it will be putting out the same exhaust flow as me, etc. Hell I could be running a 20b for all he knows, what then?
I'm not in the mood nor am I the sort of person to write a huge essay about how wrong he is by pin pointing this and quoting that and searching this over the net to get facts from some kid in detroit who says this about that turbo and that his mum says bovs are the best thing since sliced bread which of course she was around for the creation of etc. etc.
My facts are his post in itself. Read it and laugh. if you cant see why then I suggest you be the one to do the researching.

and I'm sorry about ebing a moron. I cant really change that, I guess I just get fed up with crap that pops up on forums sometimes i feel I should point out the character of the person providing this information. But then again its not a Trial is it wink2.gif

Posted by: sabishii Apr 14 2006, 07:07 AM
QUOTE (SircatmaN @ Today at 9:26 AM)
I dont mean to sound like Im attacking him but I was pointing out that if hes going to say something about my choices in building a car (which I take as an attack) then he should have all the facts of the engine I'm building. But he obviously doesnt have that information. Even if he did have a rotor it doesnt mean it will be putting out the same exhaust flow as me, etc. Hell I could be running a 20b for all he knows, what then?
I'm not in the mood nor am I the sort of person to write a huge essay about how wrong he is by pin pointing this and quoting that and searching this over the net to get facts from some kid in detroit who says this about that turbo and that his mum says bovs are the best thing since sliced bread which of course she was around for the creation of etc. etc.
My facts are his post in itself. Read it and laugh. if you cant see why then I suggest you be the one to do the researching.

and I'm sorry about ebing a moron. I cant really change that, I guess I just get fed up with crap that pops up on forums sometimes i feel I should point out the character of the person providing this information. But then again its not a Trial is it wink2.gif

I could care less about how your engine/turbo is being built. The discussion on hand was about BOVs and throttle response and you totally ignored that part of his reply.

Posted by: Ayako Watanabe Apr 14 2006, 12:10 PM
QUOTE (R34's GODFOOT @ Apr 12 2006, 05:24 PM)
thats my favorite part lol laugh2.gif

indeed. lol. but its 86 not 85. Plus imo, I dont think an 86 would stand a chance on the Wangan,it will fight back though, that I am sure, but the guy would have to put alot of effort into beating the other guy, and that wont be enough anyway, unless he drops an LS1 into the 86. And here i will end it.

Back on Topic: If I where to install a turbo setup on my Buick Regal, then I rather install the BOV along with it as well for safety reasons.

Posted by: SircatmaN Apr 14 2006, 04:17 PM
QUOTE (sabishii @ Today at 7:02 AM)
I could care less about how your engine/turbo is being built. The discussion on hand was about BOVs and throttle response and you totally ignored that part of his reply.

Alright I appologise, although you are having a go at me for "attacking him" and going on about "my engine" well if you read his post thats what he was talkign about.

As for what hes talking about bovs i did reply to that. I will put it in another way:
I would be more likely to believe what a actual mechanic and workshop owner who had the equipment to do this research first hand says that what someone else who just repeats information they ahve read on the internet says.
And before you say thats what i'm doing that article was from a magazine and it wasnt just some guy who wrote it, it was someone who has been in the business alot longer than any of us and had the oportunity to test it. its also not just this one guy i you look at alot of cars in the D1/D1NZ/Drift ustralia/etc. you will see they dont run bovs for the same reason as they ahve actually tested it.

Once again I'm sorry I went into a frenzy as i'm enjoying this topic aswell, but you obviously skipped the part where he was questioning my choices in a build eg. "Your turbo is mroe suited to drag than drift" who the hell is he to question that without all the facts?" So before you keep taking sides and having a go at me for doing the exact same thing he did I just wanted to clear that up.

I'm back on topic that little rant is over smile.gif

Supercharger=cool
Turb=cool
Bov=Useless rice crap

Posted by: sabishii Apr 14 2006, 04:50 PM
QUOTE (SircatmaN @ Today at 8:12 PM)
Alright I appologise, although you are having a go at me for "attacking him" and going on about "my engine" well if you read his post thats what he was talkign about.

As for what hes talking about bovs i did reply to that. I will put it in another way:
I would be more likely to believe what a actual mechanic and workshop owner who had the equipment to do this research first hand says that what someone else who just repeats information they ahve read on the internet says.
And before you say thats what i'm doing that article was from a magazine and it wasnt just some guy who wrote it, it was someone who has been in the business alot longer than any of us and had the oportunity to test it. its also not just this one guy i you look at alot of cars in the D1/D1NZ/Drift ustralia/etc. you will see they dont run bovs for the same reason as they ahve actually tested it.

Once again I'm sorry I went into a frenzy as i'm enjoying this topic aswell, but you obviously skipped the part where he was questioning my choices in a build eg. "Your turbo is mroe suited to drag than drift" who the hell is he to question that without all the facts?" So before you keep taking sides and having a go at me for doing the exact same thing he did I just wanted to clear that up.

I'm back on topic that little rant is over smile.gif

Supercharger=cool
Turb=cool
Bov=Useless rice crap

Again, what the hell. You're not replying to his logic - you're just saying that because he's not an actual mechanic he's automatically wrong. Come on. If I say the sky is blue and someone insanely smart like Stephen Hawking says that the sky is red, that means I'm wrong? You know that famous scientists have been proven wrong, right? Sounds like you're "regurgitating facts" from some article just as you think he is. Go read up on ad hominem.

And what if he ISN'T a "professional drifter that sits behind a computer"? Attacking the person rather than the argument is already dumb, but you don't even know the person. What if he IS a knowledgeable mechanic - Guess that would prove your argument wrong, eh?

By the way, could you link to some of these test results that you mentioned? And I don't mean a magazine article with wild assertions that don't provide any supporting evidence.

Edit: Okay I just read over this page a few times and did some research...

I think rotary-fanatacism misunderstood the point he was arguing against. The part about the MAF reading twice isn't talking about the effect of a BOV but rather the effect of NOT having a BOV, wherein after the throttle plate closes, the air can only go back through the turbine and through the MAF again.

However. I fail to see anywhere in that article where it says that the BOV doesn't save your turbo from damage. You do realize that rally teams have enough money to rebuild their turbos very often, right? In fact, they kind of have to with the ALS system. Well actually with ALS air is still going through the engine so they don't have to deal with compressor surge anyways. Thus, no reason to need a BOV. I'm guessing that big name drifters also have a load of money to spare.

On the street-driven car, though, compressor surge is a problem. Your guy in the article even says that the compressor slips, much like a tire. I don't see how that's a good thing at all. When a tire slips, you're wearing away a great deal on its tread. If, like a compressor surge, the tire slips-grabs-slips-grabs (wheel hop), that's even worse because the driveline is being shocked by all 200-or-so horsepower (arbitrary number) dumped onto the ground again and again rather than the power being gradually added on when there's no wheelspin.

I don't disagree that running without a BOV will keep positive pressure in the manifold, but that comes with the consequence of increased wear on the turbo. Perhaps even on the engine, because a high psi boost spike isn't that great either. You may lose some throttle-response from a BOV, but with such negative consequences I don't see how a BOV isn't essential for a street-driven car.

Posted by: AJS13 Apr 14 2006, 07:23 PM
Woah, people still go on about BOVs.
I guess if you have them plumbed back in to the system, then they really cant be that bad, but most people here in NZ/Aussie just dont see the point in them, and I dont think anyone has had any problems with non using them.
I should really get mine plumb in to the system, but I need to do some piping first so that I can, and a flange so I can.

Posted by: sideways Apr 15 2006, 06:14 PM
QUOTE (Ayako Watanabe @ Yesterday at 1:05 PM)
indeed. lol. but its 86 not 85. Plus imo, I dont think an 86 would stand a chance on the Wangan,it will fight back though, that I am sure, but the guy would have to put alot of effort into beating the other guy, and that wont be enough anyway, unless he drops an LS1 into the 86. And here i will end it.

Is this a video game reference i missed huh.gif A turbo rolla would kick ASS on the freeways. I can think of plenty examples of peopel who litteraly just throw a turbo kit on their stock 4ag and easily run 10 psi. Some get greedy and try to run 15 which is where i generally see problems start to occur (Someone did this with his 4ag that had 150,000 miles on it, and was making 250-280 at the [i]wheels[/s] and got quit a bit of mileage out of that car before he eventually spun a bearing). It gives those cars very incredible power:weight ratios.

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku Apr 15 2006, 06:55 PM
^^^^ what he said

492 hp from a turboed 4agze...in a ae86

http://www.teamhinga.net/hingadrag.html

scroll to the bottom and you'll see a dyno slip and the ae86

im sure that car will kick a lot of @$$ on the highway

Posted by: sideways Apr 15 2006, 09:47 PM
i love those rear fenders "Who the crap put this metal here".

Posted by: Baceramus Apr 21 2006, 04:54 PM
QUOTE (TRD-hachi-roku @ Apr 15 2006, 06:50 PM)
^^^^ what he said

492 hp from a turboed 4agze...in a ae86

http://www.teamhinga.net/hingadrag.html

scroll to the bottom and you'll see a dyno slip and the ae86

im sure that car will kick a lot of @$$ on the highway

Do my eyes deceive me? Dual forced induction on that 86 drag car? No wonder he's hitting 400hp+. I wonder how long that engine is going to last him?

Posted by: Mopar Apr 21 2006, 05:21 PM
Back in '81 Plymounth experimented with a turbo 225cid slant 6... only three concept motors were built and tested. Lee pulled the plug in order to focus on their 4 cyd mistake know as the K car.

I remember reading once of a american in the army in germany adding a turbo to his Demon he shipped over there. He also added overdrive to the tranny and drove it on the autobuan... I seem to remember it ran really good and wasn't bad on gas.

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku Apr 21 2006, 11:50 PM
yea...you are seeing things...it is a 4agze block with turbo...no supercharger there sir

Posted by: Ayako Watanabe Apr 22 2006, 07:32 AM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Apr 15 2006, 07:09 PM)
Is this a video game reference i missed huh.gif A turbo rolla would kick ASS on the freeways. I can think of plenty examples of peopel who litteraly just throw a turbo kit on their stock 4ag and easily run 10 psi. Some get greedy and try to run 15 which is where i generally see problems start to occur (Someone did this with his 4ag that had 150,000 miles on it, and was making 250-280 at the [i]wheels[/s] and got quit a bit of mileage out of that car before he eventually spun a bearing). It gives those cars very incredible power:weight ratios.

No. Its not a video game reference. Its justan opinion. Mostly because I have neer seen an 86 run the highway. And i never heard either of an 86 that could kick ass on the highway since mostly all I hear around here (Not the forums, over here in Pueto Rico) is how someones EK9 Honda Civic with internal mods on the engine plus a turbocharger had just beaten the crap outof a Mazda RX7 that was tuned as well. Right here the Corolla is mostly used as a daily driver and a beater and nothing more,except abit of ricing nd sound systems. i never NEVER seen a well tuned Corolla around here literally handing every other drivers asses back to them.

So yeah, I'm just giving an opinion, thats all. fear2.gif

Posted by: Baceramus Apr 22 2006, 12:29 PM
QUOTE (TRD-hachi-roku @ Yesterday at 11:45 PM)
yea...you are seeing things...it is a 4agze block with turbo...no supercharger there sir

laugh.gif I wasn't looking at the hardware at all, how silly of me. I saw the "Super Charged" on the top and just went with it. My apologies.

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku Apr 23 2006, 10:12 PM
no problem...

to ayako: ae86's were never a highway battle car because power was something that the 4age doesn't make much of in normal aspiration form...
however, those who does build forced induced 4age's (whether is be a gze, "gte", or a combination of both) or swap other engines into them such as 3sgte, 1/2 jz's, 13b's do make plenty of power, and will burn many different cars...


Posted by: OWEN Industries Jul 26 2006, 02:31 AM
Not sure whether this info has been posted or not...


But a supercharger increases power by using some of the engines normal output to compress (sometimes) and push more air into the engine. This extra air allows the engine to burn more fuel, hence the greater power output. Superchargers of the centrifugal and lysholm twin screw type are actually more efficient at compressing and moving air than Piston style compressors (like your engine). Superchargers are most likely mounted as single units (very rarely will you see a twin supercharger setup). However superchargers have famously been paired with Turbochargers.

Turbochargers Increase power by tapping the normally wasted energy in a normal engine's exhaust. This does restrict exhaust flow and will increase backpressure before the turbo, therefore you need to really have a good pre-turbo exhaust manifold and proper head machining to make the most of a turbo. The energy that the turbochargers turbine catches from the exhaust is used to spin a compressor that compresses (always) and pushes more air into the engine, allowing more fuel to be burned hence the greater power. The compressor side of a turbo is normally more efficienct at compressing and moving air than piston type systems. Turbo chargers can increase an engines thermal efficiency because it uses otherwise wasted energy and because it is more efficient at compressing and moving air.

There are several types of setups for turbochargers.

Single turbo - depending on size is normally the least efficient and has the most lag. But is normally cheaper, lighter, and more power in the high rpm, range.

Parrallel multi turbo - In this system all the turbos are the same size and they are kept seperate i.e. the exhaust from any given cylinder will only power one of the turbos and the compressed air from that turbo will only be used by the same cylinder(s) that powered it. These systems are normally very efficient and have less lag then other systems.

Sequential multi turbo (biturbo setup) - This is where 2 (or more) differently sized turboes are used. Normally the smallest one is used for low rpm and a bigger one is used for high rpm. Normally the 2 turbos are kept seperate but sometimes they will be part of the same system. These systems have the most progressive power and will feel like a larger NA engine instead of a turbocharged smaller one.

Sequential multi turbo (twin turbo setup) - This is where 2 (or more) identicle turbos are used as part of the same system i.e. exhaust gas from all cylinders will power both turbos and the compressed air from both turbos will feed all cylinders. However there are examples of this system where the exhaust side of the turbos are kept seperate (Skylines). Will normally have less lag than single turbo systems and a higher reliability, but because they normally use small turbos they have restricted high rpm power.

Sequential multi turbo (compound setup) - A rare thing on cars but used on airplanes several times. This uses a small turbo that runs during low rpm, but when high rpms are obtained the compressed air from the smaller turbo will be feed into a bigger turbo. There are system like this where at high rpm the larger turbo will put it's compressed air into the smaller turbo then into the engine. These systems produce the best top end power and they are not as heavy laggers as single turbo setups however the transition between single turbo and double turbo causes a big jump.

The compound turbo - This type of system throws the whole intake side of the turbo away and attaches the turbine to the crankshaft (normally through a IVT) this system captures more of the wasted exhaust energy than any other and directly adds that back into the engines output. This increase an engines efficiency the most but doesn't add as much power as any of the other systems do.

Posted by: matt Jul 26 2006, 11:34 AM
QUOTE (OWEN Industries @ Today at 3:31 AM)
Not sure whether this info has been posted or not...


But a supercharger increases power by using some of the engines normal output to compress (sometimes) and push more air into the engine. This extra air allows the engine to burn more fuel, hence the greater power output. Superchargers of the centrifugal and lysholm twin screw type are actually more efficient at compressing and moving air than Piston style compressors (like your engine). Superchargers are most likely mounted as single units (very rarely will you see a twin supercharger setup). However superchargers have famously been paired with Turbochargers.

Turbochargers Increase power by tapping the normally wasted energy in a normal engine's exhaust. This does restrict exhaust flow and will increase backpressure before the turbo, therefore you need to really have a good pre-turbo exhaust manifold and proper head machining to make the most of a turbo. The energy that the turbochargers turbine catches from the exhaust is used to spin a compressor that compresses (always) and pushes more air into the engine, allowing more fuel to be burned hence the greater power. The compressor side of a turbo is normally more efficienct at compressing and moving air than piston type systems. Turbo chargers can increase an engines thermal efficiency because it uses otherwise wasted energy and because it is more efficient at compressing and moving air.

There are several types of setups for turbochargers.

Single turbo - depending on size is normally the least efficient and has the most lag. But is normally cheaper, lighter, and more power in the high rpm, range.

Parrallel multi turbo - In this system all the turbos are the same size and they are kept seperate i.e. the exhaust from any given cylinder will only power one of the turbos and the compressed air from that turbo will only be used by the same cylinder(s) that powered it. These systems are normally very efficient and have less lag then other systems.

Sequential multi turbo (biturbo setup) - This is where 2 (or more) differently sized turboes are used. Normally the smallest one is used for low rpm and a bigger one is used for high rpm. Normally the 2 turbos are kept seperate but sometimes they will be part of the same system. These systems have the most progressive power and will feel like a larger NA engine instead of a turbocharged smaller one.

Sequential multi turbo (twin turbo setup) - This is where 2 (or more) identicle turbos are used as part of the same system i.e. exhaust gas from all cylinders will power both turbos and the compressed air from both turbos will feed all cylinders. However there are examples of this system where the exhaust side of the turbos are kept seperate (Skylines). Will normally have less lag than single turbo systems and a higher reliability, but because they normally use small turbos they have restricted high rpm power.

Sequential multi turbo (compound setup) - A rare thing on cars but used on airplanes several times. This uses a small turbo that runs during low rpm, but when high rpms are obtained the compressed air from the smaller turbo will be feed into a bigger turbo. There are system like this where at high rpm the larger turbo will put it's compressed air into the smaller turbo then into the engine. These systems produce the best top end power and they are not as heavy laggers as single turbo setups however the transition between single turbo and double turbo causes a big jump.

The compound turbo - This type of system throws the whole intake side of the turbo away and attaches the turbine to the crankshaft (normally through a IVT) this system captures more of the wasted exhaust energy than any other and directly adds that back into the engines output. This increase an engines efficiency the most but doesn't add as much power as any of the other systems do.

wow lots of info, pretty sure he just mentioned everything already, if it wasn't already

Posted by: Frost Jul 26 2006, 12:28 PM
He did forget one important aspect.

Superchargers are a perfect example of the law diminishing returns. Slap on a larger and larger supercharger and eventually the gains will become so small and actually start working against you.

The most they ever got out of a 4AGZE was 200hp. The most they ever got out (proven) of a NA 4AGE was 240hp. Turbochargers are a better route for insanely high gains as mentioned by the guy 2 posts above.

Frost

Posted by: matt Jul 26 2006, 03:21 PM
QUOTE (Frost @ Today at 1:28 PM)
He did forget one important aspect.

Superchargers are a perfect example of the law diminishing returns. Slap on a larger and larger supercharger and eventually the gains will become so small and actually start working against you.

The most they ever got out of a 4AGZE was 200hp. The most they ever got out (proven) of a NA 4AGE was 240hp. Turbochargers are a better route for insanely high gains as mentioned by the guy 2 posts above.

Frost

hell yeh i would go for a turbocharger, then supercharger, but the turbo has more lag then a supercharger rite? but still the turbo picks up more speed while spooling up

Posted by: Indecisive Jul 26 2006, 03:49 PM
QUOTE (matt @ Today at 5:21 PM)
hell yeh i would go for a turbocharger, then supercharger, but the turbo has more lag then a supercharger rite? but still the turbo picks up more speed while spooling up

depends on the turbo itself.

a GT28RS has dual ball bearings(not your typical thurst bearing) and will spool on a 1.8L engine very quickly.

Full boost by 3500rpm. This is from personal experience driving my friend's 1.8L S12.

Then again, in the world of turbos, that's a very small turbo. But that's what twin turbo setups are for. A nice little T2 series turbocharger paired with something like a T04 would work well.

Posted by: matt Jul 26 2006, 09:11 PM
ic ic

Posted by: OWEN Industries Jul 27 2006, 12:06 AM
QUOTE (Frost @ Yesterday at 1:28 PM)
He did forget one important aspect.

Superchargers are a perfect example of the law diminishing returns. Slap on a larger and larger supercharger and eventually the gains will become so small and actually start working against you.

The most they ever got out of a 4AGZE was 200hp. The most they ever got out (proven) of a NA 4AGE was 240hp. Turbochargers are a better route for insanely high gains as mentioned by the guy 2 posts above.

Frost

Superchargers have actually produced higher output than turbos. Just think Pro Fuel Dragster... They have a massive roots type supercharger on top, not a turbo system.

Also you only start hitting diminishing returns when the pressure you are trying to run out of the supercharger requires less than 8:1 compression ratio to keep from knocking. Otherwise up to that point they are more efficient at compressing and moving air. If you slap on a ridiculously large supercharger on your engine you can actually experiance supercharger lag, where the force needed to turn the supercharger is so high that it slows down the engine. Of course if your engine idles at a good speed with the supercharger engaged then there shouldn't be any problem.

Turbo chargers are in fact an even more perfect example of a device that follows the diminshing return rules. As you put a larger and larger turbo on the later and later it hits full boost An engine that is turbocharged and isn't "in" boost will run weaker than it would NA and thus your usefull powerband is shortened so your diminishing returns are based on how short your powerband is compared to how much peak output you want. This problem is not a worry of supercharger systems.

However turbocharger systems normally add a few more percent of efficiency to the engine tthan supercharger systems do.

Now your example about the 4AGZE is flawed. Ask yourself why it only had 170hp (200hp tuned)? The answer is not a fundamental flaw in the super, no it can only make 200hp because it is designed to have a useable powerband from idle and only up to about 6500-7000rpm. You would have to change alot in the engine to make it into a high rpm engine, but if you did you will see that it is easily able to make more power than any NA version.

Posted by: Initial Daniel Oct 23 2006, 07:01 PM
To be honest, everyone keeps saying how much better turbo charging is, but really it's not the case. What it boils down to is what you'll be using it for. Sometimes, people need more torque, so a Supercharger is definitely the way to go there. It's true you can get torque from a turbo, but pound for pound, you're going to get more delivery from the Supercharger. There are also centrifugal superchargers that work SIMILAR to turbo's without the lag. They are also exhaust driven.

It is true that parasitic loss occurs when you have a Supercharger, so theoretically you are using power to make power. Like I said before though, turbocharging isn't the end-all solution. Granted, it will give you more horsepower per psi of boost, but there are still things like reliability that you have to take into account as well. Supercharging is a good option, it delivers strong linear power on demand, and is more reliable in terms of engine life.

Don't get me wrong, proper tuning is ALWAYS key to engine reliability, but Supercharging out of forced induction is the lesser of the two evils. smile.gif

I used to own a Supercharged Integra GSR. I'm now driving a boosted Turbo 240...the 240 still isnt as fast as I want it to be, it's actually slower than the GSR was. GSR was stolen...so here I am sad.gif

Both very fun though. FI for the win!

Posted by: sideways Oct 23 2006, 11:53 PM
Pound for pound, turbo provide more torque/power compared to a super charger. Turbo lag with a modern set up isnt nearly as bad as it was 15 years ago, a supercharger doesnt really provide much more of an advantage anymore- which is why you see turbos generally replacing them, and twin charged kits are a thing of the past short of a show car.

Exhaust powered supercharger, ftw?

Turbos are, generally, more reliable then a supercharged set up. Less complications, less resistance on the engine, etc. Its not theoretical that with a super it takes power to make power, its fact.

Posted by: VRr1FD Oct 26 2006, 10:44 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 23 2006, 11:53 PM)
Less complications, less resistance on the engine, etc.


yeh, there's nothing more complicated at all with having to run a special exhaust setup to feed the turbo, with a wastegate to provide another path for exhaust gas.

i mean, when you run a supercharged, you have to hook it up into your accesory belt... fuccccc that mess, let's just reroute the entire exhaust system.


and less resistance on the engine is really, less resistance while you are putting around, and more resistance when you are boosting like crazy and all that extra exhaust gas has to go back through your turbo and WG setup. it sure would be nice to be able to run a tiny turbine/hot side and have it not restrict your top end. wink2.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 27 2006, 01:43 AM
Pull stick a from ass b. Not all cars run a rats-nest for a turbo set up tongue.gif

Posted by: awdrifter Oct 27 2006, 02:02 AM
Good info. Pretty much everything has been said about turbo, but I'd like to add something. All of you mentioned turbos has come a long way to reduce turbo lag, supercharger design has also changed a lot. Before, root type sc are not efficient at high boost, but now there's twin screw type sc which are more efficient. Maybe still not as efficient as a turbo, but the gap is closer. There's also cntrifugal sc, which is basically a belt driven turbo, while it doesn't provide huge torque, it can provide very high top end hp. I believe the Koenisegg CCX is using two of them, that that car made 800+hp.

Posted by: twitchykun Oct 27 2006, 06:36 AM
Price-wise, aren't superchargers and turbochargers just about the same? 2k-3K US?

Posted by: HorizontalMitsubishi Oct 27 2006, 02:30 PM
well i recently helped a friend build a supercharged prelude, stock power was around 200hp with 11:1 compression with a built motor he make 238 fwhp and 218 torque at 13 psi, but the problem is is that the supercharger takes soo much effort to turn at higher rpms that it is makeing the belt slip and we are loosing boost on the top end the boost drops down to about 9 pounds by redline. its a twinscrew type. now if he would have been running a supercharger setup he would have made alot more horsepower and more torque becuase there was less load on the motor. also with the supercharger there is no aftercooler so we were getting air intake temps in excess of 180 degrees so we couldnt run much timing with those temps like that. with a turbo its easy to put a nice front mount on the car and have nice low intake temps. we are running an aem ems on it, which has als built into it so what is this turbo lag that you speak of? he was making enough power that 300 miles after we got it running he blew the tranny.

Posted by: Initial Daniel Oct 27 2006, 11:44 PM
It's true, lag isn't as bad as it was before, but there are still a lot of benefits to Supercharging. Honestly, If they'd make a Supercharger for my KA, I'd rather have that than my turbo. You really don't have to worry about wastegate failure, compressor surge, or the like. That, and a pebble could entirely destroy the turbines on a Turbo, but a Supercharger? Yeah, it's nothin'.

I may stay turbo for a while, maybe until either someone makes a decent Supercharger kit for my car, or I end up building one myself...but I'd have to definitely read up a little on that before I get to workin' it. Haha.

Posted by: HorizontalMitsubishi Oct 28 2006, 12:12 PM
QUOTE (Initial Daniel @ Yesterday at 11:44 PM)
It's true, lag isn't as bad as it was before, but there are still a lot of benefits to Supercharging. Honestly, If they'd make a Supercharger for my KA, I'd rather have that than my turbo. You really don't have to worry about wastegate failure, compressor surge, or the like. That, and a pebble could entirely destroy the turbines on a Turbo, but a Supercharger? Yeah, it's nothin'.

I may stay turbo for a while, maybe until either someone makes a decent Supercharger kit for my car, or I end up building one myself...but I'd have to definitely read up a little on that before I get to workin' it. Haha.

well a pebble will do some serious damage to a supercharger as well, also you hvae bigger issues to worry about other then wastgate failure. also why would you want a supercharger that has way more moving parts and makes alot less power?

Posted by: Mad_Ijet Oct 30 2006, 05:21 AM
The answer is simple, if you are drifter, Supercharger is for rookie because you only step on the accelerator and don't let it go. It is because Supercharger did not produce big output but it can give a stable boost and the lag are very minimal. But Turbocharger is for professional because you need to control the accelerator with your foot to prevent it from lag and it produce big output than Supercharger but not stable. But the turbo lag can be prevent by using the sequential twin turbines. Just like Bugatti Veyron, it use quad turbines to prevent the lag and to produce 1000++HP in a seconds.

My answer its not follow by ID anime but from my experience ride with my friend car and I admit it that my friend is not professional driver. grin2.gif He always blew his tranny.

Posted by: robots Oct 31 2006, 10:00 AM
Mad_Ijet, where do you come from, man ? I wanna taste your weed ))

Posted by: VRr1FD Oct 31 2006, 11:12 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 27 2006, 01:43 AM)
Pull stick a from ass b. Not all cars run a rats-nest for a turbo set up tongue.gif

even so, there are serious considerations to make when routing exhaust gas to feed (and not over feed) a turbo. these are things you simply don't need to worry about with a SC. all you have to do is stick it somewhere and plug it into your belt system. you don't even have to worry about boost control, just pick a pulley and go. sure that means you gotta swap pullies to change boost but it IS simpler.

you have to do everything else (intake piping/cooling/fuel) to both options.

wink2.gif pick your poison, they both have ups and downs.

Posted by: fc0792 Nov 6 2006, 04:31 PM
Well don't get on my case if this is a dumb question well I heard from my cousin don't know if he is right or wrong but can Superchargers mess up a Japanese Car engine and can a Turbo do that to an American car?Oh yeah recently I read Nissan is testing a supercharger on a 350Z and it says gives more power than the Turbocharged version what do you guys think?

Posted by: BOZZ Savage Nov 6 2006, 10:32 PM
How would it screw up the engine?

Posted by: HorizontalMitsubishi Nov 7 2006, 08:08 AM
QUOTE (ih8alpackas @ Yesterday at 10:32 PM)
How would it screw up the engine?

it would blow it up, the problem is that most superchargers have no aftercooler so the air intake temps go through the roof if you have been in the boost for awhile. when we were dynoing my friends prelude the air intake temps were getting over 190 degrees. you'd never see something like that on a proper turbo setup. well if some of you dont no higher intake temps = higher combustion temps which lead to higher egts. also it ingreases the chance of predet which in itself will destroy a motor.

Posted by: VRr1FD Nov 8 2006, 02:05 AM
most oem SC setups these days do use intercooling. there is no general reason why a SC would hurt a japanese car and a turbo would hurt an american car. that is just retarded fc0792.

even if you don't have room for a charge cooling device with a poorly designed SC setup, you can still use chemical methods to charge the cool, like injecting water/alcohol.

Posted by: Force Fed Mopar Nov 27 2006, 08:17 PM
IMO, proper sizing is everything, whether it be a blower or a turbo. It has to be most efficient in the rpm range you want to use. In general, blowers are better at low to mid rpms, especially roots and screw-type blowers, because they have almost instant boost and are responsive. Turbos are better at higher rpm ranges and I believe are more efficient. This is why a well set-up twin-charge setup works great, the blower gives instant boost from down low until the turbo spools, and actually helps the turbo spool quicker (similar to injecting n2o off the line on a big turbo).

Again, just my 2 cents smile.gif Personally, I'm partial to turbos, because they feed off the wasted energy of the engine (exhaust) and are more entertaining to drive. Nothing like feeling a big turbo kick in w00t2.gif My 'S doesn't build any boost til 2500, has about 5 psi by 3k, then at 3k it hammers full boost. Well, when it's running right anyway lol.

Also keep in mind that there pretty much is no "have your cake and eat it too" when it come to forced induction. While ball-bearing turbos and screw-type blowers have brought it a long way, you simply can't run monster boost on a small turbo/super, or vice versa.

Posted by: projectdfan Feb 4 2007, 12:08 AM
supercharged vs. turbocharged?? if you asked me, it depends on your plans of apporach. if you running a compression ratio like 10:1, then you should run a turbo. if you just don't like turbo lag, get a supercharger, but you'll be running at low but constant boost. the 350z is the best example of what tuning method works best. alot of guys in hawaii have turbocharged G35s. and they run pretty fast. theres also some guys too that have superchargers in 350z. well i can't tell you guys who would win in a drag contest because we don't have a raceway park anymore. the dyno test between the two are almost identical.

Posted by: sideways Feb 4 2007, 05:42 AM
QUOTE
if you running a compression ratio like 10:1, then you should run a turbo


You dont like your engines do you :|

Posted by: projectdfan Feb 4 2007, 08:44 PM
10:1 ratio if you're willing to go drag racing. my cousin did this in his crx w/ b18 non-VTEC engine. pulled in good times.

Posted by: fc0792 Feb 5 2007, 08:43 AM
Well one thing I remember is that the Superchargers have less durability than Turbos. Which one costs more though? blink.gif Well thanks for pointing it out VRr1FD

Posted by: XanManAE86 Feb 5 2007, 12:54 PM
Since when? If you properly maintain either one, they should last almost indefinetly. Either way, A turbo may be less reliable because it uses the engine oil for lubrication while a supercharger uses oil thats seperated from the engine. But you can also argue that the supercharger is spinning all of the time, and the turbo fluctuates its rpms constantly. But like I said, if you maintain it, it will last. Im currently building a twincharged GZE, so its gonna be built for durability. Im going for responsive power so I decided to take up the challenge of building a twincharger for my AE86.

Posted by: wangan_runner Feb 13 2007, 10:08 AM
it seems like the same thing is being repeated through out these 8 pages.....heres my two cents.............

super charging just sets the compression higher, you get useable power through out the entire RPM range and you don't get the lag you get from running big turbos

turbos are good for alot of things. the smaller the turbo the better the better engine responce you will have in a low speed technical course. the bigger the turbo the better you will do in high gear. turbo lag is always present when runnin a turbo

however like in inital d's evo 3 you can run a misfireing system but like in the manga you will have exssive heat and friction in the turbo housing because it is always being spooled like its in high RPM

ok if you want more info about this just give me a message or i'll be here all day explaning this....

Posted by: Stormeye Apr 25 2007, 11:52 PM
...But how about when it comes to the all-important Torque? I mean, is it really true that a turbocharger can boost torque? Or is a supercharger good too?

BTW, this question is for fanfic research, specifically how to boost the torque of an MX-5.

Plus, what about the Turbo lag? I mean, I'm not sure there's anything that can compensate for that. Laggy turns can cost you a lot. I'm with supercharged on this one.

Posted by: sideways Apr 26 2007, 01:06 AM
You cant boost horsepower without increasing torque. Engines do not directly make horsepower, they make torque.

Posted by: Stormeye Apr 26 2007, 06:05 PM
Okay, thanks. I'm new to this.

Posted by: Inygknok Jun 24 2007, 03:14 PM
Only read the first page and literally skimmed through the rest. Noticed the usual thing that goes on where everyone has a few details correctly, but posts a few incorrect things as well. But I'm glad to see that, at least those I read, did it the right way of stating at the end that they weren't sure and to allow others to correct them. Good job.


So, I'll give a brief explanation on this, since there is a lot that goes into these manners of forced induction.


Turbos, as far as how they work, is simple. They are mounted on the exhaust manifold or turbo manifold, or turbo headers, whichever way to call it is just fine. The exhaust gases, instead of going directly through the exhausts to the back (like in a naturally aspirated engine), it goes through the back (hot side) of the turbo. They hit the turbine blades inside the shell, making it spin, and via a shaft that connects that turbine to the front turbine (the one in the front part, the cold side of the turbo) it makes the front turbine spin. The front one causes a suction effect, which then feeds the pipes that eventually end in the engine. As for the exhaust gases, they follow the housing from the hot side which eventually vents into the exhaust pipe, and then exits the car. I know I had a cut out picture of one, but I can't find it at the moment, since I'm taking a short break from something while I write this.


As for those myths of turbos working better on Japanese engines, and not so good on American engines, ALLLLL of that is simply: not true. Any engine can be fitted with either a turbo or a supercharger. No discussions, no "oh but my older brother said....". Yeah well, your brother is retarded laugh.gif.


The problem with turbos is this. First, what is called turbo lag. Turbo lag is what happens when the turbo is spooling up, but not creating any actual boost (not sending any extra pressure beyond atmospheric pressure, 14.7psi below a certain height above sea, I forget the height above sea level where the atmospheric pressure starts to decrease). The greater the margin between the size of the turbo and the engine, the more lag it should have.


As for the different turbo set ups.

1) Single turbo: easy to comprehend, don't need to explain.

2) Sequential twin turbo: for examples, take the MK4 Supra and the FD RX-7. The point of this set up is to have a smaller turbo for lower rpm's, and a bigger turbo for up top. Since a reasonably small turbo shouldn't have much lag, it allows the vehicles to accelerate from a stand still, or from a low rpm level, without having that annoying lazy feel. The big turbo... well, you're smart. It's obvious.

3) Parallel twin turbo: found in Sledgehammer Corvette, and MANY European, top model cars. Both turbos will be the same size, and will be run at the same time to give extra power at all times.

4) Misc set ups: Some people customize their cars to have 3 turbos at once, others have run 8 turbos (can't find the picture to the old chevy with the 8 turbos in the trunk, all operational, but not that big of a deal at only 800rwhp). Why do they do this? Heck of it. The Bugatti Veyron has a quad, sequential turbo set up. It has 1 small and 1 large turbo on each bank. Same purpose as a twin sequential, but with twice the turbos.


Usually, turbos are great from mid-high end power and torque.


As for superchargers. There are a few types of superchargers, such as the twin screw, roots type, centrifugal (the one that looks like a turbo), and I don't think there are any extra types (ignore all of those electric supercharger ads, they don't work, don't bother asking, hush it).


The screw type and roots type are both damn similar. On the outside, they look the same. Find a picture of a Ford GT engine bay, and there you'll have one. The thing is that they both use (cheap description following) 2 long shafts, each with their own shape. Screw types use shafts that look like worm gears, sort of.... while the roots type uses long shafts with 3, round edges of some sort. Hard to explain, look it up in Google images. Anyhow, the roots type is the least efficient cuz it pretty much just can't maintain a steady stream of air flow feeding the engine, while the screw type can.


Centrifugal superchargers are those that look like the front side of a turbocharger. In essence, it's a turbo powered by the engine's crank instead of exhaust gases.


The problems with SC's? First of all, the parasitic loss of the engine having to use up some power to run the supercharger. Secondly, screw and roots type are generally big if you want some extra power by using one of them, which add more weight than a single turbo set up. Screw and roots types are good at lower rpm levels, but tend to lack at the high end. Centrifugal superchargers offer boost depending on the engine speed. In other words, you will get your desired max psi most possibly at the end of the shift, when the engine is spinning hard (disappointing, eh?).


Advantages? The "no lag" factor, compact size (mainly centrifugals), and sometimes, durability.


Why are SC's used more in V engines, instead of turbos? Less space required, less heat than twin turbos, ease of installation compared to turbos, less weight, probably less cost (depending on sizes), and it looks interesting. Doesn't mean it's better though. A proper twin turbo set up might be just as good, or even better, but it can go either way.


And I am now tired of typing. So I'll post a bit more later, with pictures, or just simply answer any questions.

Posted by: Sil80Drifter Jun 28 2007, 01:05 PM
or you can get the best of both worlds.. and get those engines that are super charged AND have a turbo in them..
i forgot what the term is called

Posted by: Inygknok Jun 28 2007, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (Sil80Drifter @ Today at 1:05 PM)
or you can get the best of both worlds.. and get those engines that are super charged AND have a turbo in them..
i forgot what the term is called

You mean the twincharger things VW invented? I honestly know just a little bit about those things, and only what I have read.


As for using an actual supercharger along with a turbocharger (usually a big turbo coupled with a roots or screw type), yeah it works. But it's expensive, heavy, and requires a lot of space.

Posted by: MattW Jun 28 2007, 01:15 PM
Twincharged..... You just like posting today, don't you?

Posted by: Inygknok Jun 28 2007, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (MattSAF1 @ Today at 1:15 PM)
Twincharged..... You just like posting today, don't you?

You have no idea how bored I am today.... rained here. Went out for lunch with a friend again and came back. Don't have the vinyls for the door done, so I can't finish them.


I even just took the time right now to read up on VW's thing. I'm actually confused now. Originally, when I heard about it, I thought it was just a regular SC coupled with a turbo. Then I had read some article which displayed the picture of their turbo, with some sort of port on the side. No idea what the heck that was for. Now, I read it again on wikipedia, and apparently, it's what I had originally thought but with some technical things included.


If the article on wikipedia is correct, then it is a turbo and a regular SC both bolted up to the engine, but with some of their engine management trickeries. Even mentiones they want to try and eliminate anti-lag systems we have nowadays. Sounds damn interesting. I'm going to try and find more detailed things on this.

Posted by: skyline gtr Jul 23 2007, 04:00 PM
super chargers are belt driven and gives off straight power and doesn't make your car wobbly because it very smooth but if knocked off balance even a little it will lag

a turbo is very peaky and not belt driven and kicks in a certain time and lags sometime but installing a blow off valve will fix that an or having twin turbo

Posted by: Inygknok Jul 25 2007, 04:36 PM
QUOTE (skyline gtr @ Jul 23 2007, 04:00 PM)
super chargers are belt driven and gives off straight power and doesn't make your car wobbly because it very smooth but if knocked off balance even a little it will lag

a turbo is very peaky and not belt driven and kicks in a certain time and lags sometime but installing a blow off valve will fix that  an or having twin turbo

Man.... I really wish you used correct punctuation every now and then. I was meaning to ask you as a favor to please do so in future posts, hehe.


Anyhow..... I don't know where you heard that turbocharged cars are "wobbly", but I do remember the race between Takumi and Wataru and how Wataru would "wiggle" his car to hide the turbo lag, or so it was integrated into the story. Have you ever honestly, and I do mean honestly, in real life, driven a turbocharged car? I have driven quite a few, I even own one. The Supra could get knocked off balance "just a little" and it would remain just fine under boost. As long as the exhaust gases keep the turbine up to speed, it's fine. Yeah, turbos are more sensitive to throttle control, but they aren't THAT delicate.... unless you slapped on a huge turbo on a small engine, but that's to be expected (and completely the owner's fault for not following the guides of compressor maps).


Not all turbos are peaky, not all at all. Again, compressor maps and experts just a phone call (or e-mail) away at companies will guide you through the proper selection for your personal application. A small turbo on a big engine will barely lag at all, especially if the wastegate is set to a small pressure. On the Supra, on the stock unit, back when it was set to just above 11 psi, I could hit max boost in second gear at a pretty low level if I boosted from stop. First gear is pretty short in that car (at least I find it to be). Some turbos are peaky, yeah. Usually just for the way they are designed and such. It all really depends, but no, not all turbos are peaky.


Now.... the blow off valve. Erm.... Sorry, but blow off valves do not deal with turbo lag. At least, they're not set to improve lag at all. So what is their purpose? Think about the name, "blow off valve". It's just like a valve in a gallon-capacity water heater (those of you with a bit of plumbing knowledge will know of this). The pressure from excess hot water makes the valve open in order for the valve to "spit it out", preventing the tank from exploding (happened at home once, lol). In the case of turbo cars, it's just a tad bit different.


Here's an easy example. Ever wonder why the cars go "fwoosh" or "achoo" or "psst" when you let go of the accelerator to shift? Simple!! The throttle body has a type of valve inside it. Yes, that plate you play with each time you get a TB in your hands, by opening and closing it. That's another type of valve (butterfly valve is the correct name if I'm not mistaken). By letting go of the accelerator, the valve inside the throttle body is closed, shutting off any extra incoming air. So, what happens in a turbocharged engine? It's got more pressure of air than naturally aspirated engines, true. But air is still air. There is just one slight problem. In NA engines, the air just finds a way out, which is via the intake, and it can escape through there if it wishes without harming anything. But on turbo engines, it's not that simple. Excess air has only one way of escaping: back through the cold-side of the turbocharger. Sounds easy, right? Nope! The turbo will be spinning in one direction, feeding extra air to the engine. But the resistance caused by the throttle being closed forces the old air to back up again in an attempt to escape. Therefore, by trying to escape, it will accidentally go back through the turbo and fight with the newly fed air, and eventually, the excess pressure being built inside will win, and escape through the turbo. It will hit the turbine blade and start trying to make it spin in the opposite direction from what it's already spinning, like a tug of war. This causes stress on the turbo itself, mostly the driveshaft. Turbos already have something called the anti-surge, of which I have no pictures of right now. I'll get one later. But it's usually not enough.


So, in with blow off valves!! These are set to open at a given pressure level, depending on how much you're boosting your engine. When you close off the throttle, and air is trying to find a way out, this valve opens and allows any extra dangerous pressure to escape, making that sneeze sound.


If anything, blow off valves can cause a bit of extra lag, but not in the sense of turbo lag. Just lag for air heading it's way to the intake. That's why they sell recirculation kits for blow off valves, to redirect the "wasted" air back in.


Now, the topic of twin turbos. I thought I had explained this before, but I guess I have to repeat it. I'll make it way shorter than everything I have said up until now anyhow.

Parallel twin turbos: 2 turbos running at the same time.
Sequential twin turbos: a small turbo charges up first, and then a bigger one kicks in.

Still, feeding just one turbo is much more efficient, and easier, than feeding 2 turbos. Sequentials do have huge advantage, but it's a very heavy set up (which is why barely anyone uses this anymore). So using parallel twin turbos will actually increase the lag, since they have to share (and like Juicy Fruit, sharing is caring!).



EDIT: FFS.... I always plan on saying something short, and I end up getting involved and type out a whole explanation. Sorry guys.

Posted by: tofujay Jul 28 2007, 07:13 AM
QUOTE (Sil80Drifter @ Jun 28 2007, 01:05 PM)
or you can get the best of both worlds.. and get those engines that are super charged AND have a turbo in them..
i forgot what the term is called

twincharged...

a friend of mine did it to his 4AGZE for his corolla he built for drag.... its freakin' fast and torquey. his system has the turbo running first until a certain rpm then it spools and the charger kicks in i think the turbo gets cut at 5 or 6k rpm.

I had the chance to drive the car one time when we had its rims replaced. its very torquey but i just coudnt turn with that car laugh.gif

Posted by: wangan_sti Jul 28 2007, 07:35 AM
Amazing, where did u install it. How much is it? wink2.gif Just curious

You must have drag that car at PDRF wink2.gif

Posted by: Inygknok Jul 28 2007, 09:55 AM
QUOTE (tofujay @ Today at 7:13 AM)
twincharged...

a friend of mine did it to his 4AGZE for his corolla he built for drag.... its freakin' fast and torquey. his system has the turbo running first until a certain rpm then it spools and the charger kicks in i think the turbo gets cut at 5 or 6k rpm.

I had the chance to drive the car one time when we had its rims replaced. its very torquey but i just coudnt turn with that car laugh.gif

I believe it's the other way around. The point of twincharging is to get rid of turbo lag, and that won't be happening if you're using a roots or screw type blower for the top end (which is where they're bad at) and the turbo for the low end (which is where lag happens).

Posted by: Max911 Jul 28 2007, 10:16 PM
I'd personally go for a turbo because it's more economical at low RPMs and it steals less horsepower than a supercharger.

Posted by: wangan_sti Jul 28 2007, 10:27 PM
QUOTE (Max911 @ Today at 10:16 PM)
I'd personally go for a turbo because it's more economical at low RPMs and it steals less horsepower than a supercharger.

Superchargers r oldskool. Go wit the tymes. Tourbcharger wink2.gif

Posted by: tofujay Jul 29 2007, 12:23 AM
QUOTE (wangan_sti @ Yesterday at 7:35 AM)
Amazing, where did u install it. How much is it? wink2.gif Just curious

You must have drag that car at PDRF wink2.gif


he has actually before.... he runs PDRF before now the car is driven by his old man. since hes working overseas. and his car cant turn thats why we always tease him since he is a dragster (he cant turn and most of us his friends play with autocross and circuits).

i don't know who did the system but it did cost a lot of money.... since racing is not really a cheap thing to get involved in laugh.gif

Inygknok- i stand corrected youre right its the other way around the charger kicks in first then the turbo

QUOTE (wangan_sti)
Superchargers r oldskool. Go wit the tymes. Tourbcharger wink2.gif


they arent really old school a lot of car manufacturers are still using chargers as forced induction systems.

Posted by: Black_MKII Jul 29 2007, 02:16 AM
yeah especilly american manufactors,take the new tahoe Z71 for an example, whistle supercharger i think...
EDIT:
imagine this your car dry.gif
user posted image

Posted by: Max911 Jul 29 2007, 05:32 AM
LOL! If I had that, I wouldn't need an engine. laugh.gif

Posted by: Inygknok Jul 29 2007, 08:56 AM
QUOTE (wangan_sti @ Yesterday at 10:27 PM)
Superchargers r oldskool. Go wit the tymes. Tourbcharger wink2.gif

What's wrong with old school? The car in your sig is old school.


Let me get specific on this (*sigh* again.....) since it's a sticky made for people to learn the correct things. All turbochargers are actually superchargers, but not all superchargers are turbochargers. One of the basic phrases when you learn about these types of forced induction.


Ever noticed how the 3-4 second dragsters, the ones spewing the flames of hell, use superchargers that require about 800hp to be spun?


Turbos have had to evolve so much during the years it's been around. Back when they were first introduced, they didn't even have wastegates invented (the idea wasn't even thought up). Turbos were so heavy and so hard to spool, that there was barely any risk of them overspooling while travelling around. Wastegates came later on. Years came and went, and turbos still fell short to the way of superchargers. Lag was a problem, and so was using them in big powered applications. It was hard to tune them without the tuning technology we have today. A car fell off boost, and the whole timing and fuel map had to be changed to compensate, and there wasn't the technology to do that back in the 80's, at least, not sold to the open public.


Now, even variable geometry turbos are coming up. Don't know if they are in production right now, but Porsche was going to be the first company to do it on production cars.


"Keeping up with the times" would actually mean that people should start adopting the twin charge technology being produced right now. Turbos have been around since the 50's or something (don't quote me on that), and SC's since even before. So even with the evolution the turbocharging world has undergone, and the not-so-much-evolution that superchargers have gone through, individually, they are both old technology and still have their pros and cons individually. But combined? The only actual con that can be justifyingly conceived is the weight.

Posted by: chinesehero Aug 9 2007, 09:57 AM
Inygknok is absolutely right.

Both have been around the automobile for as long as they were put to use. Technology applied to any type of automobile have evolved tremendously. Since car manufactures always wanted their customers to feel the power of the car, they often produce a cheap engine strapped with either turbocharger or supercharger. If you know what I mean, then those monstrous valves on top of an American muscle are protruding just to have both basic ram-air induction and have space to place the supercharger beneath the carburetor.

Even to this day, both methods of forced induction are applied to buses and freight trucks. Yet, I guess that answers that "pssssssshhhhhh" sound I hear when they halt.

As said over and over again, supercharger provides excellent low RPM torque boost;turbos at a higher range. Nevertheless, the torque and highest bhp range for best performance is rarely reached which results on a gasoline car is very small.

Finally, whenever applying either forced induction upon your vehicle, beware of its price, affect on the car, durability, and noise.

Posted by: Junon Aug 9 2007, 10:54 AM
the "Psshhh" when the trucks/bus stop are actually the brakes. Though they do use turbos.

Superchargers provide a predictable power curve since it's belt driven, while the turbos have the lag since it works on exhaust gases. But Turbos typically create much more power up top.

QUOTE
Finally, whenever applying either forced induction upon your vehicle, beware of its price, affect on the car, durability, and noise.


True. Some cars can't handle boost unless you build the bottom end properly, and of course, a good engine management, tune, fuel accessories, etc are a necessity.

Posted by: Kazuki Aug 9 2007, 02:26 PM
They way I've always thought of it, was superchargers are great for bigger engines since they take up a bit of power to use, and great on low rpm engines that produce more power at the bottom end compared to the top, since it makes instant boost. A turbo works better on higher revving engines that has the powerband in the upper range. Sequential Twin turbos help with the lag and low boost potential (the point at which the turbo makes boost) by having a small turbo spooling in the low range, then slowly shifting to the bigger turbo as the rpms increase (like in the rx-7) and 2 small turbos would be good for an engine that needed big boost at a lower range or something like that. Either way, they've both been around for a wicked amount of time, and were used in planes for the longest time (I belive germany first started supercharging their planes in WWI or WWII)
You can use both supercharger AND turbocharger, but that's a bit much....

I think it really just depends on the engine you want to put the force induction on. If you have an engine that redlines at 5k but makes good torque at the low range, why would you turbo it, since a turbo loves rpms? Same with having an engine that redlines at 7-8rpm it might be more benificial to turbo instead of super. I've always been a fan of turbocharging though.

Posted by: sometrueno Aug 9 2007, 07:48 PM
QUOTE (chinesehero @ Today at 9:57 AM)
Even to this day, both methods of forced induction are applied to buses and freight trucks. Yet, I guess that answers that "pssssssshhhhhh" sound I hear when they halt.

I'm pretty sure buses use air brakes, hence the PSH when they stop.

Posted by: Inygknok Aug 10 2007, 12:00 AM
QUOTE (sometrueno @ Yesterday at 10:48 PM)
I'm pretty sure buses use air brakes, hence the PSH when they stop.

Yes, they use air brakes and so do trucks. You don't even need to have had the experience of working on a bigger truck to notice. Just drive behind one and you'll notice the mechanisms near their calipers at the back. Just follow the rear axle and you'll notice them.


Kazuki: Read every single post I have written since page 8. That should clarify the doubts I noticed in your post. If you don't get it, just say it, and I'll write a few more paragraphs as usual.....

Posted by: Sweeper Aug 28 2007, 12:23 PM
Trucks use pneumatic brakes as stated but from what I have seen the shift action is also pneumatic and that is understandable if you have seen their gearbox taken apart.
So in theory you can say they are partly supercharged in that way as they DO use a compressor but not to force air into the engine, although I have yet to see a supercharged "heavy vehicle" (Truck or bus).

My mechanic education does not extend towards "heavy vehicles" but I have seen a bit of them so I know a bit here and there.

Posted by: biggamehit Aug 28 2007, 03:04 PM
i use a truck turbo on my 240 yay... i would comment but its been all said... keep it going guys

Posted by: atlantian Mar 20 2008, 03:12 PM
honestly speaking... i would choose an antilaged monster-turbo with the turbine as big as my thigh... laugh.gif

but, reasonably, i would choose a turbo, because you can achieve higher torque values with the turbo, you just need antilag so that you don't get left back at the starting line(low compression), and you need a trained right foot(which you would have, learning to drive a car...

btw... i just saw this, and i was wondering why noone bothered to correct him...?
http://idforums.net/index.php?showtopic=33660
anti-lag is NOT sparkplug detonation, or related to adding of any heat... and neither is it squirting fuel into the exhaust manifold... it's just allowing o2 to pass into exhaust (via bypass valve)manifold, and react with the unburnt fuel in the exhaust manifold, the exhuast gases are plenty hot enough and there is already enough fuel in the exhaust vapor(engines are very inefficient), that guy offered a wikipedia article that HE DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ!!

Posted by: snoro Jun 23 2008, 03:21 PM
so to clarify stuff there is 4 way or making high horsepower

first is na
yes you can make high power from a na engine but you need to run really high compression ratio good fuel that will be able to work in that compression ration and bulletproof engine.I mean that you need to be either a racing team with a big budget or a engeniirer that have alot of money because high compression ratio put alot of stress to the engine

second is turbocharging
I think everybody know that you can make alot of horsepower with turbo charging.juste have to put a big turbo and you are ready.But you face a big problem called LAG.There is a few way to compansate it or eliminate it.You have twin turbocharging which mean you put either a small and a big turbo and a switch or a valve to direct air to one or another of the turbo depending of the rpm, or two medium sized turbo which will give the same amount of horsepower as a single turbo.But you now have less or no more lag.Another way to eliminate lag is a anti lag system also called a misfiring system that include a valve on the intake side that will direct a part of the air to the exhaust while you are braking or letting of the gas to dont lose the rpm of the turbocompressor itself and which will mean elimanating lag.Another way is running more pressure into the turbo while having a smaller turbo which will give yo the same power and less lag but like the high compression na engine,it will put alot a pressure to the engine components.So just for racing team.

third way is supercharging
you can also make power from a supercharger.Because the supercharger is driven by the crankshaft ,it has no lag so it ill corner like a na engine but with more power and torque.But like already before me ,a supercharger will add parasitic weight to the engine so it ill make less net power.People tried to lighten this parasitic weight by having the smae type of compressor as the turbo so it lighter than the normal root type supercharger.But when the engine get into the high rpm range,the supercharger will start to make less power than a turbo.You can swap the pulley of the supercharger to a bigger one but it ill lead to a lost in power and torque in the low end range.

Fourth way which is starting to be popular is twin charging
which mean you put a supercharger for low end power and torque and a turbo for high end power and torque but like the vtec system there will be that little range of rpm where there is a drop of power.but when the system is well built there should be no problem about that because ppl making the system will have put the changing point to somewhere you dont stick for too long in the rpm range.

Posted by: Jardim Jun 23 2008, 07:39 PM
New techonlogy in turbochargers make lag disappear unless your running crazy amount of boost.

Posted by: snoro Jun 24 2008, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (murphanation @ Yesterday at 7:39 PM)
New techonlogy in turbochargers make lag disappear unless your running crazy amount of boost.

this is called ball bearing turbo charger(dont take it bad)

Posted by: Jardim Jun 25 2008, 12:12 AM
Yeah the ball bearing turbos are crazy, so responsive and it provides good power.

Posted by: Rotary Junkie Jul 15 2008, 12:26 AM
[rantmode]Turbocharging has advantages over natural aspiration as well as roots, twin-screw, or centrifugal supercharging. Thing is... We tend not to quite use it all.

Now then... We all know that the traditional boost build involves dropping compression and running tons of boost, right? And we all know that big compression is BAD in a turbo mill, right?

Notsomuch. A bit of compression on a boosted mill isn't a bad thing per se. 10.5:1-11:1 can be had and made streetable easily enough in an NA mill, and by extension a turbo or supercharged motor. It's called staying off too much of crack, er, boost. Higher compression mills do more with the same amount of air/fuel going in to them, and therefore when off-boost make more power. The result? More power before the boost hits, and less time before it does, even with the same size turbo. Add in that you no longer need as giant of a turbo to meet a given power goal because you don't need as much boost, and all that nonsense about lag starts going buh-bye, especially when you run a twin turbo setup.

BLASPHEMY! It goes against everything known about turbo motors, doesn't it!

When cruising around town, it'll be more efficient than the general turbo mill by needing a good bit less throttle and RPM to get around reasonably, and when you hit it... You get the same power as a traditional boosted mill with less lag, a smaller turbo, and smoother delivery.

Someone point out holes in this, please. It's going on 4:30 AM here and I am tired as hell. I'd type a bit more but... It can wait until morning. Which is going to be more like noon or later...

Posted by: The Stig Jul 15 2008, 01:01 AM
While you can run higher compression ratios, and gain more low end torque and off boost power, you cannot run as much boost (which you stated), but some turbos have an efficiency at higher boosts. Thus, you gain more power. So in the long run, for a street-able car higher boost is of course better with less boost, but for an all out, race engine/car lower compression and a larger turbo.

Posted by: Rotary Junkie Jul 15 2008, 03:20 PM
Or you could just use a turbo that's more efficient at the lower boost levels...

Or run just slightly less boost. Of course, higher compression makes more of the boost you throw at it so...

Win.

Posted by: The Stig Jul 15 2008, 04:43 PM
But that isn't the question here. If you were to get max power out of a turbo'd car, how would you do so without another power adder? You'd lower the compression, turn up the boost and run Q16 octane.

"Or you could just use a turbo that's more efficient at the lower boost levels..."

You want a turbo that is efficient in low boost levels? Go get a disco potatoe or a T too small. And with these small turbos which spool up insanely fast, there isn't really a reason to run super high compression because, they already have torque.

So no, you don't win. If you are aiming for 250-350hp then yes normal or "high compression" is good.

Posted by: Rotary Junkie Jul 15 2008, 05:15 PM
Face, meet palm, palm, meet face.

If I wanted max power out of a turbo car, I'd wind up running high compression along with a camshaft that to any engine builder you ask is completely ass-backwards and a good bit of boost. Of course, the cam timing required to go REALLY stupid is unobtanium without a billet cam simply because the blanks already have a bit of a profile ground into them and said timing is out of that profile.

And by "high compression" I mean in the realm of 10-12:1.

You want my reason for high compression with those little turbos? Power. Zero lag. They spool quick, yes, and with high compression, you make more use of what boost they do build. Aaaand thereby more power. I don't see how this is so freakin' hard to understand...

Posted by: The Stig Jul 15 2008, 05:51 PM
QUOTE (Rotary Junkie @ Today at 5:15 PM)
If I wanted max power out of a turbo car, I'd wind up running high compression along with a camshaft that to any engine builder you ask is completely ass-backwards and a good bit of boost. Of course, the cam timing required to go REALLY stupid is unobtanium without a billet cam simply because the blanks already have a bit of a profile ground into them and said timing is out of that profile.

And by "high compression" I mean in the realm of 10-12:1.

Lowering the compression ratio allows you to increase the boost. Lowering compression lowers combustion pressure, prevents pinging, detonation, knocking, etc. What is so hard to understand, I guess I must be talking to the wrong engine builders...


As I understand it, the issue is not whether high or low compression creates more power, but whether the engine can handle it. High compression will cause the more reactive molecules in your gasoline (so the smaller molecules in the case of gas made of non-polar hydrocarbons) to oxidize just from pressure alone. The pressure pushes the molecules tighter and tighter together and thus the chances of two molecules hitting eachother with enough energy and the right orientation is increased greatly with pressure alone. This means that during the compression stroke, the greater the number of smaller molecules in the gas, the more likely two will hit with enough energy and explode. If this happens before the spark, you get knock, which is the sound you get when the explosion is early and pushes the piston down with a lot of force while it's still trying to go upwards. Eventually something has to give, and the something tends to be pistons or the walls of the combustion chamber.

Now since more power comes from a bigger explosion, you need more air and fuel in the combustion chamber and this causes increased pressure. So a few things you can do to keep power but not destroy your engine is to reduce the pressure, reduce the heat or make the fuel mixture more tolerant to higher pressure/temperature. This in where low compression comes in. It allows you to create more power without changing your fuel because you can cram more stuff into the combustion chamber since the chamber is larger. The reason to do this is we're limited to what type of fuel we can get at the gas station so road-going cars running high-boost compensate for the increased heat and pressure of the air going into the engine with lower compression. It's a trade off since a high boost engine with high compression would cause the most powerful explosions, but race gas (a high octane fuel) is not exactly cheap.

I don't understand why its so hard for you to understand. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Rotary Junkie Jul 15 2008, 06:03 PM
And that's where the cam timing that most find absolutely ass backwards comes in...

Posted by: The Stig Jul 15 2008, 06:24 PM
It still comes down to what compression you are running. You can advance the timing all you want (or retard it) but you are still limited by the static compression ration which occurs within the combustion chamber. When you advance the timing, you are subjecting combustion to occur earlier than optimal and you can run into knock/detonation. When you advance the timing, you make more top end power, and more power overall but there is still a limitation set.

I don't understand why you are arguing a useless case.

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Jul 15 2008, 08:59 PM
Rotary Junkie, there's a little thing that you're forgetting. It's called REALISM. Obviously you have no idea how difficult and costly it is to get the kind of package you're looking for... a boosted and high-compression motor that runs reliably. Something like that from the factory (rare enough as it is) is going to be on a relatively pricey car, and to make something like that in the aftermarket arena is still going to be pricey.

QUOTE
A bit of compression on a boosted mill isn't a bad thing per se.

Obvious and vague.

QUOTE
10.5:1-11:1 can be had and made streetable easily enough in an NA mill, and by extension a turbo or supercharged motor. It's called staying off too much of crack, er, boost.

"Easily?" Let us know when you build something like this, along with how "easy" it was and how much it cost. Very few motors meet this criteria stock (as only VW's turbocharged 2.0-liter I-4 and BMW's twin-turbo 3.0-liter I-6 come to mind, though the VW's unit is much more biased toward practicality while the BMW's unit isn't a cheap option), and to put together such an engine with aftermarket components isn't as easy as bolting parts on--and if it is, trust it's going to be expensive. There's a reason why back in the day, most Integra Type-R owners usually avoided forced induction of any sort, and, more recently, why RSX Type-S owners either stuck with an NA setup with every bolt-on imaginable or ponied up the money for a decent turbo kit, sometimes even having to swap out pistons to get a lower compression ratio to avoid detonation, unless they had the resources to put their car through weeks of tuning.

QUOTE
The result? More power before the boost hits, and less time before it does, even with the same size turbo. Add in that you no longer need as giant of a turbo to meet a given power goal because you don't need as much boost, and all that nonsense about lag starts going buh-bye, especially when you run a twin turbo setup.

Obvious and vague once again. As I stated before, this ideal setup is difficult to do without the proper resources, which most people don't have. This is highly unrealistic. And unless your power goals are well within the reach of a streetable setup relative to the engine's size (i.e., 200 hp for the VW 2.0-liter I-4 or 300 hp for the BMW 3.0-liter I-6), then you will most definitely have some sort of lag, even if it's a factory setup (i.e., 286 hp for the Mitsubishi 2.0-liter I-4). Take your pick, a linear, relatively lag-free power delivery with a modest top end, or a slower to boost but most exciting adrenaline rush from the mid-range all the way up top. You can't have both, unless you're bringing a few suitcases of cash.

QUOTE
Or you could just use a turbo that's more efficient at the lower boost levels...

You mean a smaller turbo with a restrained maximum power output? Or a more advanced turbo (like a unit with Variable Turbine Geometry) that is found on very expensive and found on cars like the $130k Porsche 911 Turbo?

QUOTE
Or run just slightly less boost. Of course, higher compression makes more of the boost you throw at it so...

Again, increasing the compression ratio of an already boosted motor to above 10.0:1 or boosting an NA motor with a higher compression ratio than normal isn't easy. Have fun tuning it.

QUOTE
You want my reason for high compression with those little turbos? Power. Zero lag. They spool quick, yes, and with high compression, you make more use of what boost they do build. Aaaand thereby more power. I don't see how this is so freakin' hard to understand...

We understand the concept just fine, but what you don't understand is the huge challenge of doing something like this. I'd put money on you not being able to accomplish this with a certain amount for a brand new car, mods and tuning, with your goals (higher than a 10.0:1 compression ratio, streetable power delivery practical for daily driving) while being able to outperform a factory force-fed car of the same price as what was invested in the car and modding (otherwise what's the point of all the hassle?). And let's not forget how this dream setup will almost certainly not be smog legal, seeing how high-strung the motor is running at any given time.

I hate resorting to pointing out people's ages, but it's funny how the 14 year-old is trying to school people on a topic like this.

Posted by: Rotary Junkie Jul 15 2008, 09:25 PM
Yeah, yeah...

Ever hear of a Miller cycle engine?

Bingo. Bleeds off some pressure by leaving the intake valve open after BDC.

You wind up with less of a charge in the cylinder, but because you compress it more, you get the same or greater reaction.

Lastly, I'm not trying to "school" anyone. Just bringing up a different way of looking at things.

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Jul 15 2008, 09:30 PM
Great. Set up a car like that.

Posted by: Jardim Jul 16 2008, 12:35 AM
Dont go over 9:1, that should give you some kick when your turbo is not fully spooled. then when it kicks in
wewt!!

Posted by: S130guy Nov 22 2008, 11:33 PM
A supercharger and a turbocharger do the same thing, but use different methods to do it. Both are a class of parts known as 'forced induction', as opposed to natural aspiration. Turbo- and super-chargers forcefully suck air in and blow it into the combustion chambers, rather than rely on the intake stroke of the piston to suck air in from the plenum.

The supercharger is the older piece of equipment. Superchargers are usually run by a belt, or less commonly, a gear, and use a turbine called a 'compressor' to suck air in, compress it, and force-feed it into the cylinder. however, superchargers are parasitic in nature, using the crank pulley to operate. This lowers the amount of power they will produce, as some of the extra power is spent on rotating the supercharger.

A turbocharger is similar, but uses the exhaust gasses moving over a turbine to spin the compressor. Turbochargers are not parasitic in nature, allowing them to generate more horsepower than a supercharger of equivalent C.F.M. rating due to the turbine being spun by the exhaust flow.

The biggest difference is in the speed of reaction. A turbo suffers what is called 'turbo lag' when the exhaust airflow is not fast enough to spin the compressor at a desireable level. A supercharger, on the other hand, has instant response due to the compressor being driven by the crank pulley. Superchargers, therefore, are better for low-RPM boosting, and superchargers being better for high-RPM boosting.

Both of these systems are very similar in their operation, typically requiring dedicated oil plumbing, lower engine compressions to avoid predetonation, and usually the integration into the intake of a blow-off valve and an intercooler.

To decide whether you want to supercharge or turbocharge, you must ask yourself a few questions first.

- What type of engine are you running? V-engines are easier to adapt to superchargers than inline-engines, which have the intake on the side, rather than the top.

- how much weight are you willing to carry? Superchargers typically weigh more than turbochargers due to their mounting hardware and more robust construction

- what is the application? If you're drag racing, a supercharger is for you. If you're drifting, you'll probably want a turbocharger.

In reality, neither the supercharger or the turbocharger is better. Both are tools to get the same job done in different applications. Before considering either though, and converting an N/A to forced induction, read up on both extensively. And try to pick up the book 'Maximum Boost'. It's basically the forced induction bible.

Posted by: Hachi_Roku Nov 23 2008, 12:20 AM
^ I think most of us knew the basics of turbo and supercharging. No need to necropost a sticked thread to basically summarize the entire thread. Your whole post looks copy-pasted too...However it's rather informative.

Welcome to the forums btw.

Posted by: chillined Nov 25 2008, 08:40 PM
QUOTE (S130guy @ Nov 22 2008, 11:33 PM)
Superchargers, therefore, are better for low-RPM boosting, and superchargers being better for high-RPM boosting.

WOW a Supercharger must be WAY better then the turbocharger then! Nah I'm just mess wit ya.
Corrected:
QUOTE
Superchargers, therefore, are better for low-RPM boosting, and Turbochargers being better for high-RPM boosting.

Posted by: MetalMan777 Apr 13 2009, 04:17 AM
There's no replacement for displacement. NA all the way and all that. The problem with turbos is that you have to rev your engine a lot to get noticeable boost. In a race car, that's no problem, you have the pedal to the metal most of the time. On the street where mileage and speed limits are factors you have to think about, low end power is much more important. The most efficient way to drive is to short shift your way to the highest gear feasible for the speed you want to go. Piston engines operate most efficiently at low RPM's with high throttle opening. On the street, you're rarely revving to redline, so all the noticeable power comes in the form of low end torque. The bigger your engine (generally speaking), the more torque, which allows for longer gearing, which makes it more comfortable on the street.

In short, if you have a high revving engine(read: small) with short gearing, turbocharging is the best solution. If you have a big v8, a supercharger will probably net you the biggest power gains. If you have a formula 1 engine or anything over 7 liters: Told you NA was the best.

Posted by: sideways Apr 13 2009, 05:03 AM
QUOTE (Cactus @ 45 minutes, 50 seconds ago)
There's no replacement for displacement. NA all the way and all that. The problem with turbos is that you have to rev your engine a lot to get noticeable boost. In a race car, that's no problem, you have the pedal to the metal most of the time. On the street where mileage and speed limits are factors you have to think about, low end power is much more important. The most efficient way to drive is to short shift your way to the highest gear feasible for the speed you want to go. Piston engines operate most efficiently at low RPM's with high throttle opening. On the street, you're rarely revving to redline, so all the noticeable power comes in the form of low end torque. The bigger your engine (generally speaking), the more torque, which allows for longer gearing, which makes it more comfortable on the street.

In short, if you have a high revving engine(read: small) with short gearing, turbocharging is the best solution. If you have a big v8, a supercharger will probably net you the biggest power gains. If you have a formula 1 engine or anything over 7 liters: Told you NA was the best.

This post stinks 10 shades of angry.

Turbo will ALWAYS net the biggest horsepower gains per pound of boost. Good turbos build boost in LOW rpms, and maintain it to redline. Piston engines highest efficiency is dependant on MANY MANY MANY factors, To say they opperate most efficiently at low rpms with high throttle is nothing but a complete and utter farse. Formula 1 engines are not turbo because they are not allowed to be. If they were allowed to be, they would be.

Posted by: WRX DEMON Type R Apr 13 2009, 06:33 AM
im glad i ran into this thread. I'll be going supercharger.

Posted by: MetalMan777 Apr 13 2009, 07:38 AM
QUOTE (sideways @ 2 hours, 34 minutes ago)
This post stinks 10 shades of angry.

Turbo will ALWAYS net the biggest horsepower gains per pound of boost. Good turbos build boost in LOW rpms, and maintain it to redline. Piston engines highest efficiency is dependant on MANY MANY MANY factors, To say they opperate most efficiently at low rpms with high throttle is nothing but a complete and utter farse. Formula 1 engines are not turbo because they are not allowed to be. If they were allowed to be, they would be.

Heh, not really angry, I just like my NA. Formula 1 used to run turbos, and they had more than a thousand horsepower. It is true that piston engines found in pretty much every car on the road (I might be wrong on some engines, not all are the same, and I'm not entirely sure about turbocharged engines because they don't factor pumping losses the same way NA engines do) but friction plays a higher role at higher RPMs and pumping losses sap power at low throttle.

Also of course turbos will net the most horsepower per pound of boost, they don't take power from any of the drive components.

Posted by: chillined Apr 13 2009, 07:58 AM
QUOTE (WRX DEMON Type R @ 1 hour, 25 minutes ago)
im glad i ran into this thread. I'll be going supercharger.

With what car? If it's a small four-banger you can forget about that.

@Cactus: Look up the new Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T. Full boost at 3XXX RPM. That's not all that bad for a car that was meant for usual track sessions.

Posted by: MetalMan777 Apr 13 2009, 08:06 AM
QUOTE (chillined @ 7 minutes, 36 seconds ago)
With what car? If it's a small four-banger you can forget about that.

@Cactus: Look up the new Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T. Full boost at 3XXX RPM. That's not all that bad for a car that was meant for usual track sessions.

QUOTE
While some turbochargers sacrifice smooth drivability with high operating boost pressures in the 20 psi range, Genesis Coupe uses a refined, low-boost calibration for smoothness and efficiency, said Derek Joyce, Genesis Coupe product manager. We could have opted solely for big performance numbers, but our focus for the 2.0T was a more balanced package.

http://jalopnik.com/5072100/hyundai-releases-specs-on-genesis-coupe-v6-hits-310-hp-turbo-four+banger-gets-30-mpg

I'd love to have that car, btw.

Posted by: Spaz Apr 13 2009, 09:49 AM
Even with the 16G, I'm still getting full boost by 3200. Oh, and not revving to redline on the daily is a lie.

Posted by: DreadAngel Apr 16 2009, 04:34 PM
With the newer turbochargers coming out being more efficient, coming on boost faster (Not by a whole lot but its noticable) and producing more power/torque, its increasingly more difficult to justify the use of a supercharger. Its becoming more of a personal choice rather than a logical choice.

@ Catus - So according to your logics, NA is best because you must have 7L or in short, a small capacity race engine? A lil shortsighted lol tongue.gif

I'm an advocate of NA/Mechanical tuning, the sound and response via the pedal is what I enjoy most but I love the simplicity when chasing power and torque, the use of Force Induction. Personally I find NA more refinied, more challenging to gain any power/torque without sacrificing too much of something else and sounds nothing like Force Induced cars =P (Totally subjective here, its not logical) The basic ways of increasing power/torque with NA is with capacity changes or by a combination of camshaft, rev limiter raised to take advantage, compression increase ditto as before. BUT if you get this wrong, you end up with a dead engine or an engine that just isn't right... Like it's lost its magic?

Force Induction isn't that much easier but you've got more room to play with especially with turbocharging, match the right turbo with the right parts and electronical wizardary, you'll can have a nice responsive boost level then push a lovely red button when you're on the straight and have the boost level increase, best of both worlds. Not that simple I know but its just an example =)

Posted by: chillined Apr 16 2009, 05:15 PM
QUOTE (DreadAngel @ 40 minutes, 40 seconds ago)
With the newer turbochargers coming out being more efficient, coming on boost faster (Not by a whole lot but its noticable) and producing more power/torque, its increasingly more difficult to justify the use of a supercharger. Its becoming more of a personal choice rather than a logical choice.

@ Catus - So according to your logics, NA is best because you must have 7L or in short, a small capacity race engine? A lil shortsighted lol tongue.gif

I'm an advocate of NA/Mechanical tuning, the sound and response via the pedal is what I enjoy most but I love the simplicity when chasing power and torque, the use of Force Induction. Personally I find NA more refinied, more challenging to gain any power/torque without sacrificing too much of something else and sounds nothing like Force Induced cars =P (Totally subjective here, its not logical) The basic ways of increasing power/torque with NA is with capacity changes or by a combination of camshaft, rev limiter raised to take advantage, compression increase ditto as before. BUT if you get this wrong, you end up with a dead engine or an engine that just isn't right... Like it's lost its magic?

Force Induction isn't that much easier but you've got more room to play with especially with turbocharging, match the right turbo with the right parts and electronical wizardary, you'll can have a nice responsive boost level then push a lovely red button when you're on the straight and have the boost level increase, best of both worlds. Not that simple I know but its just an example =)

The really shitty thing about NA, is that you're limited almost in all cases. Sure colder air and free-flowing exhaust helps, but COMPRESSION is what you need. When you raise that, you need to raise the octane of your fuel. Also, NA Tuning is quite expensive to match forced induction. A insanely good tune is very necessary, and good fuel. Not only that, but excellent head work and high compression is expensive to maintain.
But hell, I sure do love High revving NA's, there's none like it.

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Apr 16 2009, 09:59 PM
QUOTE (Cactus @ Apr 13 2009, 08:38 AM)
Heh, not really angry, I just like my NA.

And exactly what do you drive, my friend? What NA are you driving that is so superior to others?

First of all, this entire thread is about supercharged vs. turbocharged, not FI vs. NA. And obviously you haven't driven a recent turbocharged engine, otherwise you'd think twice before making an irresponsible comment generalizing all engines of a given setup based on its stereotype that is a couple decades old.

Granted nothing screams like a high-revving NA motor, but there are so many advantages to FI. There's a reason why BMW's M division is switching to turbocharging. While its increased fuel economy is both an advantage and a huge driving force (given the upcoming CAFE standards), the fact that the current M V-10 puts out 507 hp and 383 lb.-ft while their upcoming twin-turbo V-8 puts out 550 hp and 501 lb.-ft (over a much broader rev range while hitting earlier as well) while also getting better fuel consumption, it's a not a difficult decision. Plus there is a lot of technology out there to combat turbo lag, like twin-scroll layouts or variable turbine geometry.

Posted by: DreadAngel Apr 17 2009, 05:58 AM
QUOTE (chillined @ Today, 11:15 AM)
The really shitty thing about NA, is that you're limited almost in all cases. Sure colder air and free-flowing exhaust helps, but COMPRESSION is what you need. When you raise that, you need to raise the octane of your fuel. Also, NA Tuning is quite expensive to match forced induction. A insanely good tune is very necessary, and good fuel. Not only that, but excellent head work and high compression is expensive to maintain.
But hell, I sure do love High revving NA's, there's none like it.

Totally agree with you there!

NA tuning, you can't justify the cost to match the output of Forced Induction. The lengths to get remotely close is impossible! Not all of us can afford the 15K build then to strip down the block every 10,000km to have it checked and put back together again...

NA tuning is imo about how badly you want it ($$$ + Dedication) and how much you want to sacrifice (trade offs)...

Posted by: Spaz Apr 17 2009, 07:29 AM
QUOTE (chillined @ Yesterday, 8:15 PM)
The really shitty thing about NA, is that you're limited almost in all cases. Sure colder air and free-flowing exhaust helps, but COMPRESSION is what you need. When you raise that, you need to raise the octane of your fuel. Also, NA Tuning is quite expensive to match forced induction. A insanely good tune is very necessary, and good fuel. Not only that, but excellent head work and high compression is expensive to maintain.
But hell, I sure do love High revving NA's, there's none like it.

Boosted engines already require higher octane fuel, so it more levels the playing field as opposed to disadvantaging you. And I highly doubt that a high compression engine is more expensive to maintain than a boosted engine, they both see higher cylinder pressure at ignition. All in all, it's probably a wash.

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Apr 17 2009, 07:37 AM
Also, keep in mind that driveability is also affected more so in the case of an NA. Like in the above example where you raise the compression ratio and the redline, sure, the engine can produce more power up top but down low, it's miserable. Just look at a stock S2000. Great power up top (240 hp!) and amazing engineering and hp/liter (110-120 hp, depending on year), but if the engine is spinning at anything less than 6k rpm, you really don't have much punch to do anything. This happens with a lot of other small-displacement NA engines that get tuned for significant gains over stock numbers, lots of zip comes at the cost of sacrificed low-end and mid-range along with your ears bleeding from the noise when it's finally making power.

Turbos, on the other hand, already add a lot of power and a pretty solid mid-range, particularly when it's a stock unit or at least an aftermarket one tuned properly. All I really need is 2500 rpm to really start flying by cars if I need to (or 3000 if I'm in top gear). At rpms like that or lower, the NA cars might have a slightly quicker initial throttle response, but turbos can kick in relatively quickly these days. Even a lot of guys with aftermarket turbos have them at full boost relatively early, so they're really punchy and very streetable. And probably much cheaper when trying to reach a certain hp target.

Obviously if you slap on a huge turbo if you have goals of 800 hp on a tiny motor, then you are going to have some serious driveability issues, but those are usually track-dedicated cars.

Posted by: NismoTime Apr 17 2009, 12:12 PM
"A full 460 lb.-ft. is available from as low as 1,950 rpm up to 5,000 rpm. Every throttle input is met with exceptional response and phenomenal acceleration."
"Matching the superlative performance of the car is the efficiency with which it is generated. In spite of the increase in power and torque, the 911 Turbo offers a further reduction in fuel consumption." - World Auto News & Reviews
user posted image
the variable turbine turbo from porsche biggrin.gif

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Apr 17 2009, 05:26 PM
^ And once they can mass produce those for the aftermarket at a reasonable price, a lot of four-cylinders will be completely deadly with these.

Posted by: MetalMan777 Apr 18 2009, 05:47 PM
Well, I just drove my friend's turbocharged and intercooled Civic. It was an experience for an all NA all the time guy (me, if you hadn't read my earlier posts). My engine's more than twice the displacement of his, but his really pulls once the boost kicks in. I guess I shouldn't have been bashing boost. It's a tradeoff. I just find that that loads of torque from idle is nicer on the street than a dump of torque at 3-4000 revs. The lag gets to me. I know you can set it up to minimize lag, but at the cost of top end power. Again, it's a tradeoff.

On topic with the thread, I'm more a fan of superchargers. They spool up proportionately with the engine, which is nice, and they can offer you as much power as you want. Plumbing them is a lot easier than turbos, which require a surfeit of pipes. I think they're much better on the street. On the strip, reducing lag is very appreciable. On the track, you shouldn't have to wait for the turbo to spool more than once, so it's a-ok there. Variable vane turbos are slick.

Posted by: MattW Apr 18 2009, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (DreadAngel @ Yesterday, 8:58 AM)
NA tuning is imo about how badly you want it ($$$ + Dedication) and how much you want to sacrifice (trade offs)...

Or if the regs say you have to. wink2.gif

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Apr 18 2009, 07:14 PM
QUOTE (Cactus @ 1 hour, 26 minutes ago)
Well, I just drove my friend's turbocharged and intercooled Civic. It was an experience for an all NA all the time guy (me, if you hadn't read my earlier posts). My engine's more than twice the displacement of his, but his really pulls once the boost kicks in. I guess I shouldn't have been bashing boost. It's a tradeoff. I just find that that loads of torque from idle is nicer on the street than a dump of torque at 3-4000 revs. The lag gets to me. I know you can set it up to minimize lag, but at the cost of top end power. Again, it's a tradeoff.

On topic with the thread, I'm more a fan of superchargers. They spool up proportionately with the engine, which is nice, and they can offer you as much power as you want. Plumbing them is a lot easier than turbos, which require a surfeit of pipes. I think they're much better on the street. On the strip, reducing lag is very appreciable. On the track, you shouldn't have to wait for the turbo to spool more than once, so it's a-ok there. Variable vane turbos are slick.

Much nicer post. Anyway...

Lag generally isn't too much of an issue these days, if you drive properly, i.e. staying in the right gear, which isn't too hard, given the powerband of a properly tuned turbocharged engine, whether factory or not. (Massive turbos will obviously have more noticeable lag.) Like any high-revving NA motor (especially ones with smaller displacements), there's generally a sweet spot in the rev range to keep the rpms at, and the same applies to turbocharged cars, except the sweet spot usually spans a greater range and begins earlier. So maybe you won't be able to stay in top gear at 45 mph and expect a surge of power if you jab at the throttle if you want to accelerate like you would in a larger displacement NA car, but all it takes is a downshift and you're moving. And when you're talking about high-revving, small-displacement NA engines, it might even need a downshift two gears lower.

The compromise these days is far more reasonable than ever before. The lag that you experienced in your friend's Civic is more than likely to be expected. For one thing, it's obviously an aftermarket setup (as no Civics come blown stock), and typically factory setups have more than reasonable setups that are a good compromise with minimal lag being a goal. I'm not sure what model year it was, but assuming it wasn't the current model, then it was probably less than 2.0-liters. Those engines from the factory are already peaky enough as is, with peak torque hitting higher and topping out relatively low (anywhere from 100-140 lb.-ft, depending on which Civic), so adding a turbo won't help its low-end grunt that much, though its mid-range and top-end will be significantly stronger. That's why the larger turbocharged four-cylinders like the Dodge SRT-4, Mazdaspeed 3, Subaru Impreza WRX and STI models have very little lag, given their larger-than-normal displacement for a turbocharged four-cylinder. However, the recent Mini Cooper S has switched from a supercharger to a turbocharger and not only has higher peak hp and torque than before but also a broader powerband, again thanks to improving turbo technology and excellent factory tuning, all despite the engine being only 1.6-liters. And then keep in mind that when cruising in top gear, it's going to drink fuel like a 1.6-liter (or however large the engine is of the vehicle we're talking about) when not in boost, whereas the larger engine will drink like a larger engine, though both have similar power with varied power deliveries.

Superchargers do have some advantages, but their overall gains aren't as significant as turbos, plus they will generally be less fuel efficient in regular, everyday driving while putting more wear-and-tear on your motor, since the supercharger is constantly working and boosting. While I realize that some reputable cars like the Audi S4 and Corvette ZR1 use superchargers, there's a reason why a lot of companies have ditched their superchargers. As I mentioned before, Mini ditched the supercharger for the turbocharged unit, plus Mercedes ditched the supercharged 5.4-liter V-8 in their AMG models for the NA 6.2-liter V-8, though a twin-turbo version of that 6.2-liter has been under development for quite some time. Even their flagship SLR McLaren and its supercharged V-8 got upstaged and put on the backburner by AMG's own twin-turbo V-12 SL65 Black Series, actually costing less money but yielding more power (670 hp) and torque (738 lb.-ft). Even drivers of the previous SVT Cobras would swap out their superchargers for turbos in the hardcore applications. And then let's not forget the plethora of fast cars that have been using turbochargers.

And again, the lag of turbos can sometimes be exaggerated, as there are plenty of ways around them. Stay in the right gear, and you'll be fine. Even when launching, whether on a drag strip or taking off around a track, if you launch properly with boost building, then you'll blast away.

Posted by: DreadAngel Apr 20 2009, 01:23 AM
^^^

Ding ding ding!

Combination of turbine sizing and a good tune =) Like any modification, your parts are only as good as their tuner =)

If a car has a potential of 100%...

Parts % + Tuner % + Driver % = % of the potential wink2.gif

Posted by: SiNNieMoN Aug 27 2009, 01:23 PM
hmm i always thought super chargers were good for the boost of power and turbos were for long distance speeds.

Posted by: chillined Aug 27 2009, 03:42 PM
QUOTE (SiNNieMoN @ 2 hours, 18 minutes ago)
hmm i always thought super chargers were good for the boost of power and turbos were for long distance speeds.

Your post does not make any sense. Sorry, but it really doesn't. The boost of power is supposed to be power gains? Yeah, Turbos are more efficient than Superchargers, they provide MORE power using the same boost levels. Long Distance speeds, I don't even know what you're talking about. I can tell you this though, depending on the course or usage of a turbo/supercharger, you can tell which one is more superior to the other.

Posted by: MattW Aug 27 2009, 04:58 PM
QUOTE (chillined @ 1 hour, 15 minutes ago)
Your post does not make any sense. Sorry, but it really doesn't. The boost of power is supposed to be power gains? Yeah, Turbos are more efficient than Superchargers, they provide MORE power using the same boost levels. Long Distance speeds, I don't even know what you're talking about. I can tell you this though, depending on the course or usage of a turbo/supercharger, you can tell which one is more superior to the other.

Wrongo buddy.

Superchargers are better for low end grunt, whilst turbochargers are better for top end power. What do you need in long distance speed? Top end power.

The boost of power he's talking about is the no-lag that superchargers have.

Posted by: chillined Aug 27 2009, 05:23 PM
QUOTE (MattW @ 25 minutes, 53 seconds ago)
Wrongo buddy.

Superchargers are better for low end grunt, whilst turbochargers are better for top end power. What do you need in long distance speed? Top end power.

The boost of power he's talking about is the no-lag that superchargers have.

Check again, I didn't say anything about long distance speed. And I don't need you reminding me what a supercharger or a turbocharger is. His use of words (or misuse) misguided me.

Posted by: SiNNieMoN Aug 28 2009, 12:24 AM
eh? so was i right lol

Posted by: impreza0109 Aug 28 2009, 07:05 PM
have you guys heard about twin chargers? cars with both the super and the turbo? =)

Posted by: Ayako Watanabe Aug 28 2009, 07:25 PM
QUOTE (impreza0109 @ 19 minutes, 32 seconds ago)
have you guys heard about twin chargers? cars with both the super and the turbo? =)

Yeah. From what I've gathered, it's a bit more technical. Honestly though, depending on the vehicle and engine, I'm better off with a Sequential Twin Turbo set-up.

Posted by: WRX DEMON Type R Aug 28 2009, 09:38 PM
I love the whir of my Supercharger.

And how my AM radio picks up the whine of the supercharger. LOL.

Posted by: MattW Aug 28 2009, 09:50 PM
QUOTE (impreza0109 @ 2 hours, 44 minutes ago)
have you guys heard about twin chargers? cars with both the super and the turbo? =)

Google/Wiki the Lancia Delta S4. Possibly the greatest rally car in the world.

Posted by: Ayako Watanabe Aug 28 2009, 10:08 PM
QUOTE (WRX DEMON Type R @ 29 minutes, 47 seconds ago)
I love the whir of my Supercharger.

And how my AM radio picks up the whine of the supercharger. LOL.

Most cars can do that. At least, in mine, it happens all the time.

Posted by: Steve Aug 28 2009, 10:16 PM
QUOTE (Ayako Watanabe @ 2 hours, 51 minutes ago)
Yeah. From what I've gathered, it's a bit more technical. Honestly though, depending on the vehicle and engine, I'm better off with a Sequential Twin Turbo set-up.

I know there is a kit for the Mustang where you can have both the turbo and a supercharger. I think it was called the Hell Raising kit.

Posted by: Spaz Aug 29 2009, 06:50 AM
QUOTE (Ayako Watanabe @ 8 hours, 41 minutes ago)
Most cars can do that. At least, in mine, it happens all the time.

I'm pretty sure that's alternator whine. I get it occasionally too with the aftermarket head unit. The stocker never did it.

Posted by: WRX DEMON Type R Aug 29 2009, 05:09 PM
Really? My Impreza never picked up an alternator whine, and it has an aftermarket head unit.

Vivio's got an Impreza's Kenwood OEM unit though.

Posted by: Mr. Shine Aug 29 2009, 05:19 PM
QUOTE (WRX DEMON Type R @ 10 minutes, 23 seconds ago)
Really? My Impreza never picked up an alternator whine, and it has an aftermarket head unit.

Vivio's got an Impreza's Kenwood OEM unit though.

My understanding of it is that it's often caused by poor grounding, so an aftermarket or replacement head unit is probably likely involved in the cause, but doesn't necessarily cause it either.

Posted by: Spaz Aug 30 2009, 08:40 AM
I at least know it's poor grounding in my case, I grounded it to the shifter assembly because it was convenient. And the whine comes and goes, so I'm sure it's as a result of the wire shifting around. Oh well.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)