Close Topic Options

Swedish Opel Manta with Volvo 16V Dohc engine. Supercharger and a biiig turbo...

Pics:
http://www.hilmersson-racing.com/bilder/Bi...i/Galleri18.jpg
http://www.hilmersson-racing.com/bilder/Bi...ri/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/Fi...Manta_10,52.mpg
http://www.hilmersson-racing.com/bilder/Fi...innekulle_2.mpg

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

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.

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.

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

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?"

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

U did check the date on what u quoted i hope

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

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?

(THIS POST WAS REMOVED BY REQUEST)

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.

(THIS POST WAS REMOVED BY REQUEST)

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 Perry (top admin) pretty much pays for this place out of his own pocket, so any way we can save on space helps. Thanks

This post has been edited by sidewaysgts on Dec 3 2005, 04:09 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.

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

Dont most of the Single turbo Vee motors have the turbo on top of them, Ive seen some V8s rig up this way.

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.

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.