|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums > Technical Discussion > My opinion on superchargers VS turbochargers|
|Posted by: 1.6L4A-GE Jun 12 2010, 06:09 AM|
| Let's see what these machines really are:-
A turbocharger, or turbo, is a gas compressor that is used for forced-induction of an internal combustion engine. The turbo increases the density of air entering the engine of a car. This creates more power. A turbocharger has a turbine which drives air into the engine, so it is not mechanically driven inside. A turbocharger consists of a turbine and a gas compressor on a shared shaft. Heat energy is used to make the turbo rotate which pumps air into the engine. This increases the power and torque of the engine.
The turbocharger's small size and low weight have production and marketing advantage to vehicle manufacturers. By providing naturally-aspirated and turbocharged versions of one engine, the manufacturer can offer two different power outputs with only a fraction of the development and production costs of designing and installing a different engine.
A supercharger is an air compressor used for forced induction of an internal combustion engine. This also increases the power and torque output of an engine. A supercharger can be powered mechanically by a belt, gear, shaft, or chain connected to the engine's crankshaft. The gases are mechanically driven into the engine without the use of a turbine.
Advantages and disadvantages of a turbocharger
It is very light
2)It is cheaper-Some cost a few 100$, superchargers cost 1000s of $$
3)Increased peak power-This power is useful when when need to go fast, to pass someone, or if you live in an area with mountains, the increased power can be helpful in climbing the steep roads.
4)Decrease in exhaust emissions-Turbochargers recycle the air used by the engine, which decreases the amount of fumes released into the atmosphere.
5)Turbochargers are generally quieter than superchargers-Because it's turbine is in the exhaust
1)Has turbo Lag-they do not provide an immediate power boost when you step on the gas. It takes a second for the turbine to get up to speed before boost is produced. This results in a feeling of lag when you step on the gas, and then the car lunges ahead when the turbo gets moving, or "spools up."
2)System that controls the fuel-to-oxygen ratio could malfunction-Might not provide enough fuel to the engine
3)Works at a higher RPM. (Good for higher speed challanges. Bad for drag races)
4)Becomes hotter than a supercharger-An intercooler becomes compulsary even for small low output turbochargers.
5)Difficult to install
6)Difficult to tune
Advantages and disadvantages of a supercharger
1)Does not have turbo lag-A supercharger operates mechanically
2)Easier to tune
3)Easier to install
4)works at lower RPM
5)Good for drag races due to no lag
3)A supercharger produces less power and torque
4)It is louder
I'd say that they are even.
|Posted by: SuperMazdaKart Jun 12 2010, 09:36 AM|
| Nothing that we didn't already know though?
Modern cars with modern turbos have little lag anyway. Often on boost by low revs like at 2000rpms, would have to be almost driving on idle to be completely off boost.
|Posted by: MetalMan777 Jun 12 2010, 09:38 AM|
| No, turbochargers are not very light. The snailshell in question might not weigh very much, but then you have to factor in the (often cast iron) exhaust manifold, intercooler, air and oil plumbing (you do want an oil cooler, air isn't going to cool those turbos). Superchargers only need a couple pieces of lightweight hardware, and often times don't use an intercooler. Then there's all the upgrades you need to make to tune an engine to take full advantage of a turbo. Turbo tuning is ridiculously complicated compared to the more or less linear action of a supercharger. For this reason, superchargers might actually work out to be cheaper. Turbo/supercharger kits for cars generally work out to be around the same price otherwise, so the cost factor is something you can pretty much ignore.
Turbos make less exhaust noise because they impede exhaust flow, much like a muffler. And speaking of exhaust flow, Turbochargers get very hot. Unless you have a turbo timer running the engine at idle after you turn it off, you're likely burning a small amount of oil. Assuming you drive the car more than once a month, this adds up to a lot of spent oil. Superchargers are therefore more reliable in the long term.
Turbochargers do not decrease vehicle emissions unless you frequently drive under vacuum rather than boost. They do not recycle air, they recycle heat. If you're operating under even the slightest boost, you're pumping more air (thus more fuel) through the engine and are creating more emissions than the identical naturally aspirated engine. Add to this the fact that most turbo engines are tuned to be very rich, there's no way these things are better for the environment than a naturally aspirated engine.
|Posted by: JaeMok Jun 12 2010, 09:56 AM|
| So did you just join this forum to argue about supercharging and FWD? Also theres already a thread for superchargers vs turbochargers. This topic has been debated on for almost 7 years.
Your signature reveals a lot about you.
|Posted by: Dr.Ift Jun 12 2010, 10:55 AM|
| Also,turbochargers' lag could be eliminated by using an ALS setup.That's why cars prepared for drag racing have 2 step rev limiters,and rally cars have ALS's.
With the technology and knowledge come this far,there are cars which are twincharged(Turbo and Supercharger),making them produce power from lower revs until high peak power points,with a stable powerband.
|Posted by: JKaiba Jun 12 2010, 11:57 AM|
| 1.6L-4AG your fanboyism amuses me. Are you sure you're not the guy giving advice in the extranormal vid in this thread: http://idforums.net/index.php?showtopic=41070
"Don't you know the civic is wrong wheel drive?" "She needs rear wheel drive to get superb handling dynamics." "...Mazda Speed 3- it handles, like a pig, because it is wrong wheel drive!"
About the same? When's the last time you saw a supercharger on a Supra or a GT-R...
An re: your sig; your infatuation sickens me, get a girlfriend.
|Posted by: Spaz Jun 12 2010, 02:02 PM|
| The LanEvo is the king of the mountain passes!
And what was that about manufacturers using the same internals for an NA version of a motor vs a turbo version? You think they'd actually put stronger pistons in an NA motor from factory? LOL!
And not being good for drag races? How many fast drag cars use superchargers? Only a small few that're also running a single gigantic turbo. The last time I had my old Talon at the track, I was pulling 10psi off the line on the 16G... without a two-step. I was pulling 1.9 60fts and hanging with 12 second V8s until the shift. I guarantee with the two-step and twin-scroll turbo on the Evo I could see full boost by the time the clutch is fully engaged. And you're trying to tell me that's bad for drag racing?
Dude, while you understand what they do, you've obviously never driven cars equipped with either, and therefore the driving dynamics of both just go completely over your head.
|Posted by: sideways Jun 12 2010, 04:50 PM|
| To the op
Too many generalizations to be accurate even at the best of times. Super charger tuning and turbo tuning are the same with any half-decent platform. Depending on the type of set up youre dealing with to begin with, turbos can be EASIER To install than a supercharger set up. And by NO means is a turbo set up "difficult" to tune, certainly not more so than a supercharged set up, and no more difficult than an NA set up (grantedt here is "more" to tune, it is by no means any more difficult). And saying turbo is bad for drag races? Come on now. Compared to the fastest of the fast, yes supercharger is better. But to say its "bad" for drag races is a far cry.
Also way too broad of a statement. Some turbo set ups are lighter than super set ups. and vice versa. Plenty of cars have a cast iron manifold from the factory. How much do you honestly think a turbo and some aluminum piping weighs? (I could easily lift ALL of my "turbo goodies" on my Z in a single hand, turbo, piping, intercooler... have you ever seen my intercooler? I think ive got one of if not THE biggest IC of any IDW member ) Does it add weight, sure. But a lot? Hardly. Of course they also make tubular turbo manifolds as well- so you dont have to sport cast by any means. And like I was just telling the OP, turbo tuning is NOT "ridiculously" complicated by any means. Why do you believe it to be so?
Can you elaborate?
Once again, a LARGE over generalization. Yes turbos are USUALLY there to add performance- but a notable amount of cars actually use turbo chargers to be MORE fuel efficient- You can find a number of cars on the market the use turbos that get BETTER gas mileage than the NA counterparts.
Yes turbos run rich, while in boost. Dont boost- and you dont need to run rich. Just a quick Fyi in case it comes up- turbos dont "need" to run a motor in boost. They can (And do) help a motor run in vacuum as well. This is actually how they help cars designed for efficiency get better gas mileage. Youre able to make use of the extra low rpm power and gear a car to run appropriately.
My 300+ whp 2.8 liter 240z with a coefficient of drag close to .4X was getting OVER 30 mpg on the freeway doing 7-80 mph up hill from socal to las vegas WITH the shorter geared 5 speed. I assure you the stock 2.4 did not do this, and neither will the stock 2.8 na.
To Dr.Ift Twin-charged is over rated and out dated. Its only done now for the bling factor of "oo its twin charged!" If youre going the spend that kind of bucks, a variable geometry turbo would yield vastly better results. This is how modern cars like porsche have nulled turbo lag to near nothing at almost any rpm despite running a decent amount of boost. Its amazing what changing the aspect ratio of a turbo can do. Theres no lag, no hesitation, no waiting then wham youre off- Modern cars with proper set ups go the moment you get on the gas. Twin charged had its time, in the 80s- but its hay day is long past.
How many fast cars use superchargers? Damn near ALL of the fastest drag cars. I agree with your notion however, turbos are not "bad" for 1/4 mile. But the fastest of the fastest are dominated by supers And for a reason.
I do. Its done more often than youd think- specialy in performance minded cars. An example everyone here should know about is toyotas first 20v the silvertop. Used the same internals (albeit different compression) ass the 4agze. beefed up crank/rods (It was the blacktop that got more "na minded" internals). This is not the first time theyve done this. Doubt itll be the last. I can think of other examples too Of course i can even think of examples of manufacturers literally throwing turbo goodies onto there NA engines (Ala MSM miata). Point is, his point (while not the best situation) is very valid and not as rare as one would think.
To everyone else
This kid is new. I give him props for TRYING to do something and be apart of the community. We were all stupid and ignorant at one point, but we learned. I see no point in shunning someone who ISNT being an asshole simply because the lot of you are so high on your mighty horses. Instead why not HELP him learn more. It says a LOT about certain peoples character when theyd rather laugh at the ignorant whos willing to learn, instead of taking the time to offer a hand. Its sickening and down hearting.
Back to the op- Welcome to IDW. Be respectful of the members here and youll earn it yourself. There are a LOT of knowledgeable members here with a lot they can teach everyone. Point is, be humble, be friendly, and have fun.
|Posted by: Möbius Jun 13 2010, 12:08 AM|
Brought a tear to my eye.
|Posted by: CrypticApathy Jun 16 2010, 08:04 PM|
|One thing most people forget to mention when they talk about SC vs Turbos. A SC runs off the engine similar to the way a accessory does (think AC system). It requires power to make power which is why you dont see them very often on 4 cylinder engines. They are to big of a burden on them to run and will shorten the lifespan of a 4 cylinder unless it was specifically designed to run one.|
|Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Jun 16 2010, 11:12 PM|
Too bad ALS shortens the lifespan of a turbo and is ridiculously loud... it's not meant for everyday use.
But its "peak" is relatively low, from a performance standpoint, so at this point in time, it's not ideal for a performance application and will take a backseat to a decently tuned turbocharged car. The twincharger application just allows good power across almost the entire rev range with decent throttle response, but you won't be winning any drag races or pulling out of a corner like a beast.