| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
Sat, 11 December 2004 13:40
|
 |
| chutz_pah wrote on Sat, 11 December 2004 23:55 |
feel free to correct me if i'm wrong as i'm only relaying what i've been told.
but my understanding of the two (difference wise)
is that the turbo won't kick in till around 3-4 grand, so that on a fast take-off, you have the first part of that power using your engine naturally aspired. (until it kicks in)
whereas a supercharger, whilst it's heavier and whilst it takes power from your car's engine to get it going, it does however kick in straight away.
therefore, if you aim were to take cars off at the lights, you'd assume the supercharger would be the go, yeah? nah?
|
you are right that supercharger kicks in from the beginning and heavier and stuff but the turbo produces more overall power, and mainly top end when its kicked in. now with the low compresion there is the lag at bottom rev range and thats why people go for a NOS squirt for take off
|
|
|
| | Subject | Poster | Date |
|---|
 |
supercharge or turbo
|
kdogg | Fri, 10 December 2004 00:22 |
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
ra23celica | Fri, 10 December 2004 00:39 |
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
kdogg | Fri, 10 December 2004 02:50 |
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
Rex_Kelway | Sat, 11 December 2004 01:25 |
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
fade-e | Sat, 11 December 2004 03:14 |
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
dimmy77_03 | Sat, 11 December 2004 03:20 |
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
chutz_pah | Sat, 11 December 2004 12:55 |
|
Re: supercharge or turbo
|
fade-e | Sat, 11 December 2004 13:40 |
