| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Penrith
Registered:
February 2005
|
 SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 04:49
|
 |
|
Just curious guys...i am willing to spend big dollars modifying an ae92. Which would give me more KW's for my dollars...turbo or supercharger? and roughly what would 10k give me under the hood with an estimated kws? thanks...
|
|
|
Location:
Terrigal
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 04:53
|
|
|
Turbos are much more efficient than superchargers.
|
|
|
Location:
nsw
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 05:07
|
|
|
driven both supercharged and turbo ae92. go turbo for sure
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 05:21
|
|
Turbo for sure...
The turbo brings boost on as quick as possible...
Whilst it may not be making boost right off idle, it will bring full boost (and hence full power) on quicker...
The turbo can have boost adjusted by the flick of a switch...
Super charger is a matter of changing pulleys, harder, more expensive...
If you set the super charger up to be running full boost off the mark, you will need a bleed valve, therefore, the RPM of the SC is in accordance with the engine RPM, therefore, to make that HIGH boost at idle, you will be driving the supercharger VERY hard, a VERY easy way to over drive the supercharger and blow it to bits...
Turbo is way cheaper once setup...
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 05:24
|
|
Hi,
Get it supercharged. Nothing quite as impressive as a large engine-driven supercharger. However, they are better suited to more powerful engines - like top-fuelers and big radial aircraft engines.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
Toronto, Downtown
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 06:49
|
|
whipple supercharges give you the best of both worlds
low rpm boost and efficiency
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 07:08
|
|
| Kyosho wrote on Thu, 10 March 2005 16:21 |
Turbo for sure...
The turbo brings boost on as quick as possible...
Whilst it may not be making boost right off idle, it will bring full boost (and hence full power) on quicker...
The turbo can have boost adjusted by the flick of a switch...
Super charger is a matter of changing pulleys, harder, more expensive...
If you set the super charger up to be running full boost off the mark, you will need a bleed valve, therefore, the RPM of the SC is in accordance with the engine RPM, therefore, to make that HIGH boost at idle, you will be driving the supercharger VERY hard, a VERY easy way to over drive the supercharger and blow it to bits...
Turbo is way cheaper once setup...
|
what bullshit
SC;s are positive displacement devices. ie full boost is there INSTANTLY, since the SC is mechanically driven.
if you have a 2L SC running at 3:1 on a 2L motor, you will ALWAYS have a 3:1 pressure ratio, regardless of the rpm (relative inefficiencies aside)
bleed valve.... LOL, aren't bleed valves what ppl use to reduce the effective pressure opening a wastegate on a turbo system?
no point spreading mis-information here.
and if all you are after is kw. go turbo. if you want drivability and near maximum torque from idle, go SC.
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 07:44
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Thu, 10 March 2005 18:08 |
| Kyosho wrote on Thu, 10 March 2005 16:21 |
Turbo for sure...
The turbo brings boost on as quick as possible...
Whilst it may not be making boost right off idle, it will bring full boost (and hence full power) on quicker...
The turbo can have boost adjusted by the flick of a switch...
Super charger is a matter of changing pulleys, harder, more expensive...
If you set the super charger up to be running full boost off the mark, you will need a bleed valve, therefore, the RPM of the SC is in accordance with the engine RPM, therefore, to make that HIGH boost at idle, you will be driving the supercharger VERY hard, a VERY easy way to over drive the supercharger and blow it to bits...
Turbo is way cheaper once setup...
|
what bullshit
SC;s are positive displacement devices. ie full boost is there INSTANTLY, since the SC is mechanically driven.
if you have a 2L SC running at 3:1 on a 2L motor, you will ALWAYS have a 3:1 pressure ratio, regardless of the rpm (relative inefficiencies aside)
bleed valve.... LOL, aren't bleed valves what ppl use to reduce the effective pressure opening a wastegate on a turbo system?
no point spreading mis-information here.
and if all you are after is kw. go turbo. if you want drivability and near maximum torque from idle, go SC.
|
Non bull shit...
Full Boost is NOT instant...
The Super charger has to spin up linear to the RPM of the engine...
At LOW rpm, Full throttle, the engine is wanting more air then what the SC is suppling compared to at Full throttle on high RPM...
Boost still has to build up, but builds up more linearly then what a Turbo does...
As for the bleed valve, there are systems available (No bull shit) that you can over drive your Super charger more then normal, to make boost earlier, yet as it hits a specific boost, the valve opens, and starts to leak air out (just after the SC, so problems of dumping fuel are a non issue)
The problem there becomes, if you BLOCK the valve, Boost will build up heaps... IF the supercharger can hold togethor with the centrifugal forces acting on it...
SuperChargers are only able to go to a maximum RPM...
|
|
|
Location:
wangaratta
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 07:53
|
|
big difference in PD blowers compared to centrifugal ones. it is a completely different kettle of fish.
centrifugal blowers need large rpm to wind up and start creating meaningfull boost.
roots and screw type are more than capable of giving boost just off idle.
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 07:55
|
|
| Kyosho wrote on Thu, 10 March 2005 18:44 |
Full Boost is NOT instant...
The Super charger has to spin up linear to the RPM of the engine...
At LOW rpm, Full throttle, the engine is wanting more air then what the SC is suppling compared to at Full throttle on high RPM...
|
crap.
a supercharger is driven at an EXACT RATIO compared to crank speed. at WOT, the SC provides a DEFINED amount of air. the SC doesn't need to spin up.
EXAMPLE:
a 2L motor will consume (at 100% VE) 1L of air PER REVOLUTION.
if you have sayyy an SC12 (1.2L) running at 1:1 with crank speed, it WILL PROVIDE 1.2L of air per revolution. this DOES NOT CHANGE WITH RPM (except for inefficiencies)
an engine is an air pump, and an SC is an air pump. they are coupled mechanically.
this is why SC'd cars can have 80% of max torque just off idle.
| Kyosho wrote on Thu, 10 March 2005 18:44 |
Boost still has to build up, but builds up more linearly then what a Turbo does...
|
NO NO NO.. boosty IS LINEAR. it doesn't build up. the ratio is mechanical and the air provided, and thus boost, is the result of a mechanical ratio. at high rpm (depending on cams) the VE of the motor decreases, as does the VE of the SC, as well as the power required to drive the SC increasing due to friction, as well as extra heat generated by the positive displacement style of air induction.
| Kyosho wrote on Thu, 10 March 2005 18:44 |
As for the bleed valve, there are systems available (No bull shit) that you can over drive your Super charger more then normal, to make boost earlier, yet as it hits a specific boost, the valve opens, and starts to leak air out (just after the SC, so problems of dumping fuel are a non issue)
The problem there becomes, if you BLOCK the valve, Boost will build up heaps... IF the supercharger can hold togethor with the centrifugal forces acting on it...
SuperChargers are only able to go to a maximum RPM...
|
sigh.. so there are valves that change the drive ratio of the SC?
what you are talking about (but don't know it) is effectively a wastegate for an SC. the problem is that boost is not rpm related. boost is ratio related. to double boost you double the drive ratio. yes this does limit the engine rpm, but ONLY because of things like compression efficiency of the SC and (in toyotas case) the melting of the lobe coatings.
LOL, SC lobes can withstand a lot of centripital acceleration. ever heard of lobes breaking up?
SC's have a recommended rpm range which is due to their efficiency, same as for turbos. exceed that rpm and you drop the efficiency to a level that is unacceptable...
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 07:57
|
|
| boxh34d wrote on Thu, 10 March 2005 18:53 |
big difference in PD blowers compared to centrifugal ones. it is a completely different kettle of fish.
centrifugal blowers need large rpm to wind up and start creating meaningfull boost.
roots and screw type are more than capable of giving boost just off idle.
|
zactly, centrifugal blowers are basically a mechanically driven turbo compressor.
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 08:30
|
|
| Quote: |
The turbo brings boost on as quick as possible...
|
uhmm I know im not 100% on turbos but can you explain that statement???
as far as I was aware with my limited understanding of turbo theory the basis of turbo flow is centred around rpm, or really exhaust air velocity vs impleller design and intake side housing capacity.
soooo, effectively you need rpm high enough to create a pressure inside the intake side housing against the intake ports, generally speaking boost wont start to be created until a pressure differential has been reached, the differential wont happen until the impeller reaches a speed at which the pressure flow exceeds the intake velocity at atmospheric.
in other words boost WONT happen immediately as opposed to a SC which as Stew has allready pointed out is a direct drive on a mechanical level and therefore bosst IS instant.
| Quote: |
Whilst it may not be making boost right off idle, it will bring full boost (and hence full power) on quicker...
|
Im not sure this is right either, because the turbo needs velocity on the exhaust to even start creating velocity on the intake then it will not create full boost immediately or indeed faster, an SC has maximum boost in relation to cyclinder speed and charge instantly in relation to rpm
| Quote: |
The turbo can have boost adjusted by the flick of a switch..
|
you can do the same with an SC by turning the clutch on and off or using a bleed management system
|
|
|
Location:
Rosanna, Melb
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 12:12
|
|
Listen to oldcollas and not Kyosho.
I daily drive a 4AGZE. The torque is great, you can put your foot down at any revs and you take off fast. Boost does increase slightly throughout the rev range, from about 6-7psi at full throttle and 2000rpm to 10-11 psi by redline. Not sure why.
I have also driven friends turbo cars. They need some revs before they really make power (they feel just like any other NA car up until the turbo really spools up). But once they do they sail away into the sunset.
Turbo can give more outright power, but SC will give you great torque throughout the rev range.
In an AE92 a 4AGZE swap is simple and for a couple of hundred bucks you can get a big pulley and up the boost. But with your budget you could go turbo and get more power, but of course lose a little low range torque.
Good luck whatever you end up doing, there's plenty of info on here.
Hen
|
|
|
Location:
Penrith
Registered:
February 2005
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 10 March 2005 23:45
|
|
|
cheers guys much appreciated...probly go the turbo ey. thanks for your help
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 00:05
|
|
| Henn wrote on Thu, 10 March 2005 23:12 |
I daily drive a 4AGZE. The torque is great, you can put your foot down at any revs and you take off fast. Boost does increase slightly throughout the rev range, from about 6-7psi at full throttle and 2000rpm to 10-11 psi by redline. Not sure why.
|
a couple of things. by redline the Volumetric Efficiency of the motor is decreasing (and so will torque, since not as much air is getting in), but also the eficiency of the SC id decreasing. at higher rpm, the SC heats up the air more, but it still pretty much pumps the same amount of air per rev.
now, the boost you see is ONLY a measure of the air NOT getting into the motor!!  ie just because you have 20 psi doesn't mean you are getting 20psi into the cylinders 
so here, at higher rpm, the motor is not letting as much air in per rev, and the extra air that is not let in is also hotter, so it expands a little (well tries to) so you end up with a higher manifold pressure..
well, thats the way i see it anyway.
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 00:34
|
|
you know what would settle this argument..... who has a dyno torque curve of a 4a-gze from 1000rpm upwards????
I think i know what it looks like
for teh powahz - turbo is the way to go on a smallish engine, hands down. My 4agte might not be as driveable from idle to 2500rpm as a 4agze, but above that i will shit on a gze with the same amount of boost as im running (10psi).
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 01:53
|
|
| THE WITZL wrote on Fri, 11 March 2005 11:34 |
you know what would settle this argument..... who has a dyno torque curve of a 4a-gze from 1000rpm upwards????
|
Here is one which Dale (10 sec rx7) posted a while ago..
|
|
|
Location:
Rocky Mountains, Canada
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 09:59
|
|
I personally would rather a supercharger then a turbo. I found with cars with turbos (this has been mentioned) you need to get the revs up for it too really move. Although I have only ever driven one superchaged car (V6 Commodore) I thought it was very quick off the mark. So surely a 4A-GZE would fly off the mark as well. I have also driven a few cars with turbos myself and found the same thing.
But it's your baby mate you decide what you wan't. Turbos can be very quick also 
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 10:10
|
|
Hi,
A bit OT, but just for interest, the last of the big aircraft piston engines of the 1950's used a concept called "turbocompound".
The R-3350 (that's 3,350 cubic inches) had a two-stage supercharger and also three turbos. Each turbo run off 6 cylinders (it was an 18 cylinder, 2 row, air cooled radial). A quill shaft ran from the turbos and connected to the crankshaft via a fluid drive. Each turbo delivered over 160bhp. The supercharger required 400hp to drive it at 20,500 rpm. The engine could maintain 3,500hp up to 12,000ft altitude. It had an 80 gallon oil tank - dunno what that is in litres, but it's a lot.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 11:04
|
|
if turbos boost up instantly how come ppl are alwyas bitching about turbo lag, especially on a small capacity engine there is alwyas going to be a lag with a turbocharger.
|
|
|
Location:
Somewhere on a dirt bowl ...
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 12:11
|
|
Never know but Kyosho might have been getting a Paxton mixed up with a vortex with the forced induction things
But anywhat, River pointed out one thing. A supercharger uses power that could be going to the wheels (not sure but i think its around the 10% mark, no quoting cause i'm not sure).
Where as a turbo uses the waste energy from the exhaust.
Me, i love the wine of the belt thats driving the 6/71 blower hanging out the bonnet
While others prefer the sound of a Pepsi bottle being unscrewed at every gear change.
But dude its your call. Both have good points and bad points
|
|
|
Location:
wangaratta
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 13:28
|
|
| towe_001 wrote on Fri, 11 March 2005 23:11 |
But anywhat, River pointed out one thing. A supercharger uses power that could be going to the wheels (not sure but i think its around the 10% mark, no quoting cause i'm not sure).
Where as a turbo uses the waste energy from the exhaust.
|
this is the common misconception. turbo's aren't free, they still require power to drive. they are a massive restriction in the exhaust and have rediculously long intake plumbing, with many restrictions ( compressor wheels, intercoolers and such ). although it is harder to see ( or even gauge for that matter ), turbos, just like a supercharger, reduce the efficiency of an engine.
i haven't heard of any actual tests done to measure the exact reduction in off boost performance of a turbocharged engine over a NA engine at the same specs / RPM etc, but it is a fact that a turbo requires power to drive.
IT IS NOT COMPLETELY WASTE ENERGY!!!
and for the record, vortech and paxton are both manufacturers of centrifugal blowers, not PD blowers.
|
|
|
Location:
Somewhere on a dirt bowl ...
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 14:04
|
|
True N.A. motors use a savaging effect on the exhaust to draw out the exhaust gas and pull in the fresh charge, where as the turbo uses the piston to push the exhaust out and into the turbine wheel (basically speaking that is)
So, yeah, like you said its not entirely wasted energy on an N.A. motor and not entirely free energy on a turbo either. But a turbo can use it to a better advantage then an N.A. can.
|
|
|
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 14:34
|
|
|
Turbo's bring our futures destiny.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Fri, 11 March 2005 22:09
|
|
I dont see why there is an argument over this when a quick drive shows the difference in power delivery of both.Both rip.Go with one that suits you and what you intend to do. Both can make big h/p,comes down money,well thought out set up and a good tune.
And I reckon 10k should deliver awsome results either way.
|
|
|
Location:
sydney
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 01:30
|
|
I had this dilema a while ago. I wanted to put a bigger sc on my mr2 just cause everyone else had a tubo. In my case space restricted things so i went turbo.
At the end of the day i make some pretty good figures with my car as a 4agte and its very driver friendly so i cant complain.......Well, i could about the fact it doesnt have enough power for me but thats about to change so i guess im all good 
10k will get you where you need to be!
|
|
|
Location:
Rocky Mountains, Canada
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 03:37
|
|
| joeninety wrote on Sat, 12 March 2005 08:39 |
Both can make big h/p,comes down money,well thought out set up and a good tune.And I reckon 10k should deliver awsome results either way.
|
Yes... both can make big HP.
But this discussion should be about torque curve... as that is what really separates the two.
Roots/Screw/Whipple supercharged engines make lots of torque from idle.
Obviously turbos do not.
This is where superchargers win.
|
|
|
Toymods Vice President
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 03:56
|
|
True but big positive displacement superchargers require BIG power to run them.
Have any of you guys wondered how much power a 4 inch toothed belt can transmit? That's what race cars with positive displacement chargers run, or larger, and it's not uncommon to break them.
6/71 blowers running decent amounts of boost commonly take 3 figure power amounts to turn.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 07:13
|
|
He's right, the mechanical losses induced by a supercharger (especially roots type) are quite significant. Turbos on the other hand use waste energy in the exhaust, and whoever said it's the piston forcing the exhaust out of the engine and driving the turbine obviously doesn't understand how much pressure is in the cylinder when the exhaust valve opens. An internal combustion engine only uses about a third of the available energy produced by combustion, where do you suppose the rest of it goes? Installing a turbine in the exhaust is a good way to make use of some of that energy, which is why turbos have become so popular in recent decades. Not just in cars either, they're very common in aircraft engines and large diesels as well.
Having said that, turbos do have a disadvantage compared to superchargers - it's not possible to make use of exhaust scavenging with the turbine in the way. However, this is a pretty small price to pay compared to driving a supercharger off the crank.
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 09:13
|
|
here's a good comparison.
My AE71 4A-GTE runs 10psi
Chrisser's AE71 4A-GZE runs around 10psi also
I do a 14.1 sec 1/4 mile
He does a 14.5 sec 1/4 mile
I know which one i like
Thank you norbie for putting things into perspective again. To reitterate, turbos do pose a restriction to the exhaust and give very long intake runs.... but these factors have relativly negliable effect on the end result (<5%), whereas a supercharger does have noticable effect on the end result.
.
|
|
|
Location:
Somewhere on a dirt bowl ...
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 09:18
|
|
| Norbie wrote on Sat, 12 March 2005 18:13 |
Turbos on the other hand use waste energy in the exhaust, and whoever said it's the piston forcing the exhaust out of the engine and driving the turbine obviously doesn't understand how much pressure is in the cylinder when the exhaust valve opens.
|
What i forgot to add at the end of it was "figure of speech"
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 09:32
|
|
|
ok im drunk very...yes this early , at end of days turbo will,give top end powazzz but SC will give you powazz over wholemrangen consistanly until temp vs pressure equation, at the end of teh day tis all aboot what deliverty yoyse want from system youse install hic hic zzzzzzzz
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 09:45
|
|
Best explanation EVAH.
|
|
|
Location:
townsville NQLD
Registered:
February 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 10:03
|
|
1G-GZTE 
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 10:04
|
|
|
HIC (B)
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 16:26
|
|
After reading all that I have a question:
In a smallish sprint.. let's say.. 200m, if you have the same car but one turbocharged and the other supercharged both to the same boost level, will the turbo be able to catch up or will the larger amount of torque from idle mean the supercharged car will be quicker?
I was thinking turbo was the way to go but reading over what you guys have said I think I would appreciate more torque from idle.
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sat, 12 March 2005 18:23
|
|
|
I wonder why top fuel drag cars use superchargers instead of turbos?
|
|
|
Location:
sunny coast, qld
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sun, 13 March 2005 01:51
|
|
The rules don't permit turbos to be used.
IMO any forced induction is good. You should choose the one which suits the goals for your car.
As was said before, the large superchargers used on really quick drag cars need a lot of HP to even move them eg. IIRC the superchargers used on top fuellers require over 1000hp to turn them!
Obviously this means SFA on a street car with 1.6L displacement.
Just remember that you can always stall it up on the line to make boost with a turbo and effectively then have no lag. Auto's rule!
|
|
|
Location:
adelaide
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sun, 13 March 2005 02:20
|
|
|
re: apples v oranges
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sun, 13 March 2005 07:43
|
|
| IRA11Y wrote on Sun, 13 March 2005 05:23 |
I wonder why top fuel drag cars use superchargers instead of turbos?
|
Have you seen the flames that shoot out of those things?
There were a few attempts to attach turbos to them... They melted the internals of turbos off...
There is also the reason as some one said... The rules...
As for the person who, at the top of page 2 (for me) tried to quote me saying Turbos make boost from idle... I did not say that at all...
I said there was a lag, but, the way in which a turbo builds boost is VERY quick...
A friends car starts making boost at 2600, it is on full boost by 3400RPM, and the Turbo he is using, is a bit bigger then what he really needs as well...
Also, turbos are a LOT more efficient the superchargers, in the fact that, for the amount of EXTRA air the supercharged engine makes, it makes less power then what the turbo, with the same pressure running...
In an N/A and supercharged exhaust, you do rely on vacuum to try and suck extra gases out (you want the LEAST restrictive exhaust, but not over sized in diameter), yet a turbo, itself, can ADD 2-5PSi EXTREMELY easy, and that is when it is up and nearly on full boost...
Superchargers make a bit more torque down low to what a turbo does, but the moment the turbo spools, power and torque skyrockets above the Supercharged engine, due to the amount of power the supercharger is removing from the engine...
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sun, 13 March 2005 08:28
|
|
| Quote: |
In a smallish sprint.. let's say.. 200m, if you have the same car but one turbocharged and the other supercharged both to the same boost level, will the turbo be able to catch up or will the larger amount of torque from idle mean the supercharged car will be quicker?
|
all depends on launch and setup. I can launch my AE71 at almost an instant level of full boost and maintain that the whole way down 200m - which mind you i do in 8.979 seconds @ 76.74mph  My 60 foot time was 1.978 there too.....
like it was said before "apples and oranges"
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sun, 13 March 2005 14:11
|
|
| THE WITZL wrote on Sun, 13 March 2005 19:28 |
| Quote: |
In a smallish sprint.. let's say.. 200m, if you have the same car but one turbocharged and the other supercharged both to the same boost level, will the turbo be able to catch up or will the larger amount of torque from idle mean the supercharged car will be quicker?
|
all depends on launch and setup. I can launch my AE71 at almost an instant level of full boost and maintain that the whole way down 200m - which mind you i do in 8.979 seconds @ 76.74mph My 60 foot time was 1.978 there too.....
like it was said before "apples and oranges"
|
j00 bad
thx for the info
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Sun, 13 March 2005 23:14
|
|
Is this ae92 more for just outright power or drivability..
Coz 10k spent on a 4agze turbocharged would be pretty serious stuff into a ae92, maybe ya might consider what other aspects of the car will need to be looked at, handling etc while ur at it coz u got a really good response here
Remembering that it is gonna be a pretty high powered fwd, always a bit hairy, controllable but yea still fwd..
|
|
|
Location:
Penrith
Registered:
February 2005
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS...more things to consider!!!
|
Sun, 13 March 2005 23:47
|
|
Hey guys thanks heaps...this has been an overwhelming response and i am very grateful!
The main use for the car will be a daily driver so i guess not all of the 10k budget will be on engine mods obviously. Brakes and suspension upgrades will need to be factored in aswell as the gear box
I will be using the engine internals etc from a gze...will this be strong enough to handle the turbo?
what will need to be done to the gearbox if anything?
how much of the budget should i allocate to each area..brakes..suspension...engine etc?
what brrake and suspension setup would be best keeping in mind that this will be a daily driven car.
Thanks guys....keep the awesome info and ideas flowing...if ya got any better ideas feel free to let me no. i wanna make the best car possible
|
|
|
Location:
Penrith
Registered:
February 2005
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Mon, 14 March 2005 10:40
|
|
|
little more help would be appreciated guys...cheers
|
|
|
Location:
On your mum!
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Tue, 15 March 2005 13:29
|
|
| thu187 wrote on Sun, 13 March 2005 03:26 |
After reading all that I have a question:
In a smallish sprint.. let's say.. 200m, if you have the same car but one turbocharged and the other supercharged both to the same boost level, will the turbo be able to catch up or will the larger amount of torque from idle mean the supercharged car will be quicker?
I was thinking turbo was the way to go but reading over what you guys have said I think I would appreciate more torque from idle.
|
200m? I have seen supercharged V8s that can't beat my car to the 60' mark
See what Pro ke wrote "apples and oranges".
supa_rolla - GZE internals will cope admirably (but keep it real).
Brakes? I dunno, I don't play AE92.
$10K good starting point, but easily absorbed if you make hasty purchases.
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Wed, 16 March 2005 02:24
|
|
This argument is probably only second to "power versus torque" when it comes to being done to death. At the end of the day you get 2 deeply entrenched positions that will never concede ground to the other.
Consider this though. Turbos are a more efficient both mechanically (far less parasitic loss) and thermodynamically (heat the air less). Turbos are far more flexible (changing boost level, varying response, changing size) and the far greater range means you can better match your needs. In my experience they are much easier to fit as well.
In any field of motorsport if a turbo is allowed it's used and i've never once seen a competitive team go for a SC instead. Even in the 'low rpm torque is king' sports of rallying..... and dare i say it .....tractor pulling, turbos rule.
I've driven some nice SC'd cars, some did the job so well you wouldn't think of changing them. But in every case i'm totally confident that i could have got a turbo setup on them that would have improved overall performance.
|
|
|
Location:
On your mum!
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Wed, 16 March 2005 02:32
|
|
the rolling start tyre howl that goes with steep power curves (like big turbo + big boost) is pretty darn intoxicating too (even if it is slower).
|
|
|
Location:
Hornsby, NSW
Registered:
January 2005
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Wed, 16 March 2005 02:45
|
|
|
Everyone has turbo. Be different and get the supercharger. Looks like you already had your mind made up before you posted though.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Wed, 16 March 2005 02:46
|
|
|
be really different and twin charge it, or be even more really different like aston martin vantage early 90's and twin supercharge it.
|
|
|
Location:
SYDNEY
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Wed, 16 March 2005 07:10
|
|
For 10k if you spend wisely you should be able to get bulk KW, but do you want to spend all of this on the donk ?? Not sure what these do standard but i would guess around 60 at the wheels, for that money you should easily be able to double that.
I really think its personal choise on turbo or SC it depends what you are after, anyway do you really want to turn this car into a torque steering beast ??
Some things to consider
Most turbos will produce more power ie max power than a SC at the same boost pressure, basically its an efficiency thing.
Different turbos have different characteristics, typically on the same engine a bigger turbo will produce more power but wont be as drivable.
Not all superchargers are the same and they also have different characteristics, you need to do some serious research. There are many types for different applications.
If you can, see if you can take one for a spin (if you have not allready) that someone else has previously modified, this may make your decision easier.
If you really must have forced induction i would think a front cut from a GZE 93-94 levin should get you all the bits and be a pretty much bolt in job, computer, gearbox etc etc everything... may be the best solution.
Otherwise look up some aftermarket turbo experts and see what they can do for your budget.
Just keep in mind how you want to drive it rather than how many KW are on the dyno print out !!
Also you need to be able to put the power to the ground, still be able to turn, not to mention STOP !!
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Wed, 16 March 2005 07:41
|
|
The one time where i can justifiably see a supercharger being more useful than a turbo would be in drift. Especially a clutchable charger, where a simple throttle kick from charger off to charger on would put enough torque through the system to break traction. One thing i noticed from last weekends drifting was the number of big turbo cars which dropped off boost towards the end of a drift and the driver had to slip the clutch to get going again.
I think a GZE with an SC14 would do well in this sort of environment.
|
|
|
Location:
Hornsby, NSW
Registered:
January 2005
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Wed, 16 March 2005 10:28
|
|
|
Now you're talking. Who said you had to stick with the 4age anyway. I'm sure for 10k you could get something better to start with.
|
|
|
Location:
Tassie
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Wed, 16 March 2005 23:13
|
|
I read somewhere the even the general lee couldn't turn a top fuel supercharger !
"That's the fastest car south of the maisy dixson line"
I'd go turbo even tho i like the thought of a supercharger.
Compare the power figures of a 1ggte to a 1ggze.
I belive the gte has it in all respects ?
i know it take a little while for a turbo to spool up
BUT.......
would the power drain from the supercharger even this up on take off ?
I have no idea i've never driven a supercharged car before but it just seemed to make sence
|
|
|
Toymods Vice President
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 17 March 2005 06:59
|
|
Now for an answer to the underlying question of this thread.
If you have $10k and an AE92 and want to know how to spend the 10K to get the best possible car, my advice is to sell the AE92 and use that money along with the 10K to buy a car that goes and handles the way you want without needing huge money spent on it.
I know that's going to offend the corolla fans. I know I spent several thousand dollars putting a 3S in my AW11 and could have taken my own advice. The fact is engine conversions are expensive and if you pay someone to do them they are too expensive to justify generally.
If you are really attached to the AE then I'd say get it handling stopping and looking the way you want it to then figure out how much power you want. Decide what characteristics you want the power delivery to have then figure out what is the best method of getting those characteristics.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 17 March 2005 09:59
|
|
Agree 100%. For most people, engine swaps are not the way to go. For the money I've spent on my Supra I could have just bought a better/faster car, and if better/faster was the goal that's exactly what I would have done.
Remember if you spend $10k on your Corolla, it will still have the same market value as a bog-stock Corolla. Food for thought.
|
|
|
Club Member
Location:
sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: SUPERCHARGERS VS TURBOS
|
Thu, 17 March 2005 10:06
|
|
|
I agree totally. My daily is quite heavily modified, and if anything it just creates more headaches. Not only in the exhaust loudness department. Sourcing parts like gear shifter cables becomes a major headache, as do many of the other little bits. That said i now have a very very comfortable car which i like driving around. Just a pity i chose the SX Hatch rather than the Seca, because now i need a larger car
|
|
|
