dark_knight
Member +
@Farley: i hear you, but as i mentioned earlier in the thread, was looking more for a driver-experience perspective, not really the science behind it.. 
thanks though..
thanks though..
turbocharger vs. supercharger
- Thread starter dark_knight
- Start date
corofin12345
Member +
ya if ya strap on a massive one.. a small super charger would be a good idea for instance response.. the screw type super charger requires more torque i think.. if a 1 litre march can do it then a 1.3 starbo can
Gord R
Member +
ya if ya strap on a massive one.. a small super charger would be a good idea for instance response.. the screw type super charger requires more torque i think.. if a 1 litre march can do it then a 1.3 starbo can
Would you really get enough power out of a small charger on its own though?
whiteglanzav
Member +
there was a lad that did it and put it for sale on a 4efte and got like 150bhp at something like 8 psi or something
corofin12345
Member +
Ah right, other than response I dont see the gain over a CT-9 but that is hardly laggy! A turbo and supercharger on the otherhand
exactly what i ment and said.. a nissan march super turbo is supercharged and turbo charged..
corofin12345
Member +
would be way different anyway..
I'd say twin turbo like on supra would be better than a small supercharger and a turbo. The supercharger would consume some BHP and as said above suits well for big engines.
I don't see how SC is more economical than TC..... TC is sort of recycling your exhaust which otherwise just a waste... A SC gives you more power but takes power of the engine to run it - for instance I've read somewhere to supercharge the 600 bhp bently in would take 200 bhp just to run the supercharger and will provide just extra 100 bhp (well 300 but 200 needed just to run it).
I think Delta S4 was both SC and TC?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY--2UTzom4&feature=related
I don't see how SC is more economical than TC..... TC is sort of recycling your exhaust which otherwise just a waste... A SC gives you more power but takes power of the engine to run it - for instance I've read somewhere to supercharge the 600 bhp bently in would take 200 bhp just to run the supercharger and will provide just extra 100 bhp (well 300 but 200 needed just to run it).
I think Delta S4 was both SC and TC?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY--2UTzom4&feature=related
Last edited:
Yep its compound charged
For people that think Supercharging is no good for top end power or think turbo is king, ask yourself this,
What sits on top of a topfuel dragster v8 motor? Certainly not a turbo anyway.
Yep its compound charged
For people that think Supercharging is no good for top end power or think turbo is king, ask yourself this,
What sits on top of a topfuel dragster v8 motor? Certainly not a turbo anyway.
Well we've been through that - you need a big engine to have full SC potential - certainly not 1.3L engine.
hardcoreep
Member +
SC is also less thermally efficiency. This is why they cannot run high boost pressures. I've seen this set up before here in Jamaica and the the SC+TC car made no more power than a car that was TC.
dark_knight
Member +
@hardcoreep: to be fair to that comparison, did both cars have similar engine setups..? with the only difference being that one was t&s/charged while the other was just t/charged..?
Gord R
Member +
Its not just about making more power, its about gaining responce. Means you can run a bigger turbo without the major lag?
weeJohn
Lifer
There will still be lag on the twin charge set up as the turbo has to be spun up to speed by the exhaust gasses, the supercharger lessens the lag as its blowing air into the engine before the turbo is.
You wouldnt see how good a supercharger is until you have bolted one on a car, then you can feel the difference. Its just a power upgrade from the push of the throttle. You wont notice the extra load on the engine as the supercharger is designed to improve power and thats what you notice, compared to a turbo its completely different as the change in power is not noticeable through the rev range. Its just like driving a more powerful car, thats why they are used on high power drag engines, I am basing this on Trevors MX5 which he supercharged and I got to drive.
To reduce the heating element of the charge air, sometimes a small ammount of fuel is ran through the charger to keep temps down, it also aids in sealing the rotor of the charger and improves boost losses, but at the end of the day, compressing the air charge in any form heats it up.
You wouldnt see how good a supercharger is until you have bolted one on a car, then you can feel the difference. Its just a power upgrade from the push of the throttle. You wont notice the extra load on the engine as the supercharger is designed to improve power and thats what you notice, compared to a turbo its completely different as the change in power is not noticeable through the rev range. Its just like driving a more powerful car, thats why they are used on high power drag engines, I am basing this on Trevors MX5 which he supercharged and I got to drive.
To reduce the heating element of the charge air, sometimes a small ammount of fuel is ran through the charger to keep temps down, it also aids in sealing the rotor of the charger and improves boost losses, but at the end of the day, compressing the air charge in any form heats it up.
Gord R
Member +
Unless you compound charge and pull air through the turbo
But for sure ull never eliminate lag fully on a small engine like ours.Ok heres my 2 cents.
Superchargers give u low down grunt and nice poweracross the rev range but when your ragging your car about how often do your revs drop down to the point where your turbo has stopped spooling?
A twin turbo setup would be a waste on a little 4 cylinder. 2 of the cylinders driveing one turbo seems like a bit of a waste. Compound turbocharging might work (small turbo feeding air to a bigger turbo) but then your talking megabucks.
Superchargers give u low down grunt and nice poweracross the rev range but when your ragging your car about how often do your revs drop down to the point where your turbo has stopped spooling?
A twin turbo setup would be a waste on a little 4 cylinder. 2 of the cylinders driveing one turbo seems like a bit of a waste. Compound turbocharging might work (small turbo feeding air to a bigger turbo) but then your talking megabucks.
hardcoreep
Member +
Yes, both cars had similar engine set ups. I'm in Jamaica everyone here, except me runs the same basic setup. There are only two EP tuners, with one the favorite.
Guye
Lifer
I once had a run against a supercharged Vitz 1.3 running 12psi. I was running my ct9/ct20 hybrid at 12 psi at the time. I had recently installed and fiddled with the gain settings on the Profec B spec2 boost controller. As a result I was getting spool up at 1100rpm, a spike to 12psi by 1500rpm under 1/4 throttle and 12psi holding until 8200psi (Gonganl can confirm this). Because of investing time and money on making the turbo responsive I had better corner exit acceleration than the s/c vitz, far superior top end (I was constantly pulling away on the long straight)and all round better response. The guy with the s/c Vitz visited me the next day at work and could not believe the it was still a ct9 (that's what it looks like) on a 1.3 under my hood. He owned a TD04 Glanza before so he knew his Vitz had better response than that and should be faster through the twisty stuff than a larger turbine on the 1.3. Also a few years ago the older members would recall that many on this site proved you can get 180bhp-200bhp on a normal ct9 with the stock engine running around 15psi. These setups had no lag. The moral of the story is if a turbo charged car is set up for low-mid rpm response and power most likely the other guy will have to play "catch up".