Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1

    Why turbo over supercharged

    What is the latest craze with the turbochargers over the supercharged???? To save the cost. I am alil confused on this subject. You get more horsepower out of the supercharger.


  2. #2
    Kiwi spanner handler
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Christchurch NewZealand
    Posts
    579
    +1
    13
    you dont get more with the s/c the s/c uses power to make boost causing parasitic drag at high rpm's as its mechanically driven by the engine,turbos use exhaust gas to drive the turbine making boost without dragging power from the engine so thay make more power at higher revs than a s/c

    Since turbos dont use power if you had 2 engines at the same rpm and same boost the turbo engine will have more hp at the crank than the supercharged engine.
    The only downside to turbo is lag as they need to spool up where as the s/c makes boost instantly. If top end is what you want turbo is the way to go bottom end i still favour the s/c
    Newer ball bearing turbos and anti lag ecu features greatly reduce the lag.

  3. #3
    Thilo
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    37
    And you don't have Sc clutch problems anymore. Further more, due to the missing clutch, you can run every oil, no matter if you prefere Amsoil, Castrol or what ever.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gonzales, La
    Posts
    2,145
    +1
    9
    At any given boost level, a turbo will make around 20 more hp than a supercharger on our engines. Turbo's still take power to spin them, but it gets the power from unused energy in the exhaust (heat) rather than taking it directly off the crank. Then, you can easily spin a turbo to make 17, 20, even 30 psi of boost when the superchargers run into drive problems way before then.

    Mike
    Last edited by engineermike; 03-02-2008 at 12:28 PM.

  5. #5
    Rompe21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Tampa , Florida
    Posts
    717

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by seadooingfreak View Post
    What is the latest craze with the turbochargers over the supercharged???? To save the cost. I am alil confused on this subject. You get more horsepower out of the supercharger.
    If you pay $2700 for C-kit you only get 16lb boost so for that amount money you built you own turbo kit and get up to 30lb of boost

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Dunlap, Texas
    Posts
    1,600
    +1
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by engineermike View Post
    At any given boost level, a turbo will make around 20 more hp than a supercharger on our engines. Turbo's still take power to spin them, but it gets the power from unused engergy in the exhaust (heat) rather than taking it directly off the crank. Then, you can easily spin a turbo to make 17, 20, even 30 psi of boost when the superchargers run into drive problems way before then.

    Mike
    Mike makes a key point--"on our engines"-- however on big V-eight engines--example nitro burning top fuel and funny car motors (which by the way are Chrysler motors)--the supercharger gives more power. These motors drive the SC with a belt off the crankshaft and are overdriven.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Sundance View Post
    Mike makes a key point--"on our engines"-- however on big V-eight engines--example nitro burning top fuel and funny car motors (which by the way are Chrysler motors)--the supercharger gives more power. These motors drive the SC with a belt off the crankshaft and are overdriven.
    thats way i did my own turbocharger system for my ski {the terminator rxp using the latest in turbocharging technology, heare some pics of the hart of the terminator rxp enjoy Hasta la vista,baby!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fotos terminator to brad 009.jpg 
Views:	63 
Size:	124.8 KB 
ID:	60235   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rxp kit terminator 003.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	80.5 KB 
ID:	60236   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rxp kit terminator 004.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	92.3 KB 
ID:	60237   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rxp kit terminator 001.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	111.5 KB 
ID:	60238   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rxp kit terminator 005.jpg 
Views:	51 
Size:	85.2 KB 
ID:	60239   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fotos terminator to brad 012.jpg 
Views:	42 
Size:	111.3 KB 
ID:	60240  

    Last edited by TURBO TECH P.R.; 03-02-2008 at 12:05 PM.

  8. #8
    305coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    cape coral, florida USA
    Posts
    2,363
    +1
    55
    just curious, whats the most boost these 4-tecs will hold stock, is there like a forged bottom end kit for them ? sorry for the ignorance im a yammi guy

  9. #9
    Website may not be suitable for small children WOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by Sundance View Post
    Mike makes a key point--"on our engines"-- however on big V-eight engines--example nitro burning top fuel and funny car motors (which by the way are Chrysler motors)--the supercharger gives more power. These motors drive the SC with a belt off the crankshaft and are overdriven.
    No true - the reason they go with superchargers over turbos is because the superchargers are more repeatable and lead to better consistent launches since the boost is directly proportional to rpm. And, when you only have 4+ seconds to get it right, you have to have repeatability. Top fuel rules prohibit electronic boost controlling and engine controlling devices. They must do the adjustments with slipper clutches, throttle stops, etc. No traction controll devices are allowed. No active electronics beyond monitoring are allowed. This keeps it a driver's game and prevents it from becoming all about money and technology (although, a top fuel program is well over $1Million these days). Because of this, a non-electronically controlled turbo would be darn near impossible to tune from track to track and day to day for consistency.

    Turbos can always make more power than SC's. They both produce power the same way -> by boosting the intake charge. The turbo does it by converting some of the exhaust heat, and the SC does it by stealing power off of the crank.

    Also, if you look at Nitro burning cars, they typically do a maximum performance run and have to be torn down ever other run or so. They are at a level now that they cannot use anymore horsepower. So for them to trade repeatability and precision timed launches, etc for another 1000hp is just not worth it.

    There have been several notable attempts at using turbos in top fuel racing, yet all of the them were plagued by difficulties staging and launching: either they would lag out of the hole or come out with max boost and fry the tires all the way down the qtr mile. It is such a fine balance between power and traction for those guys now, that they cannot trade any variability in the launch for more power. Plus, turbos are outlawed in many classes of drag racing.

    Besides extreme racing (like top fuel), can you think of any other engines that use SC's to make more power over turbos? Notice that the big rigs are all turbos. They used to be supercharged, but the manufactures went to turbos. Every forum (SRT-10, covette, viper, mustang, VMAX, Hyabusa, etc) that has many, many members doing all sorts of engine mods, the results always end up with the highest horsepower being produced by turbo mods. Just look at the results of this forum -> people are making more power with turbos.

    It seems like for any given enthusiast group it always goes in the following order:
    Cold air intakes; then ehaust mods; then cyclinder head mods; then someone makes a bolt on SC system; then eventually the turbo kits come out. Every single group ends up going to turbos to make the most HP. And in these groups, for some people, money is not an issue; they are just out for max power.

    Engineering wise, it is easy to prove that turbos are a superior solution. In practicality, it is sometimes easier to bolt on a SC than to modify exhaust system for a turbo, with all the heat issues, emissions, etc, and SC's can make pretty darn good power.

  10. #10
    West Texas RXP skoepp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    west texas
    Posts
    12,019
    +1
    149
    welcome to the forum

    ;That is amazing. Even a newbie can ask a question and get those kind of replys. When it comes to turbo or SC even clinton could ask the question and get alot of responses.
    Big topic, big issues, and alot of different oppinions.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Turbo vs Supercharger pros & cons?
    By mstennes in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-02-2012, 12:26 AM
  2. build up turbo vs. supercharger ?
    By breon in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-02-2007, 06:14 PM
  3. Why these over traditional prop boats?
    By jahkneefive in forum Sea Doo Sport Boats
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 04:20 PM
  4. Why never a supercharger?
    By wishihad1 in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (2-stroke)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 01:46 PM
  5. Les Cooke etc... Why Turbo??
    By WIslxer in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-21-2006, 11:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •