Turbo or Supercharger
- Thread starter Concept
- 23 comments
- 1,015 views
- 10,081
- WFG9
I am not sure about supercharging, but I believe turbocharging is rerouting exhuast gases through a turbine which then forces either the gases into the engine or air. I imagine that the exhaust gases spin the turbine fast enough at high rpm, where turbo engines usually get most of their benefit, that it feeds the engine better, resulting in more horsepower than superchargers, but over a shorter rpm range.
- 10,081
- WFG9
- 3,823
Somehow I posted this in the wrong thread. I must have been viewing both:
A supercharger is a device that supplies air to the engine at a greater pressure through the use of a blower or an air pump attatched to the engines intake system.
A turbo charger is a turbine powered by the exhaust of an engine that supplies air under high pressure to the engine.
That's as I understand both of them anyway. I could be off a little.
A supercharger is a device that supplies air to the engine at a greater pressure through the use of a blower or an air pump attatched to the engines intake system.
A turbo charger is a turbine powered by the exhaust of an engine that supplies air under high pressure to the engine.
That's as I understand both of them anyway. I could be off a little.
- 28
That article is pretty informative. Here is some more:
The article did not expand on this enough: A supercharger is driven off of a belt from the engine, but the power it takes to operate is minimal, as well as the stress it puts on the engine (compared to a turbo)...
Some benefits of supercharging:
Power-on is instantaneous as the supercharger spins accordingly to engine speed. Because of this, there is no lag that is associated with a turbo. (A turbo takes a bit to spool up from exhaust pressure, i.e. you have to gas it to really get it. The power is usually only available at high-rpm.) A supercharger has a very smooth and linear action, and increase overall torque greatly. There is very low maintainence as it does not spin as fast as a turbo or generate nearly as much heat. More boost can be simply "dialed-in" from a cockpit knob.
Some benefits of turbocharging:
Horsepower is increased significantly because of high boost. If one can employ left-foot braking, they can keep the accelerator, and consequently the turbo, in its prime power range for maximum HP. Turbos can be upgraded easily, as well as become much more efficient with simple intercooler upgrades. Customization-potential is great. Turbo-analysis kits, gauges, etc. can be mounted in the cockpit for wow-factor alone. And, god damn do wastegates sound good.
As you can see, it is really a logistics issue... A low-torque V6 benefits from a $5000 turbo upgrade as much as a high-torque V8 benefits from a $3500 supercharger. There are a few smaller supercharged engines of note: Mercedes employs a lot. There are also some insanely-turbocharged V8s (Read about the Lingenfelter Corvette). In general, however, smaller engines usually get turbo'd and larger ones get fit with superchargers...
They are both great approaches to more power (along with increasing displacement, of course).
I used to have a base 1995 Chevrolet Camaro Z28, six-speed. Stock HP/Torque was 275/325. Quite a formidable car. But, I upgraded a few things
:
- G2 Motorsports Cold Air Intake
- Ported and Polished heads
- Hypertech Power Programmer (chip)
- MSD Ignition
- Borla Exhaust
- Paxton Supercharger kit (w/ new seals, rings, and other over-my-head internal ****s)
- 17-inch SS rims.
- Eibach springs
- Koni shocks
- Dyno'd at 445HP!
- Total cost of car + upgrades: $27,445
You can't beat that! AT ALL.
However, my good friend from high-school had a 1996 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX (turbo). A Bad mother****er stock, but a bit anemic. The driveline could handle much more... He proceded to get:
- Cold air intake
- Some rice-exhaust
- Chip
- HKS turbo upgrade (expensive) w/ all kinds of cool gauges for the interior + Intercooler upgrade
- New cams
- Upgraded pistons
- Extrude-Honed all intake side engine internals
- Rice-stickers
- Nice-ass 17" rims
- Never dyno'd, but estimated by his shop to be about 340hp... FROM A 2.0-liter ENGINE.
- Total cost: $32,000
Now this car was fast as hell!
When we would race, I would win drags, and usually autocrossing. But, it was always very very very close.
Just goes to show you that both super- and turbo-charging is very effective. God those were fun days (we both had to eventually sell the cars as we got older, and more practical
)
The article did not expand on this enough: A supercharger is driven off of a belt from the engine, but the power it takes to operate is minimal, as well as the stress it puts on the engine (compared to a turbo)...
Some benefits of supercharging:
Power-on is instantaneous as the supercharger spins accordingly to engine speed. Because of this, there is no lag that is associated with a turbo. (A turbo takes a bit to spool up from exhaust pressure, i.e. you have to gas it to really get it. The power is usually only available at high-rpm.) A supercharger has a very smooth and linear action, and increase overall torque greatly. There is very low maintainence as it does not spin as fast as a turbo or generate nearly as much heat. More boost can be simply "dialed-in" from a cockpit knob.
Some benefits of turbocharging:
Horsepower is increased significantly because of high boost. If one can employ left-foot braking, they can keep the accelerator, and consequently the turbo, in its prime power range for maximum HP. Turbos can be upgraded easily, as well as become much more efficient with simple intercooler upgrades. Customization-potential is great. Turbo-analysis kits, gauges, etc. can be mounted in the cockpit for wow-factor alone. And, god damn do wastegates sound good.
As you can see, it is really a logistics issue... A low-torque V6 benefits from a $5000 turbo upgrade as much as a high-torque V8 benefits from a $3500 supercharger. There are a few smaller supercharged engines of note: Mercedes employs a lot. There are also some insanely-turbocharged V8s (Read about the Lingenfelter Corvette). In general, however, smaller engines usually get turbo'd and larger ones get fit with superchargers...
They are both great approaches to more power (along with increasing displacement, of course).
I used to have a base 1995 Chevrolet Camaro Z28, six-speed. Stock HP/Torque was 275/325. Quite a formidable car. But, I upgraded a few things
:- G2 Motorsports Cold Air Intake
- Ported and Polished heads
- Hypertech Power Programmer (chip)
- MSD Ignition
- Borla Exhaust
- Paxton Supercharger kit (w/ new seals, rings, and other over-my-head internal ****s)
- 17-inch SS rims.
- Eibach springs
- Koni shocks
- Dyno'd at 445HP!
- Total cost of car + upgrades: $27,445
You can't beat that! AT ALL.
However, my good friend from high-school had a 1996 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX (turbo). A Bad mother****er stock, but a bit anemic. The driveline could handle much more... He proceded to get:
- Cold air intake
- Some rice-exhaust
- Chip
- HKS turbo upgrade (expensive) w/ all kinds of cool gauges for the interior + Intercooler upgrade
- New cams
- Upgraded pistons
- Extrude-Honed all intake side engine internals
- Rice-stickers
- Nice-ass 17" rims
- Never dyno'd, but estimated by his shop to be about 340hp... FROM A 2.0-liter ENGINE.
- Total cost: $32,000
Now this car was fast as hell!
When we would race, I would win drags, and usually autocrossing. But, it was always very very very close.
Just goes to show you that both super- and turbo-charging is very effective. God those were fun days (we both had to eventually sell the cars as we got older, and more practical
)
- 152
I think the differences have been pretty much well stated here, but I'll through my hat in the ring here:
Turbocharging
Turbos work by the use of exhaust gases being used to force feed the engine air into it, which is matched by the ECU with increased fueling, and giving greater power. The power boost is not instantaenous, so you will have to wait for the engine to reach a point where the exhaust gases are in such a volume as to power the turbine. The time difference is referred to as turbo lag and can be vicious where the car has a turbo which takes time to get up to pressure, but provides a massive jump in bhp;n be warned lag can be lethal on corners, my friends wrecked Saab 900 Turbo pays testament to that
Supercharging
Works by way of a belt running off the engine and is thus working as long as the engine is. Improves torque as much as it does power, and is really good in the mid range. Works well on cars such as VTEC cars, where the engine already has a power 'boost' in the tops, but you could do with some more power in low to mids. Improves acceleration as well as top speed, and places less stress on the car as it is a much more subtle increase.
NB
You can actually run both of these together. It is known as compound charging and was actually carried out on the Nissan Micra Super Turbo (remember them from GT1 and GT2? 100bhp+ from a 1 litre engine!)
Turbocharging
Turbos work by the use of exhaust gases being used to force feed the engine air into it, which is matched by the ECU with increased fueling, and giving greater power. The power boost is not instantaenous, so you will have to wait for the engine to reach a point where the exhaust gases are in such a volume as to power the turbine. The time difference is referred to as turbo lag and can be vicious where the car has a turbo which takes time to get up to pressure, but provides a massive jump in bhp;n be warned lag can be lethal on corners, my friends wrecked Saab 900 Turbo pays testament to that
Supercharging
Works by way of a belt running off the engine and is thus working as long as the engine is. Improves torque as much as it does power, and is really good in the mid range. Works well on cars such as VTEC cars, where the engine already has a power 'boost' in the tops, but you could do with some more power in low to mids. Improves acceleration as well as top speed, and places less stress on the car as it is a much more subtle increase.
NB
You can actually run both of these together. It is known as compound charging and was actually carried out on the Nissan Micra Super Turbo (remember them from GT1 and GT2? 100bhp+ from a 1 litre engine!)
Good observation, Andy. And for a little history for you all, this VTEC stuff has got to end. People act like it's so special as an elite type of engine. Most of you know this, but for people like Viperconcept, it stands for variable valve timing and electronic lift control. Really complicated process, but basically it makes cars feel like they have a more narrow powerband when the vtec kicks in in the high rpm ranges. For all you people out there with Vtec stickers on your windshield, etc., my 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT had it, but it was called a VTC gear. Essentially the same thing only I think Nissan did a better job when they came out with it, in 1989, than Honda did in 1994. But there's one difference. Nissan didn't brag about it and put emblems up all over the place. Just food for thought.
- 452
It really is a remarkable system when you think about it, and its not complicated at all. you have camshafts with twice as many lifters as you need, You use one set under a certain engine speed and the other set when you get past it. Very cool.
I think the VTC gear was only the exhaust cam timing. They had to drop it because of the OBD-2 stuff. It was dumping lots of hydrocarbons that it didnt need to be. The Honda system actually improved emissions. Like I said, neat stuff.
- 291
Some of your smaller turbos actually are as quick to respond as a Roots blower, or quicker. Myself, I'm looking at a small-trim T3 that'll spool up around 2500 RPM.
And to whoever thinks that the centrifugal supercharger, with its total lack of low-end boost (therefore power), is a GOOD idea is either smokin' crack or drives a Honda which can't perform below 6000 RPM anyways.
And to whoever thinks that the centrifugal supercharger, with its total lack of low-end boost (therefore power), is a GOOD idea is either smokin' crack or drives a Honda which can't perform below 6000 RPM anyways.
- 1,879
only problem wit my car is u can't put a turbo, NOS, or a supercharger on it!!!!
BTW, i drive a 99 Acura TL
BTW, i drive a 99 Acura TL
- 1,879
ever sat in a car with NOS????
i have!! my friend has an Integra wit NOS in it, flip the switch and BOOM!!!! +75 ponies at the flip of a switch!!!
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
i have!! my friend has an Integra wit NOS in it, flip the switch and BOOM!!!! +75 ponies at the flip of a switch!!!
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
- 13
try a 70' camaro with a 150 shot of Nos!
Good Timez!!
Good Timez!!
The difference is quite simple, A Supercharger is any source of forced induction that is powered by mechanical force. If it has a belt around the main pulley, or the AC or anything along those lines it's a Supercharger, a Turbocharger is powered by the exhaust escaping the car. The exhaust spins a "fan" inside the exhaust housing which causes an adjacent fan to spin, which sucks air from the outside, and pushes it into the intercooler &/Or throttle body.
A Supercharger isn't a value'd 4 cylinder product because it takes more relative power from the engine than it would a V8.
ANYWAY
RiceRocket, a 75-Shot in a Acura integra isn't crap. He's probably getting about 40HP more to the wheels, which is a result of poor tuning, or a semi-stock car. As far as your car goes, yes you can supercharge it. You have a 3.2TL do you not? well the engine is a C32, which is also found in another honda car, *cough NSX cough*. Not all NSX parts will fit, but i'm pretty damn sure the Supercharger will. Might not clear the hood though, if not you have PLENTY of damn room for a turbo, or even a twin turbo setup considering you have 255HP going through the V6 that should be more than enough exhaust pressure to spool 2 big16G's or 03/04's
A Supercharger isn't a value'd 4 cylinder product because it takes more relative power from the engine than it would a V8.
ANYWAY
RiceRocket, a 75-Shot in a Acura integra isn't crap. He's probably getting about 40HP more to the wheels, which is a result of poor tuning, or a semi-stock car. As far as your car goes, yes you can supercharge it. You have a 3.2TL do you not? well the engine is a C32, which is also found in another honda car, *cough NSX cough*. Not all NSX parts will fit, but i'm pretty damn sure the Supercharger will. Might not clear the hood though, if not you have PLENTY of damn room for a turbo, or even a twin turbo setup considering you have 255HP going through the V6 that should be more than enough exhaust pressure to spool 2 big16G's or 03/04's
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
Turbo has the capability of producing much more power, even if only at higer revs, as compared to a supercharger which is best in the midrange. In a test I read in a magazine, two same cars were tested where one was turbo'ed, and the other supercharged. The power difference wasnt very great ( low psi on the turbo ), but the turbo constantly beat out the supercharger in 0-60, 1/4 mile, top speed. Normally turbo is the way to go if you want a rocket type car, but in everyday driving, a good supercharger would prolly be better.
- 5,071
Today a lot of cars has low pressure-turbos. My parents VW 1.8t has 150 hp and it produces it's best torque in a wide range, from 1800 rpm to 4000 or something. Only at low rpms 1000-1400 does it feel weak and I guess it's right there the difference is from a SC/NA. Otherwise it has a barely noticable increase in power that sets in at 3000-3500 rpm.
