lagcharger vs americharger

who cares

>>14182056
>TRD
>Amerifat

they both suck and blow, just like your mom.

Turbos are fun when you hit the RPM's they hit you with full boost. Superchargers are only fun if they whine loudly.

NA if I actually want to go fast though.

>>14182056
I'm going with the super charged.

There is no point in debating because a modern turbo charger is better in every way, it hardly even lags, they keep spool from as low as 2k till redline, and that's peak power, superchargers don't even make peak boost until the engine makes peak torque

>>14182070

Wut

Roots/twinscrew: consistent boost. Easy install for a lot of cars. Heat soak is a thing. Less overall power gain.
Procharger: literally why
Turbocharger: no parasitic loss. More complicated install. More mounting options. More overall power. Less even power gain, you're gonna fall flat later in the power band or be waiting for boost if you cannot into gear selection.

>>14182078
>NA is fast
Lolnotorque

Nitrous because I'm poor.

File: is-this-nigga-dumb-or-is-it-just-me.jpg (31KB, 555x406px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 555x406px

>>14182094
>what is displacement

File: 1451466511019.jpg (45KB, 608x402px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 608x402px

>>14182105
>cutting your engine 30k miles short to "save money"

>>14182081

Please tell us more Mr. Science!

>>14182118
bruh, I gotta go fast now. I'll worry about the consequences later.

>>14182114
>what are high revs

>>14182146
>risking a huge ticket
>poorfag
It doesnt add up, in the end your costing yourself more

>>14182118
>pick up shitbox for $1200
>nitrous until https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyCzGa9-W1k
>torch it and buy another shitbox

>>14182150
Are you retarded? I just said NA large displacement engines have torque, now you're saying high revs?

Anyway fuck off and look at the coyote

>high displacement
>high revs 8.4k

Biiiiiiiiiiiitch

supercharger and automatic transmission

consistent and instant boost, no lost boost due to shifting

going to upset a lot of weeaboos with this post

>>14182189

And I bet you're giggling like a schoolgirl waiting for replies too. 2/10 for getting me to respond.

>>14182189
>he doesn't know about chebby no lift shift, 100% boost in a manual transmission

Educate yourself you ignorant coont

>>14182089
The fuck is a procharger?

I've seen some guy install one on a mustang but I still have no idea what they're meant to be. Are they just another form of supercharger?

>>14182189
they invented anti-lag for that purpose.

>>14182220
They have another name but I've forgotten it. Think what looks like a turbo, just belt driven. You get the worst of both worlds with parasitic loss and lag.

File: 2738856575_d2c7c1c02b_o.jpg (3MB, 2884x1660px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2884x1660px

I just love the way Superchargers sound.

Even on non-V8s that whine sound is intoxicating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU9Kv7zqeCk

S5S raptor was going to be Supercharged and it seems like it was going to sound pretty potent.

Too bad we never got it. not enough supercharged super cars out there.

>>14182220
>>14182231
Centrifugal Supercharger

>>14182220
A type of centrifugal supercharger.

File: scion-tc-by-cartel-customs-trd-supercharged-24-liter-inline-4-engine-photo-306502-s-1280x782.jpg (152KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1280x782px

>>14182220
Procharger is a company that makes centrifugal superchargers. Centrifugal blowers are basically belt-driven turbochargers. Vortech is another company that makes them. Pic related. A Scion tC with the TRD centrifugal supercharger kit. The supercharger kit was made by Vortech for TRD

>>14182084
OP called the supercharger and Americharger, then posted a pic of a TRD branded supercharger

>>14182226
>>14182219
>he fell for the electronic throttle control meme

hate to break it to you weebs, if you still have a stock intake you don't have a fast car lmfao

>>14182220
Essentially a supercharger in the form of a turbocharger, except driven by a belt.

Easy way of adding more power without the complications of a twinscrew/roots system or turbocharger.

Although its not without its issues, pretty much takes the worse of both worlds with laggy response and parasitic power drain.

>>14182189
turbo with automatic transmission
use brakes build boost before launching, enjoy literally rocket ship tier launch and massive pull through every gear

supercharger camt compete

>>14182219
and btw who actually gives a shit about late model chevy econoboxes

their turbos only serve to compensate for gutless engines

>>14182238
>>14182239
>>14182246
>>14182251

Cheers. Never seen one before the video so I had no fuckin clue what it was.

File: 2ec.png (572KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 600x580px

>>14182250
>>14182274
>Hurrr technology available at the most economic level of econoboxes for full no lag boost that's affordable
>supercharger fags btfo

>>14182301

congrats your no lift shift turbo gas mileage queen got you a whopping 60 horsepower to the front wheels

>weeaboos on life support

>>14182307
crank up the boost and that 60whp is now 460whp
u mad supercharger cuck?

Everyone who posted is a cuck
N/A is the best option

>>14182174
The z28 has 100 more hp/tq at every rpm than the gt350 lol, flat plane a shit

File: a.png (650KB, 725x719px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 725x719px

>>14182319
>hits 100hp
>drops valve
>understeer into a tree

boy, mom's gonna be pissed

>>14182393
Lol if it doesn't blow up first

>>14182411
The z28 doesn't explode you fukin meme spouting nerd, it's NA

File: 1451277873661.gif (297KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 500x281px

>>14182411
>Z28
>LS7
>ever blowing up
>not an LT4

File: epic_lulz.jpg (61KB, 600x582px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x582px

>>14182307
Turbo makes more power and torque than a supercharger ya KEK LMAO

File: fa5a078a13e5245ca945315885c4dd5c.jpg (59KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 736x552px

>>14182393
And yet the z28 is slower

Lmao like what reality are you living in, the chebby fag reality?

>>14182530
Against a 10 year old chassis...

Ford fags will cling onto anything

Turbos are superior to superchargers in every way.

Apart from the fact that you can just slap twin screws on top of an engine, in cars that have a clattered engine bay and can't be turbo'd.

>>14182189
>what is a pdk

good bait

>>14182488
Oh boy do I got news for you

http://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2015/lawsuit-chevy-corvette-7-liter-v8-engine.shtml

Ls7 drops valves like no tomorrow

>>14182089
that actually isn't true, turbochargers actually do have parasitic loss. since you have positive pressure in the cylinders when they compress the intake charge, you lose power, and the engine also has to work harder to push out exhaust gases, because there is a turbine in the way. The loss in minimal, but it exists. You can definitely see it by looking at fuel consumed per HP. A turbo engine requires more fuel per HP than an NA car, but has a much higher HP potential.
The More You Know

>>14183164
everyone knows that we just arent as pedantic as you.

>>14183164
>You can definitely see it by looking at fuel consumed per HP
link more than one example of a graph showing this.

>>14183164

You're wrong. A turbo harnesses waste exhaust head that it otherwise wasted. The amount of energy recovered from the exhaust by the turbine far outweighs the small increase in back-pressure.

This is why turbos result in a lower BSFC compared to a NA engine. provided you don't run richer air fuel ratios to keep the combustion chamber cool (most cars don't today).

>>14183193

*Exhaust heat

>>14183193
https://takemebeyondthehorizon.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/how-to-go-fast-faster-the-math-behind-turbocharging-part-3b-brake-specific-fuel-consumption-bsfc/

>>14183216
This proves literally nothing other that BSFC exists...

>>14183225
>>14183193
>>14183192

Yes, and it also describes how turbo engines have a HIGHER BSFC than NA engines. Let me quote if for you since you seemed to have read it.
" For example, in our last post I used 0.65 as a safe number for a turbocharged engine. Most turbo’d engines run between 0.6 and 0.65 BSFC while supercharged cars have a BSFC between 0.55 and 0.6, and naturally aspirated engines use only 0.45 to 0.5 Lbs/Hp*Hr. These are only approximations, but you can clearly see the difference between naturally aspirated engines and turbocharged engines. Turbocharged engines usually require more fuel to keep detonation at bay due to the increased temperature and pressure of the intake air. This is why a turbocharged engine uses more fuel per horsepower per hour."

File: turbo.png (986KB, 1116x412px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 1116x412px

What's the difference between these two types of superchargers? On the right there is your typical one that sits on top. But this other Vortech V3 looks more like a turbo to me. Is either or better than the other? Would the V3 still give a whine?

>>14183234
That doesn't mean it's less efficient, in fact the engine is working at its peak efficiency, so what the fuck are you on about. You can't have higher efficiency and have parasitic loss, you're confusing the concepts entirely with superchargers

>>14183234
>Turbocharged engines usually require more fuel to keep detonation at bay due to the increased temperature and pressure of the intake air.
This isn't 1989 anymore. That's exactly why the guy two posts up said "If you arent dumping more fuel to reduce temps"

Also you realize you just proved yourself wrong? That it's not the parasitic loss that causes higher BSFC but the safety margin from dumping extra fuel in the intake.

you owned yourself. gg.

>>14183239
the one on the left is a centrifugal supercharger, which is basically a turbo compressor, and instead of a exhaust turbine, it is driven by a belt on the engine. The one on the right is roots or screw style, they look similar on the outside and work on the same principle. The compress air using 2 lobed vanes or 2 corkscrews.

>>14183251
>>14183248
it also says because you have higher pressure intake air, which the engine needs to use more energy to compress. The efficiency most people see is because the engines that are turbocharged are also smaller, so they consume less fuel overall compared to larger engines with similar power at cruising speeds where the turbo engines are off boost, or at little boost. The turbo engines will only use more fuel per horsepower at peak power, where they are on boost and under load. There are plenty of forums of people talking about it. The fact is that the loss is very small, because turbos are very efficient, but you can't get more power without paying for it. You can't get this extra energy for free.

>>14182056
Why not both? Supercharger for low RPM, turbo for high RPM. Done.

If not both, just gimme variable twin scroll turbo's.

>>14182081
>superchargers don't even make peak boost until the engine makes peak torque
No. A Roots blower can make peak boost at idle.

>>14182174
>he thinks 8.4K RPM is high RPM
Come back when you're turning 10K+.

>>14182231
>You get the worst of both worlds with parasitic loss and lag.
You get parasitic loss, but not as much as a Roots/TS blower because a centrifugal is way more efficient. Even moreso when you account for the fact that intercooling (air-air) a positive displacement supercharger is hard anyways (unless we're talking about VW twin scrolls, which we should).
You don't have unbearable lag. They've got a linear boost curve right up to redline, which, while not as good as a Roots blowers flat boost line, is a lot better then a turbo's peak delivery.

Also, Rotrex is currently working on an e-CVT centrifugal turbocharger. Zero lag, instant boost, and the efficiency of a turbine.

>>14183305
Sorry but it makes a fraction of the power of a turbo at the cost of parasitic loss, that's not a good trade off.

>>14183234
>Turbocharged engines usually require more fuel to keep detonation at bay due to the increased temperature and pressure of the intake air.
Sure, if you run them without an intercooler. Which nobody does anymore, except in junkyard V8 turbo build with meth injection.

>>14183309
You're not making torque unless you're running formula v10s so who gives a shit

>>14183327
I actually can't wait for electric centrifugal superchargers. They don't add strain on the engine, and can be spun at max rpm at any time, since they are just hooked up to an electric motor.

>>14183336
the intake charge will always be hotter than a NA engines, since it is being compressed, even after it is cooled, and you are forgetting the added heat from combusting more fuel in the cylinder, and just generally making more power, making the cylinder temperatures rise, which is also what they are talking about. You need more fuel to prevent detonation, because turbo engines will run hotter in general.

>>14183327
You don't understand turbos peak torque and power efficiency of you're arguing that a supercharger can be more so, you don't understand the concept and principle.

A turbo is popular in motorsports for the simple fact that it is better, you have more running capability and tuning potential and the best power delivery over the widest band, modern turbos spool early around 2k and keep peak torque until redline, how is that not the most efficient power delivery method when every single type of supercharger has parasitic loss

>>14183352
well one could argue on a case by case basis. Say, I wanted some very low end torque, because I an doing an autocross with very little time between turns, making the supercharger more enticing, because you are maintaining a lower rpm and want more power and less lag(I know there is little lag already, but it is there at lower rpm). It also allows would mean you don't have to worry about keeping the turbo spooled while navigating the course. But I would agree that Turbos are probably the most versatile, and best solution to forced induction.

>>14182056
continuous variable length intake with 1 injector per intake valve and ability to block half intake ports and variable valve timing/lift

>>14183410
what you described is like adding the valvematic system, the TVIS system, and VVTI all in one... Plus a variable intake runner length, which I haven't seen anyone do yet. That is very complicated. Why would you do all of that?

>>14182174
SaaS and it's weaker than an LT1

>>14183420
to please n/a purists

>>14183471
half of those are great features to have on any engine, boosted or not. Continuously variable lift and cam timing are beneficial on all engines, and are amazing features.

File: Snapchat-8253794055406262539.jpg (145KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1080x1920px

>>14183339

>>14182114
>What is displacement+turbo/supercharger
Having a turbo does not mean it have to have a small engine.

>>14183677
but that isn't continuously variable, just like how vtec, and vvtli aren't continuously variable lift, but valvematic is.

>>14183420
>Plus a variable intake runner length, which I haven't seen anyone do yet

Pretty sure Mitsubishi did that in 80s

>>14183730
did they?

File: 1445524567795.jpg (202KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 720x720px

Engineerfag here:
Any combustion engine has a certain working point where it is most efficient.
Car engines they are more efficient at full throttle than at cruise speed.
So its more efficient to have a small engine and run it at high load than a huge engine on low load.
The problem is that you need a lot of different loads when driving, so can never keep the most efficient load.
Todays turbochargers allow to "scale" your engine to a certain degree. By adjusting the boost level you can keep your engine close to its maximum efficiency working point.
However, dont expect too much.
If you put the pedal down fuel will be burned.

>>14183900
That pic reminds me of nam.

>>14183900
What a load of fucking non-sense.
You aren't an engineer you're a first year uni faggot.

>be OP
>thread still up
>top kek

>>14183490
>motorcycles
> torque

Choose one faggot

>>14183423
Weaker? The lt1 LITERALLY CATCHES FIRE

File: FWXDKBHGB0JQNK3.MEDIUM[1].jpg (53KB, 620x422px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 620x422px

>>14182236
>related