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
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.
>>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
>>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
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."
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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?
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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.