Are superchargers just relics nowadays? It seems like everyone

>>13817094
>It seems like everyone is in agreement that turbos are better all around.
modern turbos are

yes

inb4 MUUUH LAG

File: Rimac Concept One (3).jpg (317KB, 1260x575px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1260x575px

Are internal combustion engines just relics nowadays?

It seems like everyone is in agreement that electric motors are better all around.

>>13817117
they are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px8qdgWW9As

>>13817117

They are. The only issue is the inconvenience of long distance driving. As soon as electric cars can be refueled in a quick and simple fashion like their petroleum counterparts, ICEs will be a fucking relic.

>>13817151

Will race car drivers have to start wearing anti-g suits to prevent passing out?

>>13817094
No.
Superchargers still have their place.

Modern emission standard pretty much require a turbocharger.

No matter how much you guys delude yourselves, turbos have lag and restrict exhaust flow.
They are an engineering crutch at best. Really that exhaust energy should be put directly back into the crank instead of wasted pushing more air into the engine.

>>13817253
>turbos have lag and restrict exhaust flow.
yeah maybe if we were still in 1978
modern exhaust driven air compressors are just better than belt driven ones

>>13817253
>Modern emission standard pretty much require a turbocharger.

what am I even reading here

>>13817293
Unspooled turbos are basically n/a engines, and emissions regulations loves n/a. Belt-driven superchargers make boost at all times, and is thus harder to get into spec with emissions regulations.

Basically if it weren't for emissions regulations, superchargers would still be a thing.

>>13817316
nicely meme'd, friend!

>>13817338
thx desu

>>13817316
>what is a boost bypass valve?

>>13817281
If this were true than the turbo fags wouldn't get keked literally every year in tire restricted race classes like x275.

>>13817352
Cant really argue with that.

>>13817352
>turbocharged cars getting keked by superhcargers

outside of drag racing faggotry, that has literally never happened

>>13817316
>Belt-driven superchargers make boost at all times
>I just spout shit from my ass like it's fact

File: image.jpg (74KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x1136px

>>13817352
Reminder of the caliber of knowledge this cunt posts with

reminder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyeotHRZ-XI

>>13817253
>Really that exhaust energy should be put directly back into the crank instead of wasted pushing more air into the engine.
How do you propose to do that? You could strap a sterling engine onto the exhaust which can run between the temperature differential between the exhaust and open air, but the power you extract is going to be pretty minimal at the cost of adding 500 lbs of machinery and figuring out how to effectively couple two engines together. With a turbo you can reclaim some of the heat normally lost through exhaust in a much smaller and simpler package.

>>13817432
>hp/displacement
>a thing
>ever

you're barking up the wrong tree if you want sympathy from me, retard

>>13817493
Turbo compounding.

File: 657657357.jpg (3KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 160x160px

>>13817527
m8

Superchargers are nice if you want a more linear torque curve. Turbo is good for more power if you don't mind having it not be there early or later on in the torque curve.

>>13817527
Everyone cares about power density you retard.

>>13817094
Not quite everyone. American muscle tends to be supercharged or NA as a rule, and Jaguar still uses supercharged V8s and V6s.

>>13817544
Are you limited by displacement where you live or something?

File: PTF7XHG.jpg (55KB, 878x814px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 878x814px

>>13817253
>Really that exhaust energy should be put directly back into the crank instead of wasted pushing more air into the engine.
that is retarded, unless you had some sort of transmission, the turbo would only be able to spool at the same speed as the crank, as opposed to a turbo that spins 10 or 20 times faster and produces more power than a turbo connected to the crank would ever make

even with a transmission it would be incredibly retarded

>>13817540
And superchargers are vulgar.

>>13817544
Everybody=people with tiny low output engines?(yuro land)

>>13817566
If I see a 7.2 with 150hp I know its shit.
If I see a 1.3 with 400hp I know it'll shit itself.

Ain't rocket surgery

>>13817448

this should be stickied

>>13817448
Tom Nelson is such a cunt
Would love to play with big boy toys all day

>>13817656
Ok, within reason I guess it's a thing.

>>13817117
How would one gain more hp in an electric motor?

>>13817771
make it lighter and spin it faster

>>13817780
What do you mean by spin faster? Just curious.

>>13817771
Advance the ignition timing

>>13817791
well spin it faster
literally

start here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4texz0Gn7cw

>>13817117
The motors themselves ARE better, but the batteries need catching up to the needs of driving. A range of 100-150 miles with an 8-10 hour recharge time is really whats holding them back far more than anything having to do with power delivery or reliability. You figure out even one of the those two problems and you'll see electrics becoming far more widespread.

>>13817493

its a legit thing and actually does work pretty well, but as you move towards the power/efficiency endpoint of the design you realise you've just made a slightly shitty jet engine with an unnecessary piston engine bolted to it. they're also best for applications where they will get fairly constant revs rather than the up/down of driving a car.

but anyway, as far as lag goes for turbochargers we can easily fill in those holes in the power band with electrical systems nowadays. it's a complete non-issue for anyone who doesn't still live in the 80s.

>>13817822
we just need battery swap stations

>>13817826
Probably won't happen. You'd need car companies to standardize battery packs to an extent, as well as design the car and station to accept a quick swap setup. Even after all that, you'd need to stock a large amount of enormously expensive batteries that you'd have to be willing to trade away for ones that you take a gamble on taking in if it doesn't work. It's a tough sell.

>>13817838
that is exactly the problem

you could probably like, buy a set of batteries only for yourself, and store them at a single station. that way you are responsable for your batteries, but if you are not able to go to that station you'd be screwed

which is why hybrids are best solution

battery standarization shouldnt be a problem

>>13817838
It needs to happen.
The fucking auto makers will run riot making all kinds of proprietary shit otherwise.
The gubbermint standardised the electrical supply to 50hz 240v. If they aren't total fucking retards they'll insist on a universal power cell with standardised plugs etc.

>>13817094
They are

And as EFI got cheaper and easier, so did turbo builds

>>13817625
Eh?

>>13817432
kek Termi BTFO

>>13817838
Also if you have ever owned a modern smartphone or a laptop then you know the batteries get bad over time.

File: IMG_0602.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>13817094
nooooo s/c 4evar

>>13817432
All skylines aren't god tier and you sound butthurt

>>13817094
what ive heard is turbs make more power in the high end while super chargers make more low end. idk how right that is tho.

>>13818427
Turbos nowadays can have power in the high or low RPM range, depends on how it's set up. Power isn't there for the other part, though. Superchargers give more linear power delivery at the expense of less overall power and they tend to die off at very high RPMs.

>>13817407
>turbos only suck at motorsports that emphasize engine performance

Ok? So I guess because you drive your piece of shit jetty around cones in a parking lot turbos are clearly superior?

File: 20140127_101531.jpg (246KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1600x1200px

older roots types yes
but the modern twin screw blowers don't even mess with MPG when the bypass is open

>>13817094
I think the worst might be vortech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMwStIYIo4#t=25s

File: turbo.jpg (146KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 768x1024px

>>13819291
turbocharged were banned, and so was OHC, mainly because it is a "sport" full of retarded inbreed hicks like you

>>13820289
ironically, a few Euro racing series had a bunch if Pushrod engines being used.
but NASCAR didn't want any DOHC influence from like european cars.
RIP 4 valve Ford 427

File: 426_Hemi_DOHC_1[1].jpg (65KB, 701x449px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 701x449px

>>13820347
the 427 was SOHC wasnt it

Dodge made a DOHC hemi to face Ford, but NHRA banned ohc and they dropped it

>>13820365
it was a 2V my bad, but made close to 650 horsepower and 8,00rpm in nascar trim in the 60s
that was a fuck ton of power

File: 365 ci v12 with 740 bhp and 524 lb-ft.jpg (411KB, 2048x1506px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 2048x1506px

>>13820365
audio of it running ?
I would like to hear

a motor I like is the Mercedes m120
very smooth delivery and sound but not much power
I bring it up as its about as large as eu goes in terms of displacement
and is also dohc

>>13818397
You're a special kind of retard

>>13817094
Modern turbos are, but several manufacturers still make, or enjoy adding superchargers. TRD and Jaguar still enjoy supercharging their cars.

File: hr0571_02[1].jpg (456KB, 1200x1617px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 1200x1617px

>>13820412
yeah the ford cammer was fucking based, the good thing is that they were mass produced, the bad thing is that they are fucking expensive lel

Olds and Pontiac also made OHC engines, olds one made around 560ho

>>13820538
as far as I know only 1 protype was made and there are no videos

>mercedes m120
those are so fucking great, doch 4 valve instead of 3 valve like the newer ones, and dirt cheap too

I dont understand how they dont have more aftermarket, its not like they are that expensive

>>13817826
>>13817838
>>13817880
The first company to offer battery-for-battery swaps like we do with cores for auto parts now will make a fuck load but there needs to be more electrics on the road for this to work

>>13820284
why do they have a shit warranty or quality?

File: TheTongMan's Si.jpg (64KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1280x720px

>>13817094
the HondaFuckBois seem to still like them, gives you low-end power until dat sweet
>VTAK
kicks in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qXXYA-fRBU

>>13820606
that honda fucboi has fans

lyl

>>13820606
the only reason to supercharge a k20 is cost, turbos are miles better, and they dont have that much lag until you get to 15+ psi

>>13820621
superchargers are probably best up to 350hp on a civic, and that's plenty desu

>>13817094

Why do you faggots assume that turbos are better just because production cars more typically come with them? For torque improvement, there is no better modification. Drag cars will always lean more toward supercharging and companies like Chrysler and GM will still stick them on high trim halo cars.

The only real benefit to using a turbo instead of a centrifugal supercharger is gas mileage on tiny displacement engines and diesels. The supercharger is still a better performance mod.

And fuck anyone who uses meme arrows to say I'm wrong. Superchargers give you power at a dig, turbos still have to spool.

>>13820655
>your wrong

File: 26b.png (68KB, 177x240px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 177x240px

>>13820642
>tfw no 900 hp sleeper civic

>>13820655
because they are you pleb

a lot of drag cars use turbos instead of superchargers, look at the fastest cars of drag week, all turbos

>>13820606
I've got a Rotrex centrifugal S/C on my CR-Z.The power straight across the rev range is also very attractive on lower power vehicles. From what I understand there are also issues with turbos and vehicles with auto start/stop.

>>13820603
they can be awkward to set up on smaller engines and the idea of a centrifugal supercharger is a bit strange
it adds a little more rotating mass to the engine any only really works at high rpm
just the same rpm as a exhaust driven turbine but with less heat and no exhaust restriction
some people like them as they can be set up for a little less lag than a turbo and that the direct drive makes the psi more predictable

>>13820674
>900hp FWD
>sleeper
Either it is fully kitted out and is no longer a sleeper, or it looks stock and has no traction so it would get smoked by a 300hp civic.

>>13820774
WHEEL SPIN TO WIN BRO

>>13820774
And by fully kitted out I mean drag suspension, fat soft slicks up front, traction/wheelie bars rear. This stuff is 100% necessary for a car with that kind of power to weight ratio if you want to go anywhere fast, even moreso with a FWD car.

>>13820289
>turbochargers and ohc banned in drag racing


You do realize how silly this sounds don't you?

File: TheTongMan race.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>13820611
yeah, he has pretty gud street racing vids. They're raw as fuck, but that's the reason I like watching them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCV327lApU0&index=4&list=PLseqIhMmssyowSyzH4w1OQN4cW_LGwn-J

>>13820802
>mad hicks ban superior technology

indeed sounds fucking retarded

>>13817094
To put in the in the words of Tom Nelson of NRE "The harmonics of chargers just beat the fuck out of the bearings"

The throttle response difference between superchargers and turbos has become so little that we are finally phasing out superchargers.

File: Where-will-we-get-more-power-inline[1].jpg (147KB, 626x346px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 626x346px

>>13817570
He's actually right.

But the whole truth is turbo *then* blowdown turbine. The blowndown is better for steadystate, the turbo for acceleration.

>>13817094
Superchargers will always be relevant
Roots styles are getting a little outdated but they still do a decent job, but the twin screw type are pretty dope, they don't create much heat, they actually compress air not just force it into the intake. Plus one thing you can't get over is the boost from idle and nothing sounds better then dat whine

>>13820896
>nothing sounds better then dat whine
preach, brother
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzCM-wAs7E

>boost from idle
What is gears?
>a sound
suckercharger fags confirmed for ricers

>>13820955
God I want a fucking whipple so fucking bad to bad the size I want is like 8 fucking grand

>>13820990
Your gears give you boost? That's bretty cool. And everyone loves the S/C and Turbo sounds. Stop being a fucking faggot.

>>13820990
>implying the sound from a turbo winding up isn't God tier either
>implying the sound of an actual performance part is rice
>implying turbos don't have draw backs
How's that miata doing

supercharger whine>turbo spool

>>13821116
thats like your opinion man

its a wrong opinion aswell

>>13821116
This is true

Supercharger whine vs turbo blowoff on the other hand is a difficult choice.

>>13817656
all that matters is how much they weigh, you turd. who cares what the displacement is?

>>13817570
Superchargers spin ridiculously faster than the crank.

>>13818301

Do you want to buy my intercooler pump ? It's a bosh and I also have a coupler rebuilt kit for the m62, it's an improved oil impregnated nylon coupler with the proper raised lips, included also is oil seal and bearings, brand new in packaging,

I used to have the old cobalt ss SC and I still have these in the box would give good price for Anon

>>13817094
>Instant power at the cost of bleeding performance from the engine
vs
>Power at the cost of spool-up time known as turbo lag runs hotter though.

Roots blowers are inefficient compared to turbos and centrifugals, but once you start running alcohol or nitromethane then the supercharger cam crank similar boost levels as turbos and stay out of detonation.

However, with current antilag/2 step technology turbos are pretty much taking over...

Superchargers ruled drag racing because of their availability ever since the 40's, giving big name racers a performance edge. Turbos had not been seriously considered and understood until the technology has gotten to the point it is at now.

Shit, i think the quickest outlaw class car was a twin turbo just a couple years ago.

File: 20150930_183023.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>13821938
I do enjoy a good blower though.

Drive both a blown and a turbo'd car however, and i do like the turbo better.

>>13821332
not really, most dont even spin 2x as fast. think eaton m62 makes peak airflow at around 13/14k and considering they're normally attached to engines that make peak power at around 6k. whereas turbos are in the 100ks

>>13817253
High quality bait

>>13817558

Engine bay size also is a limiting factor, superchargers fit almost anywhere where the extra piping for a turbo can be a bitch when the bay is tight.

>>13819291
A turbo isn't gonna get heatsoaked after a couple laps like a supercharger will, or after a long highway drive in the desert.
Turbo's work where it matters
Aka, higher rpms when you're purposely gunning it, and all the time without quiting on you.
That said im still roots s/c my camaro for the rice reason of hearing the wing wing whine, even tho i could get more power out of twin turbos with less boost

>>13820791
>FWD
>Wheelie bar
For what purpose?

>>13822416
You're pretty well on the ball, but I have to pull you up on
>Turbo's work where it matters
>Aka, higher rpms when you're purposely gunning it
Just have to clarify turbos can work across any RPM threshold pending sizing vs engine displacement. They're not RPM dependent, but more so throttle dependent.

As you said, they pump the most air when you're gunning it.

>>13817253
Interesting to know the Kawasaki remake of the "H2" name uses a supercharged version of the current ZX10R engine. Not only that, but the H2 also emits fewer emissions than the atmo counterpart.

>>13817493
It's called an 'exhaust recovery turbine', IIRC. Used in big diesels for extra efficiency.
And by 'big', I mean 'bigger than your car'. Marine diesels and so forth.

>>13817094
I'm wondering if electric superchargers would be viable.

I mean, not those shitty leaf-blower-in-the-intake things. A proper supercharger, just run off electrical power instead of mechanical. The fact that you can just switch it off has to be a plus, along with simplicity of installation.

>>13822732
Seriously, think to yourself. How much output does a supercharger tax the engine it's boosting? That's the kind of electric motor you'd need to drive a pump fast enough to overcome what the engine naturally ingests anyway.

So no.

>>13817822
This is a fact. Electric motors are the best but batteries suck shit.

File: Canon Digital Camera 508.jpg (230KB, 1520x1140px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1520x1140px

Instead of riding slightly above the ground, they are in contact with it to counteract the effects of weight transfer

>>13822732
>>13822739
Companies have been fucking around with that idea for a while. One of the German ones is toying with a system that uses scavenged power from the brakes to recharge the batteries.

>>13825847
As far as I know, that's only an electric assisted turbocharger. For example, the electric motor keeps the compressor spinning with the engine's natural aspiration so the turbocharger is already spooled up when load is applied.
To have a purely electrically driven pump providing meaningful compression would take a massive power supply.

>>13826388
Though at low revs you could consider it a heat-assisted electric supercharger.

>>13820365
Alternative History DOHC 426 Hemi with 700 HP @ 10,000 rpms

Jesus Christ

>>13820875
That's ok Europe does it too in Formula 1

Hell every high tier race class is full of fucking ass on head restrictions because one team would have an advantage over another because they developed something before anyone else did and therefore it's "unfair". I want to see a no rules racing class other than safety requirements. Literally as long as everyone is safe then you are still on the ground (no hovercraft) then do whatever the hell you want. Correct me if I am wrong because I don't think anything like that currently exists.

>>13827453
I think it was called Can Am or something, it existed, and was fucking bonkers.

>>13822725
They're getting smaller.

https://www.demanddetroit.com/engines/dd15/

File: CorvetteGreenwood_Pickett_51295716272.jpg (93KB, 648x414px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 648x414px

>>13827467
you know after can-am came IMSA
this is a c3 vette in imsa

>>13827255
That aint even the best "what could have been" engine. Around '66, Olds made a DOHC 455, with a regular Quadrajet carb, and it made 700HP at 7000RPM. They hadn't even tuned the cam profiles yet. Imagine this fucker with dual carbs and some proper cams.

>>13827453
Max / min track and wheelbase, spec tire, fuel formula.

Would watch.

File: 1m1_jpg.jpg (74KB, 868x575px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 868x575px

>>13827502
typical imsa race
most cars were boosted

File: z+78wgpit11271123609.jpg (128KB, 800x577px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 800x577px

>>13827529
a better pic of the c3

File: 2987403954_a1b4088d6b_b.jpg (817KB, 733x1024px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 733x1024px

>>13827553
>better picture
>it's dressed

File: chriscordmonza.jpg (182KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x692px

>>13827579
cars look better with the skin on

File: Porsche[1].jpg (550KB, 791x476px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 791x476px

>>13827613
You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.

File: d495751375edb0c2c18ad171f8c2791a.jpg (40KB, 600x252px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x252px

B E S T
E
S
T

>>13817094
Volvo uses them along with turbos in their new engines so i don't think they're relics.

>>13817448
This is the only reason I'm subscribed to drive on YouTube

>>13821938
There's a good reason nitro cars use positive displacement superchargers, and it ain't because of "mah tradishon".

In the past, I was told turbo for small engines and super for big engines. Now I hear super for agile cars and turbos for drag racers. Then again, I have no clue what I'm talking about and go to work with my pants on my head and my shirt on my ass.

>>13821938
>Roots blowers are inefficient compared to turbos and centrifugals
That's because Roots type don't compress air, but you're leaving out twin screw designs which basically combine everything that's good about Roots and adds compression.
Also, Roots superchargers are actually very efficient at low boost, but lose their efficiency at higher boost.
>>13821949
Turbo is still a blower.

>>13830059
>Now I hear super for agile cars and turbos for drag racers
backwards if anything, but both those stereotypes have pretty much gone out the window.
Fact is there's applications where one makes sense over the other, so you can't look at it and be like the OP and say "turbo has surpassed everything!"

Superchargers will always be relevant simply due to how easy they are to install relative to turbos, and their relative simplicity in tuning relative to turbos.

>>13830326
>Superchargers will always be relevant
Even on production cars?

>>13827453
>I want to see a no rules racing class other than safety requirements.
What happens when you can't safely race the machines that such a series would produce?

>>13827526
>Would watch.
But who would compete?

>>13817432
i saw another thread when he just said something straight up retarded
90% of namefags know nothing

>>13827453
its not a complaint of "he invented something first"
its "he who throws the most money at it wins"

Very few race series are actually won by someone inventing something that is not immediately picked up by the other teams.

Rarely (it does happen though) that the 'core' racing teams complain enough that it gets banned rather than adopted.

Unlimited class hillclimb is a great demonstration of money = victory. because pugeot just rebodied an LMP 908 and trounced everyone. simply because they had the money to throw at it. UHC cars are insane machines but there isnt enough money in it at the moment to warrant major manufacturer involvement, and i assure you that it would get restricted by rules the moment major manufacturers stepped in because the terrain is just too dangerous.

You also gotta consider that its almost impossible to make anything at that kind of level safe unless you heavily sanitize it to the point where you have 9 mile runoffs from every corner or youre racing in a parking lot. (with a 1 mile runoff)

An example of money winning and core teams complaining; i recall a sprint car issue in australia. The V8 engine they use has massive aftermarket support because of being traditionally used for years and years, everyone knows everything about them and you can buy bits off the shelf.

one guy decides to drop in a quad cam v8 from something, there was no instructions on the net, he had to fabricate all new engine and gearbox mounts, work out all the electronics. trounced the older v8's at a handful of events before being banned.

Not because he was too good, but because it was too expensive to compete with that.

>>13830326
Bullshit. The only time a supercharger is an easier install is when there's a ready made "kit". For scratch built custom purposes, turbo is an easier install.

>>13830565
So much this.

>>13827453
>they should make a "sport" that goes faster than infinity +1!
Spoken like a prepubescent.

>>13817094
That's because turbos are better all around.

>>13830716
>fabricate all new engine and gearbox mounts
>gearbox mounts
>sprintcar
lel
I'm also going to need a citation on that...

+1 on the core point of our post though.

>>13817094
Superchargers still have their niche as bolt on units for V engines. Turbo's are a bit harder to package there, and you can easily make 800hp with a FI V8 with a bolt on supercharger. So, in the production and bolt-on aftermarket industey,they're still useful.
Also,a Roots blower will never stop looking good sticking out of a hood.

>>13830848
yeah i dont know shit about sprint cars. not my kinda sport. its just something i was told during my engineering apprenticeship. (that a quadcam v8 blew the old chevys out of the water but was banned due to lack of aftermarket and cost of everyone having to change car to remain competitive)

Ill see if i can find out, maybe tomorrow ill ask about it again and try find a source.

Another more well documented example though would be the Audi domination of IMSA using their AWD cars.

while a good example of the other happening was the mid engine shift in early formula 1. Lotus Engineering are usually credited with the first use a front wing and were the first people to successfully run mid-engine in formula one. both designs were picked up by the other manufacturers. (i think they were also one of the first teams to use the engine as part of the chassis)

>>13817570
You do know centrifugal supercharger compressors have a transmission in them for this right? Wouldn't be hard to apply this to a turbine in order to drive the crank.

>>13820289
Nigga what. Turbo's were never banned,they were just uncompetetive. There's front engine slingshot dragsterd with twinturbo's from back in the sixties,but they just didn't perform as well as supercharged ones. The OHC enfines weren't banned either, they (mainly the Ford Cammers) just didn't stay competetive after about 1970. The added bit of valvetrain control was just negated by the advancement in stuff like solid roller lifters. Top Fuel pushrod lumps can reach 9000 rpm just as well as the OHC ones. Even in that displacement limited class (500ci), they don't use OHC or turbo's. Iirc OHC has smaller ports and less flow at high RPM compared to 2 valve pushrod engines, despite the added valve area.

>>13830958
>You do know centrifugal supercharger compressors have a transmission in them for this right?
None available to the public. Vortec (I think) is working on a CVT driven prototype.

And again, there's a reason Top Fuel vehicles use crank driven positive displacement superchargers, and it's not because of tradition or superior performance.

>>13817544
HP/lb matters, BP/L or CID does not. Its literally just yuro shit posting in an attempt make their 1.2L turbo shitheaps sound good when theyll never match the weight to horsepower ratio of the larger engine vehicles that they cant afford

>>13821332
Centrifugals do, roots/twin screw do not.

>>13821938
Turbo's have been around since the 50's and have been in use for drag racing since the early 60's. Stop spreading bullshit.

>>13822416
Heatsoaking only happens if you're running an intercooler that's too small(or none at all). Nothing to do with turbo vs. Supercharger.

>>13822701
Still inefficient as ball though, given the lack of intercooler. Hell, they even had to resort to cast pistons to reduce heat and knock.

>>13827512
>dual carbs
You mean Hillborn FI with some sexy velocity stacks.

>>13830798
Purpose made supercharger kits you can install yourself heavily outnumber DIY turbo kits though.

>>13820674
Unlimited drag week cars used to have superchargers too,but you had to swap pulleys to run regular street gas,which was a PITA. The turbo's are a bit easier, you just use a boost controller instead.

>>13830969
No, Vortec already has two or three speed internal transmissions. Rotrex is working on the CVT drives you're thinking about (basically a Prius propulsion system, using a plantarey gearset, crank drive and an electric drive to create a CVT).

>>13817117
Electric motors are fuck tons better than internal combustion.
Having full torque from 0 all the way up past 10krpm makes gearing pointless, which combined with the order of magnitude lower friction makes them so much more efficient and useful it's incredible.

>>13831077
>Centrifugals do, roots/twin screw do not.

http://www.m7tuning.com/pdf/techinfo/PulleySpeedChart.pdf

it's not 1:1 at all

contrary to popular belief there are RPMs at which roots style blowers do not produce boost. But unlike centrifugals you don't have to worry about over-revving them nearly as much and they flow considerably more.

>>13831077
>Still inefficient as ball though, given the lack of intercooler. Hell, they even had to resort to cast pistons to reduce heat and knock.
Are you intentionally being obtuse to completely miss the point?

>>13831077
there's literally nothing inherently wrong with cast pistons

>>13831090
Of course it's not 1:1, but it is in the same order of magnitude. Centrifugals however run 50-60k RPM.

>>13831122
Nah, just obtuse by default.

>>13831144
>there's literally nothing inherently wrong with cast pistons
Except they're weak compared to other production methods. Casting severely limits the amount of alloys you can use, and even using the same alloy, forging or milling(billet) gives you a stronger end product.
The only point where cast pistons aren't wrong is in a non-performance application.

>>13831191
>Except they're weak compared to other production methods.
lol
>Casting severely limits the amount of alloys you can use, and even using the same alloy, true...
>forging or milling(billet) gives you a stronger end product.
Except when they can't dissipate heat, and detonate themselves to pieces right?

the supercharger-industry is waiting for cars to unified 48V-electronics on board so that they can push electric superchargers, almost like audi and their electric tarbos

>>13831278
Sorry bud, but it's gonna take a lot more than a voltage increase to power a pump capable of flowing more than a given engine can naturally ingest at load.

File: ALL3.jpg (63KB, 900x404px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 900x404px

>>13831221
The heat dissipation of cast pistons is severely limited anyways, and detonation is mostly a matter of engine tuning (injection and ignition), not piston material. Besides, piston oil squirters are more effective at taking heat out of the pistons then piston material will.

Forging and Milling both give a stronger end product. Not only is the product almost always uniform (casting mistakes happen), the grain flow is aligned, pic related. A grain alloy that isn't random (billet) or even aligned with the product (forged) will result in a stronger end product.

Besides that, alloys that are suitable for casting are usually weaker, have a lower melting point. Yield strength of most heat-resistant steel alloys is in the 240 MPa range, alloys used in forging can be around 30% stronger. Also, cast alloys are usually quite brittle (meaning they break before they bend), which is another thing you really don't want as an engineer. Casting also limits the shape of the pistons (which is a lot more important for heat dissipation than porosity ever will be) compared to billet.

To sum it up:
Strength (production method): forged > billet >cast
Strength (alloys): billet > forged > cast
Complexity (shape): billet > cast > forged
Ease of production (small batch): billet > cast > forged
Ease of production (large scale production): forged > cast > billet
Cheapest: cast > forged > billet

Only reason Kawasaki used it in the H2 was because they physically couldn't fit an intercooler (or couldn't given the aero goals they had), and they had to use each and every fraction of a glimpse of a hope of an advantage they could get.

>>13831305
>The heat dissipation of cast pistons is severely limited anyways, and detonation is mostly a matter of engine tuning (injection and ignition), not piston material
Not according to this post; >>13831077

>>13831305
you need to look into modern casting techniques, you can cast pistons as strong as forged if you want to.

>>13831287
but they are already in production and testing 48V-superchargers, especially in combination with 48V turbochargers

>>13831313
As the author of that post, I'm sorry for contradicting myself.
>Hell, they even had to resort to cast pistons to reduce heat and knock.
Meaning:
>They had so much heat they had to use each and every possible option that got rid of that heat. They had a turbine developed by their aerospace division, massively more efficient thean anything on the market, they had lower compression, they still couldn't keep it from knocking. So they used cast pistons instead. Not an elegant solution. Not at all. They should've used lower boost and a higher compression ratio imo, or just added an air to water intercooler - god knows they've got enough airflow into that thing at 100mph.

>>13831332
They still severely limit the alloys you can use. The casting techniques might improve, you might get the grain flow a bit more aligned, but in the end the materials used are worse then what you can use for forging.

>>13831348
You're talking about electric assisted turbochargers right?

>>13831352
no but seriously. go look into modern casting techs because you're just talking bollocks

>>13831287
to provide significant boost at WOT high rpm yes.
to eliminate lag, no. that doesn't require big power.

>>13831354
no, that would be the thing audi is developing, companies like valeo and aeristech are trying to push electric superchargers into production models within the next 5 years
my wording was a bit off, the superchargers are in production, but not in production cars

File: cool-story-bro-sylvester-stallone.jpg (55KB, 610x448px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 610x448px

>>13831416
>Superchargers capable if providing positive pressure for a 1.2L under 2500rpm
I can hardly wait...

chemical superchargers>mechanical superchargers

>>13831432
>We have demonstrated the electric supercharger on naturally aspirated engines from 1.0-2.4 litres and on turbocharged petrol and diesel engines from 1.0 litres up to 4.0 litres.
>The supercharger achieves a very fast response time, faster than a turbocharger, of 0.35 seconds, eliminating turbo lag

well yes, there are several reports around

>>13831501
>eliminates lag
Kind of like a crank driven pump that doesn't otherwise run out of puff above 2500rpm? Man, technology these days... Super impressive.

File: 1314941700438.jpg (43KB, 341x487px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 341x487px

>>13831525
>it's shit because it doesn't do something it's not meant to do
>but my favourite thing is great because it does what it's supposed to but with a massive downside

>>13817771
Increase voltage, increase amperage and improve cooling, so it doesn't break immediately?

I guess that's all you can do. I guess you can play with the software in the controller, or replace it and the batteries to achieve the first two points.

But you would have a very hard time manufacturing any of those things yourself.

>>13831626
its the same with ICE
one cant manufacture his own stroker crankshat or turbocharger

>>13831367
Casting techniques don't change the alloys, and that's the main advantage of forging. The simple requirement of being able to melt it excludes so much alloys you're going to end up with a weaker end product, end of story, and that's not going into grain flow. Source: 4 years of mechanical engineering and material sciences.

>>13832113
so did you look into modern piston casting methods? jw

>>13832136
Yes, and they still can't use any alloys with a tensile strength north of 250 MPa from what I can tell. Meanwhile, forged and billet stuff is near 330 MPa.

>>13831626
There is so much to be gained from proper motor control its not even funny.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIk4vINgJPNPOwLk7mxJoJHicLcjcrti7

>>13817094
Blowers look cool though

>>13832154
How can the billet be cast when a specific part can't?

>>13831572
>It's awesome because it achieves an object that has been surpassed by method that has been in continuous use for over 100 years
Again, super supremely cool story bro.

File: 6a00d83451902d69e20147e043300c970b.jpg (2MB, 2667x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2667x2000px

>>13831572
>succeeds in performing a redundant task
>means it's successful