Supercharging?

File: 1438476653780.gif (6KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x200px

>supercharger flows 100hp worth of air
>25hp is lost to parasitic draw
>turbocharger flows 100hp worth of air
>4hp is lost through the charge piping

>>13841997
Supercharger has instant boost, and is simpler to install, tune and maintain

File: 1433113988431.gif (764KB, 252x315px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 252x315px

>>13842008
Turbos sound cooler

>>13841980
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5kj1lSMBo
That is why.
Now fuck off.

>>13841980
power delivery time is a major factor

>>13842017
Shit that's a pretty big difference. I didn't know that at the same boost, the difference was that big.

super charging is like eating a lot of foods full of fiber. You'll know what to expect most of the time but it will still make you shit yourself

>>13842012
I beg to differ, turbo interrupt the exhaust pulses and make everything sound like a turbine. Scott cars have the same na exhaust sound and that whine. Neither sound as good as na with itb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye9ctbLqEq0

lol if you don't dose this hard

>>13842085
Terrible attempt at comedy and it doesn't even make sense as a metaphor.

ITT people who dont know how forced induction works

supercharging is shit

/thread

>>13842008
>and is simpler to install, tune and maintain
Depends, no, and no.

Many turbo applications are bolt on, many supercharger applications are bolt on, some turbo applications require fabbing an exhaust manifold, some supercharger applications require fabricating bracketry, an intake manifold and getting custom pulleys and belts. Neither is "simpler" because it depends ENTIRELY on the car.

There is nothing more difficult about tuning either a turbo or a supercharged car. It is exactly the same.

Superchargers are no easier to maintain than turbos, and actually have more wear considerations. A quality turbo installed well will last hundreds of thousands of miles with zero maintenance besides the normal engine oil changes, most superchargers require oil changes of their own and all require belt changes. Neither are a big deal, but that is not "easier" than "nothing."

Turbos aren't better
Superchargers aren't better
They each have their applications and they each have strengths and weaknesses.

Get educated.

>>13842137
>They each have their applications and they each have strengths and weaknesses.
Which are? I genuinely don't know much about turbochargers/superchargers.

>>13842012
Depends. Tell me the whine on this engine is not god like.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfFTOUfhOu8

>>13842152
(Non-centrifugal) superchargers boost low end power and generally make an engine perform like it's larger, there is never any lag. Turbos are more efficient overall, because there is very little parasitic loss, so they're a good way to boost power without harming fuel economy too much. Turbos also have better compressor efficiency, and are almost always coupled with a larger, more efficient intercooler than superchargers. Centrifugal superchargers are pretty awful, they have the the compressor efficiency of a turbo, but the parasitic loss of a supercharger, and have a lag almost like a turbo because centrifugal compressor don't flow as well at low speeds, unlike positive displacement superchargers. Turbos are more common in modern applications because technology has made them more durable and longer lasting, and has reduced lag drastically.

>>13842241
>Turbos are more common in modern applications because technology has made them more durable and longer lasting, and has reduced lag drastically.
Continued (submitted post by accident):
Turbos used to be quite fragile and failure prone, but aside from certain cars which either push their turbos too hard or use crummy turbos (Audi, looking at you!), recent cars that are turbocharged are no more unreliable than a supercharged car would be.

>>13842008
superchargers dont make boost.

>>13842323
Your bus pass is showing

>>13842331
you know less than i have forgotten

File: IMG_20151110_211323.jpg (475KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1080x1920px

>>13842344
Any form of forced induction creates boost.

>>13842544
what are you, 12?

superchargers, like turbochargers move volume. that's it and that's all.

boost is a measure of resistance to flow; measured from the back of the intake valves to the outlet of the blower.

>>13842323
>>13842344
Huh, well that's odd, I could've sworn the boost pressure gauge on my drag car didn't stay at zero and went to 15psi when I got on it.

>>13842588
Protip: the only time your supercharger or turbocharger will not make boost is when it is way too small for the amount of flow your engine is capable of. Turbochargers and superchargers are compressors, they compress air and force it into the engine (hence forced induction). You're being an unbelievable pedant, and a wrong one, by saying
>durr hurr dey create flow not boost
because you can't force-feed your engine without creating boost pressure. If your supercharger isn't making boost, your engine is operating as if it were NA, it's not SUPERcharging unless you're seeing pressure because the compressor is pushing in more air than the engine can consume. That's what the SUPER or TURBO in supercharging and turbocharging means.

>>13842588
>>13842323
Holy shit, stop posting.

>>13842588
It's hard to imagine someone would post something like this and be serious. You should stop posting either way.

>>13844115
when i hook my compressor outlet up to a manifold the size of my garage, the pressure in that manifold would be zero, but the compressor is still moving the same amount of volume of air as when hooked up to the manifold on my car.

like said above, they only move volume. the "boost" is a completely separate thing.

>>13844127
>>13844241
>zero contribution

File: cameron.jpg (81KB, 612x996px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 612x996px

>>13844662
You're being a pedant, and you're still wrong. For the sake of argument, if the manifold had the volume of your house, the compressor would still make boost, it would just take longer for the pressure to rise to a point where your boost gauge could measure it. However, from the moment the compressor started up, provided the engine wasn't consuming more air than the compressor flows, pressure would rise above atmospheric, ergo; boost pressure. If the engine consumes more air than the supercharger can flow, it's no longer supercharged.

>>13842012
Disagree and I used to own a turbo.

Twin screws are pretty goddamn effective at all rpm ranges.

10 pounds of turbo boost is different than ten pounds of supercharged boost. Keep that in mine.

In any supercharged system, you run 14 pounds of boost you double the static horsepower of the engine.

Takes a really big turbo at high rpm and high boost to get that.

>>13844721
>For the sake of argument, if the manifold had the volume of your house, the compressor would still make boost, it would just take longer for the pressure to rise to a point where your boost gauge could measure it.
not when you open the windows and doors like the valves in your head

>>13844975
That's why you don't have an intake manifold the size of your house, what kind of stupid attempt at trolling is this?

>>13844662
This ain't hydraulics, buddy. You CAN compress air, so air pumps, "compressors" if you will, compress the fucking air. Superchargers and turbos compress air and shove it in your intake, creating pressure. Yeah you're not gonna create boost in something the size of your garage but that's the same reason Semitrucks don't use Honda-sized eBay turbo kits

>>13844995
to show a separation between moving volume and creating boost

File: 2d47ca54-c08d-40a4-ad4d-832254982831.png (2MB, 1595x726px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1595x726px

>>13845075
Stahp

>>13845052
>so air pumps, "compressors" if you will, compress the fucking air.

they just pump the air AKA move volume. the resistance to flow is the only thing that creates boost. if the outlet of the turbo is not hooked up to the manifold at all, the same volume of air is still being moved through the unit.

its like im talking to highschoolers.

>>13845075
>>13844975
You're an idiot. Of course a compressor doesn't increase pressure if the intake and outlet are in the same volume of air. Nobody on planet earth is dumb enough to think otherwise. Stop being a pedantic shithead and insisting that a supercharger doesn't make boost because
>durr hurr all it does is move air

>>13845192
>>durr hurr all it does is move air
that IS all it does. anyone that suggests otherwise is a pleb.

>>13845204
All it does is move air if it isn't on an engine. If it's on an engine, it increases manifold pressure, ergo boost. It's like you're illiterate or something, I've told you this fact 3 times. A fan moves volumes of air too, but it can't create pressure. If all you needed to do was move a volume of air into the engine, you could use a fan, but you must use a COMPRESSOR which is an air pump designed to create flow at higher than atmospheric outlet pressures.

>>13845225
you're clearly the illiterate one.

pumps and fans do the exact same thing, move volume. pumps are just built differently to handle resistance to flow, while a box fan does not.

>>13845126
Your technically correct that the intake volume is unchanged, but the pressure is not. PV=nRT

The amount of oxygen is increased from the density increasing due to compression.

I'm a high schooler and I know more than you apparently so go fuck yourself.

>>13841980
Superchargers beat the fuck out of your bearings because of the harmonic of the belt.
Turbos don't do that.

>>13845389
You literally just repeated what I said.

>>13846417
your point was shit. nothing you posted was in question.

While we're sort of on the topic of different types of forced induction, can someone help me understand why superchargers were more popular and are now becoming less so?
I own a Dodge Daytona with a fuel injected 2.5L and a turbo. Chrysler also built a carberated 2.5 that was never given any kind of factory forced induction ever.

I was shitting around on craigs the other day and saw a carbed 2.5 L rampage that someone had put an aftermarket supercharger on, and I wondered why they would do that instead of the turbo, but then I remembered one of the issues me and my mechanic were worried about on my car was that if the head on the 2.5 was from a carberated one. If it was carbed it wouldn't be able to handle the higher compression ratio from the turbo.

Do superchargers introduce a more gradual change in compression and that's why they're more common on older, NA vehicles?

>>13847485
>If it was carbed it wouldn't be able to handle the higher compression ratio from the turbo.
Sounds like your mechanic is a doofus. The problem with using a carburetor on a turbocharged car isn't the compression ratio.

>Do superchargers introduce a more gradual change in compression and that's why they're more common on older, NA vehicles?
No. Turbos were just much more expensive and failure prone back in the day, materials and precision have come a long way.

>>13842152
Basically you can get more power out of a turbo, but also lag. I hate lag.

There are different kinds of superchargers. Some boost low-end power, others high-end. The latter is better for track racing but doesn't help on the street. It isn't really laggy, so it isn't annoying like a turbo - just doesn't make your car any faster under 3,000 rpm.

>>13847501
The head off of either Chrysler 2.5 is "interchangeable" in the sense that it will fit and bolt on fine
But the head from the carbed 2.5 wasn't built to handle the compression ratios that the fuel inected 2.5 could reach (there's a 55 MPH difference in the speedometers between fuel injected 2.5 cars and carbed 2.5 cars if that tells you anything)

The guy I bought the car from had swapped it's original 2.2 L for that 2.5 and never got it running but was convinced the head was bad
If he had used the head from a carbed 2.5 it would've blown piston rings or a head gasket the minute it went to highway/hooning speeds

The spastic at donavansdodgegarage.com covers this on his page on heads

>>13847636
>the head from the carbed 2.5 wasn't built to handle the compression ratios
It doesn't work that way, the head from the carbed engine isn't "unable to handle" the compression ratio, it would just change it, most likely lower it, and make the engine even more of a powerless turd.

>(there's a 55 MPH difference in the speedometers between fuel injected 2.5 cars and carbed 2.5 cars if that tells you anything)
It tells me that one of them was built during the era where speedometers weren't allowed to go above 85mph and the other was very optimistic

>If he had used the head from a carbed 2.5 it would've blown piston rings or a head gasket the minute it went to highway/hooning speeds
I highly doubt that. If your combustion chamber is too big for your cylinder bore it won't cause any problems as long as you use the head gasket that fits the combustion chamber and not the cylinder bore. It can have adverse effects on performance but we're talking about '80s chryslers here... Not much performance to be had.

>>13842241
>t. someone who has never experienced the things he shitposts about

>>13842085

Colion, go and stay go.

>>13842323
m8...

>>13848054
read the thread feg

>>13848370
I read it, it's complete nonsense

File: 1327009069773.jpg (684KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1024x681px

Turbo vs supercharger is a lot more involved than what first seems
Turbos can make more power but that is not always the case
A turbo increases back pressure which increases pumping loss. It can be 2:1 or even 3:1 of the intake psi so if you have 20psi boost you could be seeing 60psi of exhaust backpressure.
Superchargers do drain power by having to spin them but they gain from a proper extractor design which would pull more exhaust out of the combustion chamber.
In max effort situations superchargers seem to reign supreme top fuel top alky or even on outlaw 275 cars
Turbos are much better for a street fast car
Bigger turbos allow for more exhaust flow thus increasing power but at a sacrifice of a higher boost threshold and lag.
There is a reason OEMs still use superchargers mainly for power adders. When someone invests millions into an engine design and chooses a blower over a turbo there is a major reason for that.
We could keep going on about things like BSFC oil deterioration EGTs and emmisions but there is no point
Both systems work well when setup correctly.
I prefer turbos personally but packaging can be an issue hence why see more blowers on domestics

>>13846417
>>13845389
so is a supercharger a pump or a fan

>>13848443
>A turbo increases back pressure which increases pumping loss. It can be 2:1 or even 3:1 of the intake psi so if you have 20psi boost you could be seeing 60psi of exhaust backpressure.

holy shit wat

can I get some sauce for this

File: feature-subaru-wrx-twin-charged-092-013.jpg (950KB, 1700x1275px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 1700x1275px

why not both?

>>13848450
I could see it. Sticking something that literally is designed to cause resistance would add backpressure. But I also would like sauce.

>>13848450
common knowledge you tard, fucking google it

File: 1443312872120.jpg (291KB, 848x1200px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 848x1200px

>>13848470
>implying im not googling it already
>implying you shouldnt source your statements when asked to

serious discussions

>>13848468
>3 times more pressure on the exhaust side than on the intake
>implying it woulnt make the engine run backwards becaue the exhaust gasses would escape to a zone with a lower density, that case being the cylinder

File: 1323912608847.jpg (101KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x533px

>>13848477
Some info here
Some OEMs are really bad with this mainly newer turbo cars like the fords and VWs.
Engines are air pumps so having a resitance in the exhaust is a pretty big power sap. Best you can get really is a 1:1 ratio because its basic math. Unless you have some sort of velocity stack right before the turbo that increases force it will always have a 1:1 or higher ratio. Unless you are running a compound boost setup which I doubt anyone with a gas engine car is doing on here I would not worry about it too much.

http://www.theturboforums.com/threads/378408-Back-pressure-ratio-of-newer-turbos-vrs-older-turbos

File: 2012-04-17_18-00-44_368.jpg (250KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1024x768px

>>13848498
It is making the engine run backwards in a sense its a pumping loss but the explosions in the other cylinders keeps it running
>>13848468
some info here guy saying he ran 2.8:1 at 25 psi
Also these are drag cars meant for max power so they have no issues with spool time or anything like that. OEMs and road race setups typical run much smaller turbines which increases back pressure immensely but decreases the boost threshold and lag.
Anti lag on rally cars works off this principal pretty much. They open a BOV on the intake side while cutting timing/spark and dump fuel into the engine. This causes massive pressure spikes in the header/turbo manifold to keep the turbo RPM way high so the boost is instant on the next shift

http://ls1tech.com/forums/forced-induction/1736967-turbo-car-acceptable-back-pressure.html

>>13848526
thats not what anti lag does. anti lag retards the timing so that the ignition fires with the exhaust valve open.

>>13848555
there are several antilag methods senpai

>>13848559
no there isn't there's one. and its retarding the timing so the ignition fires with the exhaust valve open.

>>13848477
>exepcting serious discussions when laughing at retards like you is so much more fun

>>13848498
kek

>>13848567
I said cutting timing/spark meaning retarding it or cutting it
two step anti lag cuts the spark at a set rpm but maintains fuel supply thus pushing fuel into the exhaust manifold to burn there instead
Some newer more advanced anti systems use air bypasses into the exhaust give the turbo manifold an air and fuel supply

>>13848445
they both move volume the same way. one is designed to deal with back flow while the other is not.

>>13848450
>>13848526
It's all based on the turbine housing. People run a small one to get faster spool, but the trade off is the backpressure in the manifold.

3:1 is extreme IMO and is asking to lift the head.

With a .48ar turbine housing and a little T3 turbine wheel I've got about a 2:1 EBR at my current boost level (18psi, 1.8L I4)