/SUPERchargers/

Sounds like a whining child, looks weird in an engine bay, inferior to modern turbos.

parasitic
lasts longer than turbos
t b h idk pham, im just a measly lil benchracer

>>14888945
Instead of exhaust gas sscavenging, it uses the camshaft to sap power to compress the air into the engine. Its good for lower end power. Its more instant than turbochargers. Usually less of the turbo lag people talk about
Although nowadays turbos are getting better and better.

>>14889006
there's a company that does them off flywheels but yeah superchargers are poverty turbos

>parasitic engine power drain at low rpm
>much more expensive than an equivalent turbo in terms of parts costs BUT they're much easier to install
>depending on your engine they'll have a lower max power potential than a turbo BUT that power will be concentrated in the midrange for lots of fun on the street

I prefer the sound to turbos.

>>14889053
>dat SC whine

What's everyone's opinion on a supercharger + turbocharger setup? Heard they pump out a ton of performance.

>>14888957
>lasts longer than turbos
eh, maybe. A well engineered turbo will last hundreds of thousands of miles, as will I imagine a well engineered super charger.

I think a supercharger is easier, safer, and cheaper to add to an engine.

>>14889168
Dual charging is asking for trouble unless you know what you're doing

mostly linear increase on power

why do you never see turbocharged diesels?
wouldnt it be incredible for muh torque?

>>14889168
Unless you're running a 2smoke diesel with 20 liters of displacement (Detroit 71 series btw) I wouldn't bother. Might as well go full bi-tarbo. You save on air ducting that way since the tarbos can share a lot if you install the right valving.

>>14889203
You what? Yer aware tha TDI means turbo diesel injection, right? Practically every diesel built nowadays is turbo'd.

>>14889211
sorry meant supercharged

>>14889203
diesels area all about efficiency.

they ditched supers and adopted turbos due to efficiency.

>>14889006
> Usually less of the turbo lag people talk about
you mean boost threshold

>>14889203
pretty much all diesels are turbocharged

>>14889203
I'm assuming you meant supercharged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_induction#Diesel_engines

File: prochargerSupercharger2.jpg (11KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x225px

>>14888945
Superchargers tend to produce boost at lower RPM and they don't have a sudden drop off either, so they make a flatter toque curve.

They are parasitic so they technically take power from the engine to make power.

Turbos typically make higher peak numbers and are also easier to adjust boost levels, a supercharger needs a pulley swap to change boost level, it can't just be turned up or down like a turbo.

Centrifugal superchargers are somewhat of a hybrid and are my personal favorite. They act similar to a turbo but are also belt driven.

>>14889260
Twin scroll turbos offer quick spooling at low RPMs, but their curve usually takes a dive at high rpm

>>14889260
I always hear that about superchargers, being parasitic, taking power from engine.

But it cranks out more HP and torque right?

So in layman's terms, to the driver's feel, what is bad about being parasitic? Does it just affect MPGs?

>>14889324
It isn't, its just a supercharging producing 8lbs of boost will make less power than a turbo at 8lbs of boost.
It's literally just less power for the same amount of boost.

>>14889324
I think compared to turbo's, they put more of a drag on the engine since they take power directly from the crank instead of the exhaust

I have a 92 Chevy s10, for something that old would it be best to just super chare it or v8 swap it?

>>14889347
superchargers and turbochargers dont make boost.

the only difference for either would be the efficiency of the compressor housing vs the housing on the supercharger.

>>14889365
V12 swap it

>>14889260
> centrifugal superchargers

ew, why

File: vN48mwz[1].png (180KB, 379x551px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 379x551px

they are SHIT and inferior to any form of forced induction out there

this is a fact

File: le 'redpill me on x' maymay.jpg (27KB, 600x238px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x238px

>>14888945

Superchargers don't actually exist and you are in a computer simulation

>>14889373
>superchargers and turbochargers dont make boost.
what the hell are you talking about

>>14888945
go watch the latest episode of engine masters, they compared superchargers

>>14889373
The turbo makes boost off of waste exhaust gas and relies on high exhaust pressures to drive the compressor.
A supercharger is tied to the engine speed, the drive ratio of the S/C can be modified by changing the pulley sizes. There are many types of Superchargers, but they all have some parasitic draw because of the link to the crankshaft. But, because they don't rely on exhaust gas they can be better tuned to low RPM performance depending on the style of supercharger.

>>14889073
>>dat SC whine
is high pitched and annoying as fuck
spool and blow off is 10/10

File: 9894556776.jpg (17KB, 155x202px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 155x202px

Turbos are also somewhat parasitic because they create backpressure as the exhaust gases need to push the turbine.

>>14889260
>Centrifugal superchargers are somewhat of a hybrid and are my person
literally the worst qualities of a turbo and supercharger combined together. besides the small package they are shit m8

Parasitic loss is a meme. You lose power trying to run the compressor but the power gain more than offsets the loss.

>>14890045
but infinitely less so, and they are not parasitic per se.

has anyone here ever seen an entropy curve? turbochargers are the obviously superior compressor choice.

while a supercharger steals power from the drivetrain (still to a net advantage) a turbocharger extracts heat from the exhaust that otherwise would be wasted. its literally free energy you are recovering. superchargers still wast that energy.

besides low RPMs with a positive displacement supercharger a turbo will always be more effecient
>>14888945
turbo>>supercharger

>>14889168
Volvo has abicharged vehicle. It's turbo and had a super charger as well I believe it's on the new suv

>>14890129
see
>>14890143

>>14890045
.... No, that's why the piping is set up the way it is..

>>14890045
>>14890171
no a supercharger is "parasitic" by using energy from the drivetrain. a turbocharger simply reduces power output due to back pressure. while the end results are the same (less power in certain scenarios) a turbo is not "parasitic" as it does not take energy from the engine. in fact it is the opposite of a parasite as it takes exhaust energy and returns it to the motor system.

>>14889168
compound boosting is remarkable for power and allows running less stress on each power adder

>>14888945

Theyre convenient and cost effective on v configured engines. The same applies to turbos for inline engines.

>>14889219
Leave.

>>14890243
>in fact it is the opposite of a parasite as it takes exhaust energy and returns it to the motor system.
maybe if it's a compounding setup otherwise, no.

>>14889999
>high pitched
Are you retarded turbos are much higher pitched it's a little fucking turbine running at 100k+ rpm
What a waste of quads

Yall have it all wrong.

Superchargers sound good in the sense that good weed smells good. In reality, good weed smells skunky and somtimes like bad feet, BUT when it comes to quality, thats a good thing.

A supercharger sounds like a high pitched whining noise but since its coming from somthing good, it therefor sounds good.

boooooost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHg2uqJvLOk

>>14889011

Link/further info on that company?

File: IMAG1079.jpg (3MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2688x1520px

Sounds like you have a vacuum cleaner under your hood under acceleration

Fucking hilarious on a 90s family sedan though, pic related

>>14888945
Its boomer meme magic.

supercharger is direct drive
this leads to better response

turbo is dependant on an indirect drive of a compressible gas to go
this gives less throttle response than a supercharger, no matter what you do

both suffer from reliability if built improperly or used in an incorrect application

Personally, if top speed takes priority over cornering response then I will go with a turbo

If I need cornering throttle response then I would just go with a correctly sized naturally aspirated setup.

There is no one size fits all solution to building cars.

>>14889006
Crankshaft, not camshaft

>>14889772
>>14889879
turbos are superchargers move volume. that's it.

boost is a measure of restriction to flow between the compressor outlet and back of the intake valve. it's simply a measure of air NOT entering the engine.

aren't NHRA dragsters supercharged?

>>14891003
part of their rules.

>>14888945
Here we go
Both a supercharger and a turbo are great in a niche
Superchargers have come a long way from the old roots style blowers as of now twin screw are the best you can get vs centrifugal and roots bet they cost about 2 times more then a roots style blower
Roots blowers are badass though, pretty fucking cheap for a 200 to 300 hp mod and if if you don't want to make gobs of boost just switch the pulleys around
In my opinion I like superchargers better because you don't have to wait for it to spool and full boost is there as soon as you hit full throttle
But don't get me wrong turbos are badass too

>>14888945
superchargers should be used for any car that has a nice exhaust note and turbos should be used for cars that don't

File: 1310429820535.jpg (10KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x250px

>>14891024

I have a centri blower now and I love it. I've had roots s/c cars, twin screw cars, turbo car, and 2 centri cars. I'd say most people in this thread have no experience. I make over 600whp on low boost with mine.

>>14888945
Is redpill the millenial way of saying spoonfeed?

>>14890163
I don't see what is wrong with what I said. I didn't compare it with a Turbocharger.

>>14891181
no, it's more in line with "tell me the truth on the matter."

>>14891419
I don't think you understand what's happening here.

>>14890437
you dont understand thermodynamics or entropy, do you?

trust me. im right.

>>14890271
>compound

>>14891787

Different poster, but that's Enthalpy you mean there. Enthalpy is the combined factors of pressure, volume, velocity, heat and internal energy of a system as used to express turbine drive. The sum of the internal energy by the product of pressure and volume in a system. Entropy is a measure of molecular disorder of a system and is not often used in relation to turbine drive, not quite what you were trying to express you knew so much about.

>>14892278
lol. compounding boost is not a thing. so good.

File: NPoS.jpg (8KB, 236x198px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 236x198px

>>14889373
>superchargers and turbochargers dont make boost.

I prefer superchargers, though I have nothing against turbochargers.

>>14892516
they don't.

File: dLfPsSw[1].png (346KB, 786x438px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 786x438px

>>14892545
then according to you, what creates boost pressure?

>>14892561
restriction to flow.

File: ohayou__hisui_by_xeren3-d93zw6t[2].png (133KB, 594x530px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 594x530px

>>14892565
sure but like, what creates said restriction

there are only 2 ways that create said restriction, the engine itself and the increase in velocity, which comes from the turbo

increasing the velocity alone doesnt create boost pressure, you need to direct the air into the engine intake, and the engine intake alone does not increase the boost pressure, you need a turbo/super to increase the veolcity of the gas

so turbos and supers -kinda- create this "restriction" by increasing the flow

>>14891024
Lol wut

>>14892454
>enthalpy and entropy arent directly related
im shitfaced fellow dynamics bro, cut me some slack

mac?

god pls

>>14890143
>""""""""""free"""""""""" energy in the form of heat spins turbochargers

Well, this is /o/

>>14888945
The sound alone is pure sex

https://youtu.be/rkkO0jlF0f4

>>14892912
thank fuck you caught that. almost died laughing.

>>14892599
>sure but like, what creates said restriction
everything from the front bumper pointing air at the intake inlet to the exhaust tip.
some fractional importance to others.

>>14892912
>>14893006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy
Sorry but that energy just gets pissed out the exhaust pipe without a turbine.
>what is thermodynamics

>>14890045
Irrelevant if the exhaust piping is set up properly.

>>14893204
You'll find heat energy will have next to 0 effect on making a turbine spin. What will make a turbine spin is kinetic energy in the form of pressurised gas.

>>14893504
he is partially right, without heat that gas would be at a much lower pressure and higher density resulting in lower velocities as it entered the turbo volute housing.

File: TVS2300.jpg (37KB, 318x256px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 318x256px

>>14889373
Twin screw and the TVS blowers make boost in the screws/lobes.

>>14888945
There is literally no reason not to own one other than the fact that they do not modify sound and look bad on engines.

They are more space-efficient, able to handle more power better (twin-screws) And contrary to the parasitic power meme from people who looks like dont even wrench, most superchargers will be providing power at little above idle RPM.

Also, since turbos spool up based on the exhaust gases which depends on RPM and engine displacement, and S/C only depends on RPM, it can give you more power with high-RPM-Limit cars.

>>14888957
>parasitic

People need to stop parroting this.

The net gain of a supercharger far outweighs whatever power losses you might experience.

>>14894003
its not parroting, the supercharger does require power to run meaning you will have a net lower result.

If it takes 50hp to run the supercharger and your making 500 at the flywheel that really means your making around 550+. And that power required to run the supercharger goes up with how much air needs to be moved. 8000hp top fuel dragster engines require alot of power to run that giant supercharger on top of the engine.

>>14894064
>If it takes 50hp
[citation needed]
>8000hp top fuel dragster engines require alot of power to run that giant supercharger on top of the engine.
And with natural aspiration it wouldn't have that much power.

I keep hearing
>"MUH PARASITIC LOSS!"
But some fags just dont get that the S/C can produce power at almost any range.

Also, OP, if you read this, dont fall for the turbo fag "efficiency meme".

Its more "energy-efficient", but it wont give you more power, it wont increase your MPG, its just a publicity stunt made to sell you the idea that Turbos are better.

>>14890994
if you are going to be an autist, you should try to be exactly correct.

>>14894073
>[citation needed]

Mercedes, with the SLR back when, confirmed that it takes 125hp to run its supercharger. Nevertheless, it makes 620+hp, so all is well in the end.

>>14894163
WHAT supercharger of WHAT design, with WHAT engine, and technically it wouldn't take HP. It would take torque.

>>14894073
your absolutely right, it makes alot more power than it would all motor. However what people dont seem to understand is that engine is not built to withstand 8000hp, its build to withstand 9000hp because it takes about a thousand hp just to spin the blower.

lets calm this down though, if your under 1000hp and strapping a supercharger on it, chances are you will have a parasitic draw of under 2-300 hp. Which means if you want a 1000hp engine you need to build it to make 1300 and withstand 1300, not 1000.

>>14894179
Why be so anal?

There is parasitic loss, that's it.

>>14894194
Though, to add, I do understand to list it as a negative, when it's improving power so much.

>>14894194
Because that's a fucking meme and not a real argument.

>>14894189
What the fuck? that doesn't make any sense. Just because an engine can withstand more HP it doesn't mean that what you dont take to it its lost.

You cant magically make a supercharged engine that produces 8kHP and loses 300 to parasitic loss get 8.3k HP if you remove the S/C. That's now how it works.

If you want a 1000hp engine and you have under 1000hp you will add a S/C that will make it get 1000hp and not bitch about bullshit details that doesn't make sense

>>14894196
>I do understand

The problem with listing...

Good fucking god, never type distracted.

>>14894201
dude your completely lost in what i was saying.

if you have an engine that makes 500hp and you strap a BIG ASS FUCKING SUPERCHARGER ON THAT MOTHERFUCKER. and make 1000hp AT THE FLYWHEEL YOUR MAKING MORE THAN THAT IN REALITY BECAUSE YOUR FUCKING DUMBASS THINKS THAT SUPERCHARGERS RUN ON FUCKING DREAMS AND WISHES.

>>14894201
It's not a meme or an argument. It's a statement of fact.

You've just gotta put aside the emotive connotations of a bad sounding word like "parasitic" and treat it like the cold technical term it's being used as.

>>14894221
No dude. YOU think that Turbos somehow fix the problems and run on dreams and wishes.

Do you not think that turbos also have slight parasitic loss due to the system itself being an obstacle to the exhaust and intake fumes?

>if you make 1000hp you are making more than that in relaity
No. No you are not. If you make 1000hp S/C you make 1000hp. You spend a fraction of your HP to get multiplied that amount back. Dont be delusional

>>14894234
Ok.
Parasitic loss is a meme since the S/C provides positive power almost as soon as you start going forward, the parasitic loss is minimal nowadays.

Same with turbo lag. Its more of a real issue but still a fucking meme, with modern turbos turbo lag its near nonexistant.

>>14894234
I think the only problem the guy has is that "parasitic" is being used as an inherent negative.
Maybe elaborating on it by saying that, unlike a turbo, a supercharger doesn't have a positive impact (however little) on fuel consumption, while making power.
Maybe that's more useful to say.

>>14894238
im not even arguing for turbos at this point only at your delusioned ass to think that 300hp is a fraction of your total output, thats 1/3 of your 1000hp engine being put to waste to spin a giant fan for your engine.

Congrats though on your insane egt's terrible mpg's and cowl hood.

>>14894249
If youve got some kind of junkie-fueled system that will add the power to reach 1000hp without losing 300 hp, please, go ahead and tell me. Otherwise, stop being a retard and shut the fuck up

>>14894253
Really? because tell me then how the fuck do you plan on getting to 1500 without building for a 2000hp engine?

Do you really think that if you built a by the book engine that had a big enough cam for 1500hp and ports in the heads big enough to flow 1500hp that it would run correctly? if you say yes to that your in fucking denial.


>If youve got some kind of junkie-fueled system that will add the power to reach 1000hp without losing 300 hp, please, go ahead and tell me.

So now you have accepted what ive been saying and are now retorting by playing down any other system out there. real cute man, real cute.

>>14894261
>because tell me then how the fuck do you plan on getting to 1500 without building for a 2000hp engine?
Are you mentally challenged? If a car that has X HP and i use a S/C to get it to 1500hp it doesn't need to be ready to get the HP that it would get without the parasitic loss. At this point i am almost sure that you lack basic physics and mechanical knowledge.

If a car does 1000hp at the crank with a S/C it doesn't has to be ready to withstand more HP, that's not how basic kid-level logic works, faggot.

>>14894271
car makes 1000hp at flywheel

supercharger takes 300hp to turn.

the engine is actually making 1300 and your output that your seeing at the flywheel is 1000.

300 -1300 = 1000

do you get it now?

Lets try this with different known numbers.

mercedes that was quoted in this thread made 620 to the wheels and was known that the supercharger required 125 to turn.

620+125= 745 actual engine output.

am i making it clear enough?

>>14894240
Turbos don't have a positive impact on fuel consumption. They claim better 'MPG's by keeping all the testing out of boost.

>>14894277
You are a special kind of simple.

>>14894288
Then please, dont withhold all of that knowledge to yourself elaborate on your statement.

>>14894294
1. People don't build an engine to withstand 1000 HP then achive exactly 1000hp. They are built with a fair margin for error if done properly. Secondly the engine is only making 1000hp, not 1300. What you are saying is similar for building an engine to withstand 10k RPM but being limited to 7k RPM.

>>14894306
Well from what im seeing, your getting free power from somewhere, the hp statements im making are very real, as the airflow requirements and strength requirements of the rods and crankshaft are very different at say 500-1000 hp especially when your dealing with a floating additional number tacked on the ass end of it.

>>14894277
>620+125= 745 actual engine output.

No the engine output is 620. That is why it is called output. The loss is theoretical. As in if the supercharger magically spun itself it might achieve 745hp.

>>14894313
well holy fucking shit your right, but your engine is still seeing the loads of a 745 hp engine.

gee fucking shit isnt that fucking crazy. you just made my point in your own fucking argument.

>>14894311
It doesn't need those airflow requirements, as it is not making 1300hp. Learn to engine math. This is like arguing with a 4 year old about the existence of santa.

>>14894277
>mercedes that was quoted in this thread made 620 to the wheels

No, that was the engine quote. It MIGHT have done 600hp at the wheels, as the engines tended to stray upwards a lot, but the quote is for the engine on a bench. As with any regularly sold car.
But that wasn't your point, I know.

>>14894317
No it is not seeing loads of 745 HP. It is not making 745 HP. I don't understand how you can't understand this.

>>14894318
It doesnt need those airflow requirements? then where is that load going?

>>14894326
It isn't making that power, so it doesn't need that airflow. If it makes 620hp, and you take the supercharger off it will make significantly less. Therefore it just needs to be sized for 620hp, end of story.

While on the topic of output.

Why is it that N/A fags always think that you have to compare the N/A power output of a N/A to the N/A output of a turbo'd engine?

If I have a 2.0 200N/A engine and compare it to the same engine but with a turbo, they seem to not understand that the turbo'd one is 200HP+XXXHP from the turbo.

I rather have a 200HP Turbo than a 200HP N/A anyway though.
Fuel efficiency etc.

>>14894334
your a very good troll you know that.

If you bolted an alternator on your car that took 100hp to run you would obviously need a little more fuel and air to run that alternator.

But if its a supercharger obviously its free, because yknow reasons.

>>14894343
>500HP engine

>slap charger that adds 100HP

car now have 560-670HP due to it taking some just to operate.

Sure you don't get less, but you also lose some of the power the charger gives.
Still, most charger makers take that into consideration and rate it as giving 70HP extra if they know it bleeds 30HP out of it's 100HP theoretical increase in power.

>>14894334
Chill, you're on the right idea but you're either wording it wrong or got it slightly wrong at the end.

>>14894343
i want to simplify this just in case you still dont understand me.

lets say your engine makes 500hp all motor you strap on a supercharger and make 600hp but the supercharger requires 100hp to operate.

Where did that extra 100hp come from?

>>14889218
And a much broader power curve.

Ultrachargers when?

File: n9gc1r5zM51qhhxf6o2_r1_500.gif (2MB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x200px

turbos don't let you have a pulley sticking out of your hood that you can turn on and off with a clutch assembly for maximum respect and are therefore inferior.

>>14894064
>net lower result

This is not a thing.

>>14889999
>turbo with obnoxious BOV

Ever heared of a twin chambered bov?

>>14888957
And turbos aren't parasitic? Don't pretend literally 100% exhaust gasses don't have to make it past that impeller

>>14893765
The only thing that is correct here is space efficiency.

crank driven superchargers are less efficient compressors than turbochargers. There's a reason that the most powerful engines in the world are turbocharged.

>>14890994
>mi'lady

>>14894277
So let me get this straight. If I have an ls1 (350hp) and I have a procharger I strap to it and now I'm making 550 bhp i actually have a 600 bhp engine that's being bogged down to 550 by the supercharger lobe inertia? And now you're going to tell me that the actual output is 600? Fuck you my friend the dyno reads 550. Mean while my friend went tt and he is making 625 bhp. How much is he "actually" making?

>>14894132
correct me then.
>you can't.

>>14894389
In Germany we don't call superchargers that name. We call it 'Kompressor', because that's all it is. Like an air compressor you use to pump up a ball or a tire. If that description isn't enough to make you prefer turbine air compressors (TARBOS MANG) then I dunno.

File: you.jpg (47KB, 446x418px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 446x418px

>>14894850
>In Germany we are a special kind of people

Nobody cares cück.

Compressor is a stupid naming for that since there is already a compressor in any car.
It's the air conditioning compressor. Some have compressors also for airride suspension.

Please educate yourself on cars before posting here newfag, and making germany even more unloved than it is already.

>Thanks VAG

>>14894877
It's nothing but a compressor though. Call it a charging compressor then, and the AC one the AC compressor. Or would you like to invent a new word for camshafts because someone might confuse them for crankshafts?

>>14894815
boost is a measure of air pressure at a specific point in the intake system. A turbo forces a mass of air into the volume of space in the intake system. This volume of space is made of of all tubing and which ever cylinder(s) have their intake valves open. The volume does not change. The mass of air in that volume of space changes. A turbo pushes a mass of air, not volume.

>>14894877
what do you call the cold side of a turbo then?

A wooshy spiny air blower?

File: fleet-truck[1].jpg (13KB, 268x188px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 268x188px

>>14888957
>last longer than turbo's
Over the road truck can put a million miles on a turbo.

>>14889373
Okay Mr. Technical. I'm an Aerospace Engineering student, I understand that they don't actually produce boost, but in the simplest way possible, when they are added to the air intake system they increase flow. And with a fixed velocity and volume that means pressure must increase.
Turbos are more efficient because they use wasted exhaust energy, while superchargers use useful energy that the engine has already produced.

This is why at the same intake pressure and moderate rpms, turbos will make more power.

The issue with turbos is spool time due to the friction involved in the turbo and the speed of the exhaust gasses in the turbo, or its flow rate. While a supercharger has no spool time as it is running at the right speed at every rpm which means better low end and midrange.

Turbos +:
More power
Cheaper to set up

Turbo -:
Spool time
Complexity

Super +:
Simple to install
Low end and midrange power increasw

Super -:
Expensive
Less top end power than a turbo

File: 9c8.jpg (130KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 499x499px

>supercharger cucks sperging about parasitic loss

KEK

supers a SHIT

>>14895008
If I'm building a racecar, GOTTAGOFAST, Im using a turbo.
But I'm going to want a supercharger on my daily. Usually more reliable and midrange usable power.

>>14894283
thats like saying nitrous cars dont have better fuel consumption because they are not spraying all the time

>supercharger cucks are this retarded

>>14895030
superchargers are not more reliable, they will beat your main bearings up and the belt can slip and fuck all your shit up

a properly sized turbo will also make more power per lbs of boost than a supercharger

>>14895044
You mean more pounds of boost per kW consumed? Restricting the exhaust still eats some power (this is why catbacks exist)

>>14895066
it still doesnt create as much load as the supercharger

the faster the turbine is spinning the less energy it takes for the gas to go through, opposite of what happens to superchargers, where the faster it spins the more energy it takes

>>14895044
Yes but when a supercharger has something fail its either the supercharger itself, the belt, or even the pulley.
Its very easy to get at and switch out and work on.
With a turbo you have to have a different exhaust manifold, the routing of oil lines and possibility of extra oil cooling, along with routing an intercooler and dealing with a BOV and wastegate. Its a lot more to keep up with and a lot more to go wrong along with things often being less accessible.
Superchargers are usually much less of a hassle.

File: 2577.png (155KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 500x500px

>>14895257
>With a turbo you have to have a different exhaust manifold
not true 2bh, you can bolt it in where the collector or mainfold ends

>>14895494
That's true but that's not the norm when turbocharging a vehicle.
The point is it requires more exhaust pieces in general than a supercharged system.

>>14894910
There's an impeller and compressor I forget which is which. I'm guessing the impeller gets driven and the cold side is the compressor

>>14888945
Needs rebuilding after 75k miles

>>14895005
Nigga superchargers are cheap as fuck
Nothing wrong with taking 50hp and turning it into 200 hp for alot less money then turbo charging and alot simpler

God damn this thread is gold.

>>14895939
2bh nitrous is better in those scenarios

>>14896009
Use both nigga

>>14896009
more like methanole injection

>>14895005
>Super -:
>Expensive
>Less top end power than a turbo
Fucking please confirm me that.

All turbofags keep repeating the same thing over and over about how S/C are less efficient for their size in power compared to turbo yet ive seen not one source claiming them right

File: 1461249333968.jpg (119KB, 540x402px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 540x402px

>>14896012
good point

>>14895044
>and the belt can slip and fuck all your shit up
No. No it cant. That's like saying the alternator belt and the timing belt can slip out and fuck shit up and therefore gears and timing chain is better. The chance of that happening is 1 in a 100000000000000000000000000000000000000

File: JAGXKRMY.png (1010KB, 808x650px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 808x650px

>>14888945
My Jaguar XKR is supercharged. It's actually a really good way of boosting power. Compared to the N/A version, the Jaguar XK, the XKR feels substantially faster and doesn't suffer lag.

Positive displacement.
That is all.

>>14896044
DEM RIMS
How big are they bruh?

>>14896052
They're the factory standard 20"

>>14896044
What mods have you done to your V8 Brit autobox?

>>14896060
Nothing yet. What mods do you suggest I do?

>>14896068
>What mods do you suggest I do?
Titanium exhaust
Twin screw supercharger
Remap
???
PROFIT
You can get up to 650-700HP with just the above alone.

>>14896077
>Titanium exhaust
Fartmobile. No major HP increase (although being a jaguar that's not a big issue)
>Twin screw supercharger
If you can do it CORRECTLY, it will be a fantastic mod
>Remap
Basic power increase mod. Dont even need to buy new parts

Also, you could try a turbo-S/C or a twin-turbo+S/C combo, or see if you can get aftermarket electrical oil and water pumps, or get a lighter crank-piston-rods and valves made for performance.

>>14896018
Using nitro with a supercharger is burty gud if you have problems with detonation set it up to spray at full throttle and it helps deter detonation along with adding alot of power

>>14896094
Not the person you're replying to, but I must commend you for posting a constructive and informative post. 1000 internets to you sir!

>>14896094
>Titanium exhaust
Given that the Jaguar XKR is quite heavy, a titanium exhaust will offer some weight reduction.

>>14896110
Thank you. Now get the fuck back to /r/cars you absolute piece of trash

>>14896120
>>14896110
>>14896094
>>14896077
>>14896068
>>14896060
>>14896044
I must say that I like the direction that this thread is taking. Good job guys.

>>14896060
Just doing a remap alone will get you a decent amount of power.

>>14888945
Want fast 0-60
superchargers
want fun on the street for hooligan shit?
superchargers

wanna pull on the highway?
turbochargers
wanna get a fast 0-100?
turbochargers

that's a layman's understanding, which is all you need unless you're a professional.

>>14889324
If i remember correctly the supercharger on a hellcat reguires ~70hp just to drive it

>>14896022
the alternator belt is in no way experiencing the similar forces as a supercharger

belt slip is common as fuck

>>14896022
>e timing belt can slip out and fu

>altenator belt
car gives shit if it's slipping, unless it's so much it's no longer charging

>timing belt
You will be fucked

>>14896454
No. No its not common. And they all 3 belts experience almost similar forces due to them being dependant of the RPM

>>14896489
Dude, no. Altenator belt load is mostly dependent on power generation in the altenator, and can vary pretty big. Wouldn't know about supercharger belt, but it's atleast loaded by the change in rotating mass of the S/C.

Actually yes you're right, most cars have one long multi-v belt nowadays that runs over all auxillary devices.

>>14896516
Mate, the point is, there is a fucking pulley made to stop the supercharger belt from slipping off

>>14896454
>belt slip is common as fuck

Are you talking out your ass or have you actually experienced this? Because I know about 4 different people who have used both centrifugal and twin-screw supers for years who have never once had a problem with belt slip.

>>14894073
> won't give you more power
why wouldn't it. it doesn't take power from the crankshaft to move the equivalent volume of air

>>14897123
Because it takes power from the air and smoke flow, also doing some parasitic loss, and you need a bigger turbo to move the same amount of air compared to a S/C

>>14897180
> Because it takes power from the air and smoke flow
Sure, but it's less of an effect

> you need a bigger turbo to move the same amount of air compared to a S/C

Sure, but I don't think that's we were comparing. If you compare a turbo pushing the same amount of air as a supercharger, the turbocharged system will make more power.

>>14897190
>If you compare a turbo pushing the same amount of air as a supercharger, the turbocharged system will make more power.
You are about to give me a fucking aneurysm.

More air = more power
IF: S/C MOVES X AIR = IT PRODUCES Y POWER
IF: T/C MOVES X AIR = IT PRODUCES Y POWER TOO

Turbochargers are not magically gonna be able to produce more power than superchargers if they move the same amount of air. This is some kid-tier level physics shit.

>>14897220
Well technically, the turbocharger or supercharger doesn't produce power. I should have said that the power at the flywheel will be greater in the turbocharged system, due to having less parasitic power loss.

>>14897230
NOW you start making sense.

You see, thing is, parasitic loss its truly an over-rated meme. It exists, but its nothing like the way it was with S/Cs from the 70's.

And there is a big physical size difference between a turbocharger that provides +500 hp to a S/C that provides the same extra force (and lets not talk about the extra parasitic force that comes from the exhaust having their path blocked because of the turbines, and the intake having the path blocked by the intake turbine until it spools up, and the air being slowed down due to the pipes that the turbo need)

>>14897259
> You see, thing is, parasitic loss its truly an over-rated meme. It exists, but its nothing like the way it was with S/Cs from the 70's.

> just talking about dragsters using a quarter of their final output (of 8k hp) to spin a supercharger

>>14897300
>>14897259
Meant to say eighth, not quarter

>>14897308
That's like me saying that turbo lag doesn't exist and someone coming up with a giantic turbo that provides +900 hp extra claiming that there is lag in that.

No shit a giantic S/C will have more loss than a small one. No shit a giantic turbo will have turbo lag, but on non-race/drag S/C or T/C that shit was taken out of proportion.

If you get even a stage 3 but non-dragster S/C twin screw for a modern V8 you wont lose more than 1/10 of the engine natural power to get 10 times your N/A power.

If you get a stage 3 turbo, not for record-breaking nor any shit, you can also find little to no turbo lag, or get a twin turbo system.

Ive been defending S/C this thread because they get unneeded bullshit, compared to the T/C, their disadvantages are taken out of context and nearly supressed in this day and age, and their advantages overweight the other.

I dont even like S/C more than Turbos, i just dont like people using memes from decades ago to bitch about how turbos are better.

File: 1426108895395.jpg (27KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x375px

Only people with aftermarket forced induction on their cars can post below this line:

______________________________________

File: engine2.jpg (485KB, 1855x844px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1855x844px

>>14897698
call the cops, i dont give a fuck

>>14897333
> 8 you wont lose more than 1/10 of the engine natural power to get 10 times your N/A power.

hahaha
show me a mustang making 4000HP with a supercharger, that isn't losing more than 40HP in parasitic loss.

>>14889324

Swapping from a supercharger to a turbo on a 3800 gains power and MPGs, even with higher boost levels.

The stock M90 outputs 240, with a turbo (at 8psi) you can easily hit 300

File: 1458814303497.gif (363KB, 314x240px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 314x240px

>>14897698
15
5

Just gonna throw in here that the fastest cars in the world that run low fours on the quarter mile are all supercharged. Never seen a turbo run low fours

File: Newfag.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>14897896

>2 years late to the meme party

o u

>>14897698
only people that run the quarter mile in less than 17 seconds can reply to this post

>>14897908
>implying stock camaro 1/4 times in a modified 700hp cumero is any better

Cum on pham

>>14897903
reminder turbos are banned in Top Fuel

just like OHC

File: f4d[1].jpg (101KB, 686x582px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 686x582px

>>14896489
>an alternator or an hydraulic steering pump having to compress air to 20-25 psi while spinning at 30k RPM
>ever

File: hi.jpg (74KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 660x495px

>>14897931

Post ur slip.

>>14897220
>Turbochargers are not magically gonna be able to produce more power than superchargers if they move the same amount of air.

they actually do though, it takes more power to spin the supercharger than the amount of power lost as exhaust restriction

>>14897956
> implying elevation is an excuse
Top kek

>>14897903
and rocket cars have run sub 4 seconds, so what's your point bud

File: less than 15 seconds.jpg (176KB, 811x1442px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 811x1442px

>>14897956
me on the left during a 107 degree summer day

get smoked!

>>14897333
i got one for you they are EXPENSIVE there ya go.

Im not going to say that turbos are cheap for high quality ones. but you would be hard pressed to find a decent supercharger that can be strapped on a lsx to make 1000hp for less money than a turbo.

Plus >>what is iat's hot enough that you could cook a chicken with.

>>14897976
Christ what are you driving?

File: 1461031024183.jpg (42KB, 560x432px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 560x432px

>>14897834
>10% of 4000 is 40

>>14897888
>gains power and MPG
>[citation needed]

>>14897957
>they actually do though, it takes more power to spin the supercharger than the amount of power lost as exhaust restriction
Yeah, sure, if we compare a 25hp+ turbo vs a S/C that gives you plus 200hp

>>14897982
Yes. Because Turbos are so much cheaper. Reduce compression rate, new intake and exhaust ports, support for oil cooling, etc

>>14898195
dude you what, that doesnt make any sense at all.
>>14898208
Dude wtf are you talking about, reduced compression rate? new intake exhaust ports? oil cooling? None of that is required with a turbo, everything required to put a blower on an engine is required for a turbo. In fact less things are required for a turbo because you dont have to fuck with the retarded ass belt setups and you have a cooler intake charge making even more power and more detonation resistance.

>>14898195
no

turbos make power power at similar boost pressure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5kj1lSMBo

File: dc4.jpg (9KB, 200x211px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x211px

>>14898232
>reduce compression rate not required with a turbo

At this point i am thankful you dont wrench your own car

>>14898267
>turbo has more pressure than S/C
>it gives you just about 50 hp more
>"HURR DURR TURBOS ARE MORE POWERFUL"

>>14898186

http://zzperformance.com/3800/turbo-parts-kits/z3-turbo-kit.html

Even the most basic kit is a huge jump

File: BvAv6an[2].jpg (52KB, 900x810px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 900x810px

>>14898208

>>14898273
>thinking detonation can't occur when supercharging a high compression engine

clueless busrider pls

>>14898290
Did you even read your link? Its a page trying to sell a fucking turbo, and the only reason they state the Turbo is somehow more powerful its because it has a fucking intercooler

>>14898292
Me? i never said that it didn't happen with S/Cs too. I just laugh at people that think you dont need anything other than to install the turbo to make the car run better.

File: supercharger a shit.png (954KB, 643x739px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 643x739px

>>14898288
what the fuck are you talking about dumbass, they were both tested at 11 psi, and mare more than 100 extra hp

>>14898308

You can run the car with no intercooler and still make more power, it is extremely common.

I've swapped L67's into N/A cars before the turbo became a common thing and I own a turbocharged Monte Carlo that dyno'd at almost 400 WHP. Just because it's a prefab kit doesn't mean its incorrect.

>>14898308

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KAPQZZPjivo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HNkM_MSf0yQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lK0iZwjHE3c

>>14898374
>562 whp GTP

n ice

File: 24228112.jpg (63KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x400px

>>14898328
>>14898288
HOLY FUCKING SHIT REKT

FUCKING REKT

THE RECKAGE IS REAL MOTHERFUCKERS

File: b60[1].png (327KB, 519x654px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 519x654px

>>14898412
supercharger plebs always get BTFO

its usual stuff

>>14898328
Supercharger faggot here. I stand corrected about pressure vs power.

>>14898177
He said 10% n/a power

>>14898508
Yep. Just confirmed. Misread that and made fun of someone who didn't said any mistake and got proven wrong about S/Cs being same/more powerful than turbos at the same PSI.

Well, i guess i cant really argue for S/C anymore, since even big turbos pick up power at 3k RPM and that's pretty low for most cars

File: conspiracy-keanu.jpg (27KB, 551x549px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 551x549px

>>14898699
has hell frozen over?

>>14898717
Nope. I just like being logical. I stood that S/C are better than turbos because i thought so. I got proven wrong. Then i went onto a search and got proven wrong even more. Now i am admitting it. Looks like Turbos ARE providing more power.

I kinda suspected it from the moment i heard the prototype top fuel dragster with a turbo broke its crankshaft when the engine accelerated. Now i am confirmed beyond any doubt that Turbos provide more power than S/C at the same MPG.

Still dont know anything about the mechanical reliability of each and i even from the start knew Turbos make a better sound and look better. But now i know turbos provide better power. So congratulations, anon. You proved me wrong

>>14898023
Fiesta st with a few simple mods

File: mqdefault.jpg (482KB, 3376x1000px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 3376x1000px

>>14898267

Not really a fair comparison since positive-displacement superchargers (like a Roots- or Screw-type) are known for trading high-end horsepower for low-end torque. A Centrifugal-type would be more reasonable since they are variable-displacement like conventional turbochargers.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHg2uqJvLOk

>>14899162
>centrifugal
those are basically cucked turbos

there is no reason to get a centrifugal whatsoever

>>14899174
plus, look at the dyno graph at 2:35, the turbo setup is making more power at low end RPM than the supercharger

These kids actually think a supercharger eats 300Horsepower.

A top fuel blower takes 800HP to turn,
About 8%.
Meaning a modern TVS or twin screw on a 1000HP engine would only use about 80HP.

You guys are fucking retarded

>>14889011
>poverty supercharger
superchargers are a fuckton more expensive and can deliver far higher boost than turbos.

plz show me a sub 1000$ supercharger. I actually want one for my 2L 4 banger

>>14900512
Because it MUST scale like that. Where's your proof?

>>14900557
>superchargers are more expensive
you are a tard

>far higher boost than turbos
deff a tard

>>14900579
Superchargers are far more expensive
A supercharger capable of pumping out 700hp+ on a chebby vortec is around 5k
You can get two turbos capable of quad digits for $500 each

>>14892599
forced induction is like a one way valve. air goes in and the turbine or screw stops it going back out. meaning that as it pushes air in, it pushes it so fast that it cant escape back out. so you get pressure. like how you can pump up a tyre and it doesnt escape but keeps the wheel inflated. well forced induction is just a bicycle pump and your intake is like the bicycle tube. there is no where for it to go. so as soon as the intake ports on the cylinder open up, it rams itself in there.

or here is an analogy you might understand. you know when tyrone is pounding your tight white ass and then you do a giant cumfart? well tyrons BBC is like forced induction, constantly ramming air into your colon and the air tight seal of your anus stops it from escaping until the exhaust valve opens, which is like when he withdraws his BCC

Supercharger kit: $4000
Turbokit: $10000

>>14900585
Nice, I didn't know you could just lay them into your trunk and they work!

>>14900585
m8 what shite are you chattin, you can go an pick up an eaton m112 for like £500, and the install is litterally; put more fuel in.

are you looking at the price of a supercharger kit, then comparing them to a single turbo on its own? m8 lrn2install, its not like you can just bolt on a turbo to your manifold and dose it like a mad cunt

>>14900589
what kind of crazy turbo kit are you talking about that costs 10k$? is this the WOT racing kit?

>>14900593
i want to see a link for a supercharger below 1 grand USD that can supply enough airflow to push out 1k hp.

without that your full of shit.

>>14900590
i didnt know that the supercharger intake manifold was free either.

Glad to see that were on the same playing field here. A set of turbo manifolds for an ls1 are around 500$ that you bolt your turbo on to. thats if you dont make your own with flipped exhaust manifolds which is free.

You crazy cunts dont get it do you, that m112 does not flow enough air to push 1khp thats not even enough for 700. it runs out of breath around 550.

You literally need a supercharger double that size in order to make 1khp.

>>14900619
sure m8 supercharger out of a jag/range bolted to a tvr speed 8 running nitrometh and hydrazine.

what i'd like to see is a turbo setup capable of over 1khp for under £700. shit you can spend more than that on a intercooler, let alone the piping.

>>14900590
>>14900593
Scrap, pipe bender and a welder.. free :^)

can you build and engine with a twinscrewSC and a centrifugalSC blowing through the twinscrew or wouldthat damage the components?

>>14900589

I could fab an entire intercooled turbo kit for less than $1000 using all new parts for just about any car and all I have for tools are the shittiest ones from harbor freight

>>14900557
>supercharging a 4 cylinder

You're an idiot

>>14900683
> Scrap
> Pipe bender
> Welder
Yeah it's free, if you have all that stuff and the expertise and an ECM flash to go with it

>>14900557
>and can deliver far higher boost than turbos.
Just confirmed the opposite a few posts above yours

>>14900687
Wouldn't dmage the components, but it wouldn't increase power by much

>>14900883
>free if you have the stuff and you can do it yourself

And rebuilding an engine from 0 is also free if you have the expertise and the stuff. Fixing a car, swapping engines, etc.

>>14898765
Well, s/c still provides instant boost from idle, so if you really want that, it's the way to go.

>>14902988
I do keep that in mind, but i also know that most racers are thaught to keep the car in the right powerband. S/C only seem useful when starting from a stop, AKA: The dragsters special need.

>>14900586
yeah, the cumfart is the boost, your your anus alone doesnt create the cumfart, you nee Tyrones dick to punish your boipussy in the first place

to tyrone dick was kinda responsable of the cumfart, just like your boipussy

>>14902885
I'm not looking for more hp I'm more looking for a flatter and wider torque-curve

>>14903917
The S/C already flattens the low end torque. Having a smaller S/C wont give you better low end torque, that's how Turbos work, not S/C. Having a S/C of a smaller size means less parasitic power and less output power.

>>14903098
Even then the early boost from a sc is still of no benefit
Launch control and brake boosting means turbo cars are a rocket ship off the line

File: d_1960[1].gif (30KB, 460x580px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 460x580px

>>14896017
This is a compressor map of a gt35r straight from garrett.

79% efficient in the highest efficiency island.

If you google supercharger compressor map you'll find lots of things. A LYS 2300 that maxes out at 65%, a whipple that manages 61%, and a vortech SQ (turbocharger style compressor) that delivers a whopping 75%.

All of those are less than this 35R. So even if you completely eliminated the parasitic loss from the crank, you'd still get less power from a supercharger than a turbo.

>>14905527
You are late to the party tho