https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0N MCMcdVp4 Turbo vs Super

No.

Yes.

Maybe.

>>15951287
>>15951301
>>15951306

Cheers guys

/thread, I guess

Both is the only correct answer

They'll just prove that moog is a massive faggot.

>>15951749
based autistic moog

>>15951283
I wonder if they'll put a nice header (''extractor'') on the supercharged one, otherwise it might bottleneck there. Also, turbo headers make kinda small gains (especially compared to a nice handmade manifold like they're using), so they should be able to get some nice gains with a header on the supercharged car.

I'm already kinda sold on the supercharger though. Easy install, and it's probably going to get 90% of the power of that turbo setup.Chances are, if you can't live with a 15hp deficit, you can't live with a Miata anyways.

>>15951283
No, moog will shout about it for a while while Marty tries to actually do something

>>15951283
>Pro Tip:
The answers Turbo

>>15951283

It's not a question anymore everyone knows the answer. They both add power but turbo does it more efficiently. Bam, done.

>>15951283
can moog stop shouting and calling everything "mad"

>>15952252
On the other hand a turbo *usually* isn't as smooth at adding power, a supercharger's gains are much more linear.

Watched as much as I had time for. Marty's prediction that the supercharged car would be a torque monster is wrong, as turbos make way more bottom end and midrange torque. If the results play out out like on the 86/BRZ, the turbo will make more power everywhere with the same boost.

File: Boost vs RPM.png (13KB, 987x524px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 987x524px

>>15952266
Smooth doesn't matter as long as you can get more boost across a wide RPM band. Pic related.

>>15952272
Any kind of orced induction adds torque, tha's just basic maths.

>>15952252
>They both add power but turbo does it more efficiently
Actually, turbo compressors tend to be less efficient because you can't directly control their RPM. The end product is more efficient thoguh, with more HP out of a given amount (psi) of boost.

>>15952272

Dont superchargers have more bottom end torque, with the virtually absent spool up time.

>>15952370
Centrifugals don't. You're thinkging of positive displacement blowers - and they're hard to intercool, not efficient, and can't make as much PSI if you don't want scalding hot intake air.

>>15952291
Depends on what you're after I guess. If hitting boost causes you to spin the tires to me that's a problem.

>>15952396
That's what electronic boost control is for. You can always turn it down (or change your ignition), but you can't add boost using your ECU.

Centrifugals are awesome, they make the average shitty 4 banger like the miata lump feel like a F20C

How easy is it to add a bigger turbo to an already turbocharged car. I assume you just swap it out and maybe upgrade a few other engine parts depending on whether they can handle the new boost?

How much harder is it to add a turbo to a car that was not already turbocharged.

>>15951729
#twincest

>being to poor to swap a better engine

Moog was so fucking annoying this episode.

>>15951283
No, they'll do something pointless, stupid and way less funny than they think it is.

>>15954440
Moog is always annoying. If it weren't for him mighty car mods might actually be good. He's as bad as that fag with the glasses they had on new top gear.

>>15952370
Centrifugal superchargers build boost linearly with rpm. A turbo will have more boost in the mid range after it spools and should make more power at a given boost pressure because of the parasitic loss from the supercharger.

>>15951306
I don't know.

>>15951283
Centrifugal VS Turbos is basically turbo vs turbo. A real comparison would need to be a roots or screw type positive displacement supercharger vs a turbo.

>>15951283
>>15951306
can you repeat the question?

>>15954676
>Centrifugal VS Turbos is basically turbo vs turbo
wut
hell no idiot
one produces boost based directly on crank speed and the other produces boost based directly on exhaust volume.

>>15954676
If this were the case the positive displacement would give the smoothest power delivery and most power on the low end. And the turbo would win in most power and most power per psi.

Max power/best mpg: Turbo

Ease of installation and axle wrecking TQ: Positive displacement supercharger.

>>15954696
Turbo still offers smoother power delivery and superior low end

>>15954676

>PTO driven radial compressor with fixed coupling to crankshaft speed is basically the same as a radial compressor coupled to a radial turbine driven by the potential energy of the exhaust stream, also acting as a fluid coupling
> A compressor that is mechanically driven by a high power source rendering rotating mass to a small level of importance vs a compressor that is dynamically driven and is affected by turbine choke flow, rotating assembly mass, pressure differential between the inducer and exducer of the turbine, total enthalpy etc, etc etc
> It's da same thing, mayne

Are you serious? It's chalk and cheese. Get the fuck out of here.

>>15954690
A centrifugal type supercharger is a belt driven turbo. The impeller is spun by a belt connected to the crank shaft. RPM increases linearly because of the direct mechanical link to the motor. The amount of air moved by the impeller however is dependent on several variables including impeller geometry and manifold pressure and is NOT linear.

>TL;DR CFM of a centrifugal supercharger is not linear, even though it is based on engine RPM.

Please Learn about things before talking about them.

>>15954734
>is a belt driven turbo

>>15954734
>A centrifugal type supercharger is a belt driven turbo.
No, you're fucking stupid. "Turbo" comes from "turbine"
A centrifugal supercharger has no TURBINE

File: laughing hysterically.jpg (19KB, 397x302px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 397x302px

>>15954734
>A centrifugal type supercharger is a belt driven turbo.
>Please Learn about things before talking about them.

>>15954719
a turbo is an impeller driven by exhaust, a centrifugal supercharger is an impeller spun by a belt. They are more simaler than they are different. A positive displacement supercharger (blowers) deliver a fixed amount of air per revolution. Airflow of a blower is directly related to engine speed and is a linear function, the boost pressure is only affected by the volumetric efficiency of the motor at a given RPM.

>>15954773
They're similar in that they're both compressors, they may look similar to your ignorant ass, but I assure you they are more different than they are similar.

Why does /o/ hate moog so much lol?
I get he acts silly for a bit of a meme but he's not that fucking bad

>>15954793
If you think moog is funny you're either a prepubescent, drunk, or a retard.

He's tryhard, (that's never funny), he's childish, (rarely funny), and he thinks he's funny, (this is like the antidote to humor. Nobody who acts like they're funny is actually funny)

>>15954785
Did you read my post? a turbo is an impeller spun by exhaust. a centrifugal supercharger is an impeller spun by a belt. the centrifugal will deliver boost in a more linear manner because it is driven by the crank, however the boos level does not stay constant, because the cfm of the impeller is based on impeller speed and is a non linear function.

>>15954818
Did you read mine? No that's right you're retarded. They're both compressors, they both have vaguely snailish shape, that's it. The similarities in construction and performance characteristics end there.

Ya'll are Tards, Watch this.

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

>>15951283
WEVE GAWRT SUPEE PEEUBES MAHHTEHHHH

had to stop watching them like 2 years ago when it became apparent they ran out of gimmicks, catch phrases, and generic trance.

still the same thing or have they gotten shit together yet?

>>15954828
>I don't know things
The post.

>>15954816
Eh, I don't think he's particularly funny but I guess I just have a different perspective on it. It seems like a lot of his jokes are done as purposefully lame/ironic, both Marty and Moog make shitty puns/jokes that you're MEANT to cringe at, it's just part of the humour.
I haven't noticed such mass irrational hate for moog anywhere but /o/

>>15954890
cringing isn't enjoyable to me

>>15954890
Also I really don't think Marty would be so great without Moog.

Yes Moog can be annoying, but without him its just not MCM.

>>15954904
I guess you never would have had a chance to experience this, but when you're chatting with friends and someone makes a deliberately shit joke, you all get to laugh at how bad the joke is, making it amusing.
Gee I love having to explain the mechanics behind a fucking joke to people

>>15954911
Yeah their dynamic and banter that helps make the show genuine and enjoyable I reckon. Obviously they have different personalities but that's a good thing

>>15954911
>>15954977
I think the contrast in their personalities is pretty nice and their reactions to each others' humour style adds enjoyment

>>15955016
Exactly what I was thinking

File: !Cuntswe.jpg (95KB, 769x606px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 769x606px

>>15954773

Incorrect. They are more different than they are similar.

Yes, both utilise a radial compressor. However, one is directly mechanically drive and as such does not respond remotely similar to a compressor who's drive comes from a function of heat, volume, mass, velocity and pressure exerted on a turbine.

The boost pressure is therefore affected by; the drive gas temperature, the drive gas pressure, the drive gas volume, the speed of the drive gas flow over the turbine, the efficiency of the turbine at that particular point in the choke flow map, the pressure differential between the inducer and exducer of the turbine wheel.

It is FAR from what you state - "boost pressure is only affected by the volumetric efficiency of the motor at a given RPM." This is incredibly false, and can be proven by the most basic of turbocharger monitoring instruments on a Diesel engine. We select Diesel in this situation as we can increase the delivery of fuel without changing the VE. Pick any point in the VE map for a reciprocating engine. Operate the engine at this speed. Record the drive gas values and inlet manifold/scavenge air space values. Increase the fuel delivery and observe the increase in drive gas heat and a small increase in drive gas volume and pressure. Suddenly, both boost pressure and drive pressure have increased.

How has this happened, if "boost pressure is only affected by the volumetric efficiency of the motor at a given RPM"?

Your understanding is limited. Turn down the arrogance in >>15954818 >>15954849

>>15954968
It's /o/ what did you expect, these people don't have human conversations.

>>15955198
You are not reading the posts.
boost pressure is a function of the volumetric efficiency of a motor at a given RPM only on a positive displacement suprecharger. For example; a blower that makes 5 psi at idle will make roughly 5 psi all throughout the rpm range. Assuming the blower is 100% at moving air, the boost will vary depending on how much air is being moved by the motor at a given rpm (volumetric efficency).

The boost curve of a turbo is almost flat untill a certain RPM and then becomes exponential until it reaches a pre-determined boos level set by the wastegate, at wich point it becomes essentially flat again.

The boost curve of a centrifugal supercharger is (mostly) linear and increases with engine rpm in a (mostly) linear fashion.

Let's say you have a turbo a centrifugal supercharger and a blower, all with a boost pressure of 10 psi.

The blower will make 10ish psi at idle, and basically everywhere else in the rpm range.

The turbo will make little to no boost until a certain rpm, at which point it will shoot up in an exponential manner until it hits 10 psi and will then stay at 10 psi trough the duration of the RPM range.

The centrifugal supercharger will start at a low boost number, and then steadily climb to max boost pressure. at what rpm max boost pressure is reached is dependent on how max boost is governed, weather by some sort of blow of valve type device or because it starts loosing efficiency past a given rpm.

The blower will make by far the most power down low because it is making full boost at all rpm.

The centrifugal will make more power than the turbo down low because it doesn't rely on exhaust gas to spool, and ill therefore be making some sort of boost before the point at which the turbo spools up.

At a certain rpm and beyond, once the turbo has reached full boost, the turbo will make the most power because it has the least parasitic loss of the 3.

>>15955741
(Cont.)

In short.

The BLOWER will make the most power BELOW the rpm at which the turbo reaches max boost.

The TURBO will make the most power ABOVE the rpm at which it makes max boost

The CENTRIFUGAL will make more power than the turbo, but less power than the blower BELOW a certain rpm and then make more power than the blower and the sameish/less power than the turbo ABOVE a certain rpm

A centrifugal is sort of a compromise between a turbo and a blower, and therefore a directo comparison between a turbo and a positive displacement type supercharger would be better than a comparison between a turbo and a centrifugal.

Hopefully this all makes sense now.

File: number_five_is_not_alive.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>15955741
Boost pressure is not a function of anything. It is a physical measurement of air pressure that is restricted in flow with a standard graduation. It is not an algorithm (function) of anything.
No blower, not a Weiand 144 or 671 or 871 on top of Small Block Chevrolets nor any of the positive displacement blowers that I have serviced on MAN Diesel & Turbo, MAN B&W, Sultzer, Detroit Diesel MTU etc etc blah blah have behaved as you describe. No pump of any kind will output the same mass of air across an infinite range of rotor speed. The case heats and expands, compromising the sealing between the rotor and case, and output drops. The volumetric efficiency of the engine changes across the engine speed range, and as a result the measure of restricted air flow (boost) increases and decreases. The VE of the pump itself decreases as air velocity increases. No blower is 100% efficient at pumping air - that's ludicrous. No pump can do such a thing. So no, Roots blower ‘boost’ is not based solely on the VE of the engine it is mounted to. Why would a Roots blower have an efficiency curve AT ALL if this was the case? Would it not be displayed as a bar flat horizontal line across the map from zero revolutions to infinite if they worked the way you believe they work?
Let's look at your hypothetical situation, which is abysmal;
First things first, 10Psi when and how, measured where? Secondly, the Roots blower will not measure 10Psi at idle. Not in the Diesel process as the blower is filling the swept displacement every second revolution and not in the Spark Ignition process as the intake tract is throttled at idle. Thirdly, no, the Roots blower will not move the same amount of air across the engine speed range. I don't think you've touched a blower before, let alone measured the output of one at various engine speeds.

Next you mention that the turbocharger boost will 'shoot up in an exponential manner.' While it will increase quickly proportional to drive gas increases it is not logarithmic and does not follow an exponential gradient. It is the direct result of the relationship between the factors of Enthalpy as listed in>>15955198.

Then you have described the hallmark characteristics of Roots blowers versus turbochargers versus Centrifugal superchargers very loosely. That has not much to do with what we are discussing - that you believe a Centrifugal supercharger is very similar to a turbosupercharger. It's not, no matter how much you wish it so. To use your own words, 'You are not reading the posts.'

Looking at what you have described here, it's crap too. There is no way that you are able to say with certainty that for every displacement, every combustion process, every crankshaft configuration, every cylinder head, every camshaft centreline and characteristics, every engine operating range, every fuel injection control system, every exhaust configuration and every ambient environmental impact that a Roots blower will make more down low than this, that or the other. Or that this will make more power versus that.

File: Roots_blower_on_this_one.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Then to go further and state with certainty that a turbosupercharger will unequivocally make more power than a Roots blower or Centrifugal supercharger. Really? Let's use your shit example of 10Psi as target boost. Let's assume we are using a common 400SBC, but you can substitute any petroleum engine of five litres swept volume or higher for this. You are saying as truth, without a doubt, that a single GT2871 with a .64 T2 housing that reaches turbine choke not far from idle will make more power than a 1071 with a pair of Dominators and zoomies. That the 2871, that is flat out moving 44.5 pounds/min at 10Psi and by this stage will have charge air temperatures approaching 200C at the outlet, will make more power than an understressed PD blower with no net restriction in the exhaust tract. Or that the exhaust side of the GT2871 would allow enough drive flow to stay under 3:1 EMP/IMP, which for the majority of engines, is critical shut down pressures? But swap the sizes around so you are using say a KKK K365 that will move about 130pounds/min at 10Psi versus a Weiand 144 on the same configuration and yes, the turbosupercharger will result in a higher net output. The Weiand is too small and boost will fall SHARPLY as engine speed increases. Charge air temperatures will be approaching 250C.
There are too many variables for you to say any of these things in certainty. There are configurations where the turbosuperchargers are delivering full additional air mass within the first quarter of the engine speed operating range and where the crankshaft speed would not drive a mechanical supercharger sufficiently. There are situations where the exhaust valve duration is far too long and closes too long ATDC to drive a turbocharger with efficiency and a positive displacement pump would blow it out of the water.
TL;DR You overgeneralise a complex topic and end up failing at just about all of it.

Holy shit not going to read these walls of text, but looks like someone is getting severely BTFO, good work clearly knowledgeable anon

>>15955950
I know and understand that nothing is 100% efficient. I know and understand that a compressor adds heat to the air it is compressing and this changes the density of the air charge. i know that no pump will output the same mass over infinite rotor speed, this is actually implied when I talk about the way a boost curve works in a centrifugal.

i understand that boost is essentally just the measure of the restriction of flow, I took thermodynamics and spent a good deal of time calculating several of the dynamics which we are discussing. However, most people on this board are not engineers, and so i am speaking quite broadly for the sake of illustrating trends.

For the sake of the argument we are assuming that all 3 power adders are being used on the same motor and all three operate under ideal conditions with 100% efficiency unless otherwise noted. This means that at the same boos pressure they will all be moving the same amount (mass) of air. We are measuring boost pressure between the intake valve and the output side of the power adder, so essentally in the intake manifold. I realize that camshaft timing, ignition timing, head flow characteristics, exhaust flow characteristics, ect. all affect the way a power adder works. However it is not possible for me to document and explain all these variable in anything other than a full college thesis. This information is meant to show general trends in the way power adders behave. You are being extremely pedantic and i suggest you take your blood pressure meds before you keel over.

>>15955198
>>15955965
this guy always showing up in turbo threads and posting 200 word essays. every turbo thread.
speak english ffs dude

HAHA LE SEXUAL INNUENDOS EPIC XD

Just give marty his own show already god damn

File: number_five_is_truly_fucked.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>15956082

You can assume what you want, but this is the bottom line;

They do not operate under ideal conditions, they do not operate at 100% efficiency, they do not move the same mass of air at the same pressure. You are comparing apples to concrete blocks by painting them all as 100% efficient radishes. Neither an apple or a concrete block is a radish and won't behave like one either. Much like a positive displacement pump will not behave like a mechanically driven radial compressor which will not behave like a gas turbine.

Most importantly, they will not have the same behaviour on every engine combination. It's downright foolish to preach that they do exactly that.

>>15956082 is a long way of saying that you made a perfect hypothetical universe to describe imperfect physical relationships in the real world. It is not cross compatible. But whatever, believe what you wish.

If your aim was to show general trends on how a compressor will respond when combined with an IC engine, why not just do that? Instead of saying in truth that this device makes more power than this device, which behaves exactly in this way. They don't, they won't, and until we can really start bending air to our will they can't.

I've taken my blood pressure medication, I do that every morning. You try working onboard for months at a time on a ship full of Papua New Guineans who have no respect for cylinder temperature without blood pressure issues! But I suggest you re-take thermodynamics.

>>15956106

I am typing in English. Why not learn how to read it? Or better yet, why not learn about turbocharging? Then you may not be so confused when you are reading a topic about turbochargers.

Ya dingus.

>>15956106
This is exactly why i am being so broad and general. people don't want a dissertation on thermo/fluid dynamics. they want simple answers.

Blower makes more boost/power down low
turbo makes more boost/power up top.
centrifugal is kinda a mix.

easy as that.

>>15956147
im not confused, turbo>supercharger. what else is there to know?

>>15956152

Well, sums you up pretty quickly.

>>15956149

Sure, why don't we dumb everything down? A nuclear power plant will always output more power than a coal plant, even if there are three thousand 10MW turbine sets in the coal plant and a single set in the nuclear plant.

Or that apples are always red.

Or that water is always cold.

Or that air is always still.

You can dumb it down to your level if you wish, but that does not make it any more correct.

>>15956164
RIght, but dude, this is 4 chan not ASME people on this board are looking for basic information. You and I are probably the only 2 people on this board who understand the technical and scientific points of thermo/fluid dynamics that govern the output of internal combustion engines, and I can all but gaurentee we are some of the only people here who give a flying fuck about them. If people want technical answers they will ask technical questions, otherwise just spoon feed them the basics.

>>15956152
Depends on the application, but for a regularly driven hoon-mobile that most of us build, yes, that is correct

>>15956194

Are you having a laugh? This is a thread where a discussion emerged about the technical behavior of various superchargers. And most of it is complete horseshit. If the posters in this thread did not want to discuss a technical topic this is a fucking strange way to go about it.

I'm out champion, say and do whatever it is that makes you happy. But you cannot modify facts, oversimplify and overgeneralize this topic to make it fit the target audience because you think they can't understand what is actually happening. If the target audience wants to learn about supercharging and how it works, cool beans. The facts won't change because they are hard to understand. That's life. If you can't understand a topic work harder until you do. Anyone can.

But don't bend the truth to make it easier for someone to understand, because then it's not the truth.

Oils ain't oils, and superchargers (including turbosupercharging) ain't superchargers. Like it or not, there are too many variables to shoot the shit on 4Chan and say 'this is how it works every time,' cause it don't.

>>15956200

Depends. If you've got more than 220 degrees both lobes at .050 and an LSA of 108 a blower will walk all up and down an equivalent turbocharger. Swap that around to LSA 114 and the turbocharger will walk all up and down the blower.

Horses for courses.

>>15956224
2 questions

How many people on this thread, or even this board understand technical camshaft specs, besides you and me?

How many rice grinders have factory cams with a 108 lsa?

any way, it's too late for this shit. you win.

>>15956194

So you still think you are some sort of higher intellect even after that guy has blown your whole argument out of the water.

I suggest you rethink the whole "You and I are probably the only 2 people on this board who understand the technical and scientific points...." part.

>>15956106
It's your problem if you can't understand simple academic matter. I, for one, love turbosueprcharger essay dude.

>>15956194
>people on this board are looking for basic information.
Actually, a lot of people, me included, would love to have some intelligent discourse that goes further than Corvette vs GT-R shitposting.

So, start talking smart, or git out.

>>15956259
>How many people on this thread, or even this board understand technical camshaft specs, besides you and me?
You'd be amazed. Several engine builders, and I'm pretty sure some people have looked into some in-depth articles in magazines like Hotrod.

>>15954838
same shit

why no just [spoiler]throttlebody[/spoiler]

>>15952297
>Actually, turbo compressors tend to be less efficient because you can't directly control their RPM
Did you just string a bunch of words together in the hope they'd make sense? The one critical flaw of a supercharger and its efficiency across the rev range is the fact that it has a fixed ratio to the crankshaft.
The turbo "RPM control" is done by means of throttle position, albeit with a varying degree of latency depending on setup.

>>15951817
Which one you have in mind? FFS seems like a good quality kit compared to the Jackson kits

>>15957454
I'd probably use a Rotrex centrifugal like they're using in OP's video, if I ever get the funds to get me a Miata weekender and boost it. PD blowers create an awful lot of heat, and they're hard to intercool. I'd probably order something like this:
https://ilmotorsport.de/shop/article_detail.php5?aid=3618&oid=1299&depth=2&page=0&count=1&PHPSESSID=dfbfa02f329af74330139739ce642a42&lang=EN

How can you fags actually watch those fucking memes

>>15954491
You are wrong. Moog is a dick, but that Top Gear guy is the dick of all the dicks and then some.