Which one do you like more? Why?

File: 1425855235283.jpg (1MB, 2048x1901px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1901px

Simple answer

>>15964673
BTFO!

>>15964673
>the person who keeps posting this will never get a car
>he will continue to ride the bus forever

File: CmyXY4jWcAAt9J5.jpg (179KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1200x900px

>>15964681
Stay triggered

>>15964681
t. assmad gm fangirl

File: 1468856716272.png (254KB, 472x410px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 472x410px

>>15964681
Pic related

Turbo, because its better.

I like them both, and they both have their pros and cons. For example, a supercharget has power on demand, but due to being bet driven they're parasitic in a way. In contrast a turbo is powered by exhaust gasses, so they're using something that is normally wasted, but they also take a bit of time to spool. cost wise, going about things the right way and not cutting corners, a turbo would be more expensive to complete, and are more complicated to maintain. Personally I'm happy with either but I generally like turbocharged engines more.

>>15964884
I had all sort of typos here. That's what I get for doing it on mobile I guess.

Turbo w/ electronic spooling

>>15964884
Turbo is still parasitic in a way

The turbo in the exhaust piping can be seen as an obstruction, like an extra catalytic converter. The engine needs to work harder to push exhaust through a turbo that it otherwise would on a stock car

Not as parasitic as a supercharger but its definitely still not 'free energy'

I can't decide. How can you choose between WOOOAAAHH WOOOAAAAHHH and WwwssssSSSS PSHHHH?

>SC pros/cons
+low end torque
+dat whine tho
+less stress on engine
+cheaper (generally speaking)
+more applicable in daily driver scenarios
-looks like the face huggers from the Alien movie
-outscaled by high end turbos
-parasitic

>TC pros/cons
+high end ZOOOOOOOOooooooooooom
+can also sound good
+the be all and end all for performance. outclasses SCs heavily on the top end
-have to reach higher RPM for turbos to spool, delay of power
-higher pressure on engine = more unreliable
-smaller turbos or twin turbos can mean more reliable power band, but more maintenance

tl;dr, turbos are better for tracking and interstate pulls.
supers are better for inner city and stoplight heroes.

Turbos are for poors.

File: IMG_8636.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Supercharger for the superior engine response

>pic unrelated

>>15965066
>sc
>less stressful on engine
That's wrong tho, superchargers beat the fuck out of your main bearings

Supercharger performance with turbo's roar.

Only fags like that supercharger whine.

>>15965145
>Only fags like that supercharger whine
superchargers are for cucks who cant get a gf so they gotta emulate it some how

NOS

Turbo is objectively superior.

Supercharged and na engines are booking for me. G
It refer getting my spine raped when turbos kick in over the steady delivery with supercharged or just charged engines.

Nothing beats supercharger scream tho. I'd like to have supercharged jag or amg one day.

>>15964919
I wasn't aware of that but the description makes sense. That's p informative.

File: IMG_1600.jpg (1MB, 4368x2912px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4368x2912px

Naturally aspirated v12

File: 1450694018413.jpg (240KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1024x640px

>>15965210
>$6,500 repair bill
>spark plug change takes 4 hours
>8mpg on a good day
>european """reliability"""

>>15964665
has anyone made a single forced induction unit that combines superchargers and turbos? like running a clutch on the SC pully, only disengaging once the turbo spools and the SC is falling out of efficiency. I don't mean superturbo setups, but one single component that does this

>>15965218
>he cares about mpg
Stay poor

>>15965218
We get it, you're poor

People who can afford a v12 obviously make more money than you ever will, and they can afford to pay people to fix their shit while they're off golfing or something.

It's almost like you're trying to justify the fact that you'll never have one...

>>15965219
That seems really complicated. Would something like that have to be a multi part unit? Or maybe be designed like a centrifugal with two different chambers for accepting air. It's feasible I guess, but there would need to be a long blackboard session to make a reliable concept.

>>15965219
VAG TSI engines had twin charging at one time
supercharger going to about 2500RPM when it would disengage and the turbo would step in, seamless transition, no lag

>>15965244
>>15965254
>lol you must be poor
Rich people don't get and stay rich by spending stupid amounts of money.

>>15965254
>>15965244
I'm not him but the rich don't stay rich by being willfully stupid with their money. Even if I did make enough to be considered wealthy I would still be smart with what I dumb funds into.

>>15965268
Once again. Typos. Lol I can't win today.

>>15965268
>>15965267

do you have a single fact to back that up?

Supercharger, because turbos don't whine.

https://youtu.be/Dg2ZSV6u4A8

>>15965145
>supercharger performance
So half the horsepower of a turbo?

>>15965292
Well its simple cause and effect my dear Watson . If you spend more money, then you will have less money saved. Inversely if you spend less money, then you will have more money saved

>>15964919
What if you na turbo your car and you do a cat delete. I know they say catalytic converters arent restrictive but lets be real no engine benefits from having a honeycomb like structure full of pinholes 5 inches in breadth corking up the exhaust. Will the engine have issue spooling the turbo then? Will i have less hp than stock in the low end because my exhaust gasses are pushing the compressor?

>less power per psi
>violent throttle response fucks your rods and bearing surfaces
>oiling is always fucky compared to turbo
>higher price (2500 will get you a shite vortec or a brilliant triple ball bearing twin scroll super special shit your pants turbo with billet compressor and inconel impeller and your choice of housing both hot and cold side)
>sc doesnt look good unless you get a roots blower or twin screw because a centri will look like a awkward belt driven turbo bracketed to the engine block

>>15964665
I-I actually don't know the difference.

>>15965267
>>15965315
You do understand that someone with enough money to buy a V12 car will not be bothered by any sort of petrol bill right

File: 19-BS-Inspections-at-2013-Pacific-Northworst-24-Hours-of-LeMons-626x426[1].jpg (65KB, 626x426px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 626x426px

I'll just leave this here

File: pagani-huayra-11.jpg (427KB, 1600x1060px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1600x1060px

>>15965210
>not turbo v12
pleb

>>15965562
because injectors are optional

>>15965318
Turbos are always situated before the cats. Turbos are very parasitic and not alot of people realise that the restriction on the exhaust causes cylinder temps to be a hell of a lot higher. I personally wouldn't turbo any car without some sort water injection to keep temps at a reasonable level.

>>15965661
BMW pls

>>15965562
Did you take it out of your car to make room for more reliable power?

>>15965318
Cat delete isnt necessary, a downpipe with a bigger diameter and 200 cell metal cat is enough to flow everything trough (On a GTI 20-30hp more for example.) But the diameter is the more important part.

>>15965258
Friend had one of those 1.4 with 170hp.
It broke down so often because of engine problems the dealership took it back. Was a Golf V GT

Naturally aspirated plz. Give me MORE REVS.

>>15964919
Not entirely true because Turbo is spooled by expansion of exhaust gas not the motor pushing it out. It's expending anyway, using this to your advantage is increases efficiency. You would be right if there was no waste gate valve, though. It opens to prevent over pressure and thus prevents strain and parasitic behavior of Turbos.

To topic:
Imagine your motor has 200hp n/a. A supercharger can add 100hp and be stable but it requires 50hp to do so. You now have 300 hp output but the strain of 350hp on the motor. A turbo with same pressure level would create 350 hp but with spool up time. Therefore turbo for maximum power, charger for more power any time.

>>15966491
The additional back pressure does cause a loss of power (not net of course), a turbo doesn't blow air thorugh the engine.

>>15965066
>+less stress on engine
you mean MORE stress

File: lancia delta s4.jpg (319KB, 1772x1181px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1772x1181px

Why not both?

File: 1411998963015.jpg (170KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1000x750px

>>15964665
supercharger because less parts to go wrong
that and better exhaust flow

theres different types of superchargers too btw. centrifugal superchargers are pretty great. a pretty affordable option

>>15965562
can never go wrong with nitrous oxide

File: US08439020-20130514-D00005.png (96KB, 2029x2873px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 2029x2873px

>>15966598
they have many of the same oiling and over boost issues as turbo
about the only gain is that they do not have to deal with as much heat

>>15966674
they deliver a more top end power too i believe where as your typical blower system would be more low end power

File: zIVS2JF.jpg (726KB, 3640x2730px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 3640x2730px

I just like the noise it makes. Or hopefully will make if I ever put it back together.

File: US08439020-20130514-D00003.png (106KB, 2020x2679px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 2020x2679px

>>15966681
for set ups below 9 psi there is not much issue
but at higher boost they become just as complex to manage as a turbocharger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMwStIYIo4

>>15966553
You mean LESS stress