Turbo vs Supercharger General

Supercharger always sounds better. Turbos sound like tinnitus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9VJCtqtnsI

Don't post an 8 minute video without time stamping to the relevant part.

>>17030917
It sounds like Pingu

>>17030918
t. dummy

Supercharger is what I'd prefer, I really wish fwd turbod cars would come supercharged instead so you don't build up lag then all the sudden blow off your tires and torque steer into a ditch.

>>17030911
what a quizzical pepe...

Always supercharger. Turbo a shit. Supercharger has the best of forced induction and naturally aspirated.

>>17030911
>>17030917
Fuck off with these pussy displacements. Supercharger whine > Turbo shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGaW1HPr3jo

>>17031028
>not twin charging
It's like you enjoy compromising

>>17031039
>twin charging
It's like you enjoy your engines grenading

File: blower_butterflyscoopsm.jpg (32KB, 245x269px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 245x269px

oh and I'm gonna have to agree with everyone here. supercharger is life.

>>17031040
Good luck blowing up a big block

>>17031039
>supercharger whine when you press the throttle
>turbo pssh when you let off

wew lad

On a related note, why is no diesel ever fitted with a supercharger? Why is it always turbos?

>>17031044
Why don't you see these things sticking out of newer cars? They're always hidden under the hood

>>17031050
you kidding me? 2 stroke diesel literally cannot run without a blower of some kind. technically it's not a supercharger, but then you see people stack chargers on top of it.

>>17031051
fuel injection, I assume. Air scoops are for carbureted engines.

I'm just talking shit so hopefully if that's wrong someone will correct me.

>>17031050
they are

File: Turbo vs Supercharger.jpg (56KB, 568x832px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 568x832px

>>17030911

>>17031054
adding to this, you look at tractor engines and then you'll start seeing things like
>diesel, supercharged twin turbo

>>17031051
maybe safety?

>>17031051
Fuel injection

>>17031069
>>17031059
That's what I figured. It's a shame, they look badass

>>17031062
>>>/reddit/
>>>/Facebook/
>>>/anywherebuthere/

>>17031061
Which ones?

>>17031087
That's not factory though.

>>17031087
it's also clickbait and a lie. i'll delete.

I can't find the tractors I was looking at, but there are factory supercharged diesels with twin turbo out there.

File: gt86's worst nightmare.jpg (184KB, 1605x846px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1605x846px

toyoda pls

>>17031100
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR9I1x2Ix-0
got one.

>>17031103
I'm starting to think toyota just needs to stick to making corolas

>>17031110
IMO Toyota ought to be the boring car manufacturer that sometimes makes a very interesting car again.

Toyotas have always been the ultimate sleepers

>>17031541
>Toyotas have always been the ultimate sleepers
E120 turbo kits go for barely 3k. Think I'm getting an idea desu

Has /o/ really become this retarded? It literally takes .02-.3 seconds to achieve full boost on a modern car, turbos also aren't subject to as much drive train loss plus easier to tune the fuck are you retards monging about

it's all about that ecoboost faggots, learn your shit

Plus turbos have better top end which is where real man speed is not bitch ass low end for town speeding

>>17030911

Did OP just confuse a supercharger with a straight cut gearbox?

Both of those are turbocharged.

>>17031618
>.02-.3
It takes a supercharger .0 seconds. Looks like your slower

>>17031624
>tripfag
opinion discarded.

>>17031658
im the most educated person around here, but okay, your loss

>>17031648
>namefag
opinion discarded.

>>17031663
>implying

>>17031663
>shills ecoshit
>claims to be educated
',:^)

>>17030911
>choosing forced induction based on the sound
I prefer a supercharger for the more linear powerband

>>17031648
You've obviously never driven a turbo vehicle
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lo86ILW8tyA

>>17031706
sounds terrible

Why is turbo whistle more prominent on diesels than gas engines

>>17031751
diesel exhaust is superior to gasoline exhaust.

>>17031756
adding, the sound is more prominent because it's working harder.

>>17031733
Hahaha you stupid fuck! That 'terrible sound' you're hearing is the camera cars SC whine God you're so fucking dumb!

>>17031679
,':^)
',:^)
',;^)

>>17031789
:^)
:o)

>>17031849
:^B))

>>17031039
Twin charging is a compromise in itself

>>17033654
everything about engines is a compromise.

you either inject fuel at the moment of compression so it ignites as in diesel engine.

or spark the fuel mixture at top dead center in the cylinder in a gasoline engine.

either way your explosion is growing from a point where you're interfering in the cylinders. ideally an engine should heat up to exactly the temperature you need for the fuel in the air to ignite. no fuel ignition, no sparkplugs. just raw power.

but our temperature control isn't so godly - so we compromise.

>>17033625
8^)

>>17033679
>ideally an engine should heat up to exactly the temperature you need for the fuel in the air to ignite. no direct injection; no spark ignition
fixed.

God I'm such a fucking faggot who loves to suck cock and take it up the ass. Please give me cock.

File: tesla-turbine-4.jpg (37KB, 400x304px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x304px

>>17033751
with better technology, turbochargers could be magnificent.

For instance, exhaust gases spinning this bladeless tesla turbine would get much higher rpm than any bladed turbine. i personally guarantee it.

>>17033826
Fuck my ass hurts after taking miles of cock

>>17033832
This looks terribly inefficient I really doubt the air will be coaxed into such a pattern thats described in the picture.

>>17033848
Its been done on smaller scales
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPH2hpOpKk4

>>17033848
it's actually far more efficient than a bladed turbine.

here's the principle on how it works: everything has a surface tension. even fluid like air. The blades are so close together that when one is spun, the moving air on the face of it will also move the blade next to it. Many blades means more centrifugal force.

air slips off a blade... air doesn't stop making contact in tesla's turbine. it's many times superior.

>>17033870
oh and here's why it didn't work in Tesla's day: bearing quality and weak alloys couldn't cope with how fast it spun.

>>17033863
oh I see I didn't see the disks layered on top of one another. looks like an interesting idea.

However all this machining and precision looks very delicate and expensive. Sure this small variant appears to work but does it work on a more macro scale where things like heat expansion is much more prevalent.

I feel like this should have started to appear a decade ago at least, why is this only a thing now? surely a developer/manufacturer has been researching the fuck out of this.

Maybe they keep the traditional turbines because its cheaper and this one looks very expensive.

>>17033903
like >>17033877 said, a lot of alloys couldn't handle it back then through control.
you're also right, it would be a lot more expensive over a traditional tarbo, but I can imagine the gains from this over a tarbo.

>>17033936
well since you can't just magically convert a raw volumetric force via air pressure to a centripetal force, this means the only thing that can get better is efficiency right? This appears to be very efficient. I imagine it would work well in something like those 900kg Le Mans cars or F1 cars.

I wonder how much energy is lost as heat because it spins so fucking quick. I wonder if theres any issues with macro scale due to heat, all that air must cause this a fuck ton of friction and the rotor must cause a lot of heat on the turbine causing wear.

>>17033946
heavier disks = more centrifugal force

there's a balance to be found I'm sure, but this system synchronizes with a vortex at a certain speed. i can't stress how superior it is.

>>17033946
effeicency, boost probably would come on quicker, put porsches turbo tech in there, and you can stay in "increasing" max boost throughout the rpms

>>17033903
On this mini-scale it appears to have balancing issues which to alleviate would take loads of great precision and machining. I also imagine if the turbo ever acquired any uneven side due to carbon build up or something it could be extremely dangerous

>>17033955
There should be a relation between the number of disks and the blockage caused by the disks with air flow. There should also be an easy relation (assuming in a closed system) between the weight of the disk, and the air pressure compounded. I still think there would be a big issue with friction and heat displacement. A proper cooling system will definitely be needed for this to work well

>>17033946
there will be substantial heat problems. I saw a micro turbine hit 80,000 rpm. now that will be less with a workload like a compressor attached, but that's still massive.

perhaps magnetic bearings are the only viable solution.

>>17033980
I suppose you could use a magnetic bearing. It'd be virtually friction-less at that point but if it ever collided with the walls you'd be in danger for sure.

>>17033980
in fact, magnetic bearings are perfect since we're not worried about fluid leaving the system through the bearings. it's thrown to the outside exhaust ports by the vortex.

>>17033989
you'd fuck it up pretty much instantly.

don't think you could ever sell this. it's something you'd have to build yourself.

>>17033992
next issue is generating a magnetic force great enough to keep the turbine centered while at 90k+RPM

These blades all have to be perfectly balanced I imagine even a microgram off in any position would cause massive unbalance.

maybe you don't need it to hit 90k RPM though. Is it more efficient than a regular turbine even at low RPM's? How fast does a traditional turbo spin vs one of these and if one of these matched the RPM would they be more efficient still?

Maybe the massive boost and increase in efficiency simply isn't worth the engineering, expense and maintenance to keep running

>>17034018
I think small permanent magnets are fine. it's about geometry. arrange them in such a way to cradle the rotor.

it's a good idea. essentially, the whole system is floating on air since we're not worried about it escaping in the places it's exposed.

>>17034075
I feel like this might produce so much inertia that it might not be able to sit still especially when the car is moving and everything

This is a difficult thing to engineer. Even though this is really good on paper, practically doing it seems ludicrously difficult

File: f.jpg (393KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1920x1080px

>>17030911
no replacement for displacement

File: IMG_5150.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

Get the belt driven turbo it's the guddest m8

I love the whine on superchargers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y875H8Pyd8M

Supercharger is always better because torque feels better than peak power. Less shit in the engine bay, performs more like a N/A engine, etc

Benchracers or efficiency nuts will tell you tarbo is better though.

>>17031062
antliag to the rescue

ALS + Turbo =

>>17034600
Ive always wanted a mobile swimming pool.

Staying with the thread, how much do superchargers "ruin" fuel economy? Im of the opinion, that turbos are "passive" during cruising at lower rpm. Bear with me now. Sure under boost more air requires more fuel, but since superchargers work all the time, and actively require engine power to run, is it really that noticeable?
Also, what are some relatively modern, mid-tier supercharged cars? It seem it is either an early 2000s sub-2liter Mercedes shitbox or full blown murrikan musclecars. The only option seems the 3.0TFSI from Audi, but then there is VAG reliability with Audi maintenance costs.

>>17035603
If I ever got a turbo or a supercharged car, whether stock or aftermarket, I wouldn't really give two shits about fuel economy.

>>17035603
Most OEM superchargers aren't on full time, there is an electric clutch that enables the supercharger if there is a demand (most new ECU are torque-based so that's an easy decision).

The big deal is that most classic FI cars have lower compression ratio and that's what ruins fuel economy (the engine is less efficient).

I'm not talking about shit like skydrive or lean-burn + supercharger or using atkinson-cycle with the help of supercharger + fucked up cams.

>>17035598

>ALS + Turbo = replacing cracked exhaust manifolds every 5k miles

>>17035650

>ALS + Turbo = replacing cracked exhaust manifolds every 5k miles

You are supposed to have a TIG welder in your garage, it's not that hard to repair SS headers.

Most of headers made with like 1.6mm 304 steel are garbage anyways.

File: manifold3.jpg (141KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 768x1024px

>>17035650

File: manifold.jpg (31KB, 527x308px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 527x308px

>>17035688

File: manifold2.jpg (45KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x800px

>>17035690
you can't fuck things up like that with a supercharger BTW