Why aren't clutched superchargers a thing anymore?

Good thing are ad, mkay?

>>17739213
*bad

File: mqdefault.jpg (11KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x180px

>>17739208
>2017
>still using superchargers

Hellcat gets 23mpg on the highway. There is no need for it.

>>17739354
Could get 25MPG if it had one.

>>17739208
>>off for efficiency
because it would be more efficient to have it on all the time? there's no reason to turn it off
and turbos are even more efficient and produce more power

More importantly, why aren't twinchargers (super+turbo) more popular? I imagine Yuropean companies would be all over getting more than 40 pounds feet of torque without thrashing their shitty little three-cylinders to hell and back.

>>17739208
because turbos are more effecient instead of parasite sc

>>17739438
they tried. they couldn't make it reliable.

Turbo for Diesel
Kompressor for Benziner

>>17739423
Superchargers have parasitic losses. A supercharger that makes 200HP may take 50HP just to run. A Top Fuel dragster needs nearly 1000HP just to run its supercharger.

>>17739438
Mazda patented a twincharged engine recently (electric s/c + parallel turbos). I dunno why, they already have an advanced turbo design that combines twin-scroll + variable geometry for the CX-9.

>>17739438
>three-cylinders
reduce the mass of the fly wheel and use the supercharger as a balance shaft and flywheel mass
counter rotate the gearbox or alternator to fight torque steer (just logtundal problems)
integrate flywheel with cooling fan .ie they are the same object
synergy moffuger

>>17739208
>Cheaper and lighter than a turbo
???
bulk and complexity
not worth it

>>17739208
I thought turbos are lighter than superchargers.

>>17739354
>23 mpg highway
>americans unironically think this is good

>>17739208
>Cheaper and lighter than a turbo. Why isn't this more common?
If it is a fuel or power train feature, even if it is an option, the EPA may insist on testing it as part of the MPG results. If users are expected to use it half the time, then half the MPG testing will be done with it on. With that in mind, Toyota would be daft to drop their MPG rating to have a feature with such parasitic losses. Power is good, but a lower MPG rating results in loss of profit.

>>17739438
Twincharging was born out of necessity rather than practicality and was only really present in motorsport. The idea was that the supercharger would negate the monstrous amounts of lag that came with slapping a giant 80s turbo onto a small engine. Modern turbos don't take nearly as long to build pressure as they used to so a supercharger is entirely unnecessary and would actually be detrimental to an engine's efficiency at cruising speed.

>>17739440
>I can't into reading.

His point was that you could turn it off and on, you tard.

>>17739239
turbos are for when you need more power while sc are for when you want more power

>>17739768
For 707hp its fantastic

>>17739768
It's fucking good enough. Take the fucking bus or buy a Prius if you need more than that. If it weren't for you people and your faggot governments we'd have 600hp stock shitboxes and 1500hp Demons.

>>17739239
>ruining sound
>also cuckposting