what does /o/ think of superchargers?

So useless, no one uses them in motorsport.
You either go through the hassle of turbocharging, or you leave it NA, SS are pointless, even more nowadays with antilag and electric turbos.

>>17757700
>antilag
that's a thing? I always cringed at the idea of turbos having lag. How "antilag" are we talking?

>accelerate hot air into the engine

they're cool on V8's

New fag who has no idea of the differences between turbocharger and superchager here.

Can anyone briefly me explain the difference?

>>17757713
One does a thing, but the other does a slightly different thing, you can tell by the way it is.

>>17757713
as far as carts go I'm a newfag (also OP) but the difference is that they do the same thing, which is push more air into the cylinders.
Superchargers are attached to the engine with a belt and powered that way, creating boost
Turbos take engine farts (exhaust) to spin a turbine which creates the boost

>>17757706
Yes, you keep the mixture rich enough/other timing black magic, and you keep the turbo somewhat spinning. It's not anywhere near efficient, but it'll keep you spooled up and ready to go.

>>17757706

Depends on the setup. Some cars have a small tank of compressed air that will propel the turbine in a turbo when you stomp the throttle. This makes the turbo act 'immediately' instead of waiting on exhaust gases to build up and get it going.

>>17757713

Turbo uses exhaust gases to operate a turbine that draws in more air than otherwise would naturally come into the engine.

Supercharger does the same thing, except it uses engine pulleys instead of exhaust gases to operate the turbines; the difference is that a supercharger actually takes away power from the engine for a few brief moments before it actually starts adding power.

>>17757723
>carts
kill me

>>17757713
holy shit.
go to wikipedia and read about them you stupid fuck.
better yet, kill yourself.

>>17757726
>takes away power from the engine for a few brief moments

Wrong.
What it does is literally sap on crank power to run, whereas the turbos use power thrown away down the exhaust.

>>17757726
>>17757713
that being said the turbo typically has a lag, in that the turbine has to reach a high enough RP to deliver the boost, while superchargers can deliver boost at much lower RPMs

>>17757685
cheap and easy alternative for hobbyists. pull through carb set ups can be installed and tuned in a few hours. no fabrication of piping, no plumbing in oil lines, no fucking around with your fuel map.

cleetus has been strapping roots blowers to his engines since the 20's for a reason.

>>17757726
Thanks, looks like the supercharger, while not being as efficient, is more reliable?

>>17757738
nigger detected

>>17757685
If your drive train is robust enough to not be encumbered by parasitic losses at low RPMs theres nothing wrong with them at all
Pretty much the natural compliment to a proper American V8.

>>17757738
I asked for a brief explanation, which has been given, If I wanted to read an encyclopedia I wouldn't be here.

>>17757745
I don't know how you could quantify mechanical reliability without some lab testing, but a supercharger isn't as complicated as a modern trubo setup.

>>17757700
>it's not used in motorsport so its useless on the street

stop this meme

>>17757757
this board is for auto enthusiasts. why are you here?

File: powerpulse.jpg (164KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1920x1080px

>>17757706
Volvo uses compressed air to get the turbo spinning very quickly.

>>17757785
stop being a nigger, you can be on /o/ and not know anything about cars for the sake of learning. yea he could have easily just watched a video on youtube or two but thats not something to go get your pitchfork over. What the fuck is wrong with informing someone?

Cunt.

>>17757778
>on the street
Who cares about going fast on the fucking street, nigger?
Getting tickets and putting everyone's life at risk while wasting gas isn't my definition of fun.

>>17757706
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7yinjJbPg0

>>17757793
please tell me you don't have to replace it every once and a while. I'm assuming that's the case since it would be retarded if the car lugged an air compressor around

Inter-cooled centrifugal supercharger master race

>>17757810
It has its own compressor.

>>17757807
Who cares about your definition of fun faggot

>>17757807
>putting everyone's life
not if you know how to fucking drive properly and "speed responsibly". People who actually know what they're doing and when to do it are absolutely no risk to anyone

Can your supercharger do MISFIRINGU SHYSTEM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRfrClxKUu0

>>17757809
I'm going to get fucking arrested for people thinking I just committed a drive by shooting

>>17757833
is initial D actually good or is it just a meme

>>17757739
Turbos aren't entirely free, but they are significantly more efficient

>>17757821
I agree that I'd rather share the road with people speeding, but that know what they're doing rather than the bunch of idiots who brake check all day long and can't check the fucking mirrors. Yet, I'm no boyracer, I'd rather keep my turbo econobox than going for a supercharged madness.

>>17757810
You can see the compressor over the air tank on left side of the image.

>>17757846
Yes, putting back pressure on the engine isn't good, but it's better than fucking pulleys on the crank.

>>17757845
5% meme
10% stupid artstyle
10% actual car knowledge
25% touge
50% the hypest music you have ever heard my nigga

>>17757856
I don't understand what problem you have with superchargers being belt driven.
They still allow you to get far more power than they will ever draw from the engine so I don't really get your argument there.

File: o-irl.jpg (1MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x2048px

>>17757807
(you) pic related

>>17757847
I had an idea a while back about fixing that problem, the people who know how to drive over the limit responsibly. actually gonna make a post about it brb

>>17757849
ah, was wondering what that was

>>17757726
Other than lag superchargers also have N/A like transient response. So the engine feels N/A all over.

>>17757881
gateem

>>17757739
Thermodynamically, I think I understand Turbos. I don't fully understand why superchargers work thermo wise. It seems like a free lunch. You take power directly from the crank to spin something that blows back. Each thing having its own set of losses. How does this work? The crank isn't "wasting" anything to be recovered like the exhsust does. Please help me sleep.

>>17757739

What I was implying is that there is a brief net negative (engine power) from the use of a supercharger at least until it gets the necessary boost to overcome that.

>>17757745

As >>17757767 said, that isn't an easy question, neither of them are terribly complicated. The only note worthy thing I can think of with Turbochargers is that Ford is having a little bit of an issue with them and people who do induction cleaning. When you clean the valves on your engine, bits of carbon can break off and clog passages in the turbo as it leaves the engine; this can cause the turbo to overheat and then bind up. Take that for what you will, but generally, there isn't anything noteworthy regarding reliability between the two.

>>17757845
>>17757857
well said my friend
but you forgot the thots and lonely dribers

>>17757879
They waste efficiency for no good reason.
If they don't make more power than turbos, why even bother?

>>17757908
Superchargers aren't a free lunch. You'll get parasitic losses at low RPMs, you need to spin it up before you can start making more power.
They also produce a lot of heat.

>>17757908
It's literally a feedback.
You're using the engine power to feed the engine more air.
On the other hand, Turbos also use power, but it has to do with the thermal losses on the exhaust rather than literally sapping the crank.

>>17757881
I never understood the fun of parking your car so people can look at it.

No one uses it in motorsport but they're great for cheaply modified cars.

You can supercharge anything with minimum effort. A turbo is more costly in every way.

>>17757926
>Linear power band
>Its cheaper to supercharge NA engines than to turbocharge it

>>17757807
>I can't have fun on the street

not my problem faggot

>>17757955
>linear power band
Nice meme, DeMuro.
>it's cheaper
If you wanted cheap, you wouldn't bother modifying it to begin with.

File: 1500944839359.png (273KB, 536x410px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 536x410px

>>17757923
>thots

>>17757931
>you need to spin it up before you can start making more power
Same with turbos but turbos, are far worse for that.

>>17757940
egobewst

>>17757974
not his point

his point is that if you want to add more power to your car, supercharger is the way to go as far as budget assuming your car can handle the added stress

>>17757685
Pretty good for low end power and instant throttle response. Can be easy to install.

Overall more parasitic loss due to mechanical connection. However, they can actually be more useful than turbos if you're trying to make a super-lean engine:

While your afr would be higher from running lean, the total fuel consumption would go down to maintain volumetric efficiency. To keep that much air coming in, you cant use turbos because the exhaust would have so little enthalpy. Thus, a supercharger is optimum.

This is the basis of some Eaton superchargers made for desiels. My old ICE professor helped design it. Pretty cool stuff.

>>17757931
I know it's not a free lunch. That's my point. Turbos are a cost reduced lunch. They are using mostly waste energy to spin a thing that blows back into the engine. But how do superchargers buy you any lunch at all? They use power off the crabk. The crank isn't putting off any waste.

I know they work. But I just accept it like magnets. Nobody has ever offered me a good explanation thermodynamically.

>>17758005
Unless you're talking about an engine that has a ready made supercharger kit, that's false. All things equal, it's cheaper and easier to fab a turbo install than it is a supercharger install.

>>17757738
>people shouldn't ask questions because they can just read about it on wikipedia
Guess how I know you're autistic

>>17758017
In a nutshell, the supercharger uses a certain amount of power, and in return it provides more power than it has lost to deliver that power.

I would like to know why hot hair is worse than cold air in the cylinders though

>>17757706
it's used all the time in rally

>>17757937
Turbo is feedback too. But it mostly relies on wasted heat and blowing air and recycles that into more power. Like regenerative breaking. You have a thing that has waste you can recover and use that waste energy later.

Where is the waste off of the crank? Unless your supercharger only works down hill, or when slowing down.

>>17758017
Think of it like this. The oxidizer the supercharger delivers has more potential than the shaft work from the crank.

>>17758019
You're the first person I've ever heard that from, so I can't really believe you

everyone whos said something about the price of turbos has said they're not as cheap as superchargers

>>17758017
Think of it this way:
Superchargers on idle engine are costing you power. The mechanical interaction and increased friction is robbing the engine of power.
You have to increase RPMs until you finally reach the break even point.
Once you pass this break even point then you start producing power.

Each revolution of the crank sucks in and spins a fixed amount of air. If the frequency of this additional air intake is too low then you are wasting power in the cycle. If however the frequency of this operation is fast enough then you are producing a net benefit.

>>17758036
Density of the air and how it effects combustion.

>>17758028
I'm with him.
Questions are one thing, but people who ask questions as inane as that one should kill themselves.

>>17758038
the waste on the supercharger is that the engine powers the supercharger, to create more power. the engine is not only propelling the car forward, but is now cranking the supercharger. that's the waste

File: 1503091504561.jpg (57KB, 682x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 682x720px

>>17757821
>I'm a good driver so mistakes can't happen

>>17758049
No I agree that people should be self-sufficient especially now that the internet is a thing but the guy is asking an auto related question at least and not shitposting, something you can't say about the asperger attacking hom

>>17758044
>Density of the air and how it effects combustion.
that makes sense, thanks anon

>>17758052
that's not what I said. If someone knows what the fuck they're doing and WHEN to do it there's no added risk.
e.g. the risk level stays relatively the same, unless that "good driver" oversteps their abilities without knowing it, like everyone else can

>>17758036
As far as hot air vs cool air.
#1 cool air is more dense. More dense is more power because it's more.
#2 cooler air is cooler charge. Cooler charge has less tendency to detonate. Less tendency to detonate can be spent with more compression, more boost, more timing advance, leaner mixture or all 4. All 4, to a point is more power.

File: dead.png (575KB, 709x586px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 709x586px

>>17758057
>>17758049
not the guy who asked about superchargers but sometimes it's nicer to get the answer from an actual person and not just read robotically written explanations
Every time you have a question and don't look it up before hand 100% of the time doesn't make you a fucking asshole and subhuman scum.
>tfw asking a question and not googling it adds you to the list of people who don't deserve to live

>>17758078
I understand now, thanks anon

File: WP_20170821_4363.jpg (90KB, 368x368px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 368x368px

>>17758052
>404 File Not Found

We ran out of Jonathans for Crumbling long ago monkey man.

>>17758087
Yeah this is why I called him a fucking autist

Imagine conversing like that in real life with someone
>hey bro how do turbochargers work?
>google it you piece of shit omg kill yourself
>uhh did you take your medication today dude?

File: WP_20170821_5476.jpg (121KB, 584x389px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 584x389px

>>17758087
>actual person and not just read robotically written explanations


All the definitions in the internet were written by actual persons. Artificial Intelligence is not on the loose writing Wikipedia articles, yet. You just think you are somehow getting a better answer either because it is more recently written or because it is written custom for you. Because you are a very illogical person

File: WP_20170821_8205.jpg (117KB, 487x487px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 487x487px

>>17758087
>asking a question and not googling it adds you to the list of people who don't deserve to live

There are no stupid questions. Just stupid people who ask questions they don't have to because they don't think the vast totality of human knowledge already published on the subject is good enough for them because they are mommy's special little question asker.

>>17758087
>stop being a big meanie!
Depends how inane the question is. In this case, that poster should kill themselves.

Why no supercharged baikus, guys? Wouldn't the even increase in boost and high boost levels at high rpm be beneficial compared to turbos that kick in at a certain point and instantly kill you?

File: 1502971602704.jpg (83KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x720px

I can't post on /pol anymore. Says my country is blocked. What mean by this? I'm mercan dammit.

>>17758117
>>17758131
Samefag Megee

>>17758099
>>17758117
>>17758131
bad posts

>>17758149
H2

>>17758149
The Ninja H2R has a super if I remember. Super charger kits for Harleys is actually a big market, and there are even kits for the Busa.

File: 5120452293.jpg (227KB, 1280x719px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1280x719px

I should stop buying the garbage that's attached to it

>>17758155
>people who asks questions are dumb
you're damn right >>17758155 I fucking hate this site

>>17758175
>people who asks questions are dumb
That's not what was said at all Mr Obtuse. *People who ask dumb questions are dumb.
Feel free to check yourself out. Of life.

>>17758167
Yeah but all other force induction production bikes in history have been turbos, and in my opinion there are far more turbos on the aftermarket as well.

>>17758186
the only dumb question is the one that isn't asked
who the fuck cares where it gets answered
if you do, you're a faggot

>twin turbo kit for my car is 20k
>SC kit is 10k and I can do it in my garage

Preferences vs real life

wait so can you supercharge and turbocharge without it being aids?

>>17758173
>this many pulleys
American engineering, everyone.

>>17758217
Volvo did exactly this for a while. The T6 drive train had a turbo and a super on it to provider power and more efficient combustion throughout its entire band.
Though they recently did away with the super in favor of an air compressor and electronic system to pre spin the turbos.

>>17758223
can it be done custom though? reliably?

>>17758229
So long as theres room under the hood and you've got enough money in your pocket you can have pretty much anything done.
How reliable it would be, I can't say.

>>17758167
Centrifugal supercharger. Geared and crank driven turbine.

File: 1500063182603.jpg (11KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x240px

>>17758234
i need this

>>17758028
Because he's self reliant?

>>17758223
Volvo has a new engine out now that's turbo and super. 300hp out of 2.0 liter with vertically no lag and N/A tier transit response.

>>17757778
Why add ammunition to am assult vehicle anyways

File: White man contemplates the destruction of Europe.jpg (82KB, 736x951px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 736x951px

>>17757738
Not him, but I tried reading the wiki, but wiki sends you down a rabbit hole of clicking new terms you don't know, and then you need to click another link for some part you don't know.
The joy of knowledge is sharing it. If you actually liked cars you'd enjoy talking about them.

>>17758257
Because he spergs out and shitposts when someone asks a simple (albeit needless) question

Guess how I know you're autistic too? Because you can relate to him

>>17757707
good ones come with intercoolers like KB superchargers

>>17757724
>>17757726
What the fuck are you guys living in, it had to be a fantasy fucking works because mechanically it makes no sense and physics wise is even more of a joke, nothing you can do to a turbo until exhaust flow matches intake hence the turbo lag. If you spool before that point your just going to blow your intake or tubing. Fucking retarded ass bullshit magic wannabe mechanics

>>17758556
Nigga what?

The real question is, what's more cost effective.
Taking a shit smog motor with 7-8:1 compression, and throwing on better heads and pistons, and all the other shit?
Or just a cam, valve springs, other bolt ons, and a supercharger?
Both should get you pretty far.

>>17758218
That's honestly the least of that junk of an engines problems.

>>17758626
The compressed air is a myth it only worked on small as fuck turbo that barely needed it, and if by chance it did work the pressure build up would be immense, pretty much you would be bleeding pressure until the motor caught up anyways which negates any benefit, the Volvo motor claimed to work but hasn't shown up yet and they refuse to release the data. Besides how long do you think your turbo blades will last getting hit with air 100c cooler then your exhaust. The only application compressor turbos are good for are when industrial equipment need help to start a massive turbo and even then your talking a compressor the size of a car running them. It's a fantasy pipe dream, turbo lag is there for a reason, the only thing you can do is make it less.

>>17758556

Are you retarded?

>>17758726
Are you? Put some research into it and the answers will be the same it is a retarded design choice, turbo are better then a SC for performance but let's not become delusional and over bullshit them

I prefer a centrifugal supercharger because of the higher efficiency compared to a roots-type supercharger.

Compared to a turbo, a centrifugal supercharger is easier to install. But there's no right or wrong answer, it all depends on what you prefer to suit your driving style.

>>17758494
Roots and twin screw blowers still have pisspoor efficiency compared to centrifugal compressors, so they'll always have hotter intake air compared to those, assuming you put the same intercooler on them.

Then there's the problem of those PD superchargers being installed in the V (which is great for packaging), which doesn't allow for a big air/air unit, but requires a air/water intercooler. This isn't less efficient per se, but usually is so due to the space constraints.

>>17757741
You're not completely right. Turbo's have lag because they have inertia and piping volume. When the turbine wheel is at low RPM, it takes exhaust volume to overcome this inertia, and then the compressor wheel also start spinning, filling up the intake manifold and (optional) intercooler). All of this work takes time, and exhaust volume. It doesn't always turn on at X RPM, it depends on the throttle opening.

Turbos can also deliver boost at a lower RPM, and can have great response. Now, there's two distinct downsides to a turbo engine: boost threshold and lag. Lag is the delay between opening the throttle (at high RPM), and the delivery of power (basically, when the turbo has spooled, and has filled the entire intake section). Boost threshold is the RPM point at which the turbo has spooled (and the intake has filled) after you open the throttle fully from idle. Now, with shorter piping and a smaller turbo, you will create less lag, and a lower boost threshold. You can use a tiny turbo, and create a boost threshold at 2000RPM, and peak torque at 2500RPM. Problem with that is that the turbine will choke the exhaust, and the compressor might even choke the intake, which removes power up top. With modern variable geometry and other fanciness, we can widen any given turbo engines' powerband, but the problem still persists.

Hell, centrifugal superchargers can be geared to deliver boost (almost) completely linear, which means very little boost down low and 100% at maximum RPM.

>>17757726
>Some cars have a small tank of compressed air
Volvo.
> except it uses engine pulleys instead of exhaust gases to operate the compressor
FTFY. A turbine turns pressure into motion, a compressor turns motion into pressure.
>actually takes away power from the engine for a few brief moments before it actually starts adding power.
No. Nononononononono. No.

>>17757739
>whereas the turbos use power thrown away down the exhaust.
Turbos eventually form a restriction in the exhaust path though, which can choke an engine. Most modern econobox turbo engines have a turbo sized so that they provide a meaty efficient powerband from (roughly speaking) 30 to 70% of their RPM range, and then they die up top. From idle to that 30%, they don't even meet boost threshold, and the turbo doesn't even spool, which makes for great fuel economy numbers (during government testing, that is).

They're more efficient than superchargers (especially in their compression compared to Roots/twin screws), but they're not free. Nothing ever is.

>>17757743
The nice thing about a drawthrough setup like that is that the carb's vaporisation acts as a chemical intercooler. This is especially effective with a less energy dense fuel - like E85 or nitromethanol. A big carbed V8 and a Roots blower are a match made in heaven.

>>17757745
They're both simple mechanical systems. The compressor on a typical positive displacement supercharger is more complex than a centrifugal turbocharger, but the turbo usually has a more involved installation with popoff valves and intercoolers.

>>17757879
The problem with building a supercharged engine is that you're usually building a 1000hp bottom end and only end up with 800-850 hp at the transmission. Building your bottom end that stout adds costs, compared to a turbo bottom end that only needs to hold up to 850-900hp for the same net output. Not that it really matters though, with modern engines you can just build whatever you like (not what's most fuel or cost efficient) and still end up wth enough power to break speed limits and tire grip.

>>17757943
Motorsports are overregulated, you can't draw any conclusions from there.

>>17757974
Linear powerband and cost are always relevant, stop strawmanning. Also, throttle response.

>>17757931
>you need to spin it up before you can start making more power.
Unlike turbo's, there's no delay between engine RPM and compressor RPM. There's just the intake volume, which is quickly filled in the case of say a Roots blower in a V8. You're right about the heat and parasitic losses though.

>>17758005
>supercharger is the way to go as far as budget
Not really. Most easily installed superchargers are generally sub-atm, and up untill that point (roughly 15 psi) you can generally consider a supercharger kit to be very cost effective. Beyond that, turbo efficiency takes over, unless you're in a specialised area like dragracing.

>>17758019
Compare a Rotrex centrifugal kit for the Miata to a Flying Miata turbo kit, and tell me which one is simpler, cheaper, and looks easier to install.

>>17758017
Engines compress air, combine it with fuel, ignite it, and the resulting expansion results in crank power. Compressing it takes less work than the expansion yields.

A supercharger compresses air, pushes it into the engine, and the fuel expanding in that engine turns the supercharger. Since the compression in this seperate compressor is more efficient (since it doesn;t have to double as expander), this makes for a more powerful engine. Since this process can also create an above-atmospheric charge, it can dramatically increase the energy per cycle that the engine makes.

>>17758038
>But it mostly relies on wasted heat and blowing air and recycles that into more power.
The piston is also pushing that exhaust out, which does sap a bit of power. It's just more efficient, since there's some entropy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust doing part of the work, and a centrifugal compressor is generally more efficient.

>>17758044
>You have to increase RPMs until you finally reach the break even point.
No. A traditional supercharger can create boost at idle, which means there is more air (and more power) available than n/a. There is no break even point on a properly sized supercharger: the output should always exceed that of the engine sans supercharger.

>>17758149
Because the weight increase of a compressor, plus an optional intercooler, is generally not worth the squeeze in a world where 200hp is easy out of an engine you can lift by hand. The power delivery isn't even well-suited to motorcycles.

>>17758206
Let me guess, it's a tightly packed V engine. Of course a twinturbo setup will be more involved than most supercharger setups, which slot nicely into that V.

>>17758223
The T6 still uses a Roots supercharger and a turbocharger to provide both throttle response and power.
The newer diesel engines use the air compressor system like you describe, but it's only currently on the D5 if I'm not mistaken.

>>17758229
Aftermarket twincharging is a costly custom affair.
Air injection as antilag is reasonably simple, and could be cheap if you scrounge parts and repurpose stuff like methanol injection components.

>>17758556
>nothing you can do to a turbo until exhaust flow matches intake
If you've got matching flow rates, you've got worse problems than spooling your turbo.

At any rate, you can use antilag to increase exhaust volume massively and spool that turbine, decreasing lag. No, you won't cause pressure spikes in your intake tract, because that's what BOV's are for. Using antilag will simply accelerate the engine up to the point where the turbo's flow rate is sufficient to supply the engine at that RPM.

>>17758642
Depends on the setup. A smog motor can really benefit from a good set of heads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7mvgf6_p1g

Generally speaking, a good bottom end will make the most out of that supercharger, and it's probably the low hanging fruit that you can easily get to on a smog motor. In the case of the 350 in the video above, the best steps would probably be:
>intake (don't do this if you want to upgrade to non-matching heads eventually)
>exhaust
>carb or tunable EFI (that can deal with all the eventual upgrades)
>tunable ignition
>heads & valvesprings (for compression and flow)
>cam (to take advantage of the newfound flow)
>supercharger/turbocharger installation
>built bottom end (crank, rods, etc.) with matching top end

>>17757685
Heat soak, bro!

>>17759159
Yeah, but I figured you could just leave the heads, and the supercharger would make up for the flow.
I know it's not ideal, but I'm guessing it would make as much power as a decently built N/A of the same-ish price range.

In my experience, pulling heads and pistons adds a lot of cost, and a lot of risk that it all goes wrong on you.

>>17759381
>the supercharger would make up for the flow.
There is no making up. Every part of the system has to flow well, or it becomes a bottleneck, especially once you add more flow in other areas. The detriments of the bad parts quickly show up.

At the point where you have a solid foundation (intake, exhaust, fuel, ignition, cams), it's a tossup between heads and boost, and depends on the specific engine. Both would actually be preferable.

>>17758028

Maybe because he isn't a stupid fucking millennial that needs to be spoonfed everything?

Does it really take a rocket scientist to look up a YouTube video with that douchefuck Engineering Explained to give you a 5 minute quick rundown on how a turbo works...?

This is why /o/ is complete shit and why other boards that don't spoonfed are a lot better.

>>17759420
Sort of, but with flow, the idea overall is to get more air in there, so you can get more fuel in to make more power.
If you are forcing more air at 1.5 atmosphere or more, you will achieve the same goal to a point.

>ctrl+f
>"Lancia Delta S4"
>0 of 0 results

This board sucks.

>>17759159
>nothing you can do to a turbo until exhaust flow matches intake
If you've got matching flow rates, you've got worse problems than spooling your turbo.

>At any rate, you can use antilag to increase exhaust volume massively and spool that turbine, decreasing lag. No, you won't cause pressure spikes in your intake tract, because that's what BOV's are for. Using antilag will simply accelerate the engine up to the point where the turbo's flow rate is sufficient to supply the engine at that RPM.

What I ment by that is there is no point to run the system, it can over charge the intake if the pressure spikes and the bov closes. Exhaust flow matching intake by that I ment the intake isn't using boost there is no benefit charging the system at idle, as for keeping it spun the system would have no benefit unless it's a small turbo that didn't have issues spooling anyways. The system is over complicated shit that will only work where it isn't needed, the same effect could be had if you learned to keep your rpm in a range to hold the turbo as you shift.

>>17759439
The problem with adding boost through bad heads is that it's like having your engine blow through a straw. It creates pressure, which will usually push your compressor off it's efficiency island, add to the intake temperature, etc.

Good heads with boost make for more and safer power. An engine like that will make the same power, but with less psi of boost, which means lower IAT's, less strain on the engine, better response (on a turbo).

I get the idea that more air = more air though.

Yeah but you knows what? Mercedes used clutched Eaton superchargers on W202 200K (raee South Europe version 141 kw) and more common 230 Kompressor (142 kw) models. Clutch disengages at ~2100 rpm, so no parasitic loss whats so ever. Great nippy cars, easly tunable with larger pulleys.

>>17759503
Those Kompressor models are still pretty inefficient, and they quickly went turbo. Even with the clutch, they're still an obstruction in the intake.

Nope. It has a valve on airbox so air can move the other way, not through the non-working supercharger. N/A M111 engine is 2.0L 100 kw, charged 2.0 made 141 kw with very conservative factory supercharger setup (around 0.3 bar). These Eaton M62 can be pushed around 1.0 bar quite easilly with some porting, and milling down the clutched pulley a few mills plus adding bigger crank pulley.

>>17758721
>Run air past exhaust piping
>??????

>>17757685
What one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

>>17757809
Key bashing compilation.

>>17758860
this helps a lot, thanks anon

>>17758860
>>17758903
>>17759040
>>17759159
I'm assuming all these posts are the same anon, where the fuck did you learn all this. I wish to know what you know

File: 1503343522764.png (95KB, 300x280px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 300x280px

>>17759040
This is the best explanation I've had. Thanks!

>>17760080
Learn by reading and doing, then reading them doing.

Read:
Smokey Yunick
Everything Kevin Cameron (cycle world)
Richardo
Boch Engineering Handbook
You Tube has good stuff too

And remember you can have a masters in engineering and still be an idiot.

Read, do, read, do, fail, do, read do, fail, fail, fail, cry, read, do.....

>>17760132
...is this ND?

>>17757807
lots of people care about going fast on the street retard

$1500 turbo kit for a 4.8 vortec
1000hp

Can you even supercharge an engine for that

>>17760151
No. I'm reasonably new here.

>>17757685
Their pretty much worthless in cars. A hellcat would get the same horsepower with a twin turbo setup AND get better gas mileage as well as emissions. Super chargers gave no place in cars these days. Turbo's are better in every way shape and form.

>>17758556

>If you spool before that point your just going to blow your intake or tubing.

You gotta slow down and think about this for a second.

>You got that turbo whistling away and the throttle wide open.
>You decide you want to start braking.
>You let go the pedal and the throttle snaps closed

Where does all that fucking pressure go?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with W and ends in ASTE GATE.

>>17760716
Even most drag racers are going turbo now. A big block with a big turbo/s is a good combination.

You still can't beat the instant throttle response though. inb4 my 25mm hot hatch turbo spools instantly. It's not technically better on paper but it feels better, Like listening to Vinyl.

>>17760739
The wastegates controll how much boost the turbo's make. The blow off valve is what relives the excess boost when the throttle closes. Without a BOV the pressure flows back towards the turbo and causes turbo flutter which can stall the blades and do damage.

>>17757713

Turbos use a fan powered by your exhaust to force more air into your intake and superchargers use a fan(kinda) powered by your belt pullys to force more air into your intake.

Using exhaust is free, using your belt pullys takes a bit of engine power. Both increase horsepower but turbos do it more efficiently while looking way gayer.

If your car isn't twincharged it's a pleb mobile. Sequential turbo is fine too.

>>17760776
If you need to twincharge to make 140hp you're a europleb.

>>17758036
>In a nutshell, the supercharger uses a certain amount of power, and in return it provides more power than it has lost to deliver that power.

Yeah but I'm asking about car engines not nutshell engines whatever the fuck that is.

File: Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) struggles with the bucking ___.jpg (13KB, 549x234px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 549x234px

>>17757685
Over 12 hours of failing to read even basic explanations on the internet, shit posting meme explanations and /o/tists and ret/o/rds still cant figure out what superchargers are or how they work.

Real power™

File: 149245816514.jpg (14KB, 238x192px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 238x192px

>>17760991
what do you want from us, we are a simple people

>>17758136
>Hurr
>Durr
>*Autism intensifies*

This may come as a surprise but given the choice pretty much every person on earth would rather have the autistic retard who explodes into uncontrollable bitter rages when people ask a question he doesn't approve of be the one who kills himself.

>>17760991
Lol
i don't even expand threads anymore becusae /o/ is so stupid., so I'll explain the difference to those in the dark
Superchargers: Powered by the engine. A belt rotates a pulley to compresses intake air. Always in boost, power delivery is immediate, linear NA like, godlike.
Turbo: Literally powered from engine farts. Needs a pile of tubing to redirect the farts/heat into the engine bay, heavy and unreliable by nature. Queers find it appealing because it reminds them of their mothers hairdryer.

File: 1c5df070b774ada69c743e44604d0d6b.png (239KB, 730x414px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 730x414px

>>17760966
>significant chuckle
that was a good one

>>17761047
agreed m'boi

>>17761047
>This may come as a surprise but given the choice, pretty much every knuckle dragging neanderthal on earth would rather have the higher being that leaves them feeling emasculated when fellow neanderthals ask lowest common denominator questions he doesn't approve of be the one who kills himself
fixed m'boi

>>17761336
>Its another "anon spends a day ""trolling"" on 4chan when in reality he's just unconsciously venting about his shit life and will be hit with a massive wave of self hatred and anger once he has to get off 4chan for the day" poster

Goodnight buddy

>>17761071
This mad supercharged v8 loses to turbo v6 Lmao

>>17757996
Depending on turbo size, displacement, and tuning this is a nonissue

>>17761448
>literally the definition of psychological projection.
Enjoy your day too buddy.
>>17761457
How will GM recover?

File: 112_0710_21z-2008_BMW_m3-engine.jpg (65KB, 750x469px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 750x469px

>>17759159
>Let me guess, it's a tightly packed V engine

i.. it's not *that* tight

>>17759465
If the pressure spikes, the BOV will pop open. That's what it's designed to do.
The intake is using boost if the turbo is spooled (and the intake fed) at any RPM, even at idle. You just need to keep the antilag system on up untill the RPM point where the turbo can sustain itself. This does sap a bit of power, since traditional antilag systems delay ignition (or have a really rich mixture), but that's worth it if you consider the throttle response.
Even if you hold the engine in the correct RPM range, lifting the throttle for an upshift will cause a lack of exhaust flow that can make for lag. Antilag is especially helpful on those upshifts - you don't really need it at cruise or idle anyways, unless you're doing launch control.

>>17760080
That anon here. Speedhunters and Engineering Explained are great normie-tier gateways into automotive engineering, and then you can really find a lot of stuff on Wikipedia. After that, I'd consider looking into technical articles on Hotrod and SS and such, since they're more in-depth about individual parts and A-B testing. Then it's on to reading actual engineering books, but those can be bland. I'm currently working on my bachelor in Mechanical Engineering, that certainly helps.

>>17760132
>And remember you can have a masters in engineering and still be an idiot.
Word.

>>17758173
i don't understand why the turbo has a pulley

Depends on the kind of car you had, you wouldnt turbo a lotus (unless your deadset retarded), heat soak would have that cunt on fire in no time since turbos werent factored into the design so inadequate engine bay ventilation, plus youd have to run piping for an intercooler all the way to the front then all they way back again giving you more lag,

>>17758173
Twincharged... Nice.

>>17762889
Dear jesus you're retarded. Turbo kits for the Elise exist, and for good reason. There's no good reason why you couldn't turbocharge and intercooled an MR car. Toyota did it with the SW20, and they also supercharged the AW11. Hell, Lotus even made the turbo Esprits, even a twinturbo V8 Esprit, and the Europa S was turbo too.

You are severely underestimating the amount of cooling you can put into a well-designed MR vehicle, and of course you won't run piping to the front. You use an air/water intercooler, and then run small diameter hoses under the body into a heat exchanger up front. Keeps the piping short, and makes for a minimal amount of heat soak.

>>17762889
>you wouldn't turbo a lotus
Tell that to the lotus engineers

>>17762924
the M100 Elan SE & S2 were turbo'd too.

I like them.

>>17758049
>asking a question isnt shitposting
have you seen the chickenposter threads? how new are you?

>>17762934
meant for
>>17758057

>>17757685
Generally requires less plumbing and touching of the engine than your typical turbo kit. Some are even bolt on. No grinding or welding or cutting, just bolt it on and go. Comes on at low RPMs but makes the engine less efficient. Then again, if you're installing one to hoon, fuel economy is probably the least of your concerns.

turbos are like magnets to car people

fucking how do they work?

>>17763491
thicc succ make power go vroomy speed

File: m8wq28vz4udz[1].jpg (31KB, 420x408px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 420x408px

>>17757793
>that abomination
DIS
FUCKING
GUSTING

>>17757856
>>17757846
if you have a valve in place for the turbo/SC to vent to atmo you can significantly reduce load.

It takes power to pressurize the the air, so even if the tarbo/SC are flowing the same amount of air, they will put less backpressure/accessory load venting to atmo.

Also, some new superchargers use CVTs to adjust flow on the fly.

>>17757908
Imagine the thermo dynamics of the piston having to suck in the air and compress it using crank power. Now imagine a rotating pump doing the same thing.
In some situations, like mazda's miller engine, a rotating pump can be more efficient than using the piston to compress it
Also, you have the ability to intercool it, you can't cool the intake charge of a NA engine.

The weird part is that the expansion ratio doesn't change so it may not end up as efficient.

>>17757685
Outdated tech that really serves no purpose when turbo's exist. Better mpg, emmissons, cheaper, and it sounds amazing.

>>17757720
Hey that's pretty neat

File: IMG_0016.jpg (76KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 512x512px

ITT: People who *kinda* know things

>>17765275
pretty much

File: 9780135708545-us-300.jpg (21KB, 300x421px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x421px

>>17765275
its more like i can't be assed to dig through my undergrad texts to give you the autistic definitions you want.