turbo vs supercharger

[felt27]

wich is easyer to do and what works better .do you have to plum piping into the supercharger like the turbo
i have a turbo manifald but its not the best any help would be great...

[justbad4you]

twin turbo if you got the bucks? if not get a s/c v6 motor from a donor car and whack out the old v6 and whack in the newer s/c v6

wich is easyer to do and what works better .do you have to plum piping into the supercharger like the turbo
i have a turbo manifald but its not the best any help would be great...

AND OFF YOU GO WITH THE NEW S/C V6

[soop]

Holy crap come on school year!

Both work differently.

IMO turbo's are more effcient. They both work about as well as one another though.
It totally depends on what style of supercharger you're using.

Positive displacement superchargers sit in the valley of the motor.
There is two main types of positive displacement chargers.
Vein and screw.
Vein type chargers use multiple bladed veins interlocking to compress the air.


If I recall correctly, L67's use an Eaton M90 (or a variant) which is a vein type charger.

Screw type chargers use threaded screws which interlock to compress the air.

Then you have Centrifugal chargers.
They're essentially a belt driven turbo charger.
I don't like them, I don't think they're overally efficient. There's more to them then that, and various styles. I don't understand enough about them though. Should probably fix that.

[justbad4you]

lol well said soop

Holy crap come on school year!

Both work differently.

IMO turbo's are more effcient. They both work about as well as one another though.
It totally depends on what style of supercharger you're using.

Positive displacement superchargers sit in the valley of the motor.
There is two main types of positive displacement chargers.
Vein and screw.
Vein type chargers use multiple bladed veins interlocking to compress the air.


Screw type chargers use threaded screws which interlock to compress the air.

Then you have Centrifugal chargers.
They're essentially a belt driven turbo charger.
I don't like them, I don't think they're overally efficient. There's more to them then that, and various styles. I don't understand enough about them though. Should probably fix that.

[soop]

Here's a cut away of a centrifugal supercharger;



Different brands do it differently, but the end result is usually the same. That said some are better then others. Some are cheap and nasty and don't hit any sort of usable boost untill redline.
Research is key to finding out which is best for you.

[PRAVX II S]

I think they make supercharger kits for the ecotec. But have not herd a Turbo kit for the ecotec.
I like the idea of a turbo charger as said before its more efficient. It reuses the burned gases to operate the turbo. Were the supercharger is belt driven.

[soop]

In respect to how their driven, neither is any more efficient.

I think turbo's tend to have a better heat/psi ratio. Which is to say, for every 1psi of pressure generated there is less degrees celsius in exchange. This isn't always true, if you're trying to spin a turbo too fast it will run outside of its efficiency range and simply generate super heated air, essentially giving you a fauls indication of pressure (Hot air expands and creats a higher air pressure but still doesn't contain any more oxygen, so the engine is getting ripped off)

Superchargers have a similar issue, which is usually combatted by using a supercharger that is slightly too big for the engine and underdriving it (smaller pulley). This give less pressure but more oxygen with less heat.
As is everything to do with engine modification, its a trade off.

[PRAVX II S]

In respect to how their driven, neither is any more efficient.

I think turbo's tend to have a better heat/psi ratio. Which is to say, for every 1psi of pressure generated there is less degrees celsius in exchange. This isn't always true, if you're trying to spin a turbo too fast it will run outside of its efficiency range and simply generate super heated air, essentially giving you a fauls indication of pressure (Hot air expands and creats a higher air pressure but still doesn't contain any more oxygen, so the engine is getting ripped off)

Superchargers have a similar issue, which is usually combatted by using a supercharger that is slightly too big for the engine and underdriving it (smaller pulley). This give less pressure but more oxygen with less heat.
As is everything to do with engine modification, its a trade off.

The turbo is reusing the spent gases out of the engine in-turn being efficient. Rather then just traveling down the exhaust and out.
The super charger is runing of the motor belt driven. Its another load on the motor.
Like the air-conditioning compressor when activated its more load.

[soop]

Yeah except that the supercharger power output far exceeds what it uses.
The turbo is no better, at low RPM its a major exhaust restriction.

[justbad4you]

have a look at this beast >>>Google Image Result for http://www.spencerraceengines.com/images/chris_usb_104.jpg

wich is easyer to do and what works better .do you have to plum piping into the supercharger like the turbo
i have a turbo manifald but its not the best any help would be great...

or take a look at this 1 >>>> http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgu...ed=0CCAQ9QEwAQ

[PRAVX II S]

2002 model VX commodore Supercharged = 171Kw @ 5200rpm / 375Nm @ 3000rpm

2002 model Ford falcon XR6 Turbo BA = 240Kw @ 5250rpm / 450Nm @ 2000rpm

Factory

[Trayner]

2002 model VX commodore Supercharged = 171Kw @ 5200rpm / 375Nm @ 3000rpm

2002 model Ford falcon XR6 Turbo BA = 240Kw @ 5250rpm / 450Nm @ 2000rpm

Factory

Lol, but thats like comparing a banana and a apple.

Diff motor , car weight ,etc

[PRAVX II S]

Lol, but thats like comparing a banana and a apple.

Diff motor , car weight ,etc

Holden dint make a turbo motor from factory they only made supercharger motor and thats all Holden have in the forced induction.So what do i compare it with?
They are both 6 bangers and forced induction and are from the same year.

There the same year.

[soop]

You've gotta be kidding me.
THAT ITS NOT A COMPARISON BETWEEN A TURBO AND A SUPERCHARGER!!!!!!!

two different motors you pillock.

You compare them with the same motor. Allah a Turbo Ecotec with an L67. Even then its a little rough.

[PRAVX II S]

You've gotta be kidding me.
THAT ITS NOT A COMPARISON BETWEEN A TURBO AND A SUPERCHARGER!!!!!!!

two different motors you pillock.

You compare them with the same motor. Allah a Turbo Ecotec with an L67. Even then its a little rough.

Lol whats a pillock?
Anyway i know a turbo ecotec will be quicker then the supercharged one from factory.
Me and my mates have already done the comparison on the road any way.
vy supercharger factory VS a Vt ecotec turbo. Out of the 5 times they raced the turbo won 5 times. by a car length.
Dont know the power figures.

[soop]

ffs, a mate of a mate seen a jet powered VY exec doing laps in frankston....

I go through the effort of explaining the differences and we still end up like this...

[PRAVX II S]

ffs, a mate of a mate seen a jet powered VY exec doing laps in frankston....

I go through the effort of explaining the differences and we still end up like this...

Dont know what your talking about. You dont have to believe it. I am just telling you what me and my mates done.
I have been a auto-elec for 10 years now I dont talk sh!t.

[Jesterarts]

Lol @ comapring a Ford Turbo Motor to a Holden S/Motor.

May aswell compare the XR6T to a LS2 or something.

The Ford turbo engines have been developed over how many years and developed to work with a turbo.

As far as I can tell, the Holden Supercharged L67 is essentially a toughened up ecotec with a blower strapped to it. It was the first of it's kind in the GM line-up for that capacity.

Also, you comparing a factory S/Charger L67 with a turbo'ed Ecotec is once again chalk and cheese.

The L67 was a factory engine, detuned and running a fairly low PSI so it was reliable and met emission requirements.

Your mates turbo ecotec would be tuned for performance, I imagine emissions regulations are not considered and I imagine that reliability may not be great 100 thousand km down the track.

Finally, we're talking superchargers and turbo's, how does being an auto elec for 10 years give you knowledge in this topic? Not saying that others on here have that knowledge, just curious why you felt the urge to mention the auto-elec bit.

Anyway, at the end of the day, the L67 is an OK engine while the XR6T engine is a great engine. No point comparing them.

My opinion, turbo's are more efficient at getting good power but are much harder to get right and are more prone to reliability issues when pushed. PD chargers are more reliable and easier to get up right but in terms of sheer power may not deliver as well as a turbo up top.

At the end of that day, depends what you're after really. Improved torque and power in the lower and mid rpm = PD Charger. Improved torque and power in the mid and high rpm = turbo.

[PRAVX II S]

Lol @ comapring a Ford Turbo Motor to a Holden S/Motor.

Ok fair enough what would you compare it too then?

May aswell compare the XR6T to a LS2 or something.

The Ford turbo engines have been developed over how many years and developed to work with a turbo.

As far as I can tell, the Holden Supercharged L67 is essentially a toughened up ecotec with a blower strapped to it. It was the first of it's kind in the GM line-up for that capacity.

Also, you comparing a factory S/Charger L67 with a turbo'ed Ecotec is once again chalk and cheese.

The L67 was a factory engine, detuned and running a fairly low PSI so it was reliable and met emission requirements.

Your mates turbo ecotec would be tuned for performance, I imagine emissions regulations are not considered and I imagine that reliability may not be great 100 thousand km down the track.

True

Finally, we're talking superchargers and turbo's, how does being an auto elec for 10 years give you knowledge in this topic? Not saying that others on here have that knowledge, just curious why you felt the urge to mention the auto-elec bit.

I deal with cars everyday i see all sort of cars out there. I have worked on turbos and supercharger and have driven both styles of forced induction. not to mention I wire up turbo timers boost gauges for customers. They also teach you at tafe about all this so thats how i know.


Anyway, at the end of the day, the L67 is an OK engine while the XR6T engine is a great engine. No point comparing them.

My opinion, turbo's are more efficient at getting good power but are much harder to get right and are more prone to reliability issues when pushed. PD chargers are more reliable and easier to get up right but in terms of sheer power may not deliver as well as a turbo up top.

At the end of that day, depends what you're after really. Improved torque and power in the lower and mid rpm = PD Charger. Improved torque and power in the mid and high rpm = turbo.

Every time i have driven a car the turbo never fails to give out great performance compared to the supercharger.

[Jesterarts]

Every time i have driven a car the turbo never fails to give out great performance compared to the supercharger.

Ok... and this means...?

I've been in turbo cars and s/c cars. The s/c pulls my eyeballs to the back of my skull from word go while the turbo builds up to it thought at the high end feels like it's pulling harder.

[PRAVX II S]

edit.

Why wouldn't i know something on this topic?
I deal with cars every day. I have worked on both turbo and superchargers its my job to know how they work. Not to mention having to wire up
turbo timers. Boost gauges, electronic boost,
I have even fitted a turbo on my mated VL commodore.?

And yes it is proberly detuned from factory . And yes my mates turbo has been tuned.

[AirStrike]

Yeah everyone back off, he has wired a boost gauge.
Turbo is generally harder to setup and more complex due to extra components, etc.
As for the old arguement of a turbo only working up higher in the rev range, that is bullshit. You can look at different A/R's, etc to adjust when it will see boost and max boost.
A turbo is more efficient as it uses a waste product to make boost rather then crank power. A turbo setup running 10psi and a supercharged one running 10psi on the same engine, the turbo will make more power.

[PRAVX II S]

Yeah everyone back off, he has wired a boost gauge.
Turbo is generally harder to setup and more complex due to extra components, etc.
As for the old arguement of a turbo only working up higher in the rev range, that is bullshit. You can look at different A/R's, etc to adjust when it will see boost and max boost.
A turbo is more efficient as it uses a waste product to make boost rather then crank power. A turbo setup running 10psi and a supercharged one running 10psi on the same engine, the turbo will make more power.

I said the same in my earlier post that it uses the spent gases to run the turbo in turn its more efficient.
Lol And i have done others things then wire up a boost gauge Mate.
Back in fiji when i was a apprentice i used to coil my own stator winding for the alternators for the customers. They dont even think of doing anything like that in workshop in OZ the apprentices dont even get taught that in Oz.

[justbad4you]

lol or chalk and cheese

Lol, but thats like comparing a banana and a apple.

Diff motor , car weight ,etc

having said that,SOOP IS in the know,,,he knows his stuff,,,,,,cheers SOOP

[soop]

Yeah everyone back off, he has wired a boost gauge.
Turbo is generally harder to setup and more complex due to extra components, etc.
As for the old arguement of a turbo only working up higher in the rev range, that is bullshit. You can look at different A/R's, etc to adjust when it will see boost and max boost.
A turbo is more efficient as it uses a waste product to make boost rather then crank power. A turbo setup running 10psi and a supercharged one running 10psi on the same engine, the turbo will make more power.

Thank you for smart post.
Although I will pick you on that last part. Its not totally correct. If you're using say, a motor bike turbo at 10PSI on an ecotec, its not going to make the same power. It will be super heated air. I realise that example is rediculous. But it goes to serve a point.

Neither method of forced induction is better then the other, except in extreme cases. I mean, just look at top fuel rails.

Also, my "comparison" of a turbo charged Ecotec and an L67, was not intended to be take as though those motors are good comparisons. But still closer then a bloody BA falcon motor.
The point was, we're comparing forced induction methods, not motors.

Turbochargers are designed for specific applications just as Superchargers are and at the end of the day, neither will be efficient if you don't do your homework.