Turbo VS Supercharger

[bmwsparkle 3]

Which do you prefer? and why? would like to see some good explinations why, hear stupid comments like superchargers are better because they have no lag, which is a sh*t argument.

lets hear your thoughts.

sparkle

[cainchapman 0]

Superchargers are linear devices, Turbochargers are more exponential in delivery.

If you want top end a turbocharger is better. Blowers are better for driveability.

Blowers also put a load on the motor, turbos don't (I believe).

I like Superchargers personally.

[Gus 5]

turbo...something worth waiting for

and it uses exhaust gases to spool up....not using engine power. also in general turbos are easier to set up (not having done one myself, i cant really comment) torque is all well and good...but a 325 has enough to manage...whereas top end..can never have enough

[Carl 3]

Which do you prefer? and why? would like to see some good explinations why, hear stupid comments like superchargers are better because they have no lag, which is a sh*t argument.

lets hear your thoughts.

sparkle

Um, having no lag is a very good argument, don't be so stupid.

Don't presume to think that turbos give your power for nothing, just like a supercharger puts a small load on the engine to drive the charger, the mechanics of a turbo means there's a resistance placed on exhaust flow which is more predominant at the lower end.

Depending on the fan size, weight, and boost pressure, the "larger" the turbo the worse off you'll be for torque at the lower end through lag - although this is regained in the horsepower gained.

Comes down to whether you like having high torque or high horsepower. I personally would prefer the torque hence why i'd prefer a supercharger.

Just out of curiosity, are there any turbos that aren't on fulltime, I know with s/c's you can have them hooked up to switches so you only use it when you want it...ie, when you want to guzzle gas

[Carl 3]

Sorry Gus, didn't see your post as I was writing mine.

I'd like to say that the bigger your engine the more beneficial a supercharger is in comparison to a turbocharger. Turbochargers get more gains on smaller engines whereas superchargers are better for larger engines.

Turbos give a nice healthy boost but only through narrow bands, unless very well tuned. S/C's give a constant boost which is much more handy on high torque engines with larger power bands. It's like having a shot of NOS compared to driving downhill.

Interesting point, those big arse american drag cars are all supercharged, never trubo charged

Edited December 2, 2004 by ///Carl

[bravo 35]

Just out of curiosity, are there any turbos that aren't on fulltime, I know with s/c's you can have them hooked up to switches so you only use it when you want it...ie, when you want to guzzle gas

Driven properly, a turbocharged motor can provide better feul economy than the same engine naturally aspirated as it burns fuel more efficiently.

But, as turbos are usually bought for the power they produce, obviously you tend to drive them in a manner that drinks petrol.

[Munts316i 0]

turbos are better power for money, so to speak but some people dont like the way the power is delivered ie n/a BOOST etc instead of a supercharger just giving the car a n/a like power delivery with that damn addictive whine.

turbos are good if you want power.

superchargers are good if you want one of those puppies sticking out of your bonnet.

[bimmer boy 21]

thought i'd randomize and slip into the convo

i havent been in a supercharged car i dont thikn so i wouldnt really know but u gotta love it in a turb wen u boosting like instant power its great im sure they both hav upsides and downsides

y not hav a supercharged turbo (if thats even possible)

[318is 0]

I've built both turbo and super charged motors, being a mechanic for eons, I won't go into the the WHY'S and DO NOTS, purely because I was given the bits and told to slap it togehter.

My personal opinion is if you have a V8.... supercharge, a four or six, turbo the suker.

I love the sound of a super charger, but only on a 8. A turbo on a four or six pot, I believe, is more benificial power wise.

Turbo lag is a drag, but thats cool because if you were 'boosting' all the time, you would be driving round like a rally driver everywhere.

To reco a turbo is a piece of piddle, but a supercharger is a minor majour, so the turbo wins there for me.

Dats my 2 euros......

[Gus 5]

v8's have super chargers as they produce enough power anyway to not be affected by a super charger strapper on....and as for turbo lag.....say you turbo a stock m20b25 without changing the compression....why would it be any different off the boost than N/A? of course you cant run that high compression. and if you do run low comrpression, if your driving hardish then your most likely going to be in a boost producing rev band most of the time, and if your not driving hard then who cares what power you produce? i understand your point of view and see its attractions, but i would rather have more power when i want it, than a reasonable amount of power all the time

again, not being qualified, its just my 2c.

[Guest Andrew]

It would be slighly less torquey off the boost than stock - as the massive restriction in exhaust flow.

There is no reason a relatively high compression m20 can't spool up a small turbo very quickly a product huge power with not too much turbo lag.

[Jimocles 0]

Why not just twin charge

supercharger and Turbo

I believe it can be done

best of both worlds, and my motto is anything worth doing is worth overdoing

as any one who has seen me drunk will agree with

[Carl 3]

IMHO running both chargers wouldn't achieve much, you'd still have the lag since the turbo still needs to be spooled, and the boost from the turbo probably wouldn't work as well as you'd think since the s/c would probably inhibit it somewhat. I'm only speculating on this of course but if running dual chargers was a good thing you'd probably here alot more about it.

318is, you've supercharged an engine? what makes it a mission??? - for the benefit of two people here

[cainchapman 0]

I've driven both blown and turboed cars. I still like Superchargers for the smooth delivery of the extra neddies.

Ask anyone who has been in a Grp A Sierra what turbo lag and then BOOOOOST is all about. Obviously these are extreme cars. A mild state of tune in a Turbo is a cheaper way to go in general. As 318is has said.

I like the bigger motors, so have driven blown cars more. Tyre tearing torque.

Get a VTEC if you want to ring the dinger out of your motor. or a new M5.

Still a Westie at heart!

Edited December 2, 2004 by cainchapman

[bmwsparkle 3]

Which do you prefer? and why? would like to see some good explinations why, hear stupid comments like superchargers are better because they have no lag, which is a sh*t argument.

lets hear your thoughts.

sparkle

Um, having no lag is a very good argument, don't be so stupid.

Don't presume to think that turbos give your power for nothing, just like a supercharger puts a small load on the engine to drive the charger, the mechanics of a turbo means there's a resistance placed on exhaust flow which is more predominant at the lower end.

Depending on the fan size, weight, and boost pressure, the "larger" the turbo the worse off you'll be for torque at the lower end through lag - although this is regained in the horsepower gained.

Comes down to whether you like having high torque or high horsepower. I personally would prefer the torque hence why i'd prefer a supercharger.

Just out of curiosity, are there any turbos that aren't on fulltime, I know with s/c's you can have them hooked up to switches so you only use it when you want it...ie, when you want to guzzle gas

yes but a supercharger puts 5% load on an engine whereas a turbo only puts 1.5%

yes larger turbos do have bigger lag if not suited to the engine they are mated to but if you have the right size turbocharger to a vehicle then you get little or no lag, also another option obviously being twin turbo setup with smaller turbo down low etc.

also a supercharger only kicks in around 3000rpm which dosent give you a hell of a lot of down low power after all.

[E34-535ti 5]

yes but a supercharger puts 5% load on an engine whereas a turbo only puts 1.5%

As long as the power gain is larger than the power taken to drive the supercharger that is a pretty mute point....

also a supercharger only kicks in around 3000rpm which dosent give you a hell of a lot of down low power after all.

A positive displacement type SC should produce boost right from idle, a centrifugal type SC will have a similar boost curve to a turbo.

I would prefer a turbo for my car mainly because they're easier to install (i.e it doesn't have to be inline with the crank pully) and the for the easy adjustabilty you get, if you want more or less boost its easy you just turn a knob, with a SC its more work....

Plus you gotta love the rush of torque you get as the boost builds

As for twin charging, HKS have produced a number of kits for superchagred Toyota engines over the years (4A-GZE and 1G-GZE) can't say how well they worked but I can't imagine HKS producing something that was totally useless. Lancia also used twin charging on the Delta S4 Group B rally car to good effect.

[Carl 3]

yes but a supercharger puts 5% load on an engine whereas a turbo only puts 1.5%

I'd really love to know where you pulled that figure from Loads are always going to be different from one setup to another for both turbos and s/c's, damned net statistics...

I'm going to agree with you on the turbo's Glenn since you're the foremost autority on them, can't wait to get a ride in your beast, twould be nice to feel what boosting is like in a bimmer even if it is a toymota

[shadowninja 0]

Modern turbos spool up from lower rev levels, to reduce/eliminate the feel of turbo lag. EG- my S15 200SX SR20DET turbo kicked in around 3000rpm.

Got good gas consumption on the open road, (half a small tank Wellingon-Taupo) but shocking around town with stop-start accelaration.

[318is 0]

318is, you've supercharged an engine? what makes it a mission??? - for the benefit of two people here

To your question, I was simply referring to the maintainance between the two if a failure or reco was needed, in this particular case.

For example: It's alot easier to rip out a wee turbo and reco it than dissmantle a supercharger to reco. Time wise, a turbo is alot quicker also.

I enjoy ( ed ) doing a supercharger more than a turbo, purely cos I love my eights... personal thoughts.

I didn't explain myself well, but I rarely do after a few and on a KB ...plus I moved house today, and last night was a drunken blurr before PC pack up

Loving da new place now set up...on da piss again..wohooo!

[bmwsparkle 3]

I'd really love to know where you pulled that figure from

heard quite a few places, some websites etc

[BMA 0]

there is tendency for ppl to think turbo = lag

thats NOT true

if u put a relatively small turbo on a big engine, u will have decent boost as low as 2000rpm. Also sequential turbos implement the same principle to create a wider torque band by having one small turbine and one larger turbine.

U can programme the ECU to flood your injectors with fuel into the combustion chamber without any ignition, "pre spooling" between gear shifts, turbo life expectancy will be shortended though.

Turbo creates backpressure for exhaust gas, so off boost same engine spec without turbo will ALWAYS have more power/torque. Hence u can run a 4 inch exhaust pipe on a turbo engined car without a hassle.

Root type superchargers are just as good as smaller turbos. Centrifugal or whatever they called are more efficient superchargers, but they possess so called "lag" but make up for it up the top of rev range.

I prefer turbos, because there are far more parts (Garrett, Mitsubishi, IHI, KKK) available and proven setups

If u wanna be different, get a supercharger

[318i Turbo 0]

the amount of restriction that a turbo or supercharger makes it besides the point as it ia all made up for althought you cant just go placing a truck turbo or a big ass supercharger on your nanas 1300 masda its just not gonna work, personly i would rather supercharge but with all the $$ involed getting the right size pullys for the boost you wish for etc the turbo is a much more realistic way to goas parts etc are everywhere for a bmw anyhow

[Trancer 0]

i prefer the turbo option, in saying that i have not been in any s/c cars. depending on how your car is set up 'lag' doesnt have to be a problem, my friend is running 17psi (soon to be a constant 22psi on his new garrett gt2530) through his evo4 and it has a smooth delivery from 3000rpm upwards and huge tourque. i guess it just comes down to how they are tuned and how much you wanna spend and then how much you are willing to spend on gas

[hybrid 1043]

Options for my vehicle realistically is the super changered option.

I would get great performance gains for very little impact on the engine.

330i on a semi auto box should sit around 300bhp ... manual and you can get around 360bhp at 0.45 bar.

thing is ... the kits are around $4600 - $5800 US.

I think I'll finish my first round of mods first before doing this sort of thing .. I'm happy with the power mines making at the mo.

Edited December 19, 2004 by hybrid

[aliluya 0]

My brother has a new E46 330Ci supercharged .. there is some pictures some where up here too ..