Turbo or supercharger?

I didn't say DD I said street car learn to read friendo

SUPACHARGA CUS OF MUH WHINE

>WWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

...

>what is back pressure?

never understood why Americans want everything to be "Super"

At least Mercedes calls it what it is, a Kompressor
or compressor in English

This is very clearly an example of power to weight. Please stop pretending to be retarded.

Super is just a word, calm down you stupid non american.

you got assmad and reported it, you and your fuck buddy.

guess jealousy hurts :^)

>americans calling anyone stupid
kek

tables

super.. coming from meaning above or beyond or extra or greater
super-charging... literally just means adding more charge to the engine the charge being the air english isn't even my first language and i understand, how retarded are you

but it is not charging anything, it is compressing the air creating more compression in the cylinder

turbo makes sense because it is short for turbine

supercharger means nothing, it could be over charging the battery. it could be ionizing the air with orgone energy for all anyone can tell by the name

Freedom of speech nigger. Did I hit a nerve?

youtube.com/watch?v=y875H8Pyd8M

I love the sound of superchargers

it is charging the intake with a bigger mass of air

"Charging" just means adding energy to a system, which all cars do.

supercharger so you don't ruin your exhaust note

>never understood why Americans want everything to be "Super"
I never understood why yuros think because an American named it half a century ago we must all want it to be that way.

Turbocharging is superior

> Pretending to be this dense for the sake of being contrary.

By your own explanation, the word "turbocharger" wouldn't mean anything either.

...yes, power/weight is replacing displacement in this example, very good.

Different user, but he's right, it's not like the engines make up the 2000+ lbs difference in weight.

The comparison should be made with two different engines in the same model of car.

I bet you stripped your shitbox real good

Supercharger.
>dat whine
youtube.com/watch?v=eRr1EBAR8G4

>free energy

Superchargers last longer, have flatter boost response to RPM, are the same price as a turbo at worst, don't get red hot when used heavily like a turbo, don't massively heat up the air going into the engine without a massive intercooler, etc.

There's literally no argument for a turbo other than most of the retards on here own cheapshit cars which all come with turbos, never a supercharger.

It isn't free energy. Turbos create restrictions in the exhaust.
It's less parasitic, sure, but it's still parasitic.

eh, i'm a GM guy and I still think all ecotecs sound lame

like the 2.4 quad cam/iron duke/2.2 all had their own buzzy cranky noises, but they could sound really mean with just intake exhausts

ecotect 2 quiet even with a shieking supercharger on top

supercharger
low-end torque > filthy weebrevs

I have a supercharged pontiac grand prix and that thing is fun when just smashing the throttle. Otherwise it's just a fast boat. Nothing cool about it. I also own a Mazdaspeed 6 and much prefer the boost hitting at 3k rpms. Far as shenanigans the Mazda wins.

Turbo provides superior low end power AND torque over a stupidcuckcharger

turbos are actually turbosuperchargers.

>Turbochargers were originally known as turbosuperchargers when all forced induction devices were classified as superchargers. Nowadays the term "supercharger" is usually applied only to mechanically driven forced induction devices.

they were invented by a swiss engineer btw.

It depends what you want. I run a turbo on my drag car and superchargers on my daily, track and drift cars.

>using suspension and weight qualities to try to explain why a turbo is better than a supercharger

wow you're so intelligent.

Why dont you put your trip back on Prez/o/ :^)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5kj1lSMBo

>dyno test
of course the turbo looks better, it's wide open throttle

You know it.

> that video
What start name fagging?

also the part where it's no comparison at all.

if it was actually a comparison, they'd overlay the charts and show you the curves for each. supercharger would be flatter.

It's literally like a drop of water in the ocean compared to crankshaft drive.
This
You're an idiot.

>turbolag
na>super>>>trubo

>it's wide open throttle
The turbo also continuously provides torque on demand as you need it.
You're not going to make the same torque at half throttle as you would WOT with any combination you retard.

They compare the curves at the end
Or are you just blind and stuck in denial?

>it's wide open throttle
is there any other kind?

While we're on the topic I'll ask a stupid question

What does "boost" even mean, and why is it measured in psi?

That has nothing to do with displacement and a lot to do with power/weight

As much bait as the other guy desu

Why don't you watch the video again retard?
Showing the charts in 2 separate frames is not comparing them.

They both have pros and cons
If you want power with no parasite turbo
If you want instant power, super

Are you blind and unable to compare two reading with identical axis?
Do you even know how to read a dyno chart?
At every rpm the turbo is making more torque and power. End of story.

> Not having a supercharger to blow your turbo

pleb confirmed

You must have been looking at different dyno charts, as the turbo was much flatter.

Tarbo for dat whistle tho

throttle position to acceleration change reaction time.

>"power/weight replacing displacement has nothing to do with displacement"
This is literally what you're saying.

Boost is the increase in pressure over atmospheric, it can be be measured in and unit of pressure most common are psi, bar and pa. An engine takes in a fixed volume of air, by increasing the pressure you increase the amount of air in that volume, allowing you to burn more fuel and get more power, in the same way having a larger displacement would.

If its stupid but it works then it aint stupid.

Boutta rear engine swap my celica with a new 4 cyl after stripping it

Stay triggered my friends

I like that you come here to argue because you read all the youtube comments and couldn't make a real argument against all the people with valid reasons that the test was unfair.

Go get hit by a bus please. The diesel in it has a giant turbo to compensate for your small dick.

This post is damage control in its purest form

You have no argument against the results of the test
You are just ass blasted
Stay btfo

Which matters if you drive with a throttle with two settings (on-off).
Thankfully most of us have a progressive throttle and don't have cerebral-palsy

>It's literally like a drop of water in the ocean compared to crankshaft drive.

Exactly. No mechanical energy is "free" per se, but turbos are the most energetically efficient way to add power to your engine

>CFM into the engine
>giant turbo compared to small supercharger
>turbo compared to the shittiest type of supercharger

should I post 10 more reasons? literally kys

Twincharge :^)

> N/A

enjoy your massively heavy engine

>superchrger fangirls cant deal

LMAO

None of those are arguments, just your ass mad showing

Stay in denial that turbos are superior

Offer an alternative to the "shittiest type of supercharger"

/thread
a 7L V8 weighs like 50-75 pounds more than say a 4L V6 with twin turbos

Your fat autistic ass losing 50 pounds would have at least as much effect.

Uhhhh... no

...

I'll back him up on this one. Centrifugal is best imo

SO it's basically measuring the amount of extra air you're cramming into the cylinders. That makes sense, thanks

procharger.com/race-superchargers

Not really. As you can see from the autistic video that has been posted, 10psi on a turbo is not 10psi on a supercharger. The turbo is the size of a fucking semi truck wheel so it's pushing way more CFM of air than the supercharger at the same PSI.

>They had different cfm levels

Citation needed

It's called common sense. There's no way pushing say 500CFM of air at 10psi on a turbo and the same on a supercharger would make a 100kW power difference. Also, you can look up the models of turbo and super if you really want. It's a tiny supercharger.

I already did, as a matter of fact it has been discussed in a forum nd the supercharger is not that much smaller

>There is no way there is a 100kw difference
Yes, superchargers are that inefficient

>has an even worse boost curve than the turbo
>still lacks the outright peak output
Great job!

>arguing against laws of physics

Please, explain how the same volume of air moving through an engine can possibly produce a 25% difference in power. Do you think the ECU recognizes the supercharger and commands the injectors to run dangerously lean and underpowered?

Good quality bait tho I'll give you that.

Because the supercharger feeds off the crankshaft and the turbo does not??? Like, do you even understand how a superchrger works???

Lets consider chemical supercharging/nitrous, it produces more power than both superchargers and turbos at a correlating volume of air, because it doesnt feed off the crank or the exhaust gases

How new r u???

Alright and with that I have ended all possible arguments in this thread.

is obvious bait

and anyone who has a middle school education would understand that it's impossible to flow the same CFM and have 25% less power

Are you retarded. 10psi on a big turbo is way more horsepower than 10psi on a small turbo. CFM is what makes power, the boost pressure is a meaningless number other than for an indication of how stressed the components are.

Please stop posting on this board.

Not that guy, but presuming the Engine is at a similar RPM and the method of forced induction isn't way outside its efficiency range, 10psi-10psi.
The difference here is the crap supercharger can't hold that boost upper rev range. I guess that's where the CFM comes into it, the fact a turbo can sustain that over a broader spectrum.

The difference here is that a supercharger doesnt flow the same CFM as a turbo, even if they have similar volume

Are you? We are not talking big turbo vs small turbo, we are talking turbo vs similarly sized super

He doesn't seem to think they are similar sized. 100Kw is a massive efficiency loss at only 10psi. That's something you would see at like 20 or even higher.

If they were the same size the charger would be able to push more air at high rpm - but it can't - it's undersized.

>I dont understand the inherent differences between centrifugal turbosuperchargers and positive displacement superchargers

Its not undersized, positive displacement superchargers simply produce less peak hp

So, have the Supercharger peons given up?

Mighty Car Mods did a comparison of the same engine in the same car with a similarly-boosted turbo and supercharger.

youtube.com/watch?v=mZ4EiKsoMzg

results are at 17:57

turbo ends up making ~15 kW more, so the actual power difference is like, maybe 12%

fuck no, it's cheaper, and the power is more linear, and you don't have laggy throttle response.

idk about you, but I like to have power when I step on the gas pedal, not 1 1/2 seconds later

>Supercharger pleb is still in denial

Sad!

>supercharger
>loads of low end torque
>wheels spin out with every light tap of the pedal
>ends up being slower than a turbo at low speeds

>turbo
>takes a second to spool up
>doesn't matter because the guy with the supercharger is having a tough time accelerating
>once he almost catches up, your turbo is up to speed and you leave him in the dust
>nothing personnel kid