Turbocharger vs supercharger

1.6 4 banger*

Well a supercharger is belt driven and parasitic so they're better on engines that are low revving with large torque reserves (V8). As well superchargers have a far more linear power band and predictable delivery (even compared to small quick spooling turbos). This is especially important in cars that you'll be doing a lot of canyon carving in. I would hate to be mid corner and have boost come on suddenly. Modern screw type superchargers are also a lot more reliable and higher producing than the blowers of boomers days past. I mean overall I'd say I'm with the supercharger UNLESS I'm making a cheap speed sled and need as much straight line speed for as little money as possible and fuck everything else.

Super chargers are just weird they don't throw you back as much as turbos

Super chargers are cheaper and simpler tho

>I would hate to be mid corner and have boost come on suddenly

This doesnt happen unless you have like a 60mm or bigger turbo you buslord

Will turbos reduce engine life much ?

Supercharger for the toegay
Turbos for the waynegin

Just tune right and dont add too much boost

>Muh feels aren't objective measurements so boomer fucks gtfo with your bullshit

Shitty throttle response is the easiest way to kill a car. You can't drive it if you can't accurately control it. This applies to all cars, it's just that turbo lag is fucking horrendous, and hard to mitigate. Superchargers are not as bad, but you're not adding that much power so why even bother? NA is masterrace, I'm sorry it had to end like this.

Turbochargers are better in pretty much every way, except for turbo-lag. Superchargers get good boost right off the line, so pretty much just for purpose built racers. They also look fucking badass looming out of the hood in full shiny and chrome glory. And that sound...

You are a dumb dumb

If you have a turbo so big that it only makes power 1/4 of the rev range, say an 80-90 mm one then it doesnt really matter if the supercharger delivers power earlier, a supercharger that makes that much power will also make you spin out of control

Fucking buslords man

Good to know. May add a turbo to my lolV6 mustang when it's out of warranty + a tune.

Just add nitrous honestly, cheaper, easier and gets the same result

>power delivery: turbo
>cost: turbo
U wot m8

na>supercharger>electric>turbo>bus pass>rotary

On my 2.5 i6 turbo definitely

If you know what you're doing you should know time to boost for a turbo engine at a given RPM so when you hit the apex you floor it to build boost and then suddenly cut throttle just as you start to come on boost so you can get linear modulation.

Also, modern cars are capable of torque management. They can pull boost to handle that kind of situation.

Also, in any kind of serious driving OEM turbos are sized to basically always be on boost if you're having a big go and the gearing is set up to keep you at the boost threshold.

The problem you're talking about is really more related to aftermarket turbos that are oversized for the engine and the lag becomes a major issue even when you're in the right gear for corner exit.

>can't choose both
Why the fuck not?
Pic related
Diesel 2 stroke roots/twin screw supercharged with a huge as fuck turbo sitting on top of it all.

Turbo on the mx5 all the way man. The Jackson Racing SC for the Miata is shit. Makes the car run really rough and the power levels are meh, and really drops off at higher rpm.

Supercharger cause i have boomer taste and want a blower

supercharger, I'll take that whine over a PSH anyday

The turbo on my miat comes on like a hit of NOS
>If you know what you're doing you should know time to boost for a turbo engine at a given RPM so when you hit the apex you floor it to build boost and then suddenly cut throttle just as you start to come on boost so you can get linear modulation.
Kek good luck with that

cant throttle control?

correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a supercharger be better than a turbo in the city because you tend to keep the revs lower? unless it's a small turbo that spools up easily.

yea that's correct, supercharger basically hits at instant throttle while obviously turbos take time to spool

>cheaper
>$4995.00 for the fast foward sc kit
>$3,299.00 for the flyin miata turbo kit

If you pieced the turbo kit together yourself you can knock over a grand off that price.

Supercharger because the whine is sex

Turbo for an inline engine, Supercharger for V engine

No, it's shelf life is actually pretty long

>making boost on bumper to bumper traffic is good

supercharger fangirls are this retarded

>namefag
>having a say in anything

>Oh boy, I'll take my supercharged weekend car into the middle of the city, that'll be fun

Fucking hell, we've designed controllers for non-linear systems, I fail to see why you can't control your fucking foot to handle something non-linear as well.

Even if you can't, not to worry. At this point we're about to get mild hybrids that use regen to spool up turbos instantly along with non-linear throttle mapping so even retards like you can drive a turbo car without blaming the throttle response when you inevitably drift into a curb.

Turbo.
A super charger is just like having a stronger car, but the Turbo produce more power and gives you that increasing power that feels much better then the linear power the S/C gives.

300HP S/C have the advantage at lower RPM, but a 300HP turbo have more torque and drinks less fuel at any given RPM.
Though you'd have to have different engines since a 200HP engine with a typical default charger would produce around 300 while a 200HP engine with a turbo would give more than 300HP.
that's why a lot of 200HP engines are way below that if you remove the turbo, while the S/C engines usually would've had more without the S/C.

TL;DR Turbo engines gives the most added HP and way more torque but adds turbo lag if you don't have a proper re-circulating boost setup that most turbo cars have nowadays anyway.

Thanks for proving his point.
The charger leeches of the engine at all times, when you're in slow traffic that's the least thing you want.
That's why a turbo is better there as well.

>Degenerate people that think having a name makes it less credible.

It also adds power at all times

>does your engine sound good n/a?
supercharger
>does your engine already sound like shit n/a?
turbocharger

>be detroit diesel
>have 2 stroke V8 that sounds like a demon
>lets weld two of them together
>lets supercharge AND turbocharge them
>fuck your rules

Nope, you match the turbo size to the engine in such a way that optimises your boost curve for the application

turbo

couldnt care less about superchargers way too boring

NA actually is the best

Turbo for dat whistle

Super for that whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

kek

That's what I meant by it being a stronger engine, compared to a N/A, but it's power band is the same, while the turbo picks up and goes past S/C.

>at all times
>even when you don't want it
For a daily, having the progressive "on-demand" delivery of a turbo can't be beat.

Ravioli
Ravioli
Turbos are for dragon lolis

If you always have boost, do you ever really have any boost...

Even if you don't want it, we're not far from EPC assisted turbos. A big jolt of compressed air at the start to get the turbos spooled up before the compressor disconnects. Once you let off the turbo can be spooled down by the electric compressor too.

Why are all big Diesel engines painted?

Volvo sells a car with both.

I'd gather presentation and marketing. Big diesel power plants such as the Detroit pictured are their own brand.

> when you are in slow traffic turbo is better
what did he mean by this?

Also, makes it easy to perform a Dulux recondition for a new unsuspecting owner

He means a turbocharger responds by demand, not just constantly boosting with 10% throttle just past idle where boost is irrelevant.

Wouldn't a supercharger increase fuel efficiency at the low RPMs you'd have in traffic?

>take turbo weekedn car to the city
>stay off boost, feels like an N/A car

stay BTFO cuck

No.

>t someone who learned everything about forced induction from video games
>level 3 turbo makes more power than level 3 supercharger tho guize

It depends on the size of said turbocharger or supercharger. A little tiny kei car turbo on a big dick v8 will actually lose power

its all about throttle response, i have a WRX and a BRZ, the WRX is fun because if i drive it hard im glued to the fucking seat, but aside from just accelerating the car doesnt provide a great 'sensation'. The BRZ with basic upgrades and suspension work feels like such a mean car despite being significantly slower. Having a roots on the BRZ (edelbrock all day) would be much more fun than the wrx regardless of whether i tune the wrx to be faster (and youll never get bored of 20LB boost on the brz, if you can run the suspension to even keep it on the ground), i could run new bushings and mounts and protune it all i want but itll never have the feel of a nice linear torque curve charging up and down the revs; ib4 parasitic SC, if you tune for power you can spin the wheels on anything for

>Nissan added aftermarket parts
>Still slover than a Viper

I always find these kind of engines really nerve wrecking to look at. And I'm someone who owns pic related.

Do I have autism?

>literal fake laptimes from a site known to make up fake laptimes

A M E R I D U M B

Then these are all fake or irrelevant then

>power delivery: turbo
Correct.
>cost: turbo
Correct
>power potential: turbo
meh. They both have the same power potential. Its just that the parasitic power of the supercharger hogs it down a little
>reliability: turbo
I wouldn't say it. They are both kinds of forced induction. Done right they are both reliable even if bolt ons.

Response is also a very important deal, and in a small track car, or a hill climb car, or anywhere where you cant be on the throttle constantly you will need either a supercharger or a twin turbo to reduce lag.

If you need to reach X horsepower regardless of psi or type, get a supercharger. Then you would have the same power as a turbo but no lag.

No because the charger that leeches from the engine makes the engine respond by having to increase fuel rate due to the increased load.

>300hp turbo making more power than a 300 hp S/C

If same rev limiter a 300 hp turbo and a 300 hp supercharger makes the same fucking torque buddy. Except that the S/C gets better low end torque and better throttle resposne

progressive, on demand? what in the fuck are you talking about because it isnt a turbo; its nice nice nice then your mass airflow sensor decides you need more gas to keep the A/F ratio good and you are in your seat for a split second, your ratio leans out until you hit the next point on the map and get jolted again, all the way up the curve; its a constant fight between the road conditions, your turbo, and your tune; find me a turbo dyno that looks progressive vice ballz to the fucking wallz

what benchracing website is this from?

>cites a laptime from a site known for it's bullshit
>gets BTFO
>b-but umm let me move the goalposts kay?

A M E R I D U M B

The same one all the GTR vs Corvette times are from

motortrend?

>He says moving the goalpoasts

last i checked (whatever you mean by) 'fuel rate' is determined by how much air is coming in, how does having boost at your throttle valve have anything to do with idle air control; all you should be getting idleing with a SC is lower revs in traffic due to the losses WHICH tend to taper off significantly at low revs anyways

Just imagine for a moment being this autismal

damn

dsportmag.com/the-tech/twin-scroll-vs-single-scroll-turbo-test-the-great-divide/

Shouldn't single scroll turbos still enjoy better high rev power?

I mean, they have 4 piston's exhaust feeding it instead of 2.

you see that flat ass HP trend all the way up to 6500; i dont know maybe im blind, because it looks progressive to me

a twin scroll turbo still gets the exhaust gases of th 4 pistons user,the turbo is just divided.

its not like you dump the gases of two cylinders directly into the atmosphere

indeed, its more of not disrupting clean airflow into the turbine inlet, simply a better design

But my point is, you have the exhaust from cyl 1 and 4 using venturi to gain speed and spin the turbo faster, but wouldn't the entire system hog it down at high RPM? wouldn't that mean that you are working with 2 cylinders and a little bit more fully working towards the turbo?

Let me explain it on a kindergarten level for you instead.
200HP engine with X amount of boost will give more power to turbo than s/c since the s/c steals some of that HP by leeching of the engine.

Read above
The ECU have to compensate when something is slowing down the idle RPM to prevent stalling and keeping an optimal idle RPM.

These are things you should've learned by now, unless you're one of those famous bus riders that visit Veeky Forums.

you dont really need a venturi for the concept to work, exhaust gasses from cylinder 2 and 3 disrupt the flow from 1 and 4 in any single scroll turbo, dividing the flow so they go through different turbines keeps flow clean and efficient

I get that. But wouldn't dividing the flow on the high speed tubes be worse than not dividing the flow? again, this is all for very high RPM range.

>200HP engine with X amount of boost will give more power to turbo than s/c since the s/c steals some of that HP by leeching of the engine.

But you said that both the S/C and T engine were producing the same amount of HP you fucking retard. Parasitic power doesn't magically come on when you dont look for it, its always there. You always need more psi for a S/C to provide the power of the turbo, that's parasitic load, but if they both provide the same power then they both provide the same fucking power. There's no magical fairy that makes S/C get increased parasitic load for no fucking reason. You are already counting for the parasitic load when you take the dyno.

except the flat curve is the torque you dumb dumb

at half the RPM the twin scroll turbo is making over 400 hp. which is over half of peak hp, the edelbrock supercharger, tested by mustang 360 is also making over 400 hp at half rpm (around 4500 rpm)

mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/m5lp-1107-edelbrock-eforce-coyote-blower/

scroll to the bottom to see the dyno numbers, a properly sized turbo delivers power in very similar ways as a supercharger

So a turbo can deliver power like a supercharger but can a supercharger deliver power like a turbo?

and btw, the graph you provided doesn't show the power gains of the edelbrock e force, those are from an N/A engine

>thinking an edelbrock e force will only make 320 hp

fuck off user

well no i dont ride any buses, i have 3 cars for that... anyways on any car using a more traditional ECU the engine gets gas based on the A/F ratio, at idle the same amount of air should be coming in stock, now your exhaust systems efficiency at low revs might lean out your ratio and it gets more gas with a S/C but other than a small difference i just dont see it

Just about the most elaborate shitpost I've read all year.

He is for real tho

did you link the wrong article, id be interested in seeing what you are talking about but...
also as far as the dyno i posted, the power is delivered linearly, the curves that start out lower and end up higher are the HP curves, friend

Kindergarten tier explaining was too hard for you then...

>200HP N/A with either S/C or Turbo that boost the same psi
Following me so far?
>That 200HP will get increased HP from both but the turbo will get higher HP due to the turbo not leeching from the engine as much as a S/C
I hope you managed to understand toddler tier explaining at least.

You don't see it because you don't understand it.