Can superchargers increase fuel economy like turbos? Which is simpler/more reliable?

Enjoy your boring supercharger that offers very little advantage to more displacement

>what is a boost controller

Keep in mind I prefer turbos, but come on now.

for the track or the drag strip, the extra acceleration and instant throttle response of superchargers wins hands down

for everything else, turbochargers are more efficient and provide more power, but are a lot more expensive to set up and maintain

or you can get the master race option (pic related)

>superchargers are better at the track and at the drag strip

delusional

t. shitty econobox owners

imagine being this buttblasted you resort to namecalling

Turbos are inherently inferior in terms of acceleration and throttle response, no amount of multi turbine setups and antilag systems can fully fix that

on tracks with lots of tight consecutive turns (or the touge for that matter) superchargers are at an advantage.

For the drag strip, it's not even a question, superchargers win hands down. you'd have to be retarded not to know that

>Not having both Supercharger and Turbocharger

Superchargers are literally like higher displacement without the fuel savings and thermal efficiency that come with lower displacement

if i was gonna put one on a daily driver i'd pick a super charger because it works at low revs, which is where you're in most of the time you drive in the city.
inb4 low pressure turbo, what's the fucking point.

top = super
bottom = turbo
?

Turbos don't increase fuel economy.

yes

Turbos are more efficient, supers are simpler and more reliable

Turbos are powered by the force of exhaust gases which would normally have been completely and utterly wasted

Supers are powered by the engine, meaning you get less power to the wheels

wuhteff

supers really eat up that much power or what

Depends. On diesels they do.

You're right but also wrong

On the same engine a turbo will not improve fuel economy

However turbos allow manufacturers to produce smaller engines that produce the same power, which does improve fuel economy

Based on any kind of chemical combustion reaction that seems wrong. Unless you're referring to two stroke diesels where I know superchargers and turbos weren't used in the same way they are on a gas engine and are more for evacuating the cylinders.

Do all superchargers have that annoying baby scream whine? Or is it just something certain bro car people do to make them sound like that, like turbo flutter?

>you're wrong if I compare my apple to your orange

No, I'm just right.

The Roots style tend to whine. Centrifugal superchargers or prochargers tend to sound like turbo's.

fpbp

Superchargers whine because of the belt that drives them, it's the nature of the beast. If you think the modern supercharger is annoying you would get your balls blown off by a Novi V8 unit.

Modern turbos spool above 2000 RPM. Drive a modern turbo engine like the BMW S55 in the M3/M4 or a 340i/440i with B58. And the soft anti-lag means throttle response remains comparable to NA.

Yes they are simpler but they fail more quickly. The belt wears out and so do the blade contact points. Bearings go bad too.
On a turbo it's pretty much just the bearings that go bad.

>blade contact points
>The belt wears out

Keep talking. I wanna see how you'll fuck this up next.

SC's are simpler but require more precision engineering which is why companies avoid them and get a turbo instead. Overall I'd rather have a SC than a turbo. With SC you get boost proportionate to vehicle RPM, you don't get turbo lag and usually SC is better fitted for the motor so you can't explode your block with boost like some eBay turbo slapped on a car never expected to run at anything besides natural aspiration can and often does.

It's much easier to replace a belt than to undo a grenaded turbo setup

Mazda's Skyactiv-X engines are going to be supercharged

Not by themselves, turbos increase fuel economy in how they can wring more power from a smaller engine. Much like how Ford trucks and their EcoBoost V6 replacing MUH VEE ATE

they spool at 2000rpm but dont produce meaningful power below 3000-4000rpm, and on top of that, there is still a significant spool up time

If you release the throttle even a little bit to brake or for a gear change you will not have as much power when you press it again

that is why superchargers are superior for tracks with a lot of cornering

IE; they don't increase fuel economy- Another breakthrough the redundant department of redundancy.

That's a load of shit, SC take SOME power same as your A/C and power steering and alternator do but they RETURN far more HP than they take

Nigga you can always replace a belt. You can't rebuild a grenaded motor from your 45 psi of boost created

Yes they do, faggot, a smaller motor replacing a larger displacement higher cylinder block does improve fuel economy. Fuck yes a turbo V6 is better MPG than some N/A'ed V8.

>Can superchargers increase fuel economy like turbos
since when do turbos increase fuel economy

Until you actually try to use the power it's rated to make

We're not talking about one engine replacing another, the question was if turbos increased fuel economy. They don't.

Nobody said turbo'ing a given motor was an MPG improvement, if anything I'd think MPG would go down since for turbos to be useful you have to keep the motor in the right RPM range for the turbo to do anything

>there are people who unironically believe superchargers make power at below 2000 rpm

lol

More than your turbo would make there Mr. Wong.

No of course they don't they increase MPG indirectly by mimicing the power of a larger motor on less displacement

It makes VTEC noises user

>"fuel economy of an automobile is the relationship between the distance traveled and the amount of fuel consumed by the vehicle."

Distance/(divided by) fuel consumed, or miles per gallon. OP and people have repeatedly said turbos improve fuel economy, ergo improves MPGs.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

How do they improve fuel economy when all they do is increase relative displacement?

>How do they improve fuel economy

They don't, which is what I've been saying since here:

>autist has never heard of boost braking

lol, turbo pressure is determined by the volume and the velocity of the exhaust gases, not engine speed, meaning that an increase in volume and speed makes the turbo spool, you can achieve a very high % of the total boost pressure at lower RPMs if you know how to move your feet

superchargers are shit-tier, deal with it

That's not increasing fuel economy, you're getting confused by semantics. The CAR can get more fuel economy by having a smaller engine compared to the models with larger ones, whether or not it has more power or a turbo-ed engine is largely irrelevant. Putting turbos on an ENGINE does not increase fuel economy no matter what size it is.

>lol, turbo pressure is determined by the volume and the velocity of the exhaust gases, not engine speed

Pressure in the ICE forced induction application is just a measure of restriction.

That's about what I just said, Turbo-ing doesn't improve MPG on a given motor, but improves MPG on a given vehicle using a turbo smaller motor vs. the larger NA motor they formerly used.

what did he mean by this?

But said
>OP and people have repeatedly said turbos improve fuel economy
and proceeded to put QED as if that makes him smart.

>increase fuel economy like turbos
If anything adding a turbocharger or supercharger decreases fuel economy you chimp.

If you spin a turbine at the exact same speed and it makes 15 psi of boost, if you necked the pipe down small enough you could read 30 psi of boost. The way pressure is gauged in our application for the automobile is by an large a measure of restriction.

and? how is that relevant to my post about how superchargers are worse than turbos

>but improves MPG on a given vehicle using a turbo smaller motor vs. the larger NA motor they formerly used
You may think this, but it's not true. A car with the same power but smaller engine and turbo makes better "figures" because the gearing is designed to keep the car out of boost during economy testing. As soon as you apply boost the fuel economy plummets.

My challenger gets a few MPGs more post SC install cruising at highway speeds, nothing to write home about.

Seriously, fuel economy programs in an ECU are often written to be worse than necessary so that the future models can post better figures and continue the forced improvement trend that greenfags impose.

>Sc’s will never be more fuel efficient, as they are always in boost.
>what is clutch pulleys

You understand the higher the RPM the greater the parasitic loss right? Or is physics something you're unable to grasp?

>Can superchargers increase fuel economy like turbos?
Like turbos?

Bitch, turbos don't increase fuel economy. Any engine without forced induction will be more fuel efficient than the same engine with forced induction.

The only thing forced induction does is throw more air into the cylinder during air intake. More air on its own does nothing, what does makes the difference is that with more oxygen in the cylinder, the engine can throw more fuel into the cylinder. More fuel burned means a stronger bang and thus more power, but more fuel burned means worse fuel economy.

Whenever you see a car with a small turbocharged engine, it's inherently deceptive. You cannot get both the fuel economy and the power at the same time. The numbers for those two stats wind up being the the two extreme scenarios where one depends on the turbo doing its job while the other depends on the turbo doing nothing, and this gets treated like the norm. In reality, a driver wouldn't be getting either of those figures when they drive that car because they would be going back and forth between a working and non-working turbo as they drive.

>For the drag strip, it's not even a question, superchargers win hands down. you'd have to be retarded not to know that
I'm genuinely waiting for you to post a top fuel rail with complete disregard as to why it uses a crank driven positive displacement pump.

>they spool at 2000rpm but dont produce meaningful power below 3000-4000rpm
Do you actually believe what you type? You'll always be able to achieve a broader spread of torque with an exhaust driven pump than a fixed drive ratio pump.

How

It's called twin charging, look it up

This is only true because if you ran a turbo engine with N/A AFRs you would melt the pistons quickly.

Turbos can actually slightly reduce pumping losses even when you aren't on boost. This isn't a perpetual motion machine. Exhaust gases are very hot and the turbo uses the heat and pressure difference between the cylinder and the outside air to drive the turbine.

If you used water injection to keep AFRs comparable to naturally aspirated engines all the time you would probably see fuel economy improvements no matter how you drive. But a secondary injection system is a huge can of worms.

a small one yes much like a turbo

i remember a article about a jeep 4.0 xj improving power and mileage with a roots blower

found it

fourwheeler.com/how-to/engine/131-0803-40l-jeep-xj-cherokee-supercharger-kit/

remember supercharging through a turbo is best twin charging setup

trucktrend.com/how-to/expert-advice/1208dp-supercharge-your-diesel-truck/

Not if you have two identical engines and one has a turbo. They only increase economy if you're comparing a larger NA engine and a smaller turbo one

If Superchargers are so bad compared to Turbochargers, why do both Dodge and Chevrolet use them on their performance vehicles?

Ask Mazda, they're working on a supercharger for efficiency right now.

Murican culture.

But probably because superchargers suit high displacement engines.

They are? That’s a fisrt I heard of that. Thanks for the knowledge.

Which happens quickly on petrol engines because the bearing housing is heat effected, unlike a supercharger.

How is that even a question?
Did you see that big fuckoff snail in the bottom pic?

turbos do have some parasitic loss, its not a free power adder

It's not so much that they increase the efficiency - N/A diesels have a lot of low-end torque, but a very narrow powerband. Diesel also produces more exhaust gases than petrol and also does not have the issue of premature detonation that petrol does, so diesel engines are pretty much perfect for turbocharging. It virtually eliminates the narrow powerband issues, and there are no downsides.

Top baito desu