Re: Supercharged vs. Turbo

["lerb" <lerb@redrose.net>]

Well Tim I look at it this way....when I spin up a turbo I am getting free
power...What I mean is I am not taking power from my car to produce more...I
am taking something that would normally be a waste product and funneling it
through something that will make more power in the end....yes there is a
little lag and yes there is a tendency to get more power at greater RPMs
from turbo.....Now a supercharger always robs something from the engine to
give power. So what would you rather do start out with say 127HP rob 30 to
get 160 or start out with 127 and not rob any and get 160? I chose not to
rob any if I can...I can not spare any power loss one little bit....even if
it means getting it back in the end......If I had  V8 with 300+ HP I could
see sparring 50-75HP to double the output. Then there is the difference on
how the supercharger puts out at lower RPMs and the whole debate that if it
even does anything before the normal powerband of the motor anyways. Hey my
opinion is biased since I have only seen one supercharged VW...but in theory
I like FREE power :)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ebling <tim@surreal.com>
To: 'Scirocco Mail List' <scirocco-l@privateI.com>
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 4:06 PM
Subject: Supercharged vs. Turbo


>
>Ok I know this is a debate that rages EVERYWHERE, but I thought it'd be
>relevant to bring it up now with the talk about 16V turbos.
>
>At the Oktobugfest show yesterday (Puyallup, WA), I was fortunate enough to
>pick up Greg Raven's "Watercooled Performance Handbook", which someone
>mentioned was out of print.  What a great book!  This guy seems to really
>know engines, not just from a practical standpoint, but from a theoretical
>and scientific standpoint as well.  Bottom line is, I was impressed with
his
>knowledge.
>
>Anyway, a chapter in the book is devoted to turbos and superchargers for VW
>engines up to 1989.  After reading this chapter, it was quite clear that he
>favored the supercharger to the turbo.  In fact, he states "Superchargers
>are inherently better then a turbo for a street-driven gasoline engine" (p.
>108).  The main advantage he pointed out for the supercharger was its
>ability to provide equal boost throughout the RPM range, as opposed to the
>turbo which has to rely on a wastegate system to provide this equalization
>(and hence is not as efficient).  There's also the issue of turbo lag
>(spin-up time), which is nonexistent for the charger.  In fact, the only
>advantage he cites for the turbo is its ability to perform at high
>altitudes.
>
>Anyway, I realize this is one man's opinion (albeit an educated one it
>seems), and I'm sure there are plenty of turbo evangelists out there (on
>this list I'd imagine), but it does make me think.
>
>So let the debate begin!  What do the folks with turbos or are doing turbo
>conversions think?  Is it simply a matter of the parts for chargers not
>being available?  I'm also concerned about the longevity factor of a turbo.
>Superchargers seem to be more reliable, which is why VW chose to put a
>G-lader on the Corrado instead of a turbo (which they did experiment
>with)...
>
>-tim
>
>--
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to scirocco-L-request@scirocco.org,
>with your request (subscribe, unsubscribe) in the BODY of the message.
>

- --
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to scirocco-L-request@scirocco.org,
with your request (subscribe, unsubscribe) in the BODY of the message.

------------------------------