Re: Supercharged vs. Turbo

["Alex Ting" <alex@millenniumsolutions.net>]

Keep in mind though, that turbos are considerably
more peaky whereas supers are more linear in their
power delivery and power bands.
Turbos ultimately have more power potential, but at
the cost of higher underhood temps.
And, although supers have lower operating temps,
they put an equal amount of stress on engine internals.

I think it really comes down to what you are trying to
accomplish with your car.  For all out horsepower and
drags, the turbo is the way to go.  For daily driving, especially
city stop-and-go, the super is ideal.

As far as install and maintenence, the super is more
readily accessible and therefore easier to maintain.

my .02 psi.......


Alex Ting
Millennium Solutions Group, Inc.
8303 Sierra College Blvd., Suite 150
Granite Bay, CA 95746

Phone: 888-801-2001 or 916-797-9998
Fax: 916-797-9997
Email: alex@millenniumsolutions.net



- ----------
> From: Brad Sheridan <brads@mindspring.com>
> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> Subject: Re: Supercharged vs. Turbo
> Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 1:25 PM
> 
> At 12:52 PM 10/19/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >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).
> 
> The turbo is much more efficient, as it uses otherwise wasted energy to
> provide the boost, while a supercharger drains power from the engine via
> the crank. Displacement type chargers are quite inefficient, compared
with
> centrifugal type superchargers(basically half of a turbo, driven off the
> crank). However with centrifugal chargers, you have to worry about the
fact
> that the engine operates over a broad rpm range, and it may be tough to
get
> a charger that will  work good across the whole range. It will most
likely
> either be spinning too slowly at low rpm to make boost, or spin too fast
at
> high rpm.
> 
>   There's also the issue of turbo lag
> >(spin-up time), which is nonexistent for the charger. 
> 
> And for all practical purposes, nonexistant on the newer generations of
> turbos, especially if it is well matched for the app.
>  Note that the charger(unless designed with bypasses, something only
coming
> about recently) is on the boost all the time, which puts extra wear and
> tear on engine components. 
> 
>  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)...
> 
> Superchargers are easier to plumb, I'll give them that.
> 
> --
> 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.

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