(named: ) turbo/super

[Larry" <rocco16v@netzero.com (Larry)]

> >   There's not much I can add to Neal's excellent outline.
> > Superchargers generally are less "stressed" than turbos, and longevity
may
> > be in the SC's favor.
>
> That is completely incorrect. How many supercharged transfer trucks and
> bulldozers are there? How many supercharged cars give troublefree service
> for more than about 80k miles? You can go to the junkyard right now and
dig
> around in Audis, Saabs, and Volvos and find turbos in junk cars that are
> still operable. That alone speaks volumes about turbocharger longevity. I
> have three turbocharged cars with 180k, 280k, and 150k that all have the
> original turbos on them. They are from 84, 86, and 87. Presumably they
have
> gotten even better in the last 18 years. Heck, the one on my Urq is not
even
> water cooled. Nevertheless, I've run it at as much as 22lbs of boost.
>
> > Heat build-up in the engine compartment is another factor.
> > I've heard plenty of TC horror stories (even lived through one), so SC's
> > don't have a monopoly on that issue.
>
> I definitely agree that you can blow up your engine with a turbo very
> quickly, simply because you have the ability to adjust the boost. It's not
> foolproof - you're right.
>
> >
> > The main reason TC's are popular is because they are cheap.  Cheap to
buy
> > and cheap to install, compared to SC's.
>
> Neither is cheap, but a supercharger costs a lot because of the greater
> number of moving parts that are all required to be very carefully balanced
> and machined. This is a disadvantage - not an advantage. Turbochargers are
> popular because they are the better solution. People who think otherwise
are
> just being eccentric =)
>
> > You want big, far-ranging horsepower?   No contest.  How many
2000-4000hp
> > drag cars have turbos?  They need power from a standing start right on
up.
> > Don't come back with turbo F1 cars either, they are built to a formula
> > (that's where the F in F1 comes from, remember) and need the most
> efficient
> > boost they could get. (They give up flexibility for pure top end.)  And
> > turbos are more efficient, no argument.  But I don't care about
> efficiency,
> > I care about usable power, the more the better.
>
> Completely irrelevent - and even incorrect I bet. Nevertheless, we are
> talking about our cars, not F1 or Drag cars.
>
> >  A supercharger will be easier to install (and more satisfying to drive)
> > than a turbo simply because not every corner 'tuner' can throw one
> together
> > and market it. EVERYBODY seems to have a turbo for sale and some aren't
> even
> > close to being fully developed.
>
> Yeah, it would be great if they made a wonderful package of everything
that
> I could need, with all the components I would choose, and all set up with
a
> chip or ecu that would run my car, unfortunately that really doesn't exist
> and if it did (or does) I probably wouldn't buy it anyway... well ok maybe
I
> would, it does sound nice. But the point is that you need to know how the
> stuff all works together anyway, otherwise you will just destroy
everything
> you payed for.
>
> >Anyone who markets a supercharger probably
> > has big $$ invested because it takes a great deal of machine and casting
> > work to produce the kit (charger, pulleys, brackets, manifold, etc).
> These
> > are not items you or I are going to piece together in our garages with a
> > hacksaw and a MIG welder.
>
> Tell me more about the manifold...?
>
> >
> > My biggest problem with a supercharger is that no one seems to make them
> for
> > my 16V.  :(
>
> If I recall correctly I've seen some pictures of a momentum 16v g60 setup.
> It really looks cool together.
>
> >
> >  This is only my position and others of you will certainly disagree as
to
> > which is best for you.
> > I'd be interested in hearing more from you....
> > (I was thinking of mounting a centrifugal supercharger on the BACK of my
> > engine, gear-driven off the flywheel teeth, since that's the only area
> that
> > has any room and it would somewhat simplify intake plumbing.  Lot'sa
> machine
> > work to do it...so it's mainly a mental exercise...)
>
> Why would it simplify intake plumbing? You still have to run to the IC and
> back.
>
>
> I know I shouldn't have responded to this thread, but I couldn't help it.
> Comparing turbos to superchargers is sort of like discussing religion or
> politics. I feel passionate about it, and I feel like I have to change
> peoples minds.
>
> Turbo is your friend, give him a chance =)
> -Noah

Noah, passion and evangelic zeal are wonderful things, just don't let them
cloud your mind to other possibilities.  GM and Ford have weighed the pros
and cons of both turbo and supercharging.  The Pontiac Solstice and the Ford
GT40, both of which just may make it to production, each have a
'pressurized' motor and they aren't turbos.  Notice all the cars/pickups
designed in the past 5 years or so, and that are pressurized, use SC? While
OEM turbos certainly are not dead, they have lost the massive use that
manufacturers once made of them.
Maybe this thread can die now, we've had our fun.

Larry  sandiego16V