Turbo vs. Supercharger.

[rocco16v at netzero.net (L F)]

Eric-
  Gear that supercharger up (to compensate for altitude) and you gotcher horsies back.
Turbos don't experience boost loss at altitude because they're always trying to make all the boost they can and you have to rein 'em in with the waste gate, which is pressure-controlled.  Thought you knew that....
(and, believe this, turbo power is not free power.  NOTHING is free...)
Not saying turbosuperchargers don't work...they work just fine.
Larry
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eric S 
  To: dale witt ; Neal Tovsen ; Scirocco List 
  Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:35 PM
  Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger.


  Since this topic has come up again....I'll make the same point I always do.

  Since I am a "high lander" at 5200 ft high here in Denver, and regularly go to the mountains, I would NEVER install a supercharger on any of my dubs.  With its static spin rate it has NO way to compensate for the thinner air up here and boosts much less at altitude. 

  A turbo, with its freewheeling/free power nature will actually spin faster at altitude to make the same boost and does an effective job at almost completely overcoming altitude loss, where NA and supered cars cannot.

  Many of you were impressed by Marc Gettys (spelling?) C230 Kompressor at Cincy this year...I'll tell you this, those things are absolute DOGS up here...I know, I test drove one and was throughly dissapointed...

  --
  Eric
  www.VintageWatercooleds.com

  79 VW Iltis
  81 Scirocco S (*TDI* swap and complete restoration in holding pattern)
  81 Rabbit Truck LX Diesel (FOR SALE!)
  81 Rabbit Truck 2.0 16v Motronic
  83 Scirocco Wolfsburg
  91 Cabriolet (2.0 Crossflow 8v swap and mechanical rebuild in progress)


  --- "dale witt" <dwitt1@satx.rr.com> wrote:
  >I was speaking of our dubs in general and VWs attitude on the subject
  >of the supercharger.  They could have used the quality of an Eaton or
  >Lysholm (they do have deep pockets), but instead they seemed to say
  >"Oh well, not too good" and they just dumped the G60 like a bad idea.
  >I have several friends that tried to stay loyal to the G60, but have since
  >gone the turbo route, or just gave up on the Corrado completely.  I had
  >every intention to make the Supercharger my next upgrade to my 86, now
  >I am pretty much convinced to do the Turbo.  I guess there have been
  >too many cases of VWs with superchargers going south.
  >
  >Dale Witt
  >03 GTI 20AE
  >86.5 2.0 16v Scirocco
  >82 2.1 16v Zender Wide Body Scirocco
  >
  >----- Original Message ----- 
  >From: "Neal Tovsen" <nealtovsen@yahoo.com>
  >To: "dale witt" <dwitt1@satx.rr.com>; "Scirocco List"
  ><Scirocco-l@Scirocco.org>
  >Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:34 PM
  >Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger.
  >
  >
  >> ? For the average driver, I believe the
  >> > supercharger is just too
  >> > high maintenance.
  >>
  >> I think the ***G60*** was too much maintenance for the
  >> average person. But that is in no way an indication of
  >> supercharger maintenance in general. The G60 design
  >> was unique and never perfected. The technology didn't
  >> exist, and nobody invested in it.
  >>
  >> Eaton or Lysholm units requre no more maintenance than
  >> a turbo. Some claim they require less. There's an
  >> Eaton-charged Rabbit on Vortex that claims to have put
  >> 150k on his SC after he pulled it from a junkyard!
  >>
  >> Neal
  >>
  >> --- dale witt <dwitt1@satx.rr.com> wrote:
  >> > What do you suppose was the thinking at VW, as they
  >> > never really made a big
  >> > hit with the G60 and pretty much let it take a back
  >> > seat to the VR and now
  >> > the turbo.  For the average driver, I believe the
  >> > supercharger is just too
  >> > high maintenance.
  >> >
  >> > Dale Witt
  >> > 03 GTI 20AE
  >> > 86.5 2.0 16v Scirocco
  >> > 82 2.1 16v Zender wide body Scirocco
  >> >
  >> > ----- Original Message ----- 
  >> > From: "L F" <rocco16v@netzero.net>
  >> > To: "Dan Bubb" <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com>; "Mike Smith"
  >> > <smithma7@yahoo.com>;
  >> > "car" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
  >> > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 7:14 PM
  >> > Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger.
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >   A million opinions!
  >> >   Superchargers tend to be less efficient
  >> > particularly at higher pressure
  >> >   ratios. So, they aren't as good at making really
  >> > high power.
  >> >
  >> >   YOU'D BETTER TELL THAT TO JOHN FORCE, HE COULD USE
  >> > SOME ADVICE ABOUT NOW.
  >> >
  >> >   OTOH a big really high power laggy turbo is the
  >> > last thing you need for an
  >> >   autocross car. Superchargers, particularly
  >> > positive displacement types,
  >> > have
  >> >   fast response.
  >> >   The primary issue then is quick response vs. power
  >> > producing capability.
  >> >   There are a million secondary issues!
  >> >   just my .02
  >> >   Dan
  >> >
  >> >   AS FOR THE REST, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH DAN.
  >> >   HAVE FUN!
  >> >   LARRY
  >> > _______________________________________________
  >> > Scirocco-l mailing list
  >> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  >> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
  >> >
  >> >
  >> > _______________________________________________
  >> > Scirocco-l mailing list
  >> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  >> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
  >>
  >>
  >> __________________________________
  >> Do you Yahoo!?
  >> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
  >> http://sbc.yahoo.com
  >
  >
  >_______________________________________________
  >Scirocco-l mailing list
  >Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  >http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l

  _______________________________________________
  Scirocco-l mailing list
  Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l