I was just wondering what has more potential for HP. I'm not actually looking to try and forced induction I'm just wondering for ****s'n giggles.

Is the parastic loss from a supercharger worse then turbo lag? If you wanted to run the fastest 1/4 mile which would be a better setup? Just wondering....that thread on a Twin IC ATI D1 SC setup was great....sorta got me interested in learning about induction.

 

im going to say they both have the same potential.they both have their advantages and disadvantages.It`s up to u on what u want to go with.do alot of research.All poweradders are pretty equal in one way or the other.




dave

 

It’s really a 6 vs half dozen argument.

Which will make more power? Depends on which one has a compressor that pumps more air. Both ‘use’ power in a different way. SC’s take it right off the crank, turbos do it by restricting the exhaust. It’s not free as most people state, the engine VE will drop because of the exhaust restriction and you will loose a little bit of power.

The biggest difference is that the SC will use slightly more fuel to make the same power, but since you don’t drive at WOT that won’t really be noticeable.

OTOH, as you build the engine for higher efficiency it tends to favor the SC more, if for no other reason a more efficient engine will tend to run a larger cam and produce proportionately less exhaust heat, neither of which play nice with turbos.

Turbos tend to be more difficult to package but also tend to make for a more streetable combination. SC’s are always a fight with keeping belts working well…

If you intend to race in a specific class then check the rules, you might find that they favor one or the other. If you’re just building it for yourself pick what you like better and then size the compressor for the power you want and do it.

 

Generally it seems that on a given engine running the same amount of boost. Both a turbo and SC will make very similar peak power, but in a 1/4 mile race(or any) the turbo will win b/c of the increased torque and HP during the mid range of the power band.

Turbos are much easier to adjust to make more power. Wastegate/boost controller vs. different size pullies on SC.

For more airflow (or better response) Turbos have many more different size wheels that can interchange in the same housing vs. SC.

Turbos are also a bit more complex and REQUIRE a different exhaust from you ave. NA power plant.

 

heh... actually I'd disagree on 2 counts:
- if you want boost off the line use a postive displacement blower. My brother's Eaton blown car prettymuch sees the same boost throughout the powerband and through the whole pass.
- in a lot of classes (mostly suspension or tire limited classes) people don't want their blowers to work that well through the midrange so that they can get off the line easier while still having the top end to run _really_ fast.

Like I've already said, you can build either combination as fast, it's a matter of choosing what youre restrictions are and then building to that

 

Which you use also kinda depends on your skillz... Turbos hafe to eb completely custom. SC's don't. Either was both make lots of horsies. IMO TTs just plain look better.

 

Really???

 

Really

 

I would say Turbochargers have more HP potential. Superchargers use power to make power. Turbochargers use exhaust to make power. Without parasidic loss, turbo's can produce MORE than 100% of an engines power. Superchargers make at best 70-80%. Its hard to compare a specific setup and say one is better. Its also hard to say which would be better for 1/4 mile racing. In fact its hard to say which is better overall. I say it depends on application. But looking at the two from a theory standpoint, I'll go with the Turbochargers.

 

Well then there are people who say that the turbo restricts exhaust flow which acts just like an SC with it's parasitic loss.....and to someone like me who doesn't know anything it's like....so....

 

Since nothing is free the back pressure is a symptom of the parasitic loss from turbo charging. The parasitic loss from turbo charging is a "pumping" loss whereas the engine must still, among all other things pump harder to "drive" the turbos. It is just being done with the medium of the exhaust gas instead of the medium of pulleys and belt. The question is moot because It's never a question of power anyhow, it's instead always a question of time, money, availability, technical capability, personal preference, and packaging. The same horsepower levels Monty has, could be achieved with a supercharger does that mean superchargers are "more powerful"? The question of which has more potential isn't really the right question. The question should be what is the availability (unless your project time is infinite), costs (unless money is no object), technical capability (unless you or someone you know is a master fabricator with experience in either power adder), personal preference (for "Gee Whiz"-"thats neato" or dare to be different reasons), and packaging (unless you are building this in a huge truck engine bay or for a rail). Also check this identical thread for more info https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...threadid=99267