Supercharger?
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Turbos are available for all engine types, including large turbo diesels (i.e.Ford powerstroke). They aren't limited to 4 bangers, and likewise for superchargers. SC's definitely aren't as common in smaller displacement engines, but they're out there. AzMz3 is right about the pros and cons to both. For example, I've had experience with Ford Powerstrokes having a large amount of turbo lag. But darkside3 is also right by saying 4 bangers are usually turbo charged. I can't really think of a successful small displacement engine (4&6cyl.) that is supercharged. When I think turbo, I think Audi, VW, Saab, Subaru,the old 300ZX twin, Porsche...
The old turbo/ supercharger debate could go on for days. But I would expect to see a turbo offered well before a SC for the 3, if a SC will even exist
The old turbo/ supercharger debate could go on for days. But I would expect to see a turbo offered well before a SC for the 3, if a SC will even exist
i said usually.. as in MOST COMMON.. and then i gave my opinion on what would work best for the 3... i dont know too many people who supercharge 4 bangers but i know a shit load of people who turbo.. so i was just stating what i know heheh...
but yes there are pro's and cons..
but yes there are pro's and cons..
Don't forget the new Saturn ION. There are some superchargers for the Focus that put out some impressive numbers. But in my mind a turbo will most likely put down the most power and they are far more upgradeable and tunable than a SC. I mayself will turbo....220hp+ on stock internals and I'm happy. Then later down the line upgrade internals and up the boost and :twisted:SBTanMan said:
---Herb---
ok tell me all the mazda/honda/acura/nissan/mitsubishi ECT.... supercharged 4 bangers...aka the asian market..SBTanMan said:
and vw is just now doing that.. and they have alot more support for there turbo based production cars.....
:lol:
once agian.. MOST COMMON!
When tuning is the same, both S/C and turbos are for:
Engine bays that have the room or custom installations: Turbo.
Engine bays that are limited in space: S/C.
Some of the quickiest cars are S/C. Likewise for turbos. You rarely see a turbo on a v8 powered car... and you rarely see quick S/C Hondas.
Engine bays that have the room or custom installations: Turbo.
Engine bays that are limited in space: S/C.
Some of the quickiest cars are S/C. Likewise for turbos. You rarely see a turbo on a v8 powered car... and you rarely see quick S/C Hondas.
Okay, we'll lay a groundwork with some facts here.
Yes, far more 4cyl. turbo engines currently come from the major manufacturers. There are advantages and disadvantages. Turbos have no drive belt, thus no parasitic power loss. They also have more options in regards to sizing, you can put a really small turbo on an engine (VW 1.8) or a really big turbo on an engine (1989 Porsche 944T). You can also tune small displacement (re: 4cyl) turbo engines more easily to have low emissions. Be sure to read this writeup by WRX guru Mike Shields for a good explanation of the US market Subaru EJ205:
http://www.spdusa.com/driving_the_wrx_engine.htm
That being said, small displacement turbo engines can have significant disadvantages. Turbo lag, high rpm boost onset (i.e. no power until higher revs on the tach), cruddy throttle response, cruddy throttle adjustablilty (like an on or off switch).
I've driven the following turbocharged 4 cylinders in anger:
2.0L Mitsubishi, circa 1996
2.0L Subaru WRX, 2002 and 2003
1.8T VW, 150hp (Golf and Passat)
1.8T Audi TT(VW) 225hp
2.2T Ford Probe, 1989 (Mazda engine)
1.8T Mazda 323 GTX (1989)
2.5L Porsche 944Turbo
Of all those, the 1.8 VW versions were the most driveable by far. Minimal turbo lag, good throttle response at all RPM, and excellent power delivery from very low RPM (2000 or so). The rest all had varying degrees of turbo lag, lazy throttle response, high boost onset, etc. All made very good power though. Get the turbo on the boil, and all of those cars moved out very well. In the turbo's favor, its hard to beat the brute, high rpm power of a turbo engine. No parasitic loss, tunable compressor/exhaust housings, and monsterous boost makes turbo engines a great choice for extreme applications......i.e. drag cars or extreme road racing cars.
That being said, I'm firmly on the side of supercharging small displacement engines. Everyone knows small engines don't have much low end torque, and positive displacement superchargers solve this problem beautifully.
A distinction needs to be made here between centrifugal and positive displacement superchargers here. Superchargers like the Lysholm twin screw, the Whipple, GM roots, etc. start making boost immediately off of idle. Centrifugal superchargers like the Vortech or Powerdyne, make boost in relation to RPM: The higher the RPM the faster the impeller spins.....thus more power as the engine revs higher. They're kind of like a belt driven turbo. There isn't enough space here to break down the techincal differences, but you can tell the difference between the two by looking: Positive displacement superchargers are a big ass rectangle, and centrifugal superchargers look like a huge snail......like turbos. Sorry to the techies for such a basic explanation, but it works, doesn't it?
Centrifugals will act more like a turbocharger, increasing power as rpms go up. See the explanation of Comptech's centrifugal supercharger for the stratospheric revving Honda S2000:
http://solar.innercite.com/comptech/s2-sc.html
Roots type superchargers, on the other hand, will make a small engine act like a large one right off of idle......Mercedes 2.3L is a great example. Another is the current Mustang Cobra. Another great example is my buddy's Kenne Bell supercharged Miata. That little 1.8 has nasty grunt right from 1500 straight to redline. A MOST impressive engine. 9psi into a 1.8 has that thing putting out 210 or 215 at the crank. Darn nice in a 2500lb. car.
http://www.kennebell.net/superchargers/mazda/miata/miata.htm
On the downside, positive displacement superchargers don't tune for emissions or gas mileage very well. Boost straight off of idle requires more fuel, which obviously decreases gas mileage and certainly makes meeting emissions standards more difficult.
The big issue with me is throttle response though. Positive displacement superchargers retain most, if not all, of the razor sharp throttle response normally aspirated engines have. This is critical on a road course, where throttle adjustablilty can mean big gains in lap times.
Turbo? On the 3 forget it. That's as far as I'm concerned anyway. No way I'd give up the throttle response and all that comes with it. Positive displacement supercharger like on the Miata? Bring it on. All the power with not a lot of downside.
No way I'm bolting ANY power adder on my car without a Quaife or Torsen differential installed though. All that extra HP would be wasted in wheelspin.
-Mirror
Yes, far more 4cyl. turbo engines currently come from the major manufacturers. There are advantages and disadvantages. Turbos have no drive belt, thus no parasitic power loss. They also have more options in regards to sizing, you can put a really small turbo on an engine (VW 1.8) or a really big turbo on an engine (1989 Porsche 944T). You can also tune small displacement (re: 4cyl) turbo engines more easily to have low emissions. Be sure to read this writeup by WRX guru Mike Shields for a good explanation of the US market Subaru EJ205:
http://www.spdusa.com/driving_the_wrx_engine.htm
That being said, small displacement turbo engines can have significant disadvantages. Turbo lag, high rpm boost onset (i.e. no power until higher revs on the tach), cruddy throttle response, cruddy throttle adjustablilty (like an on or off switch).
I've driven the following turbocharged 4 cylinders in anger:
2.0L Mitsubishi, circa 1996
2.0L Subaru WRX, 2002 and 2003
1.8T VW, 150hp (Golf and Passat)
1.8T Audi TT(VW) 225hp
2.2T Ford Probe, 1989 (Mazda engine)
1.8T Mazda 323 GTX (1989)
2.5L Porsche 944Turbo
Of all those, the 1.8 VW versions were the most driveable by far. Minimal turbo lag, good throttle response at all RPM, and excellent power delivery from very low RPM (2000 or so). The rest all had varying degrees of turbo lag, lazy throttle response, high boost onset, etc. All made very good power though. Get the turbo on the boil, and all of those cars moved out very well. In the turbo's favor, its hard to beat the brute, high rpm power of a turbo engine. No parasitic loss, tunable compressor/exhaust housings, and monsterous boost makes turbo engines a great choice for extreme applications......i.e. drag cars or extreme road racing cars.
That being said, I'm firmly on the side of supercharging small displacement engines. Everyone knows small engines don't have much low end torque, and positive displacement superchargers solve this problem beautifully.
A distinction needs to be made here between centrifugal and positive displacement superchargers here. Superchargers like the Lysholm twin screw, the Whipple, GM roots, etc. start making boost immediately off of idle. Centrifugal superchargers like the Vortech or Powerdyne, make boost in relation to RPM: The higher the RPM the faster the impeller spins.....thus more power as the engine revs higher. They're kind of like a belt driven turbo. There isn't enough space here to break down the techincal differences, but you can tell the difference between the two by looking: Positive displacement superchargers are a big ass rectangle, and centrifugal superchargers look like a huge snail......like turbos. Sorry to the techies for such a basic explanation, but it works, doesn't it?
Centrifugals will act more like a turbocharger, increasing power as rpms go up. See the explanation of Comptech's centrifugal supercharger for the stratospheric revving Honda S2000:
http://solar.innercite.com/comptech/s2-sc.html
Roots type superchargers, on the other hand, will make a small engine act like a large one right off of idle......Mercedes 2.3L is a great example. Another is the current Mustang Cobra. Another great example is my buddy's Kenne Bell supercharged Miata. That little 1.8 has nasty grunt right from 1500 straight to redline. A MOST impressive engine. 9psi into a 1.8 has that thing putting out 210 or 215 at the crank. Darn nice in a 2500lb. car.
http://www.kennebell.net/superchargers/mazda/miata/miata.htm
On the downside, positive displacement superchargers don't tune for emissions or gas mileage very well. Boost straight off of idle requires more fuel, which obviously decreases gas mileage and certainly makes meeting emissions standards more difficult.
The big issue with me is throttle response though. Positive displacement superchargers retain most, if not all, of the razor sharp throttle response normally aspirated engines have. This is critical on a road course, where throttle adjustablilty can mean big gains in lap times.
Turbo? On the 3 forget it. That's as far as I'm concerned anyway. No way I'd give up the throttle response and all that comes with it. Positive displacement supercharger like on the Miata? Bring it on. All the power with not a lot of downside.
No way I'm bolting ANY power adder on my car without a Quaife or Torsen differential installed though. All that extra HP would be wasted in wheelspin.
-Mirror
What do you mean you give up throttle response?
I've seen many single and even twin turbo mustangs :twisted:
I have driven a couple of turbo cars and the throttle response was either like stock or way better.
I don't know I think a turbo or sc for that matter would give the mazda3 better throttle response.
---Herb---
I've seen many single and even twin turbo mustangs :twisted:
I have driven a couple of turbo cars and the throttle response was either like stock or way better.
I don't know I think a turbo or sc for that matter would give the mazda3 better throttle response.
---Herb---
Yes, additional info here, although I might argue the reverse. Superchargers basically must be mounted so a drive pulley is in-line with the crank pulley....which it needs to be driven off of. This can limit the mounting options you have with a supercharger. A turbo can be placed in different areas, and you can fabricate the exhaust/intake plumbing to meet the turbo where its mounted. More options for placement is a small engine bay here.vaBooM said:
That being said, there's downsides to turbo placement. Because they are exhaust driven, they generate a large amount of heat.....something that must be considered with placement in the engine bay. Mount it right next to the battery and you'll fry the battery....mount it near some uninsulated rubber hoses and you'll fry them too. Pluses and minuses, pluses and minuses......
-Mirror
I know Jackson Racing makes some sweet superchargers for Hondas and Acuras... www.jacksonracing.com.
Their site also mentioned a S/C for Focus - wonder if they're considering one for the 3? Their dyno numbers look pretty appealing (of course!).
Their site also mentioned a S/C for Focus - wonder if they're considering one for the 3? Their dyno numbers look pretty appealing (of course!).
Hi Herb -AzMz3 said:
I'll be more specific. I mean metering the throttle in the middle of a corner, or jumping out of the throttle and then picking it back up halfway through, or giving a big stab and then backing off to momentary steady state thrust. The big compressor surges of turbo engines can make these adjustments very difficult or impossible (my WRX). That being said, sequential twin turbo setups like the '93+ RX-7 or Porsche 993-996 turbos provide the linear throttle response that big huffy single turbo cars usually give away. Thanks for pointing that out.
I will stand fast though, with the fact that throttle response is sharpest in normally aspirated engines, with roots driven blowers in second place.
-Mirror
Roots or Screw type are well adopted by car manufacturers. I dont know of a centrifugal off the top of my head that came stock.TheMirror said:
Jackson chargers are screw based, and usually only generate 5psi and up to 10psi with a high boost kit.
The new Scion Xt/c will have a TRD supercharger kit based on a screw type blower.
Any type of forced induction, turbo or supercharger, will generate more heat and higher cylinder pressures. These factors can contribute to increased wear, particularly in engines that weren't designed for forced induction. Beefing up the internals on forced inductions engines is done by manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers to counteract this.
As far as superchargers having higher wear rates than turbos, they really don't. You do run the supercharger off the crank, and it does contribute to parasitic loss, but it doesn't contribute to increased wear.
Cheers,
-Mirror
As far as superchargers having higher wear rates than turbos, they really don't. You do run the supercharger off the crank, and it does contribute to parasitic loss, but it doesn't contribute to increased wear.
Cheers,
-Mirror
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
