Age old question. Turbo Vs. Supercharger - Page 6 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

View Poll Results: Turbo or Supercharger?
Turbo!! 26 37.68%
Supercharger!! 43 62.32%
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #76 (permalink)  
Old 08-16-2005, 02:07 PM
bet on black's Avatar
hotrodder 4 life
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: houston, tx
Age: 33
Posts: 169
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtiebadboy
compare stock to stock

turbo: grand national, srt4, wrx sti, talons,omnis, and others

supercharger: late model monte carlos, bonnevilles, and thats all i can think of right now

i think those stock turbo cars are a hell of alot faster than the stock supercharged
my Lightning is supercharged from the factory, and it was pretty quick when it was stock. mid 13's at full weight (5,000 lbs.)

03/04 cobras (aka terminators) were supercharged from the factory as well.

mercedes e55 has a roots blower also

with all that said, i am working on replacing my blower with a turbo.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2005, 02:01 PM
farna's Avatar
Member
 
Last wiki edit: AMC V-8s Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Batesburg-Leesville, SC
Age: 52
Posts: 1,634
Wiki Edits: 14

Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
I have to agree, it's generally easier to install a low profile blower (or cut a hole in the hood) than a turbo because of all the plumbing and the room it takes up beside and in front of the engine. You can cut a hole in the inner fender well, but there's other things under that fender! It's not like going up where there's nothing but the hood (well, lack of vision around the blower counts).

It's not as efficient, but what about the remote turbos like Squires (www.ststurbo.com)? I already know some efficiency is lost, but it still takes lost power and adds boost. If you're looking for a bit more power but not something like 20 psi, this sounds to me like a really good option. Since it takes the place of the muffler it's not creating any more back pressure. Typical output seems to be around 5-8 psi, but Squires mentions getting "near 20 psi" (which I read more like 15 psi) out of a remote unit. Still takes a ton of work and some tubing welding, but for relatively low boost seems like a good idea. I plan on eventually using a Chrysler 2.2L turbo remote mounted on my 4.6L in-line six (bored/stroked Jeep 4.0L). Instead of routing engine oil to the turbo I'm going to make a remote reservoir with electric circulation pump. I'm only concerned a bit about oil pressure -- finding an electric pump that will circulate is easy, that will do it at 10-15 psi might be a bit tough. Since turbo bearings typically "float" in oil, pressure is needed. Might have to run a line from the engine. Squires does that but uses a pump to take it back to the engine. I really question using a return pump though -- shouldn't be necessary should it?

And before anyone cries "it won't work", look at Squires site for one thing, then go visit your nearest museum with WWII vintage aircraft. A B-17 bomber uses a huge remote turbo on the back of each 1820 cubic inch radial piston engine. An approx. 6" ID pipe runs 10' back on the outboard engines, near 20' on the inboards (where the landing gear is -- turbo is behind gear well). The center section of pipe has cooling fins! The P-47 Thunderbolt also had a turbo mounted in the rear part of the fuselage, 15-20' from the engine. So this isn't a new idea.

I already stated I know it's not as efficient as a turbo mounted close to the engine. But please, don't anyone come up with "if it works so well manufacturers would have used it"!! It's more cost effective to put all the engine parts in one unit and drop the hole shebang in. It's not that hard when you can start from a drawing board and have a hefty R&D budget to work with, and since it's a bit more efficient, that's the best way to go. Adding it to an existing vehicle NOT designed with space for a turbo, or where everything has to be custom made, is a different story.

On a drag car cut the rear floors out and run the turbo just a foot or two behind a standard aftermarket header. I don't mean leave the floor out, but make a raised floor and stick the turbo in the well. Then you can dump the exhaust almost straight out the side, angled to exit in front of the rear wheel. Pipe the compressed air through the car and out the center of the dash.

Will be a lot less cost and work than a trasitional under hood mount. I can afford to lose a little efficiency as long as there is adequate boost.

Last edited by farna; 08-17-2005 at 02:13 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #78 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2005, 06:29 PM
smallblocker2's Avatar
L79 327 5SPD S10 '65GTO
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Langley B.C.
Age: 35
Posts: 250
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
this a pretty good debate. I like them both but am leaning toward turbos because they have a lower BSFC than superchargers, and twin turbo's look pretty wicked. I'd probly go for the cheapest thoughioie how easy it i to bolt on a centrifugal charger though.

gas is big bucks though, the more power you can make for the same amount of gas is key.

I like how you can change pulleys to increase/decrease boost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #79 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2005, 07:35 AM
bet on black's Avatar
hotrodder 4 life
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: houston, tx
Age: 33
Posts: 169
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
if you get an electronic boost controller you can change boost levels from the driver's seat with a dial. o you can use a manual boost controller and you can change it with a wrench under the hood in a matter of seconds.


as far as remote turbos,
they do work, but it is not ideal. you use a smaller turbine than you would normally use to get the trubo to spool up, because of the lower exhaust temps, and much larger volume of tubing. you need the return pump, because turbos use a gravity return line to the oil pan. if the line from the turbo to the pan is not down hill, it will not drain properly. it can cause problems with the oil seals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.