Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would the differences be between a well made engine of each type(Supercharging, Turbocharging, Naturally Aspirated Engines) generating similar power. Also which do you prefer? Finally what about a case in which both supercharging and turbocharging are used on the same engine, or is this not practical/possible?
In my opinion it comes down to preference. I prefer a turbo charged motor because I can get it to produce power with minimal supporting modifications. (At least the ones I have ever com in contact with) Case in point: My 2003 EVO 8 had a boost controller ( 48 bux, drop in K&N filter 30 bux and 3" turbo back exhaust under 300) and I was able to get about an extra 70 hp after I dropped in those mods and tuned for them. Never had that kind of luck with an NA car.
Turbo all the way! I love a high power factory NA motor but a turbo makes it way too easy to add power with the least amount of effort. Modern turbo tech and proper tuning also either drastically reduces or simplly turns turbo lag into a non issue.
I don't see a point to having both SC and TC on an engine. Would go with twin TC instead, for similar reasons that I prefer TC over SC.
Turbo makes sense if the idea is to minimize engine displacement, or add power more easily at a later time. But, I could do without the lag and additional complexities. My preference: NA
What would the differences be between a well made engine of each type(Supercharging, Turbocharging, Naturally Aspirated Engines) generating similar power. Also which do you prefer? Finally what about a case in which both supercharging and turbocharging are used on the same engine, or is this not practical/possible?
Either supercharged or turbocharged have the ability to make power that a n/a isn't capable of w/o assistance from either a huge cam or nitrous. In a nutshell that means you can have big power gains without having to sacrifice idle quality, or road manners. Also means the power is always on tap, and not having to refill the NOS bottle every time it goes low....which it will after you start using quite often...which you will.
Which do I prefer? Hhhmm.....well I only have expereience with a turbo car and several n/a cars. I can honestly say the turbo car makes power while still keeping the a/c going and having decent street manners. In my most powerful n/a engine required a big cam, low gears, no od tranny and a 3500 stall....all to make it work. Oh and there wasn't any air either. But it did sound mean as sin when it would idle and even meaner when I'd romp on it.
Now from what I've read upon, turbos and blowers have their pro's and cons. Turbos have lag in them which can kill off idle acceleration a little, but they utilize spent engine exhaust gases to drive them which means no power loss. There are ways to work around the lag though. Some turbos are intercooled.
Blowers require engine power to make them work. Some blowers are good for very low end grunt but not as much on top and are usually not intercooled, other blowers are good for mid to top end and these sometimes come intercooled.
Intercooling is a way of helping to keep detonation down and increasing hp. And on any forced induction engine, be it turbo or blower, detonation is your worst enemy.
I don't think it's really practical to have both a turbo or a blower on the same engine at the same time. A twin turbo set up, as mentioned is nice on a V6 or V8 engine.
Unless you just want to mod, you can't beat power in an NA engine if you're looking at similar numbers. Why add complexity and parts to a system to achieve the same power levels?
Straight up, NA is the best choice, but if you want to add power, just add a turbo or super charger to that NA engine for easy power gains.
Unless you just want to mod, you can't beat power in an NA engine if you're looking at similar numbers. Why add complexity and parts to a system to achieve the same power levels?
Straight up, NA is the best choice, but if you want to add power, just add a turbo or super charger to that NA engine for easy power gains.
Yeah, but adding a forced induction setup to a factory NA motor is a fat pain if you're looking to make any serious power due to high stock compression ratios.
from our only 'blown' experience, on the wife's Scion TC: she went with the TRD supercharger instead of aftermarket turbo, to keep the warranty valid. For us it was a good enough mod, car dyno'd just under 200hp so for her/us fun enough for now. If we keep the car much longer, since warranty will be up in spring; we'll change the pulley to increase boost ( another 20 or so hp ).
If we didn't have a warranty at all, we would have gone turbo. More hp ( in gneral on this car ) options going that route, but i'm not a 'tuner' so would have to rely on others to keep it running in top condition. From what I understand turbos can require a bit more hands-on tweaking ( same as many of us did on our older muscle cars back in the day ).
Now our daughter, who's friends with the local tuner shop back home; she will be putting a turbo on her TC. But that shop owner can build much of what he uses by himself; custom plumbing, manifolds, etc so she'll be well taken care of. In fact her bf who has a Honda s2000 is building a setup for his car--taking it to about 425-450hp depending on how he dials it up.
So long answer short; if building a 4 cyl i'd go turbo; a v8 i'd stay with N/A and get more into the cam/intake/etc ( that's my old school thought process leaking out ). Not sure on a v6, though would expect a turbo would go nicely on that new Camaro 6...
Four cyl, six cyl, eight cyl, etc...I'd go with a turbo (or two) on each of them. Even GM's LSx series of V8's benefit greatly from turbocharging and I've seen several RMT (rear mount turbo) setups on Corvettes/Camaros. They even have options for the Lamborghini V12's.
Supercharging is parasitic power. It takes energy to create the forced induction, but there is no real lag.
Turbo is done through the compression of air via the exhaust gasses, and as a result has a "lag" until the engine creates enough outflow for the turbo to compress effectively.
Both of these increase the compression ratio of the engine, and theoretically reduce the overall lifespan of the powerplant.
Given a choice between a 300hp turbo, a 300hp supercharged and a 300hp na, I'd probably go for the turbo due to the best fuel economy of the three, but the na will probably have the longest lifespan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
