I'm just curious as to what is better and why? Is it that turbos are cheaper? It seems that supercharging is way simpler to set up.
Look up the evolution of supercharging and turbo charging in aircraft engines. The effects and benefits are realized over the years. It is amazing how much energy is shooting out the exhaust pipe. Very interesting reading if you are info forced induction. My opinion is ditto what DarTT said.. Also I have no first hand experience.
i prefer a turbo but the real question is why did you throw the slant away for the bb in the valiant? Put the slant back in a turbo it!!! Later
ryan
but don't think that turbocharging is "free." It's not...
This is something I have been saying like, forever.
Current hair dryer super chargers use...??? ... 5 hp to turn at high speed?
This is something I have been saying like, forever.
Current hair dryer super chargers use...??? ... 5 hp to turn at high speed?
Difference starts at about 3200-3600rpms. A turbo will be at its full boost setting creating a ton more torque then a centrifugal supercharger that still isn't half way to making its full boost setting. That's right, superchargers don't reach full boost till your shifting. Where as a turbo reaches it before peak torque. Also a blower tends to eat 18-30% power loss or engine drag on the crank to turn it. That is just another reason why turbos always make more power at the same boost levels.
I'm sure that every car is different, but my 360 Magnum that is equipped with a Vortech V-1, S-trim centrifugal supercharger, is at full boost (10 pounds) about 3,600 rpm; maybe it's too small for the engine, and that''s why it never goes above the desired 10 pounds, but it's still at 10 pounds when the car goes across the finish line.
Go figure...
Additionally, I wonder where the information came from that a centrifugal supercharger has a parasitic drag of 18-to-30 percent.
Let's use my engine as an example:
My engine produced 445 rear wheeel horsepower on a chassis dyno. Most calculatiors I have seen contend that the rear wheel figure is 85-percent of the flywheel horsepower (15-percent drivetrain losses with an automatic,) That would peg my engine at 524 flywheel horsepower using the 85/15 numbers. The numbers I got were 524 and 78 for the drag.
My supercharger is driven by a 6-rib serpentine belt. My max RPM is 6,000.
I don't have any hard information regarding just how much horsepower can be delivered through a 6-rib serpentine belt, butam skeptical that it would be as much as 78. Using the other end of your formula (30-percent,) it would be 157 horsepower.
If someone on this board has information as to how much horsepower can be transmitted at the rpm's I am turning the belt (max of 6,000 rpm 7" pulley = 10,995 feet per minute, belt speed, I'd be interested to see it.
Thanks in advance,,,:read2:
Difference starts at about 3200-3600rpms. A turbo will be at its full boost setting creating a ton more torque then a centrifugal supercharger that still isn't half way to making its full boost setting. That's right, superchargers don't reach full boost till your shifting. Where as a turbo reaches it before peak torque. Also a blower tends to eat 18-30% power loss or engine drag on the crank to turn it. That is just another reason why turbos always make more power at the same boost levels.
Holy crap. Thats some serious numbers right there Bill!
N/A, Supercharged, Turbo'd, On Juice...........whatever trips your trigger, I say do it!