Call me a NOOB, Differences between Supercharger & Turbo?

[Toyota fr-s]

If I were you, I'd wait and see what the manufacturers come up with and see which is more reliable before you make a decision. Your question is too broad and too many factors involved. At the end of the day, there are supercharger and turbocharger guys who will pick one because they are used to them and that's what they want.

Now days, turbos can respond quickly, be more efficient and safe if sized correctly and run low boost. On the other had, there maybe superchargers that could also be problematic. Just wait and let the companies compete. Plus don't forget costumer support is also very important. The good kits and manufacturers will stand out for sure.

[VADER]

Originally Posted by Toyota fr-s

If I were you, I'd wait and see what the manufacturers come up with and see which is more reliable before you make a decision. Your question is too broad and too many factors involved. At the end of the day, there are supercharger and turbocharger guys who will pick one because they are used to them and that's what they want.

Now days, turbos can respond quickly, be more efficient and safe if sized correctly and run low boost. On the other had, there maybe superchargers that could also be problematic. Just wait and let the companies compete. Plus don't forget costumer support is also very important. The good kits and manufacturers will stand out for sure.

suggestions for good companies to watch?

[VADER]

btw.. Perrin posted a good explanation as to why to choose SC over Turbo with this car specifically..

So Why No Turbo?

We are known for making turbo kits for the WRX's and STI's and you better believe that we thought about a kit for the BRZ/FR-S platform. In early planning stages there were a lot of things that we had to consider. Performance of the turbo, placement of the turbo, thermal related issues, installation, tuning, boost control, safety, proper oil drain, a huge parts list, actual customer demand and cost. Everything about a turbo kit is easy except two major issues, cost and thermal related issues. The thermal related issues are things like melted engine components from headers and downpipes routing next to items that wouldn't take the heat. This would require a properly built thermal blanket for the headers and downpipe which is a huge expense. Cost is a huge factor for us as this is what would scare people away. If properly built with all things considered, we could be pushing to the $7000 range which is a huge amount to swallow, then add custom tuning and installation, you could easily push to $8000 plus range. The price and the actual number of customers that might buy this over the next couple years is what really steered us away.

The other thing is this car is a drivers car. Adding a turbo like power band could ruin the way the car acts. Currently the power band is rather flat and a smooth increasing HP curve to 7000-ish. Adding a turbo and the HIT from the onset of boost is going to change a lot of things about how the car drives and acts under power in a corner. What would be perfect is a power curve like stock but with 30-50 HP across the whole range. That provides the same basic characteristics as it has now, but with the power the car should have come with. This isn't an AWD car that can absorb some of that hit in the onset of boost from a turbo through the additional traction it has. This is a RWD with limited traction, so power modulation and smoothness of power is key to keeping this car a "drivers". The way to get this smooth powerband is with a supercharger!

Superchargers provide a very linear power band because of the boost curves they provide. This is a very desirable kind of power band for an application like this and Vortech has the answer we feel most customers will be looking for.

[VADER]

Originally Posted by FreshFRS

Audi also uses the R1320 on their 3.0 v-6 which gets best in class fuel economy vs. 2 turbo cars and some bigger N/a motors.

hmmmm interesting

[FreshFRS]

Originally Posted by FR-S Dan

hmmmm interesting

eaton did prototyping on the 2009 cobalt SS turbo. they found that from a 30kph roll in 3rd gear (~1100rpm) the supercharger got 90% boost in .5 seconds v.s almost 5 seconds for the turbo. they compared this to a bigger n/a motor (2.8L v6). the v6 has 29kw of reserve power in .5 seconds from 2000rpm cruising (thats the baseline for the test).

the 2.0l turbo produces only 15kw in .5 seconds at 2000rpm cruising therefore must be up speeded to ~2500rpm to make the same power. while the fuel economy is still better than the bigger motor gotta be faster to get the response of the bigger motor. save ~9% fuel economy wise

the supercharger in comparison makes 34kw in .5 seconds allowing the engine to be downspeeded to ~1800rpm to make 26kw in .5 seconds therefore it increases fuel economy on the cobalt platform by 14%

For reference audi's A6 3.0SC manages 11.3L/100km vs. BMW 535xi 3.0TT at 11.8L/100km

Reference: http://www.engine-expo.com/forum_200...rt_walling.pdf

[VADER]

Ok, TRD is said to be making a SC. If it is reasonably priced. Consider me SOLD!!

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by FreshFRS

eaton did prototyping on the 2009 cobalt SS turbo. they found that from a 30kph roll in 3rd gear (~1100rpm) the supercharger got 90% boost in .5 seconds v.s almost 5 seconds for the turbo. they compared this to a bigger n/a motor (2.8L v6). the v6 has 29kw of reserve power in .5 seconds from 2000rpm cruising (thats the baseline for the test).

the 2.0l turbo produces only 15kw in .5 seconds at 2000rpm cruising therefore must be up speeded to ~2500rpm to make the same power. while the fuel economy is still better than the bigger motor gotta be faster to get the response of the bigger motor. save ~9% fuel economy wise

the supercharger in comparison makes 34kw in .5 seconds allowing the engine to be downspeeded to ~1800rpm to make 26kw in .5 seconds therefore it increases fuel economy on the cobalt platform by 14%

For reference audi's A6 3.0SC manages 11.3L/100km vs. BMW 535xi 3.0TT at 11.8L/100km

Reference: http://www.engine-expo.com/forum_200...rt_walling.pdf

The 3rd gear 1100rpm example shows that they were pretty desperate to make their SC look good. Because of how biased that article is, and how hard small TVS chargers are to find, I don't have a tremendous amount of faith in Eaton. I want to see an unbiased TVS vs Lysholm comparo, same engine, same boost, properly sized to see how they do in the real world.

Seriously, 1100rpm in 3rd...

[FreshFRS]

Originally Posted by Dimman

The 3rd gear 1100rpm example shows that they were pretty desperate to make their SC look good. Because of how biased that article is, and how hard small TVS chargers are to find, I don't have a tremendous amount of faith in Eaton. I want to see an unbiased TVS vs Lysholm comparo, same engine, same boost, properly sized to see how they do in the real world.

Seriously, 1100rpm in 3rd...

3rd gear at 30khp is in reality about 1300, but i get your point. the thing is thats like a 90km/h roll on in 5th. its only done in lower gears to be able to test effectively on the street. the test illustrates transient response. a much lower powered N/A car would out accelerate a turbo in the same test (not to mention the in first .5 sec it would out accelerate the supercharged car too). i already proved lysholm are achieving about 65% thermal efficiency go to the site and look at a performance maps. under some conditions that is 10% less than current TVS technology. your point is moot.

EDIT: you could use a 1320 on our car without much of a problem and you can order the charger from harrop out of australia pretty easily.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by FreshFRS

3rd gear at 30khp is in reality about 1300, but i get your point. the thing is thats like a 90km/h roll on in 5th. its only done in lower gears to be able to test effectively on the street. the test illustrates transient response. a much lower powered N/A car would out accelerate a turbo in the same test (not to mention the in first .5 sec it would out accelerate the supercharged car too). i already proved lysholm are achieving about 65% thermal efficiency go to the site and look at a performance maps. under some conditions that is 10% less than current TVS technology. your point is moot.

EDIT: you could use a 1320 on our car without much of a problem and you can order the charger from harrop out of australia pretty easily.

Eaton is also very tight about their drive HP requirements and volumetric efficiency. Compare a TVS map to a Lysholm map, and you see that the Lysholm ones are complete, Eaton's aren't. There just seems to be a lot of 'you have to ask Eaton directly' to get data. Not transparent at all. Plus in the Cobalt demo, they use theoretical numbers on the high power SC version.

I think I sized out a 900 or 1050 as being really good for this motor. But after like 5 years of tease, they STILL aren't ready...

I want to see a real Eaton vs Lysholm test, because I don't like how Eaton is presenting its numbers. Why did GM ditch them on the Cobalt, BTW?

Side note: once I get my BRZ, I'm pretty sure I want to try a positive displacement SC, as I have my turbo fix now.

[FreshFRS]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Eaton is also very tight about their drive HP requirements and volumetric efficiency. Compare a TVS map to a Lysholm map, and you see that the Lysholm ones are complete, Eaton's aren't. There just seems to be a lot of 'you have to ask Eaton directly' to get data. Not transparent at all. Plus in the Cobalt demo, they use theoretical numbers on the high power SC version.

I think I sized out a 900 or 1050 as being really good for this motor. But after like 5 years of tease, they STILL aren't ready...

I want to see a real Eaton vs Lysholm test, because I don't like how Eaton is presenting its numbers. Why did GM ditch them on the Cobalt, BTW?

Side note: once I get my BRZ, I'm pretty sure I want to try a positive displacement SC, as I have my turbo fix now.

R1050 would be the best choice it what i want to use. should be capable of 350whp 250ish torque. which would be perfect.

Chevrolet went away from eaton because the were using m62 twin screw style. and that could not match the turbo for efficiency. TVS would have matched the turbo (ish) but at the time the R900/R1050 were not even in the works just the 1320. which was a bit too big.

i did however get the complete picture. mechanical efficiency is 95% for the 1320 so i would suspect it shouldn't be much different. i also confirmed that eaton's maps do take all considerations (power requirements, VE, Mechanical Efficiency ) into the thermal efficiency maps they put out. the numbers on the maps are the NET product of all the different factors taken together.

[raul]

It would be nice to see how smooth the power curve is on AVO's kit.

[Sportsguy83]

Originally Posted by raul

It would be nice to see how smooth the power curve is on AVO's kit.

Here:



Very smooth!

[raul]

Eat your heart out, Perrin! :P

[Sportsguy83]

Originally Posted by raul

Eat your heart out, Perrin! :P

LMAO!