Why does the aftermarket love turbos? Why not superchargers?
 

Why does the aftermarket for imports focus so much on turbos? Wouldn't a supercharger be better? I want low end torque for a nice street feeling, not a peaky non linear power band. Seems like a SC has less parts and is more reliable as well.

I've always liked how turbo uses the exhaust to spool not .. other than that don't see any other big reason why turbo > SC.
Not to mention SC is good for all around rpm ranges :X

is HKS the only company that has SC??

I prefer turbochargers just like most aftermarket and even OEM's, particularly on small displacement engines.

There are many reasons why and instead of listing them I will simply point you toward the countless number of pages on the web that discuss this particular issue.

There are probably five reliable turbo setups for every one SC application. Popularity, engineering, tuning, and results (and price, as always) make a turbo route more likely in many tuner markets today. I cant think of any OEM that is known to solely focus on SCs, but when you look at Subaru: turbos are the way to go. Given the proper application, nearly all desired results can be achieved without too much compromise. Tons of reasons though.

Superchargers tend to put stress on the engine via a pulley-- that is something i don't prefer. (I'm not implying a turbo puts no stress on the engine)Also, superchargers ran on the track heat-soak themselves into HP loss. It has been noticed strongly in SuperCharged Corvettes-- after a few laps, the charger is so hot the HP gain lowers considerably. Also, with little 4 cylinders, Turbo is usually the better way to go. V6s and V8s do very well with SCs. There is a 65' Mustang in the SCCA with a turbo and is a pretty wicked set-up, however.

Those are my main reasons. I would consider a SC if i had a well-ventilated engine bay and/or V6/V8.

TRD does superchargers and there are other OEMS as well. However, OEMs like turbos because of they are better for MPG sake compared to superchargers and there is massive pressure for good MPG's. I am teaching myself about the various FI methods and turbos seem the worst, although to be honest I have only ever driven a car with a Turbo. The appeal of a SC is its simplicity, reliability, and low end power/torque. What are the downsides other than the above mentioned heat soak.

Also I have searched the internet and I even bought a book on street supercharging. All of my research suggests SC are better. Why else would TRD use a SC? Surely Toyota can do no wrong.

Simple: Turbo spool sounds sexier

Figuring out sizing and packaging (intercoolers with positive displacementSCs) is more complicated.

what's your basis? I think it depends on the platform really

i think its because the consumer market loves the psssht psssht bov noises

With a turbo you don't have to worry about mechanical mounting issues as much.

Looking at it simplified... an inefficient turbo system will be more efficient than an efficient supercharged system. Of course, there will and are some that break that rule, but by in large that statement holds true.

Putting heat-soak aside, I think it would basically come down to personal preference and what type of power you're looking for-- low end grunt or mid to top-end speed.

1. SCs are limited to certain HP numbers vs a turbo set up.

2. Most people who want tons of power don't road race, they drag.

3. Turbos are more easily fabricated. You can't make a roots/eaton/whatever blower yourself. Just grab a snail, bend some pipes (exaggerating) and have at it.

Most SCs in say a Honda application will "magnify" (for the lack of a better term) the powerband; more low end TQ etc. You'd be lucky to reach 100hp+ max power for a bolt on race kit.

Turbos on the other hand will always achieve more power. Sure the powerband would suck for anything but drag racing (especially if its a big turbo) but you're getting 200+hp for the same money spent vs the SC setup.

A nice SC set up are great for the street, but people are always chasing numbers and turbos just provide more.

SCs do have problems as well. You need to make sure it's oiled, tighten pulleys/check belts on occasion, and monitor your cooling and A/F on a regular basis. Plus most cheap bolt on SC's don't have a cooling aspect, like say an intercooler, so you'd have to be careful about things like heatsoak and all of that.

Bov

You mean in terms of MPG, volumetric or adiabatic efficiency? So turbos are often easier to mount, have better mpg, better peak torque, cheaper, lighter and they sound cool. Sounds good for racing/ top end acceleration where as superchargers as someone above said simply raise the power curves but don't necessarily change their shape. I think Im getting it and I think I would still prefer a small, low boost SC.

Errr I think this is highly case dependent. Having a big torque spike is not really a good thing. mpg is affected by not only what compressor type (superchargers included), turbine size/housing, but also by the engine itself. For example, VVEL and Valvetronic equipped engines should have slightly higher cruise efficiency if boosted and intercooled, but most other engines won't have that.

What do you think the downsides to turbos are? Nearly every desired goal can be achieved with the superior tuning capabilities/options.

Get a twin charger and have both worlds.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

Wait, no one wrote because racecar yet. Well, let me be the first


Because Racecar.

I think a lot of people enjoy building turbo kits that make peak boost just before peak rpm, rather than buying a pre-built supercharger kit that... does the same. :iono:

:D

"Just say no to over-sized turbochargers." :clap:

Ive driven cars that are very peaky in power delivery and cars that are smooth and linear. I guess I just like smooth acceleration and I perceive turbos as being jerky and peaky but I have limited experience with them.
Also, there is something about low down torque that just feels good to me, even in slow cars as it makes them feel faster than they are. I dont like the feeling of not knowing exactly when boost will really kick in.

Nope. The fastest race cars in the world are supercharged.

http://image.musclemustangfastfords....w_Of_Motor.jpg


A lot of it is personal preference though. And there's no real parasitic loss with a turbo. Above posted engine has around 8000 horsepower or so, with 600 horsepower in parasitic loss. Depending on the application, I'm happy with either.

forgive him. he just assumed that since it wasnt funny, it wasnt a joke or meme or whatever. i think that if you feel that the aftermarket is all turbo, you should look into other types of cars. there are plenty of superchargers out there. just not in the scenes where alot of us are coming from

I know almost every meme on the internet. I was just disproving the non-funny. ;)

wow guys, I was being sarcastic. Sarcastic doesn't always have to be funny. I assumed that by merely writing because race car, it would have been obvious. Sorry, I'll never make another sarcastic comment on the internet again.

BTW, that was sarcastic

I don't think it was the "because racecar" comment but the fact that you felt the need to Google it for us

But he tried to explain the use of superchargers and the differences, before I posted the google search. :iono:

I just enjoy reading these lol
I'm down for what gives me the best daily up. not what peak hp I can get on a dyno but daily have fun drive around and enjoy my car!!! turbo or sc....

I'm pretty sure overall cost is the leading reason for Turbo popularity. They improve MPG, are cheaper to manufacture, MOST Car Tuners are not actually skilled drivers to worry about track racing, the BOV sounds cool at shows/meets, and Turbo Lag can easily be fixed by just adding another.

Toyota has never been a brand about straight lines. They make cars to get the best lap times, not 0-60 times.

I feel like Corvette Supercharges because of it's uphill battle of trying to escape Muscle Car status. It wants to be counted among European's great Super Cars which are meant for touring/road racing.

QFT.

All any company wants is profit... The RD involved with supercharging systems is much more involved. GM and Ford both refuse to develop their own systems (EATON). Those that do develop their own system are required to invest tons of funds into R&D. Most guys can custom manufacture a turbo kit, where in especially screw charger setups they have to be completely designed and manufactured for that particular engine model. Where turbo's you can mix and match and swap accordingly in your own garage. Where a roots charger has to be cast and made for each car's individual intake. Again means it takes way more funds to develop which makes profit margin less and most desings like Eaton,Magna, Kenne are all patented designs using only their components. Its alot easier to make a turbo kit for 10 cars that uses 50% of the same components where a supercharger will only fit one drive train and share maybe 10% of the same components.

Pretty much...

Its cost. A tuner can develop a turbo system for less than a blower in most cases.

Thats a false blanket statement.

Here is an example of how I look at it. I would rather be the best race car driver then the highest paid. When you are the best, you dont have to worry about profit.

really depends on the engine and size of the turbo setup (and compressor efficiency). Yeah every turbo's gonna need to spool but a small sized one can give good torque early in the powerband too

Good point, when one is the best then they are most of time most profitable. Change my statement: "Most" companies main concern is profit. Yet, if I made the worlds greatest mustard yet stuck everything I had into R&D for it. It would bank roll me before it would ever hit the shelf. Valid point though!

It is not cheaper to buy a well designed, off the shelf turbo kit. For virtually every NA car, bolt-on turbo kits are much more expensive than supercharger kits, either positive displacement or centrifugal. It is cheaper if you buy a crap eBay turbo kit or, on occasion, if you piece together the kit yourself and fab it up in your garage. You get to save the R&D costs in the well designed kit....by doing all the R&D yourself.


It's not "trying to escape muscle car status." Corvettes have always been road race cars first, straight line cars second. Notice that there is a factory backed Corvette ALMS/LeMans team, and there is NOT a factory backed Corvette NHRA effort.

http://image.vetteweb.com/f/lifestyl...e_sales%2B.jpg
http://www.tuningfever.fr/pics-max-1...e-car-1968.jpg
http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumb...gthumbnail.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln...wk6xo1_500.jpg
http://palmeter.com/wp-content/pics/C5R-005-03.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....-race-lead.jpg


That's 60 years of Corvette road racers.

GM used a blower on the ZR1 because it's the cheapest way to make big, reliable power. None of the exotics that make the hp that the ZR1 does can match it for torque. They do it with stratospheric RPM. That's why you can putter around at 80mph in 6th at 2000rpm getting 24mpg. A PD blower gives you a big, fat, flat torque curve. Could GM have done the same thing that Ferrari and Lamborghini do with their NA motors? Sure. It's not hard to build a high rpm NA motor that makes stratospheric HP and little torque. Bolting a blower to a low compression LS3 is just smart. Same thing as the Ford GT, except they stuck the motor behind the driver's head.

Yeah, ZR1s are down on power after a few laps in 90 degree weather. So are Supras. Heat-soak is heat-soak. Bolt a blower to the top of the engine or run exhaust through a turbo, you're still getting a massive amount of heat.