Quote:
Originally Posted by ichitaka05
No offense, but what century you live in? Most of current superchargers are efficient as turbos.
[u2b]q5M8NSS8Krc[/u2b]
http://xcceleration.com/imp-gallery-rs.sc.dynosheet.htm
2.35 Liter H4 20 psi pushing 412hp w 332tq...
it's not good enough for ya?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Turbo sucks. Just saying current technology Supercharger and Turbo are almost equal level. |
I wouldn't go
quite that far, Ichi. When it comes to efficiency, the big difference is that turbos harness 'waste' exhaust (not getting into the 5th cycle of scavenging and pulse tuning for now...) to create their boost, whereas superchargers require HP from the motor to create their boost. Yes new supercharger systems are vastly superior than old ones (also depends if we're talking positive displacement SC or centrifugal SC). But they still cannot compare to a turbo system especially if you want to get into modern turbo tech like variable geometry plus going into higher boost ranges. They also tend to be a bit of a pain for intercooling I hear.
That being said there is a certain appeal of the thought of 'lag-less' boost from a positive displacement SC. The power delivery is virtually linear, just like NA but there is more of it!
As for centrifugal systems, they don't quite make sense to me. Kind of the worst of both systems, laggy like a turbo (well not quite, but not the instant boost of a positive displacement) but needs engine HP to turn it. Where they do make a bit of sense is on bigger OHV V8's where they already make good low end power and need help in their top-end.
So far I have not driven any supercharged system to have anything more than a theoretical opinion, though.
PS: What the hell is that youtube motor for? Exhaust is weird.