Quote:
Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63
Honestly, no I don't follow much of the latest supercharger tech as I really couldn't care less about superchargers. Turbocharging is the only form of forced induction I'll ever use as they have no downside. There are many ways to eliminate lag (the only "downside") if it was really that big of a nuisance.
Congratulations to roots supercharges for catching up to centrifugal/turbocharger efficiency.
Are you saying a supercharger doesn't offer more bottom end power? A turbocharger doesn't offer more top end power? What is that dyno supposed to show, that a supercharger offers more power than the N/A motor it was put on? I sure hope so.
This was a comparison of a supercharger and turbocharger on an older LS Integra from last year. Exact same car/motor.
The supercharger, as expected, was superior up until 3800 RPMs when the turbocharger walked away from it.
If they completely eliminate parasitic loss from a supercharger the outcome will remain the same. Superchargers will always have better bottom end power because they are directly connected to the crankshaft. And turbochargers, being able to free spin at high RPM will always have better higher end power.
 |
the purpose of the dynos were to illustrate the proportional gains across the entire rev range and the shape of the curve. if all you care about are numbers and not HOW the actual power is delivered then turbo all the way. but if the shape of the curve means anything to you then SC is preferred. that's the way i see it, ymmv.