y are superchargers so unpopular?

[turboh22aakkord]

its alllll about the ol' "it uses power to make power" argument.... the supercharger uses the crank pulley to spin the turbine (robbing crank power) while the turbo just usese useless exhaust gasses... (free power )

[Mike]

honestly . . . this post was barely readible . . . but ill try to respond.

YES, its true superchargers rob power. but, you can get that power back by taking off your A/C and PS belts. there ya go, no more power than was being robbed before.

YES, turbochargers DO disturb exhaust flow . . . i mean you are putting a turbine in the way and basically making it do a 90 degree turn. but the gains you see when in boost make it totally worth it . . . and its not as much of a loss since your just using what before was "lost energy" to power the car.

sry about the how hard it was to read i was in a rush and didnt have time to edit it.....but haha yea u just completely restated everything i said but in difernent words

[Fearit22]

Superchargers take power to make power. Turbos just use the exhaust gas which is already there. Also like it was said superchargers do make instant boost, but this kind of goes against what imports are built for. We don't make off the line torque. Imports usually are for high revving power which is better suited for turbos which have a power curve that match our engines better. There is also the size problem of superchargers too.

Stealthmode sucks my ass as well . Out of 4 things I bought from them, 3 of them were the wrong part, and the other part was an overpriced piece of shit. If you have a choice between buying their products and getting a supercharger then just get a supercharger.

[LAMSV]

Superchargers take power to make power. Turbos just use the exhaust gas which is already there. Also like it was said superchargers do make instant boost, but this kind of goes against what imports are built for.

You are mostly correct. There are two basic forms of superchargers: Roots and Centrifugal. Becaue of internal gears, the roots can turn much faster than the engine speed, there by creating "instant boost." Centrifugal is much like a turbo, with an intake blade being turned by a pulley connected to the crank. Now, anybody that has seen a dyno graph of a Vortech on a B16 or B18 will tell you that centrifugal are definitely not "instant boost". But, with different pulley sizes, the impellor can turn much faster, creating more power sooner.They create power in much the same style as a turbo. But, turbo's can be torquey at low revs too. Ever driven an STI? feels like a V6 underhood.

You can have a supercharger that makes the same torque curve as a turbo engine. And, you can have a turbo set-up that has a torque curve of a typical roots supercharger. It all comes down to turbo size, supercharger gearing, efficiency, displacement of the engine, etc.

What I'm really getting after is that you shouldn't make broad generalizations about the power curve of a said forced induction system. Turbo's can be peaky, turbos can be torquey, and the same for a supercharged set-up. Forced induction is incredibley advanced these days. That day of superchargers running out of steam at 4K, and turbos not making any power till 4K are long, long behind us.

As for imports being more suited to power in the high range of the revs, and not at the low range..I don't believe in that. Unless you spend all your time above 5K revs, I would much rather have a torquey engine..even if I have to sacrifice traction off the line. Give me full boost by 3-3500K, more the better to squirt out of corners, or pass a car on a two-lane. I don't live my life a quarter mile at a time....

[Fearit22]

I'm not just mostly correct... I am correct. You can take anything and twist it around to do whatever, but everything has it's own original design and purpose. I'm perfectly alright making broad generalizations about these two methods of forced induction because for the most part they hold true. Yes, you are right you can have a turbo with near instant boost... then it will fall off way before redline and be useless unless it's on a diesel with a 3k redline. Turbos always make a lot of torque so that is pretty irrelevant, and depending on if they are ball bearing or other factors they will have different powerbands. The powerband of a turbo is always going to be more "peaky" than a n/a car though. Which is why a n/a car with the same horsepower as a turbo car will always be faster... the powerband is smaller. My turbo can flow about 550 cfm, and it still hits max boost by 3500 rpm's. I also have the very nice upper rpm power that imports are known and designed for. If you are not in the beefy part of your powerband and want some power then take your hand, grab your shifter, and put it into a lower gear then your problem is solved. There is a reason import engines which are generally small displacement engines have to rev so high. It is because they don't have the displacement to make low end torque or power ... so they have to take advantage of the areas they can like having lightweight internals, etc., etc., to make up for their lack of low end power. So, yes small displacement engines aren't designed to make low end power because nobody would possibly be dumb enough to do that. It's simple physics... something you should brush up on obviously.

On to superchargers... I would like to see a turbo that can be 100% equally matched by a supercharger. To say that it can happen is total ignorance. Anyone and everyone knows about changing pulleys and all on a supercharger to affect the boost, etc. I know they are much more advanced and improved than they were many years ago, but superchargers aren't and never will be as efficient as turbos. Which is another big reason that imports use them. As import enthusiasts we are into what is on the cutting edge technologically, this is something that is necessary because we are at a huge disadvantage because of our lack of displacement in our engines, and because of this we must take advantage of every little thing like the extra efficiency offered by turbos. Superchargers powerbands are becoming more versatile just as turbos are, but they will never be equal.

So now I will leave you with a couple questions to think over. In the NHRA turbos have been outlawed, but in the import counterpart they were allowed because of the difference in displacement of the cars. As if it wasn't obvious enough right there that turbos have a performance advantage, then please tell me why in a professional racing event that nobody I'm aware of uses superchargers and anyone using FI is turbo? Why were turbos outlawed in the NHRA while blowers are stilled allowed? Why were they outlawed in Formula 1 racing as well which uses high revving small displacement engines?

If you don't believe in imports being designed for high revving power go and look at the guy who created Honda and what he did. You are going to be extremely disappointed if you wish to have low end ( < 3k) power in an import because this is something that only larger displacement engines are going to satisfy. Good luck on that quest, but you are just pissing into the wind.

[koolkoreanked]

???? so your trying to tell me that all superchargers make their power down low huh? And most all turbos make there power up high? Well your wrong about the superchargers simply becuase you can put a roots style supercharger in the same class as a centrifugal supercharger. A roots style one, like explained in the post above yours, makes all its power down low due to gears. A centrifugal supercharger, due to design (ever looked at one.... it looks just like a turbo) will make max power at redline. At low rpms on a centrifugal there is no noticable difference in power where in a roots instant power is felt. Thats why a jackson racing supercharger (roots) feels like a v-6 ( when applied to a honda) and a centrifugal ( I hate) feel like a turbo 4 cylinder. Your right about everything having its own design. Roots, Centrifugal, and turbo.

[LAMSV]

Woah buddy! Didn't mean to tick you off there. I am not claiming one is better than the other (I personally am piecing together a turbo system for my Accord) when it comes to turbos and superchargers. Like you, I would argue that a turbo, although more complicated, has no were near the disadvantages that a supercharger does. The only reason superchargers are still very popular is their ease of engineering and installation. Much easier to slap a supercharger inplace of a intake manifold (Jackson Racing, Whipple, Magnacharger) than it is to plumb in a turbo. Hell, most roots style supercharges use the stock air intake.

As far as power delivery...I have personally driven a B16 Civic that felt like it had a CL Type-S V6 under the hood. It had an effiicent manifold with a small ball bearing turbo. It had amazing passing power, with out having to downshift. True, it was a more linear power delivery, and paled in comparison to other turbo set-ups, but I loved it. It just comes down to personal preference. You want low-end power, midrange, or a top-end scream. With turbos, unlike superchargers, the choice is up to you.

[Fearit22]

???? so your trying to tell me that all superchargers make their power down low huh? And most all turbos make there power up high? Well your wrong about the superchargers simply becuase you can put a roots style supercharger in the same class as a centrifugal supercharger. A roots style one, like explained in the post above yours, makes all its power down low due to gears. A centrifugal supercharger, due to design (ever looked at one.... it looks just like a turbo) will make max power at redline. At low rpms on a centrifugal there is no noticable difference in power where in a roots instant power is felt. Thats why a jackson racing supercharger (roots) feels like a v-6 ( when applied to a honda) and a centrifugal ( I hate) feel like a turbo 4 cylinder. Your right about everything having its own design. Roots, Centrifugal, and turbo.

No, if you really read my post that's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that was their original design. I do believe centrifugal came after roots style. They still are in the same class in a lot of ways because they are both super chargers. They still both take power from the engine to make power, and are less efficient than turbos. Most supercharger setups aren't designed with long intake piping like intercooled turbo setups. If you know anything about flow velocity and how it relates to all that then you will understand why turbos are better for high rpm power than superchargers. Like I said you can do whatever you want to change stuff around, but when it comes down to it it is still a supercharger. You can make it so that it doesn't only make low end power just like you can make a turbo so it doesn't only make high end power, but the supercharger still won't have the powerband of a turbo or the efficiency. The centrifugal is obviously better for high rpm power, but they both still have their place which is below the turbo in terms of high rpm power. Read my post a little better or do some research and you will understand why.


To LAMSV, I guess what you said just rubbed me the wrong way. I get offended when people tell me that I'm wrong if I know what I'm talking about. If you had just said some stuff about it without flat out saying that I'm wrong then I probably wouldn't have been upset. Other than that I agree with pretty much everything else you just posted.

[VRDrvr]

Mainly because the intake manifold is near the firewall and most applications are for only civics/integras. Add that to the fact of for about the same price you can get more power with a turbo, it's easier to work on, BOV sounds cooler , better gas mileage and there are TONS of parts out for a turbo system versus finding/locating a different pulley.

Just my 2 cents but I would much rather run 7psi turbo charged versus 5psi supercharged and make a lot more power for about the same price.

[zipcreature]

Penis.

- Zipcreature

[LAMSV]

To LAMSV, I guess what you said just rubbed me the wrong way. I get offended when people tell me that I'm wrong if I know what I'm talking about. If you had just said some stuff about it without flat out saying that I'm wrong then I probably wouldn't have been upset. Other than that I agree with pretty much everything else you just posted.

No worries my man. I think the only reason superchargers are still popular is the ease installation. Roots style are pretty much drop in. Even a centrifugal is a fairly easy addition. Because of this, OEM manufacturers and a lot of aftermarket companies choose to start with a supercharger because there isn't as much R&D cost. It is just cheaper to design a supercharged system.

[koolkoreanked]

No, if you really read my post that's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that was their original design. I do believe centrifugal came after roots style. They still are in the same class in a lot of ways because they are both super chargers. They still both take power from the engine to make power, and are less efficient than turbos. Most supercharger setups aren't designed with long intake piping like intercooled turbo setups. If you know anything about flow velocity and how it relates to all that then you will understand why turbos are better for high rpm power than superchargers. Like I said you can do whatever you want to change stuff around, but when it comes down to it it is still a supercharger. You can make it so that it doesn't only make low end power just like you can make a turbo so it doesn't only make high end power, but the supercharger still won't have the powerband of a turbo or the efficiency. The centrifugal is obviously better for high rpm power, but they both still have their place which is below the turbo in terms of high rpm power. Read my post a little better or do some research and you will understand why.


To LAMSV, I guess what you said just rubbed me the wrong way. I get offended when people tell me that I'm wrong if I know what I'm talking about. If you had just said some stuff about it without flat out saying that I'm wrong then I probably wouldn't have been upset. Other than that I agree with pretty much everything else you just posted.

Well if you would read my post you would understand that I never said turbos are less efficient than a supercharge. I know they are more efficient. Hell it takes 100+ hp to turn a kenne bell supercharge on a mustang at high rpms. There was a test a while back where they supercharged (roots style) then supercharged (Centrifugal style), then turbo'd the same motor and compared it to the stock blower. roots made 629 hp, 525 tq, centrifugal made, 667hp, 532tq, turbo made 750hp and 679tq. This proves that turbos are way more efficient than both forms of supercharging. I wish I could post the dyno charts but I cant find them anywhere. While I guess if you look at it your way then both forms of supercharging are the same. But they make power so differently. This also shows why turbocharging is more popular than supercharging. More efficient, easier to switch boost levels...

[sj960]

Like Fearit was saying, they are both still superchargers, but TECHNICALLY a turbo is also a supercharger, but a exhaust gas driven one, instead of a belt driven one. While we can beat that technicality to death, it comes down to this, can you ever spin a centrifugal blower as high as a turbo purely being driven by a belt? That would require some extreme gearing and honestly would just not be nearly as reliable as a turbo is.
Plus, turbos are just way better anyway

[KillerCam282]

Like Fearit was saying, they are both still superchargers, but TECHNICALLY a turbo is also a supercharger, but a exhaust gas driven one, instead of a belt driven one. While we can beat that technicality to death, it comes down to this, can you ever spin a centrifugal blower as high as a turbo purely being driven by a belt? That would require some extreme gearing and honestly would just not be nearly as reliable as a turbo is.
Plus, turbos are just way better anyway

Superchargers are actually more reliable than turbos. Its one of the reasons why top fuelers use them.

[sj960]

Well I was speaking specifically of a centrifugal blower.... and a roots blower like a top fuel blower is only 40% efficient (theirs is probably a little more, seeing they are pushing like 8,000 hp) as compared to a turbo which is usually around 70% efficient.