more horspower turbo/supercharger?
08-29-2004, 06:49 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more horspower turbo/supercharger?
me and my friend are having a discussion as to what produces more actual horsepower a turbo or supercharger.
I feel that you get more bottom end torque out of the supercharger on the s2k but he insists that you get more actual horsepower out of a turbo.
which do you think will make it faster
turbo/supercharger
I feel that you get more bottom end torque out of the supercharger on the s2k but he insists that you get more actual horsepower out of a turbo.
which do you think will make it faster
turbo/supercharger
08-30-2004, 06:17 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It like arguing which is better a fork or a spoon, Batman or Superman, Alien vs. Predator. In real life it just depends on implementation and application. Here are some points you can argue over.
- Ultimately it doesn't matter how it's implemented, it is the amount of boost, where it is in the rev range and input air temperatures that govern how much power FI produces.
- Theoretically turbos are more effcient, since they produce boost (power) out of waste exhaust energy, while superchargers use up some crank power to spin the compressor.
- Turbos are more difficult to control the boost and tune, while superchargers are very predictable since they are driven off the crank
- Turbos can be sized small to spin and provide boost early, but with less max boost, or sized large to provide more max boost but more lag to spin up. One reason for twin turbos.
- Superchargers come in different compressor configurations. Positive displacement (roots, screw, etc) that provide a lot of low rev boost, or centrifugal compressor that is more efficient but only provide boost at high revs.
- Peak horsepower is good for bragging, but more power "under the curve" in the revs you use most is ultimately faster.
- Ultimately it doesn't matter how it's implemented, it is the amount of boost, where it is in the rev range and input air temperatures that govern how much power FI produces.
- Theoretically turbos are more effcient, since they produce boost (power) out of waste exhaust energy, while superchargers use up some crank power to spin the compressor.
- Turbos are more difficult to control the boost and tune, while superchargers are very predictable since they are driven off the crank
- Turbos can be sized small to spin and provide boost early, but with less max boost, or sized large to provide more max boost but more lag to spin up. One reason for twin turbos.
- Superchargers come in different compressor configurations. Positive displacement (roots, screw, etc) that provide a lot of low rev boost, or centrifugal compressor that is more efficient but only provide boost at high revs.
- Peak horsepower is good for bragging, but more power "under the curve" in the revs you use most is ultimately faster.
08-30-2004, 08:16 AM
#5
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fongu is right, there is no simple answer.
However, if I wanted to do forced induction on the S2000, I'd want a twin-screw supercharger and nothing else. Nobody makes one for the S2000, though - yet.
However, if I wanted to do forced induction on the S2000, I'd want a twin-screw supercharger and nothing else. Nobody makes one for the S2000, though - yet.
