Turbocharger VS Supercharger
02-24-2013, 03:12 AM
#31
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-24-2013, 03:15 AM
#32
Team Owner
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 213 Likes
on
153 Posts
i was 2 quarts down. but the remarkable part was that i coasted to within a few hundred feet of the Junction, TX off ramp. amazing when you consider the last town (Fredericksburg) was 60 miles out the back of my rearview mirror.
now, my original post was pointed at the centrifugals not just because they're so f_cking useless, and not only because the automakers have spent literally, millions dollars trying to make a (centrifugal unit) work, and mostly found them unworkable (heat, fuel consumption, longevity).... but also because so few roots blowers have been associated with inline 4's (especially the German variety).... and because attempts at workable centrifugal kits—have.
now, obviously, there's the exception to every rule. i'm sure someone on this planet has experienced some outer worldly, massive success racing a centrifugal unit. and i'm not knocking him, even when all he had to do was hook up a turbo and run 5 or 6 pounds of boost and been rewarded with a nice engine with 4 times the mechanical/thermodynamic efficiency..... but you can't drive that car down the interstate for hundreds of miles without going broke.
we've all been waiting for a couple of years with glowing anticipation on Spencer's engine project. he clearly wanted not only something unique, but something that would kick ***, and because his starting point was such a high capacity blower, from the beginning, we've all thought he'd get it. i also grew up in the Sho/Supercoupe/Mustang GT era when they were kicking Chevy's ***. the cars might not have been earthshaking by today's standards, but they were pretty good cars for the masses for that time....
just the same, we tend to discuss cars from the gut. and i'll admit, in keeping it all Porsche, i would have been more thrilled just to see him go with the time-tested 968 powerplant... get turbo parts from Lart and run like, 7 pounds of boost... cuz what do they say, "there's no substitute for cubic inches ?" and on such a lightweight car ?
one final thought, to get off the subject of roots blowers for a moment; i know everyone wants to get up and cheer that someone's gonna offer a badass centrifugal kit that's gonna bring the house down, but when was the last time you saw a 2.5 litre centrifugal-supercharged 4 making 600~700 hp ?
now, my original post was pointed at the centrifugals not just because they're so f_cking useless, and not only because the automakers have spent literally, millions dollars trying to make a (centrifugal unit) work, and mostly found them unworkable (heat, fuel consumption, longevity).... but also because so few roots blowers have been associated with inline 4's (especially the German variety).... and because attempts at workable centrifugal kits—have.
now, obviously, there's the exception to every rule. i'm sure someone on this planet has experienced some outer worldly, massive success racing a centrifugal unit. and i'm not knocking him, even when all he had to do was hook up a turbo and run 5 or 6 pounds of boost and been rewarded with a nice engine with 4 times the mechanical/thermodynamic efficiency..... but you can't drive that car down the interstate for hundreds of miles without going broke.
we've all been waiting for a couple of years with glowing anticipation on Spencer's engine project. he clearly wanted not only something unique, but something that would kick ***, and because his starting point was such a high capacity blower, from the beginning, we've all thought he'd get it. i also grew up in the Sho/Supercoupe/Mustang GT era when they were kicking Chevy's ***. the cars might not have been earthshaking by today's standards, but they were pretty good cars for the masses for that time....
just the same, we tend to discuss cars from the gut. and i'll admit, in keeping it all Porsche, i would have been more thrilled just to see him go with the time-tested 968 powerplant... get turbo parts from Lart and run like, 7 pounds of boost... cuz what do they say, "there's no substitute for cubic inches ?" and on such a lightweight car ?
one final thought, to get off the subject of roots blowers for a moment; i know everyone wants to get up and cheer that someone's gonna offer a badass centrifugal kit that's gonna bring the house down, but when was the last time you saw a 2.5 litre centrifugal-supercharged 4 making 600~700 hp ?
Last edited by odurandina; 02-24-2013 at 04:03 AM.
02-24-2013, 03:29 AM
#33
Rainman
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
now, my original post was pointed at the centrifugals not just because they're so f_cking useless, and not only because the automakers have spent literally, millions dollars trying to make one work, and only failed (fuel consumption).... but also because so few roots blowers have been associated with inline 4's (especially the German variety).... and because the centrifugal units — have.
now, obviously, there's the exception to every rule. i'm sure someone on this planet has experienced some outer worldly, massive success racing a centrifugal unit. and i'm not knocking him, even when all he had to do was hook up a turbo and run 5 or 6 pounds of boost with 4 times the mechanical/thermodynamic efficiency.
we've all been waiting for a couple of years with glowing anticipation on Spencer's engine project. he clearly wanted something unique, but something that would kick ***, and from the beginning, we've all thought he'd get it.
i thought it was cool when he announced it because i had firsthand experience, and i complimented him about it that day.... just the same, we tend to discuss cars from the gut. and i'll admit, in keeping it all Porsche, i would have been more thrilled just to see him go with the time-tested 968 powerplant... get turbo parts from Lart and run like, 7 pounds of boost... cuz what do they say, "there's no substitued for cubic inches ?" and on such a lightweight car ?
Here it is actually. http://shop.design1racing.com/PERFORMANCE_c14.htm
And mine should hopefully be done in march. I dd my car and all my sc stuff is at my San Diego house that I only get real time at once in a while. And boost will come before displacement, in the form of a hybrid stroker most likely.
02-24-2013, 05:19 AM
#34
Rennlist Member
Heres a question, how many people have actually lived with both a high performance turbo car and a high performance supercharged car for a long period of time and can compare the two objectively?
My only real turbo experience is with an Audi Ur-Quattro I owned and raced for several years. A bit 80's for sure, but it made mad power at high boost levels and was a fun drive. Ultimately though, for circuit racing at least, I much prefer the power delivery of my centrifugal supercharger setup. Linear power delivery, sharp throttle response, no lag. I've also driven a few "modern" turbo cars on track (Evos and WRXs) and while they are much sharper than the old school turbos you still get that slightly disconnected feeling at times between what I want the engine to do right now and what is actually happening. Ultimate power potential is still higher with the turbo, but who honestly needs 600-700hp anyway? Drivability is still a big advantage of superchargers over turbochargers in my mind.
My only real turbo experience is with an Audi Ur-Quattro I owned and raced for several years. A bit 80's for sure, but it made mad power at high boost levels and was a fun drive. Ultimately though, for circuit racing at least, I much prefer the power delivery of my centrifugal supercharger setup. Linear power delivery, sharp throttle response, no lag. I've also driven a few "modern" turbo cars on track (Evos and WRXs) and while they are much sharper than the old school turbos you still get that slightly disconnected feeling at times between what I want the engine to do right now and what is actually happening. Ultimate power potential is still higher with the turbo, but who honestly needs 600-700hp anyway? Drivability is still a big advantage of superchargers over turbochargers in my mind.
02-24-2013, 05:30 AM
#35
Team Owner
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 213 Likes
on
153 Posts
1. we've admired your achievements immensely for years.
2. the high and low scores get thrown out. hundreds have failed to your one.
3. Skunkworks (Lockheed) want's to know why you've not been returning their calls.
4. i'm petitioning the services of a dozen superchargers to go 100 k miles on a typical 968.
5. at 11 mpg.
6. ok for the track.
7. but i'm one of those ********* who drives his car really far on the interstate.
8. you might like the full time torque and power offered by a V8 even more.
9. just kidding.
10. are you gonna watch Danica try her hand at pack racing again today ?
11. oh, rumour has it that a big cyclone swell is hitting the Gold Coast. wish i could be there.
12. God bless.
2. the high and low scores get thrown out. hundreds have failed to your one.
3. Skunkworks (Lockheed) want's to know why you've not been returning their calls.
4. i'm petitioning the services of a dozen superchargers to go 100 k miles on a typical 968.
5. at 11 mpg.
6. ok for the track.
7. but i'm one of those ********* who drives his car really far on the interstate.
8. you might like the full time torque and power offered by a V8 even more.
9. just kidding.
10. are you gonna watch Danica try her hand at pack racing again today ?
11. oh, rumour has it that a big cyclone swell is hitting the Gold Coast. wish i could be there.
12. God bless.
02-24-2013, 06:04 AM
#37
Team Owner
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 28,705
Received 213 Likes
on
153 Posts
dunno,
Pattie Boyd (Layla) ranks up there. first George Harrison was smitten by her during the filming of Hard Day's night and married her about a year later.... and ostensibly the marriage was a success for about 5 years.... it was also Pattie who introduced Eastern mysticism to the Beatles, but within a few years George kind of went of the deep end with the Krishna's, causing the marriage to begin to go south.... after collaborating on the White Album, George's good buddy Eric Clapton began to petition Pattie (and eventually both members of the loving couple) that he should be the lucky groom instead. weird huh ? and Clapton refused to take no for an answer.... turns out that during their marriage John Lennon and Mick Jagger also attempted to steal Boyd from George... but after many attempts over several years by Jagger and others, it would be none-other than Ron Wood, guitarist in Rod Stewart's band who was the first to seduce her.... but Clapton was still hard at work attempting to free her from the bounds of Harrison.... but, not long after the affair with Wood, Clapton finally succeeded in convincing her to marry him..... and the marriage likely would have a gone on for many years if it hadn't been for Clapton's alcholism and drug use. she finally divorced him in 1988.
well, she must have been doing something right. despite that the movie was garbage,
i was mesmerized by her beauty in Hard Day's Night. she was the real star of that film.
Here Comes the Sun is Here Comes Pattie Boyd....
Pattie Boyd (Layla) ranks up there. first George Harrison was smitten by her during the filming of Hard Day's night and married her about a year later.... and ostensibly the marriage was a success for about 5 years.... it was also Pattie who introduced Eastern mysticism to the Beatles, but within a few years George kind of went of the deep end with the Krishna's, causing the marriage to begin to go south.... after collaborating on the White Album, George's good buddy Eric Clapton began to petition Pattie (and eventually both members of the loving couple) that he should be the lucky groom instead. weird huh ? and Clapton refused to take no for an answer.... turns out that during their marriage John Lennon and Mick Jagger also attempted to steal Boyd from George... but after many attempts over several years by Jagger and others, it would be none-other than Ron Wood, guitarist in Rod Stewart's band who was the first to seduce her.... but Clapton was still hard at work attempting to free her from the bounds of Harrison.... but, not long after the affair with Wood, Clapton finally succeeded in convincing her to marry him..... and the marriage likely would have a gone on for many years if it hadn't been for Clapton's alcholism and drug use. she finally divorced him in 1988.
well, she must have been doing something right. despite that the movie was garbage,
i was mesmerized by her beauty in Hard Day's Night. she was the real star of that film.
Here Comes the Sun is Here Comes Pattie Boyd....
Last edited by odurandina; 02-24-2013 at 08:16 AM.
02-24-2013, 07:37 AM
#38
Rennlist Member
Heres a question, how many people have actually lived with both a high performance turbo car and a high performance supercharged car for a long period of time and can compare the two objectively?
My only real turbo experience is with an Audi Ur-Quattro I owned and raced for several years. A bit 80's for sure, but it made mad power at high boost levels and was a fun drive. Ultimately though, for circuit racing at least, I much prefer the power delivery of my centrifugal supercharger setup. Linear power delivery, sharp throttle response, no lag. I've also driven a few "modern" turbo cars on track (Evos and WRXs) and while they are much sharper than the old school turbos you still get that slightly disconnected feeling at times between what I want the engine to do right now and what is actually happening. Ultimate power potential is still higher with the turbo, but who honestly needs 600-700hp anyway? Drivability is still a big advantage of superchargers over turbochargers in my mind.
My only real turbo experience is with an Audi Ur-Quattro I owned and raced for several years. A bit 80's for sure, but it made mad power at high boost levels and was a fun drive. Ultimately though, for circuit racing at least, I much prefer the power delivery of my centrifugal supercharger setup. Linear power delivery, sharp throttle response, no lag. I've also driven a few "modern" turbo cars on track (Evos and WRXs) and while they are much sharper than the old school turbos you still get that slightly disconnected feeling at times between what I want the engine to do right now and what is actually happening. Ultimate power potential is still higher with the turbo, but who honestly needs 600-700hp anyway? Drivability is still a big advantage of superchargers over turbochargers in my mind.
ps...gotta love the old school turbos. Get this into you!! lol...just a 'wind-up'..
02-24-2013, 12:15 PM
#39
Race Car
Heres a question, how many people have actually lived with both a high performance turbo car and a high performance supercharged car for a long period of time and can compare the two objectively?
My only real turbo experience is with an Audi Ur-Quattro I owned and raced for several years. A bit 80's for sure, but it made mad power at high boost levels and was a fun drive. Ultimately though, for circuit racing at least, I much prefer the power delivery of my centrifugal supercharger setup. Linear power delivery, sharp throttle response, no lag. I've also driven a few "modern" turbo cars on track (Evos and WRXs) and while they are much sharper than the old school turbos you still get that slightly disconnected feeling at times between what I want the engine to do right now and what is actually happening. Ultimate power potential is still higher with the turbo, but who honestly needs 600-700hp anyway? Drivability is still a big advantage of superchargers over turbochargers in my mind.
My only real turbo experience is with an Audi Ur-Quattro I owned and raced for several years. A bit 80's for sure, but it made mad power at high boost levels and was a fun drive. Ultimately though, for circuit racing at least, I much prefer the power delivery of my centrifugal supercharger setup. Linear power delivery, sharp throttle response, no lag. I've also driven a few "modern" turbo cars on track (Evos and WRXs) and while they are much sharper than the old school turbos you still get that slightly disconnected feeling at times between what I want the engine to do right now and what is actually happening. Ultimate power potential is still higher with the turbo, but who honestly needs 600-700hp anyway? Drivability is still a big advantage of superchargers over turbochargers in my mind.
I have used both platforms for driving and playing for over 3 years on each one.
I absolutely agree that the SC feels very responsive in comparison. I still miss how fun the sc car was around town. I had to add stroke to really feel responsive. But, I have a pretty big turbo.
If I had the room, I'd have one of each. Both of them 3.0+.
I will say this for another comparison. I work on minis weekly, and they went from sc to turbo. Even with all the new tech, the sc is still more responsive for around town driving. However, the top end flattens out quickly, leaving you wanting more. I felt the same about my sc car.
So IMO, it's really more of a preference if you are wanting around 300 hp out of a 2.5. Anything over that turbo may be your only choice.
02-24-2013, 03:43 PM
#40
Rennlist Member
The real truth is I prefer NA cars hands down. I think that's why I like the supercharger over turbos, it just feels like a bigger engine. OD's point number 8 is actually true, my favorite cars from an engine standpoint have been my V8 converted Z cars and my V12 Bimmer but a V8 swap for the Porsche has never been an option in the race categories I've been interested in. As a whole package the 944 works well and I am happy enough with 400whp as a final goal for this car and the supercharger works for me.
Each to their own, I realise people have very different goals for road cars. And Pat, we will see....wouldn't it be fun for all the stars to line up and we all end up at Bathurst together with our cars in finished form? Don't forget you also have to be able to drive the thing as well...
Each to their own, I realise people have very different goals for road cars. And Pat, we will see....wouldn't it be fun for all the stars to line up and we all end up at Bathurst together with our cars in finished form? Don't forget you also have to be able to drive the thing as well...
02-24-2013, 05:48 PM
#42
Rainman
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
They put a positive displacement unit on a 944S engine with 9:1 dished pistons and a Maf in 88 or 89. They experimented with 4 pulley ratios and got peak numbers of about 220hp/260tq on pump gas. They didn't have the benefit of the Eaton superchargers higher efficiency yet though.
