|
Post by 05aveohotrod on Jun 13, 2006 11:36:32 GMT -5
not if your supercharger is tuned to the engine then the power gain is bigger then the lose...plus no lag... Alright if you say so. Superchargers are inheriently less effecient that turbos since you have the drag of the belt, pulley, and crank to turn it. I've owned both in the past. A turbo has far less lag than a SC if it is sized right to the engine. A SC is generally the same all the way around. You just swap out pulley size.
|
|
|
Post by y2daniel1981 on Jun 13, 2006 11:43:19 GMT -5
turbos are also a resriction in the exhaust system, thus robbing power as well (but not as much as a super)
|
|
aveosummit
Premium Unleaded User
I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done.-H.FORD
Posts: 723
|
Post by aveosummit on Jun 13, 2006 12:12:54 GMT -5
I think the push for the turbo comes from the relative simplicity that goes into fitting one to an engine where as a supercharger has to actually be designed to correctly match with the engine through the whole rpm range and belt tensions...just my $0.02
|
|
|
Post by AveoSam on Jun 13, 2006 14:22:20 GMT -5
I think the push for the turbo comes from the relative simplicity that goes into fitting one to an engine where as a supercharger has to actually be designed to correctly match with the engine through the whole rpm range and belt tensions...just my $0.02 a centrifugal supercharger is as easy as putting a turbo because it is not engine specific but people don't use them...both have simple forms but I guess most people know which is better for a 4 banger a turbo also has to be matched with the engine as to get boost throughout the perfect rpm range....so what if the turbo can't provide boost till after 2grand but you better believe that turbo is going to hit that boost hard when it does, it will provide more power than the supercharger will and just as long with no parasitic lose caused by belts and pulleys
|
|
aveosummit
Premium Unleaded User
I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done.-H.FORD
Posts: 723
|
Post by aveosummit on Jun 13, 2006 15:31:18 GMT -5
So what abuot the superchargers for the other 4 bangers, honda, vw, toyota, etc....I think that they get just as much play as the turbo just not as popular within the us on anything under V6...
|
|
|
Post by AveoSam on Jun 13, 2006 16:11:10 GMT -5
yea companies do supercharge 4 bangers but that doesn't mean its faster than a turbo version...if you build two 4 bangers up exactly the same way and same boost but only one has a turbo and the other has a supercharger, my 2 cents is that the supercharge will jump ahead but the turbo will catch up and past long before the quarter mile is done
we can disagree about this all day long so the only way to prove which way is better on the aveo is to actually do it! I intend to prove that a turbo is a better choice for this car since we are starting out with less than 90 hp to the wheels and dont need to have a supercharger skimming power out of the output
|
|
exodus
Nitrous User
Posts: 886
|
Post by exodus on Jun 13, 2006 17:15:05 GMT -5
turbos vs superchargers is an old drawn out arguement. It's like mac vs PC (irrelivent now), everytime it's brought up, niether of the arguements make any sense and I die a little inside.
It's all forced induction. Different methods to aquire the same results. Each have their own benefits and drawbacks.
Give it a rest. Niether is the best, otherwise one wouldn't exist or be used anymore. All that matters is your wallet, what's currently available, and what your application is.
|
|
|
Post by justanotheruser on Jun 22, 2006 9:07:25 GMT -5
Amen.
|
|
swiftS
Regular User
FLOOR IT!!!!
Posts: 217
|
Post by swiftS on Jul 5, 2006 23:39:41 GMT -5
turbos rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by computerkiller on Jul 6, 2006 0:41:26 GMT -5
reason why i say turbo is best is because of how are engine compression is 8-1 - 10-1 compression is best for turbo anything lower should be supercharger to get full hp out of it
|
|
exodus
Nitrous User
Posts: 886
|
Post by exodus on Jul 17, 2006 2:20:06 GMT -5
1) "our." Totally different word, totally different sound.
2) The 1.6l NA engine is 9.5:1 compression, not 8:1. (Ratios are also represented using a colon, not a hyphen)
3) What does the stock compression ratio of an engine have to do with choosing a forced induction method? When pushing higher boost, most people will REDUCE the compression of the engine in an attempt to reduce the possibility of detonation.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone make a relation in the sense that you are trying to push. It makes no sense. People make a choice based on availability and the results they are trying to achieve.
You also contradict yourself by saying that anything with a 10:1 compression or higher should be turbo, while anything below should be supercharged... but yet say the aveo should be turbocharged? If you wish to get a point across I would recommend punctuation and proper sentence structure. Please try again.
|
|
|
Post by computerkiller on Jul 17, 2006 6:55:31 GMT -5
man i was just saying from my general knowlege that i know my uncule who used to blueprint engines said that any engine that turbocharge should run 8:1 - 10:1 to get the most out of it anything below should run supercharge so it get the most out of that when i told him i was turbo charging he was tell me a little but it not like i talk to him on a everyday basis
also i was reading on another part of the forum where i guy went into full detail on compression he said general rule of turbo was run 8:1 compress to lessen the risk of dentaiton but that was back in the day he said nowway days u even high compress as long as u did it right i know my uncule was saying most disel trucks run 10:1 which is great for turbo so that can get better mileage but dont get mad at me man i just going by what ive learn if u would like to explain more about compression and turboing i would like to learn iam not trying to make u mad
|
|
exodus
Nitrous User
Posts: 886
|
Post by exodus on Jul 17, 2006 14:18:58 GMT -5
The 8:1 "rule of thumb" seems very common, however I don't think this should be used as a benchmark for every engine.
The reason those diesel trucks are OK with such high compression is because they run diesel. A diesel engine can knock all day long and it's not always big deal. Diesel is also much less combustable than gasoline, meaning it takes a lot more compression for it to detonate.
|
|
|
Post by reijin on Jul 18, 2006 15:45:54 GMT -5
a generality usually isnt the standard for everything, just alot of things, like the gas engine in our car, which we talk about, on the aveo website
|
|