View Poll Results: What will give good power and still be cost effective?
supercharger
48
28.40%
turbo
102
60.36%
keep it stock!
19
11.24%
Voters: 169. You may not vote on this poll
supercharger vs. turbo
#53
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally posted by anobii
Just out of curiosity, why do they still run roots type superchargers in top fuel rails and funny cars. Seems like a turbo charger and nitromethane would work better. Is there something agianst it in the NHRA rulebooks? just wondering.
-E
Just out of curiosity, why do they still run roots type superchargers in top fuel rails and funny cars. Seems like a turbo charger and nitromethane would work better. Is there something agianst it in the NHRA rulebooks? just wondering.
-E
- Hugh MacInnes
#54
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by fc3seeker
why not just get both.
why not just get both.
#55
Is that thing Turbo?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one of the best sounding BOV i have ever heard was on a supercharged civic si, it was a vortec unit and as far as i've heard any supercharger that has piping (not a jacson racing type that bolts on or replaces the intake manifold) can have a BOV
#56
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally posted by totallimmortal
one of the best sounding BOV i have ever heard was on a supercharged civic si, it was a vortec unit and as far as i've heard any supercharger that has piping (not a jacson racing type that bolts on or replaces the intake manifold) can have a BOV
one of the best sounding BOV i have ever heard was on a supercharged civic si, it was a vortec unit and as far as i've heard any supercharger that has piping (not a jacson racing type that bolts on or replaces the intake manifold) can have a BOV
Yes, since a centrifugal supercharger has the same type of compressor as a turbo, you can use a BOV if the system does not use an AFM or MAF sensor upstream of the supercharger. Other superchargers use a bypass valve, which does not vent to the atmosphere, much like the stock RX-7 TII.
The difference in sound between a turbocharger and a supercharger is in the exhaust and drive noise.
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wayne, NJ 07470
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A turbo or a centrifugal supercharger usually blow into the throttle. The roots supercharger usually sucks through a throttle. Also a roots supercharger has a constant boost (approximately) while a turbo or a centrifugal supercharger have rising rates of boost.
So roots superchargers really never should have a BOV. A turbo can have a BOV to keep the blades spinning. A centrifugal can have a BOV but doesn't really need one.
ed
So roots superchargers really never should have a BOV. A turbo can have a BOV to keep the blades spinning. A centrifugal can have a BOV but doesn't really need one.
ed
#60
That review seems a little limited... mainly because they used a holly blower... which is about as archaic as the camden blower...
It would be really nice to see a comparison between a turbocharger setup and a whipple that are each well tuned and producing the same amount of hp... and then compare the torque curves to see which would actualy be faster.
Because in my mind the only two options would be turbo or whipple... roots is out because its far too inneficient, centrifugal is out because its all the worst parts of a turbo setup without any of the benefits.
Whipples and turbos on the other hand have near the same efficiencies... with whipples possibly heating the intake charge less than the turbo. Both have excelent high end boost response, however the whipple should build boost faster.
I don't know if a comparison has ever been done (even better if its on a rotary) between a whipple and a turbo making the same peak power... but thats what we really need.
It would be really nice to see a comparison between a turbocharger setup and a whipple that are each well tuned and producing the same amount of hp... and then compare the torque curves to see which would actualy be faster.
Because in my mind the only two options would be turbo or whipple... roots is out because its far too inneficient, centrifugal is out because its all the worst parts of a turbo setup without any of the benefits.
Whipples and turbos on the other hand have near the same efficiencies... with whipples possibly heating the intake charge less than the turbo. Both have excelent high end boost response, however the whipple should build boost faster.
I don't know if a comparison has ever been done (even better if its on a rotary) between a whipple and a turbo making the same peak power... but thats what we really need.
#61
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tri-Cities, WA
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand what you are trying to ask.
None the less I have to be a picky little bitch and inform you that a turbo is a "supercharger". Thats right turbo=supercharger!
Wow... thats going to start one huge bitch slap among the mechanicly challenged!
Blower vs turbo... would be more correct.
Just informing,
-Blake
Damn I hate people that have to go and get all technical, especially when they know what a person was trying to say!
*TURBO*
None the less I have to be a picky little bitch and inform you that a turbo is a "supercharger". Thats right turbo=supercharger!
Wow... thats going to start one huge bitch slap among the mechanicly challenged!
Blower vs turbo... would be more correct.
Just informing,
-Blake
Damn I hate people that have to go and get all technical, especially when they know what a person was trying to say!
*TURBO*
Last edited by Blake_91; 02-23-04 at 02:10 PM.
#62
Is that thing Turbo?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok blake so whats the difference in a supercharger and a blower? Because i know for a fact that all the muscle car guys call them both,
Turbo and Supercharer both = forced induction, supercharger or blower is belt driven, turbo is exhasut driven nothing with a belt is technicaly called a turbo
Turbo and Supercharer both = forced induction, supercharger or blower is belt driven, turbo is exhasut driven nothing with a belt is technicaly called a turbo
#63
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally posted by Blake_91
Blower vs turbo... would be more correct.
Blower vs turbo... would be more correct.
#64
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tri-Cities, WA
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Evil Aviator
Actually, that is not correct. The correct terminology would be Supercharger vs. Turbosupercharger, but the title of this thread uses the perfectly acceptable shortened form, "turbo", and he could have also used the other acceptable shortened form, "turbocharger". I think that it is safe to say that nobody on this forum thinks that the word "turbo" applies to marine snails with respect to this thread. Technically, the term "blower" applies only to superchargers that have an external compression ratio rather than an internal compression ratio, which means that the term does not apply to Lysholm or centrifigual superchargers. Wow... thats going to start one huge bitch slap among the mechanicly challenged!
Actually, that is not correct. The correct terminology would be Supercharger vs. Turbosupercharger, but the title of this thread uses the perfectly acceptable shortened form, "turbo", and he could have also used the other acceptable shortened form, "turbocharger". I think that it is safe to say that nobody on this forum thinks that the word "turbo" applies to marine snails with respect to this thread. Technically, the term "blower" applies only to superchargers that have an external compression ratio rather than an internal compression ratio, which means that the term does not apply to Lysholm or centrifigual superchargers. Wow... thats going to start one huge bitch slap among the mechanicly challenged!
1) a turbo charger is a supercharger
2) a blower is a supercharger
3) allthough supercharger is commonly used as a satisfactory replacement word/term for blower, technicly it is still incorrect.
here is how websters explains it, just incase it might help you understand...
Main Entry: su·per·charg·er
Pronunciation: -"chär-j&r
Function: noun
: a device (as a blower, turbo or compressor) for pressurizing the cabin of an airplane or for increasing the volume air charge of an internal combustion engine over that which would normally be drawn in through the pumping action of the pistons.
I'll ask my ASE certified master auto technision father today, just to make sure that I am not speaking out of my ***. Seriously I would hate to be leading people astray. I will be the first one to admit being wrong if I am! I am not a self richous *****... I love to learn... so if I am wrong, Let me know how/why you think so?
Remember a "supercharger" by definition is anything that charges/forces more air into your combustion chamber.
:quote:The correct terminology would be Supercharger vs. Turbosupercharger
This statement allthough "acceptable..." Is more correctly stated as:
Blowersupercharger vs. Turbosupercharger. Why? Because they are both "superchargers".
-Blake
BTW... Thanx for singeing a hair on my pinky toe?
:Edit: Felt left out, thought I needed to add my own little immature smilly!
Last edited by Blake_91; 02-24-04 at 08:28 AM.
#65
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: tri-cities
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok ok everybody untwist your panties, cause i am going to throw a monkey wrench in to twist your brain.
there a two common types of superchargers: centrifugal and roots-type.
turbos fall into the centrifugal category while the belt driven blower falls into the roots-type category.
but there are also belt driven centrifugal superchargers, such as the " vortec " which utilizes the compressor side of a turbo but drives it with a belt.
side note: all two stroke engines are supercharged... how can this be?... take a motorcycle engine as an example, the piston on its down stroke pressurizes the air in the case and forces it into the combustion chamber at more than atmospheric pressure...thus by definition it is supercharged...nice monkey wrench huh
BTW...blake is correct
there a two common types of superchargers: centrifugal and roots-type.
turbos fall into the centrifugal category while the belt driven blower falls into the roots-type category.
but there are also belt driven centrifugal superchargers, such as the " vortec " which utilizes the compressor side of a turbo but drives it with a belt.
side note: all two stroke engines are supercharged... how can this be?... take a motorcycle engine as an example, the piston on its down stroke pressurizes the air in the case and forces it into the combustion chamber at more than atmospheric pressure...thus by definition it is supercharged...nice monkey wrench huh
BTW...blake is correct
#66
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally posted by Blake_91
1) a turbo charger is a supercharger
1) a turbo charger is a supercharger
Originally posted by Blake_91
2) a blower is a supercharger
2) a blower is a supercharger
Originally posted by Blake_91
3) allthough supercharger is commonly used as a satisfactory replacement word/term for blower, technicly it is still incorrect.
3) allthough supercharger is commonly used as a satisfactory replacement word/term for blower, technicly it is still incorrect.
The word "blower" describes an air mover, not a compressor. This is why "blower" technically applies to superchargers that do not have an internal compression ratio, as well as cooling fans, air conditioning impellers, and other types of air movers.
Originally posted by Blake_91
I'll ask my ASE certified master auto technision father today
I'll ask my ASE certified master auto technision father today
#67
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally posted by White Tiger
there a two common types of superchargers: centrifugal and roots-type.
there a two common types of superchargers: centrifugal and roots-type.
Originally posted by White Tiger
turbos fall into the centrifugal category while the belt driven blower falls into the roots-type category.
turbos fall into the centrifugal category while the belt driven blower falls into the roots-type category.
Originally posted by White Tiger
side note: all two stroke engines are supercharged... how can this be?... take a motorcycle engine as an example, the piston on its down stroke pressurizes the air in the case and forces it into the combustion chamber at more than atmospheric pressure...thus by definition it is supercharged...nice monkey wrench huh
side note: all two stroke engines are supercharged... how can this be?... take a motorcycle engine as an example, the piston on its down stroke pressurizes the air in the case and forces it into the combustion chamber at more than atmospheric pressure...thus by definition it is supercharged...nice monkey wrench huh
Have you seen the Miller cycle engine?
http://www.mazda.com.au/articleZone....ticleZoneID=92
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wayne, NJ 07470
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference between a Lysholm SC and an Eaton SC with twisted rotors and V shaped outlet port is real but it's almost more of a patent issue than a real preformance issue.
Roots type SC's can have internal compression, they just need to make outlet port smaller. A straight lobed SC will leak back past the lobe seals but a twisted lobe SC has more lobes between the intake and output.
And besides, most of the efficiency difference between any super/turbo/whatever-charger can be compensated by a slightly more efficient intercooler.
ed
Roots type SC's can have internal compression, they just need to make outlet port smaller. A straight lobed SC will leak back past the lobe seals but a twisted lobe SC has more lobes between the intake and output.
And besides, most of the efficiency difference between any super/turbo/whatever-charger can be compensated by a slightly more efficient intercooler.
ed
#70
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tri-Cities, WA
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The word "supercharger" can be used to describe anything that induces more than atmospheric preasure into the engine.
:quote:"If the blower does not increase the air pressure, then it is just a blower, not a supercharger."
This makes no sense. I have never seen a blower that dosent increase the "air pressure". What purpose would it serve? It would add wieght, labor the engine and, shoot the air that you've just supercharged around the engine bay? Seems how blowers do increase the amount of air, above that of atmospheric pressure, they are "superchargers". Blowers "supercharg" air into your combustion chamber. Turbo's "supercharg" air into your combustion chamber. This said they are both "superchargers". Therefor when you say, supercharger vs turbosupercharger? I say what kind of supercharger vs turbosupercharger? Because the word supercharger can be used to describe anything that forces air into your combustion chamber, not just a belt driven setup.
Technicly I could take a super high powered "electric" 4" fan and fit it into the intake snorkle of my car, as long as it forces more than atmospheric pressure into my combustion chamber... its "supercharged".
:quote:"Correct, a blower is a type of supercharger"
And a turbo is a type of supercharger.
So, if I say I have a supercharger on my car, where is the designation that implies what kind of supercharger it is? Turbo/blower...etc...?
When you say turbo... You've designated what kind of a supercharger your talking about, so that is all good. When you say Supercharger... Great, you have told me what it is that your setup does, but you still hav'nt designated what kind of supercharger/setup your talking about!
-Blake
BTW: Tanx fer corecting me "typo"!
:quote:"If the blower does not increase the air pressure, then it is just a blower, not a supercharger."
This makes no sense. I have never seen a blower that dosent increase the "air pressure". What purpose would it serve? It would add wieght, labor the engine and, shoot the air that you've just supercharged around the engine bay? Seems how blowers do increase the amount of air, above that of atmospheric pressure, they are "superchargers". Blowers "supercharg" air into your combustion chamber. Turbo's "supercharg" air into your combustion chamber. This said they are both "superchargers". Therefor when you say, supercharger vs turbosupercharger? I say what kind of supercharger vs turbosupercharger? Because the word supercharger can be used to describe anything that forces air into your combustion chamber, not just a belt driven setup.
Technicly I could take a super high powered "electric" 4" fan and fit it into the intake snorkle of my car, as long as it forces more than atmospheric pressure into my combustion chamber... its "supercharged".
:quote:"Correct, a blower is a type of supercharger"
And a turbo is a type of supercharger.
So, if I say I have a supercharger on my car, where is the designation that implies what kind of supercharger it is? Turbo/blower...etc...?
When you say turbo... You've designated what kind of a supercharger your talking about, so that is all good. When you say Supercharger... Great, you have told me what it is that your setup does, but you still hav'nt designated what kind of supercharger/setup your talking about!
-Blake
BTW: Tanx fer corecting me "typo"!
Last edited by Blake_91; 02-25-04 at 10:07 AM.
#71
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by edmcguirk
And besides, most of the efficiency difference between any super/turbo/whatever-charger can be compensated by a slightly more efficient intercooler.
ed
And besides, most of the efficiency difference between any super/turbo/whatever-charger can be compensated by a slightly more efficient intercooler.
ed
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wayne, NJ 07470
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, you can't get all of the efficiency back with a better intercooler but you can come close enough.
Very very few people can get the last 10% out of their engine. Few people even want to make the sacrifices or the narrow focus that would take.
Not to mention the very very very few who can do it without blowing up at least a few engines.
ed
Very very few people can get the last 10% out of their engine. Few people even want to make the sacrifices or the narrow focus that would take.
Not to mention the very very very few who can do it without blowing up at least a few engines.
ed
#73
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Evil Aviator
Have you seen the Miller cycle engine?
http://www.mazda.com.au/articleZone....ticleZoneID=92
Have you seen the Miller cycle engine?
http://www.mazda.com.au/articleZone....ticleZoneID=92
so technically, the V6 in the millenia is just a KL with very retarded intake timing and a blower?
#74
777** The Anti-rice
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Peruvianrx7
it does... 3-4k dollars from atkinsrotary.com wait 5 months and they are coming out with a supercharger kit with the stock fuel injected system( the supercharger kit they have requires you to carb your fc).
If you want power... tru duals. period
it does... 3-4k dollars from atkinsrotary.com wait 5 months and they are coming out with a supercharger kit with the stock fuel injected system( the supercharger kit they have requires you to carb your fc).
If you want power... tru duals. period