Turbos or blowers, which puts more strain on the engine?

[Uncle Tone]

I'm interested to know, when it comes to FI, which method is worse for the engine, turbo or supercharging?

What method puts more strain on the engine for the same amount of PSI pumped into it? What is the difference in the effect on pistons, rods, crank, etc between positive displacement and turbo?

[sld86]

i would imagine that 10psi turbo is the same as 10psiblown although one would have to think that a top mount blower would create more heat in the engine vs side mount or turbos

[DR-vyss-108]

if any body else asked this question people would answer, im sure there are other people keen on the answer

[michaels1v8]

I would think pushing 10psi on a turbo would be the same as pushing 10psi on a charger

If all other factors are also equal (same engine condition, same quality tune, same installation preparation and care, same fuel system) which is pretty unlikely to say the least, then whichever generates more heat would probably be the one that puts more strain on the engine.

Just my 5c opinion based on absolutley no experience or knowledge... so take it for what its worth:rofl:

[zorro]

blower is belt driven so in theory would put more loading on the motor.

[macca_779]

I'm interested to know, when it comes to FI, which method is worse for the engine, turbo or supercharging?

What method puts more strain on the engine for the same amount of PSI pumped into it? What is the difference in the effect on pistons, rods, crank, etc between positive displacement and turbo?

Tone the answer is obviously Supercharging. Turbo = no extra mechanical load on the engine. Supercharging by its shear nature is putting load on the crank.

[Muncha]

The turbos would put a heap more strain on the engine due to the extra back pressure in the exhaust, and a blower would end up making more power as well..... :hide: :)




Seriously though, blowers put more strain on a engine due to being spun off the crank compared to a turbo which is just using exhaust gas.

[sully]

Also a belt driven supercharger has instant? boost, and too much power down low when the engine is not spinning would wear more I would have thought, and also put more load on the big end bearings?

[joffa]

A blower would put more stress on the snout of the crank obviously, but I reckon whichever combo creates the most torque would put more stress on the engine as a whole. i.e: crank, rods, pistons. :confused:

Torque is the amount of twisting force something has, so whichever has the highest, would have the most twisting power.

My guess anyway.

[Evman]

i would imagine that 10psi turbo is the same as 10psiblown although one would have to think that a top mount blower would create more heat in the engine vs side mount or turbos

:teach: But an intercooled turbo or charger setup will have more intake length than a valley mount charger. The friction between this intake tubing and the high speed, high pressure air moving through the intake would create more blah blah blah blah...



Also a belt driven supercharger has instant? boost, and too much power down low when the engine is not spinning would wear more I would have thought, and also put more load on the big end bearings?

Or having to get revs up to make the power could cause faster wearing due to the faster moving reciprocating parts under such intake pressures blah blah blah blah...

:cool:

This thread isn't going to go very far haha. Certainly for the same boost pressure a supercharger would put more strain on the motor due to being driven off the crank... The back pressures of turbos is an interesting thought but the resisting force of the supercharger would have to be more I'd think

:jester:

[ATOMIC MALOO R8]

ARR but has any one though about the electric supercharger with ZPM controlled boost
belts are a thing of the past

:rofl:

[S2VYSS]

I can see this turning into another one of those turbos are better then blowers or the other way threads

[Delco]

Heat load on the combustion chamber would be the biggest worry with having a restricted exhaust flow due to the exhaust wheel and housing .
To make boost with a turbo you need back pressure between the turbo and exhaust valve.

http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/images/articles/i23/2311_12mg.jpg


Or a nice videa of it on the dyno http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/downloads/as/mov/nizpro-1000hp-engine.avi

Also having to idle the engine down after driving would give me the shits



But then tone doesnt rev his so it shouldnt be a issue.

Ready for a change are we tone , or is this more hype.

All the torque about load to drive a supercharger , if driven through a 6pk belt then 20-30kw is the most you could expect to drive so the losses arent as great as some make them out to be.

[NickS]

This almost seemed like a genuine question ...

:rolleyes:

Do the strings get in the way when you start these threads Tone ?

[Uncle Tone]

This almost seemed like a genuine question ...

:rolleyes:

Do the strings get in the way when you start these threads Tone ?

It is a genuine question Nick. Please, if you don't want to contribute just stay out of it.

[Muncha]

It is a genuine question Nick.....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now thats funny.

[Uncle Tone]

Heat load on the combustion chamber would be the biggest worry with having a restricted exhaust flow due to the exhaust wheel and housing .
To make boost with a turbo you need back pressure between the turbo and exhaust valve.



Or a nice videa of it on the dyno http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/downloads/as/mov/nizpro-1000hp-engine.avi

Also having to idle the engine down after driving would give me the shits



But then tone doesnt rev his so it shouldnt be a issue.

Ready for a change are we tone , or is this more hype.

All the torque about load to drive a supercharger , if driven through a 6pk belt then 20-30kw is the most you could expect to drive so the losses arent as great as some make them out to be.

:lol: Not quite yet Delco!

So the heat from the exhaust on a turbo is an issue, what about the blowers? Any downsides there?

I'm more interested in actual engine wear issues due to the way each power adder does its job, rather than mechanical failiure due to drive belts or something similar.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now thats funny.

Typical bolt on comment there.... :lol:

[diabolic]

It is a genuine question Nick. Please, if you don't want to contribute just stay out of it.
Tone, you seem like a nice guy so please don't take offense, but I really think your constant questions might get annoying to some people..

Maybe just call your preferred sponsor and ask their opinion instead? I'm sure they're more than happy to answer any questions you may have.. That's what they're there for. And before you say it, yes, that's what this forum is here for too, but there's a limit.

Also, it took you so long to get the turbo situation sorted, why would you NOW ask these questions..? Are you going to change AGAIN? Maybe you'll have made the decision and got the funds approved for a blown application in a VF..

Once again no offense is intended, and I wish you all the luck in getting your dream package together :)

Dan

[Ryzz]

Lets keep this thread on topic and no noise. All off topic threads will be deleted.

[Evman]

Car manufacturers offer full warranty on turbo and supercharged cars. There can't be that much difference really :)

[holden6.0]

:goodjob:my post got deleted cheers


I'm interested to know, when it comes to FI, which method is worse for the engine, turbo or supercharging?

What method puts more strain on the engine for the same amount of PSI pumped into it? What is the difference in the effect on pistons, rods, crank, etc between positive displacement and turbo?

a pm to a expert sponsor could answer that for u could they not?

[STATIE]

If you take a quick look at Cyril Horshanks ground breaking manual on turbo & superchargers "Boost Fundamentals" you will find the folowing formula which gives an estimated engine life (+/-3%) in hours once the relevant values are entered.
It is THE formula to end all formula's with regards to boost theory & is used today by experts in the field such Billy Brockett & Hayden Christenson to determine engine life using different parameters.

Xnk =12dndxn (f:g) = f(n):g+nf(n€1)g(1)+n(n € 1)f(n€2):g(2)+n!(n € r)!r!f(n€r):g(r)+f:gn(n + 1) /Xnk=1k2 =16n(n + 1)(2n + 1)Xnk=1k3 =14n2(n + 1)2Tze€aT (z2 cos !T € 2ze€aT + e€2aT cos !T)(z2 € 2ze€aT cos !T + e€2aT )Z ff(t + nT)g = zn + f(z) €Pn€1k=0 zn€kf(kT) (n > 0)

Enter the required details & complete the equation & an answer in hours will be given.

X = boost in psi
n = engine size in cc's
d = required phallus size
f = percieved phallus size
g = actual phallus size

[Delco]

:lol: Not quite yet Delco!

So the heat from the exhaust on a turbo is an issue, what about the blowers? Any downsides there?

I'm more interested in actual engine wear issues due to the way each power adder does its job, rather than mechanical failiure due to drive belts or something similar.



Typical bolt on comment there.... :lol:

Everything has a downside tone , did you know breathing can give you lung cancer , and eating is a guarrantee to give you bowel cancer some day.

Enjoy any power you have because one day it will die or wear out - thats the nature of the beast.

[Evman]

If you take a quick look at Cyril Horshanks ground breaking manual on turbo & superchargers "Boost Fundamentals" you will find the folowing formula which gives an estimated engine life (+/-3%) in hours once the relevant values are entered.
It is THE formula to end all formula's with regards to boost theory & is used today by experts in the field such Billy Brockett & Hayden Christenson to determine engine life using different parameters.

Xnk =12dndxn (f:g) = f(n):g+nf(n€1)g(1)+n(n € 1)f(n€2):g(2)+n!(n € r)!r!f(n€r):g(r)+f:gn(n + 1) /Xnk=1k2 =16n(n + 1)(2n + 1)Xnk=1k3 =14n2(n + 1)2Tze€aT (z2 cos !T € 2ze€aT + e€2aT cos !T)(z2 € 2ze€aT cos !T + e€2aT )Z ff(t + nT)g = zn + f(z) €Pn€1k=0 zn€kf(kT) (n > 0)

Enter the required details & complete the equation & an answer in hours will be given.

X = boost in psi
n = engine size in cc's
d = required phallus size
f = percieved phallus size
g = actual phallus size

Contender for post of the year :goodjob:

[Oldmate83]

If you take a quick look at Cyril Horshanks ground breaking manual on turbo & superchargers "Boost Fundamentals" you will find the folowing formula which gives an estimated engine life (+/-3%) in hours once the relevant values are entered.
It is THE formula to end all formula's with regards to boost theory & is used today by experts in the field such Billy Brockett & Hayden Christenson to determine engine life using different parameters.

Xnk =12dndxn (f:g) = f(n):g+nf(n€1)g(1)+n(n € 1)f(n€2):g(2)+n!(n € r)!r!f(n€r):g(r)+f:gn(n + 1) /Xnk=1k2 =16n(n + 1)(2n + 1)Xnk=1k3 =14n2(n + 1)2Tze€aT (z2 cos !T € 2ze€aT + e€2aT cos !T)(z2 € 2ze€aT cos !T + e€2aT )Z ff(t + nT)g = zn + f(z) €Pn€1k=0 zn€kf(kT) (n > 0)

Enter the required details & complete the equation & an answer in hours will be given.

X = boost in psi
n = engine size in cc's
d = required phallus size
f = percieved phallus size
g = actual phallus size


I'm a big fan of Dr Horshanks' work, and after having quickly done the above calculation in my head it seems clear to me that... :spew:

[JezzaB]

If you take a quick look at Cyril Horshanks ground breaking manual on turbo & superchargers "Boost Fundamentals" you will find the folowing formula which gives an estimated engine life (+/-3%) in hours once the relevant values are entered.
It is THE formula to end all formula's with regards to boost theory & is used today by experts in the field such Billy Brockett & Hayden Christenson to determine engine life using different parameters.

Xnk =12dndxn (f:g) = f(n):g+nf(n€1)g(1)+n(n € 1)f(n€2):g(2)+n!(n € r)!r!f(n€r):g(r)+f:gn(n + 1) /Xnk=1k2 =16n(n + 1)(2n + 1)Xnk=1k3 =14n2(n + 1)2Tze€aT (z2 cos !T € 2ze€aT + e€2aT cos !T)(z2 € 2ze€aT cos !T + e€2aT )Z ff(t + nT)g = zn + f(z) €Pn€1k=0 zn€kf(kT) (n > 0)

Enter the required details & complete the equation & an answer in hours will be given.

X = boost in psi
n = engine size in cc's
d = required phallus size
f = percieved phallus size
g = actual phallus size

AHHHH! I see..

So X raises n and f but doesnt increase g and n remains constant in this equasion.

Excellent

[michaels1v8]

Ahhahahahaah Statie thats awesome post of the year for sure.

Should be stickied

Delcos right just enjoy what your got because one day you will get bored of it.

[clubbie]

It is a genuine question Nick. .
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Look I just saw a pig fly.

Statie has it spot on....you got your answer Tone, and it was easy with no turbo vs supercharger wars. Plug in the numbers and you got the answer.

However I suggest the following changes to the formula. The biggest variable in your case with twin turbos is f....so i would suggest you do f times 2 for your calculations. This is really disproportionate to g which you should times by .5.....then you will get the real answer.

Clubbie

[Uncle Tone]

Hmmmm....

Obviously nobody knows the answer, I had a feeling it would be a bit technical for people on here. :(


a pm to a expert sponsor could answer that for u could they not?

Possibly.

Perhaps the front page of the forum should have that statement up the top, and a list of sponsors names. Close all sections of the forum quick, before someone asks another question! :lol:


Everything has a downside tone , did you know breathing can give you lung cancer , and eating is a guarrantee to give you bowel cancer some day.

Enjoy any power you have because one day it will die or wear out - thats the nature of the beast.

Come on Delco, I expected more from you mate. Surely if anyone on here knows it would be you :)

[Oztrack Tuning]

Boost under 2000rpm is poorly tolerated in an engine. This is also where many cars spend a lot of time. This is the hardest area to tune along with transition into higher boost at 2500rpm.

Other than that Boost is boost. The safety is the combo of parts , driver behaviours and the tune planning and effectiveness.

Being greedy with boost is dangerous certainly more dangerous than the distinction between turbo or sc.

[NefariousLS1]

almost seems as tho i should get the popcorn and wait for the "his yellow crayon is bigger than my yellow crayon miss teacher lady" exchange for the week to begin

[seedyrom]

turbos haave been proven to shorten the lifespan of an engine by 36%
blowers its only 22%

cheers

[heavyduty1340]

turbos haave been proven to shorten the lifespan of an engine by 36%
blowers its only 22%

cheers

Therefor stroking them must make them last longer lmao :flamin::flamin:

[CarlFST60L]

Whats wrong Tone, starting to have problems already? Worrying sounds coming from your motor?

[Evman]

Hmmmm....
Obviously nobody knows the answer, I had a feeling it would be a bit technical for people on here. :(

90% of the stuff on this forum is opinions anyway, so why expect anything different in this thread? It's a loaded question mate, it's got EVERYTHING to do with how you drive, the contitions you drive in, etc. Moral to the story is dont give your car shit until it's properly warmed up, dont hold it at 6000rpm for several minutes straight, and change the oil regularly and apart from chance breakages, they're both gonna last a while.


turbos haave been proven to shorten the lifespan of an engine by 36%
blowers its only 22%

cheers

There's some numbers, so is this thread done yet? :)

[Brumby]

I would assume that the linear output from a blower being pd or centrifugal would certainly be easier on the engine and drivetrain the the sudden torque rush that a turbo creates

[Grommz]

Therefor stroking them must make them last longer lmao :flamin::flamin:

The research has been done and it was found that stroking does indeed make things longer..


:hide:

[swingtan]

turbos haave been proven to shorten the lifespan of an engine by 36%
blowers its only 22%

cheers


90% of the stuff on this forum is opinions anyway,

There's some numbers, so is this thread done yet? :)

78.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.......

Here's my thoughts though.....

All modifications put strain on the motor, but in different ways. The thing is though, that "strain" is always present, even with no modifications. Drive a stock car as hard as you can and you will put more "strain" on the motor than a FI car that is driven gently. Strain in its self is not a bad thing either, after all "strain" is what power is all about. To get more power you must have more "strain".

The answer to the question though, is "42". The "Hitchhikers" fans will know where I'm going here, the question is wrong... It really doesn't matter which form of FI puts more strain on the motor, it's better to ask "which stresses the motor beyond its design". If you work a piece of spring steel within its specifications, it will retain its "spring" for a very long time. Stress it just beyond its specs. and it will be OK, just not last as long. Increase the strain more and you shorten it's life more. This continues till the strain is so great that the spring fails almost instantly.

Stressing a motor is not that different. Not matter what you do to it, if the "strain" is within the designed limits, it won't really matter how the strain is delivered. The problem with straining the motor is that there are so many more components and factors that need to be taken into account. If you are within all of the limits though, it shouldn't make that much of a difference.

Turbos will make the oil hotter as it lubricates the turbine bearings, which will reduce the oil life. But you can change the oil more often to compensate for this. It's more difficult to cool the intake temps with a blower which could cause detonation due to a hot intake charge. But you can compensate with the tune. Really, if the rest of the motor is built and designed to suit the intended "strain" then it's not really going to matter.

Does a turbo "deliver" strain in a different way to a blower? Yes. Does either
produce more "strain" than the other? It will depend on the setup.

[OUTAtheBloo]

Excellent post swingtan :thumbsup:

[Goatie]

didnt i just read a 100 page thread on this the other day in sams performance area?

dejavu :lol:

[Delco]

Come on Delco, I expected more from you mate. Surely if anyone on here knows it would be you :)

Bit late to ask the question now you have forced induction mate.

Safest bet it to park it in the garage and look at it :)

I know the answer and have stated it many times in threads - some just dont listen - I suspect your installer would give a different slant on it

Forums are great but if you cry wolf all the time no one listens

[S2VYSS]

If you take a quick look at Cyril Horshanks ground breaking manual on turbo & superchargers "Boost Fundamentals" you will find the folowing formula which gives an estimated engine life (+/-3%) in hours once the relevant values are entered.
It is THE formula to end all formula's with regards to boost theory & is used today by experts in the field such Billy Brockett & Hayden Christenson to determine engine life using different parameters.

Xnk =12dndxn (f:g) = f(n):g+nf(n€1)g(1)+n(n € 1)f(n€2):g(2)+n!(n € r)!r!f(n€r):g(r)+f:gn(n + 1) /Xnk=1k2 =16n(n + 1)(2n + 1)Xnk=1k3 =14n2(n + 1)2Tze€aT (z2 cos !T € 2ze€aT + e€2aT cos !T)(z2 € 2ze€aT cos !T + e€2aT )Z ff(t + nT)g = zn + f(z) €Pn€1k=0 zn€kf(kT) (n > 0)

Enter the required details & complete the equation & an answer in hours will be given.

X = boost in psi
n = engine size in cc's
d = required phallus size
f = percieved phallus size
g = actual phallus size

You have left out one of the important quantities from the equation

q = wankus factor as a constant in relation to phallus owner

:teach:

:jerk:

Honestly I thought boost was boost whether it be from a turbo or supercharger and as long as the boost value is the same they would wear the same and that if the engine is not built for boost that after a while the engine will start to make less power and start to show signs of wear and tear.

I think the only real way of knowing which puts more strain on an engine is to have 2 engines back to back of a engine dynos with one with a turbo and the other with a blower, do a set amount kms and the pull them down and see what the results are.

[PBoB]

...Therefore stroking them must make them last longer...


...The research has been done and it was found that stroking does indeed make things longer...

Nah nah nah you guys have your wires crossed, stroking does make things longer, as Grommz said, but if you want something to LAST longer, you need the nasal delivery....uh, technology :yup:

:lol:

[ls1vt209]

If you are worried about breaking things or the longevity of your motor etc, don't go FI, or don't drive it.

A number of people on here have said that a blower puts more strain on the crank, what about the Capa GEN PD powerdyne blower that runs of the power steering pulley? Would this still put strain on the crank because the blower is actaully tensoined off the PS?

Just a thought.

[Blown 540]

Its your right foot that puts strain on the engine.

[lee ls1]

Or just have your engine built for FI :woot:like all the big car manufactures do!

[VK 355]

I reckon blower..

[mickeyVX350]

Nah nah nah you guys have your wires crossed, stroking does make things longer, as Grommz said, but if you want something to LAST longer, you need the nasal delivery....uh, technology :yup:

:lol:

So you are saying blower?!?!?!

[Speedy Gonzales]

This thread doesnt make sense, why hasnt it been shitcanned?

[SLIPPERY]

Nah nah nah you guys have your wires crossed, stroking does make things longer, as Grommz said, but if you want something to LAST longer, you need the nasal delivery....uh, technology :yup:

:lol:

So a bit of spray makes them last longer:nos:

[SS-355]

I would think that turbos would reduce longevity of a factory engine quicker than superchargers due to the massive rush of torque the turbos generate putting extreme loads on the factory bottom end.There must be a reason why that in most high hp turbo applications the use of a forged bottomend is commonplace.

[SVNLTR]

Car manufacturers offer full warranty on turbo and supercharged cars. There can't be that much difference really :)

and car manufactures actually like it when we muck around with our car's

it's a nice way for them to wash their hands when shit hits the fan-

tone-

u dont need to be smart to work it out-

a turbo is using wasted air that was going out of the exhaust anyway-so its really free hp-(more to it then that but u get the drift)

a blower uses the engine-crank what ever to make or flow air- yada yada-

but like delco said-the blower aint as bad as others make it out to be-in stress and robbing power-

they both cause stress when on boost so the % between both would be low-

Thanks

Nick--

[Evman]

The research has been done and it was found that stroking does indeed make things longer..


:hide:

But then they tend to blow pretty quick...

[Uncle Tone]

Whats wrong Tone, starting to have problems already? Worrying sounds coming from your motor?

Far from it mate, its faultless. :)

[Ghosn]

Seems a little odd that those who have purchased a Gen TT kit recently have started to question their decisions? Or Maybe they have a hidden agenda? :confused:

[Uncle Tone]

Bit late to ask the question now you have forced induction mate.

Safest bet it to park it in the garage and look at it :)

I know the answer and have stated it many times in threads - some just dont listen - I suspect your installer would give a different slant on it

Forums are great but if you cry wolf all the time no one listens

All I was asking is what form of FI puts the most strain on the engine internals, whether its from parasitic loss from having to be belt driven, or built up pressure frome having to squeeze a heap of hot exhaust gas through a small hole.

Does anyone reslly know? :confused:

Here is a scenario. Two identical 346's, built for forced induction with the best of everything. Both are identical specs with stock cams. One has a 10psi blower kit on it, one has a 10 psi turbo kit on it.

Which one of these engines has more stress placed upon its internal components?

Oil, drive belts, pulleys, etc are not part of the discussion here. Purely just engine internals.

OK....lets start at the spark. Plug fires, ignites the mix, piston is forced down. At this stage the crank needs to turn the blower as well, but the turbo places no strain on anything.

Piston comes up, exhaust valve opens, gases on the way out. Blower still needs turning, but there is no effort (probably helped by a good set of headers here) in expelling exhaust gas. Turbo motor pushing exhaust gas out straight into the turbo, under intense pressure, causing impeller to spin. This would take some effort, but does it strain the engine internally?

Inlet valve opens, mixture gets blown in, piston goes down in both instances, only the blower causing strain by needing to be turned. Piston up, compression, spark, and all over again.

Which is the most stressful on the engine bits?

[Ghosn]

Seems a little odd that those who have purchased a Gen TT kit recently have started to question their decisions? Or Maybe they have a hidden agenda? :confused:



Doh! I promised myself to never post in a tone thread ever again... I fail :(

[Evman]

Does anyone reslly know? :confused:

Probably not. The only people that would have the funding, tooling, etc to study such things are engine/car manufacturers. The reason it's not known is probably because it's never been done. Why would a manufacturer devleop two separate systems knowing they're only going to use one in the end? The people in the suits just say 'ok this is going to be ____ (turbo/supercharged) go and do it'.

[macca_779]

Seems a little odd that those who have purchased a Gen TT kit recently have started to question their decisions? Or Maybe they have a hidden agenda? :confused:



Doh! I promised myself to never post in a tone thread ever again... I fail :(

Tone is not questioning his choice in FI kit, far from it im sure.. He is merely asking a question. I think its hilarious that people think he has an ulterior motive for asking it.

[Uncle Tone]

Seems a little odd that those who have purchased a Gen TT kit recently have started to question their decisions? Or Maybe they have a hidden agenda? :confused:

I'm not questioning my decision, I love the car the way it is. I'm just interested to know which FI solution puts more strain on the engine internals.

[DaveHAT]

I'm not questioning my decision, I love the car the way it is. I'm just interested to know which FI solution puts more strain on the engine internals.

Why? :confused:

Boost is boost. Whether it's supercharged of turbo :sleep: would be irrelevant.

Why does it suddenly matter?

A more discussion worthy question would be ... does repetitive BS and questions put strain on a forum? :goodjob:

[slolux]

...................

[ATTNSEEKR]

Why? :confused:

Boost is boost. Whether it's supercharged of turbo :sleep: would be irrelevant.

Why does it suddenly matter?

A more discussion worthy question would be ... does repetitive BS and questions put strain on a forum? :goodjob:

:rofl:

spose the alternator, power steering and aircon compressor is straining the motor too, best go remove them now:doh:

[Uncle Tone]

Why? :confused:

Boost is boost. Whether it's supercharged of turbo :sleep: would be irrelevant.

Why does it suddenly matter?

A more discussion worthy question would be ... does repetitive BS and questions put strain on a forum? :goodjob:

Why? I want to know Tiger, thats all.

If you don't want to read about it move on to another thread mate. Simple......errr....maybe not simple enough for your good self but more than palatable for most here. :D

[Stelth]

Well , just for an example my car has a Procharger D1 on a stock unopened LS1 as i have posted before.

I rev the thing to 7000 rpm each gear , and with a 3.9 inch pulley it just touches 15 psi.

I estimate it produces about 800 to 900 CFM at that rev on my engine.

Done almost 20 X 1/4 mile passes and the motor has not said boo.

As a daily driver it is not driven soft either.

Probably pushing my luck , i know.

I would be willing to bet that the same boost level but through a turbo setup would almost guaranty instant damage.

I think the fact that this type of blower delivers a gradual boost curve, is obviously friendly to my engine.

The same psi , but as a sudden rush of pressure at a low rpm would cause big amounts of strain on an engine.

Has anyone else pushed an engine similar to me , if so i would be very interested to know your experience.

[SirNemesis]

Hey Stelth. I'm just curious how many k's your LS1 has got on it, and how many it had on it when you strapped the Procharger on.

[Stelth]

Hey Stelth. I'm just curious how many k's your LS1 has got on it, and how many it had on it when you strapped the Procharger on.

It has 120,000 Km and i have done about 18,000 Km with the blower.

Before the blower it has seen over 50+ 1/4 mile runs.

Also another example what a stock engine can take under Nitrous force is Johnny's VT in the CV performance section.

Just wanted to also say that i have always run Castrol Edge 10/60 and changed oil + filter religiously less then 5000 km every time.

[Sonnymad]

Maybe someone should ask the mercedes engineers why they fit blowers to their v8 range as dailey drivers...

enjoy...this is straight out of the box..

YouTube - E55 W211 KOMPRESSOR DYNO RUN STOCK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqydTyOmJY)

[clubbie]

Seems a little odd that those who have purchased a Gen TT kit recently have started to question their decisions? Or Maybe they have a hidden agenda? :confused:

:bravo::bravo::bravo::bravo: Great minds think alike.

Maybe trying to even the score?

:search:

Found very helpful info on this very site.

Can I clear up how do you measure strain Tone? For example one result of strain would surely include which FI method is more likely to catch fire.

So why hasn't this thread been closed?

[iamhappy46]

Its your right foot that puts strain on the engine.

Therefore, UT's engine will never see boost and last as long as any other mildly modified VE HSV :rofl:

[Funky_Munky]

Hey UT. I have the perfect solution for you.

http://blog.text4cars.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/flintstone.jpg

No bolt-ons, no stroking and no FI application what so ever. The only internal stress will be on your calfs, quads and glutes.

Seriously though, everyone on this forum is glad that you have made the decision to go with the TT. Im sure that you are also 100% pleased with the product which is somthing you tend to publicise in ever 5th post. Whilst I can understand that, seemingly, you want to educate people on what you perceieve to be the best type of FI application after having experienced a TT, you have to understand that the choice comes down to personal preference.

Pretty much all members can see this thread for what it is - your not so hidden agenda to try and push the Gen TT BB as FI application supreme over any form of supercharger. There really shouldnt be any reason you would be genuinely interested as you already have purchased the Gen TT system. I dong know, maybe you are gunning for the 'Premium Sponsor' tag next to your avatar, or you really do want an answer, but in either case this is getting tiring. Its much like the responses when a new member joins and starts a thread titled 'Best mods for my LS1'. The usual response would be 'use the search button' or 'call a sponsor'. I think both of the answers apply to any turbo vs. blower thread you start.

Seriously mate, a rose by any other name is still a rose... or in this case, bullshit is still bullshit regardless of the thread. Move on.

[seedyrom]

Geez ... for Faraz to fire up, you've really hit a nerve Tone!!!


Mercedes use Superchargers
Holden use Superchargers
Toyota have used Superchargers

Porsche use Turbos
Ford use Turbos
Holden have used Turbos
Toyota use Turbos

Nissan and VW have/use BOTH at the same time!!!

blah blah friggen blah

Who give s a flying f__k???

If there was one clear answer, why would manufacturers use one over the other and vice versa?

Those twin charged VW's going around at the moment must be hand grenades eh Tone?

****en hell ... I don't know how your mates keep slapping your back on the great threads posted. :rofl:


Here's you so wanted answer Tone.

Unfortunately it involves you actually doing work, rather than posting whatever verbal diarrhea spews out of your mouth which you feel everyone should clean up.


You want reliability? Don't take an internet forums advice (amazing that this place is the source of all the knowledge in the world), go to a real race - like the Le Mans 24 Hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_of_Le_Mans


Another rule that is unique to Le Mans is a requirement for cars to be shut off while they are being refueled in the pits. Based not only the notion that it is safer and less of a fire hazard to do so, this also allows for another test of reliability, because cars have to test their ability to restart many times under race conditions.

Find out what engines they run in the LMP1 format. (Their budgets are a little higher than LS1TurboTone.com's).
And there lies your answer.



(The answer is, they run whatever they want, that is reliable - and there is no right or wrong combo. Just make sure it is quality gear)

[Uncle Tone]

Maybe someone should ask the mercedes engineers why they fit blowers to their v8 range as dailey drivers...

enjoy...this is straight out of the box..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqydTyOmJY


I think they are dropping the blown motors in favour of turbos Sonny, aren't they?

[sandmanls1]

depends on how much boost your run and the tuning as well. Thins are not set up properley go bang.

[Uncle Tone]

Hey UT. I have the perfect solution for you.

No bolt-ons, no stroking and no FI application what so ever. The only internal stress will be on your calfs, quads and glutes.

Seriously though, everyone on this forum is glad that you have made the decision to go with the TT. Im sure that you are also 100% pleased with the product which is somthing you tend to publicise in ever 5th post. Whilst I can understand that, seemingly, you want to educate people on what you perceieve to be the best type of FI application after having experienced a TT, you have to understand that the choice comes down to personal preference.

Pretty much all members can see this thread for what it is - your not so hidden agenda to try and push the Gen TT BB as FI application supreme over any form of supercharger. There really shouldnt be any reason you would be genuinely interested as you already have purchased the Gen TT system. I dong know, maybe you are gunning for the 'Premium Sponsor' tag next to your avatar, or you really do want an answer, but in either case this is getting tiring. Its much like the responses when a new member joins and starts a thread titled 'Best mods for my LS1'. The usual response would be 'use the search button' or 'call a sponsor'. I think both of the answers apply to any turbo vs. blower thread you start.

Seriously mate, a rose by any other name is still a rose... or in this case, bullshit is still bullshit regardless of the thread. Move on.

Why do people think I'm pushing some hidden aganda here??? :confused:

So I guess nobody knows the answer for sure.....or they do know the answer, assume that I know the answer also, therfore presume that knowing the answer enables me to push some sort of hidden agenda......and if you think about that theres my answer right there! :lol:

Seriously, I fail to see why this topic can't be discussed. Its physics, nothing more.

[SICK SS]

i would imagine that 10psi turbo is the same as 10psiblown although one would have to think that a top mount blower would create more heat in the engine vs side mount or turbos

i reckon a turbo would be harder on the gear as a supercharger dont make full boost until redline weres a turbo develops full boost alot earlyer in the rev range so a turbo engine would have spent more time under boost comparied to a supercharger running the same psi

[PBoB]

So a bit of spray makes them last longer:nos:

Zackery!!

"Stick it, up your nose and, up it goes":deal:

[hsv364]

All I was asking is what form of FI puts the most strain on the engine internals, whether its from parasitic loss from having to be belt driven, or built up pressure frome having to squeeze a heap of hot exhaust gas through a small hole.

Does anyone reslly know? :confused:

Here is a scenario. Two identical 346's, built for forced induction with the best of everything. Both are identical specs with stock cams. One has a 10psi blower kit on it, one has a 10 psi turbo kit on it.

Which one of these engines has more stress placed upon its internal components?

Oil, drive belts, pulleys, etc are not part of the discussion here. Purely just engine internals.

OK....lets start at the spark. Plug fires, ignites the mix, piston is forced down. At this stage the crank needs to turn the blower as well, but the turbo places no strain on anything.

Piston comes up, exhaust valve opens, gases on the way out. Blower still needs turning, but there is no effort (probably helped by a good set of headers here) in expelling exhaust gas. Turbo motor pushing exhaust gas out straight into the turbo, under intense pressure, causing impeller to spin. This would take some effort, but does it strain the engine internally?

Inlet valve opens, mixture gets blown in, piston goes down in both instances, only the blower causing strain by needing to be turned. Piston up, compression, spark, and all over again.

Which is the most stressful on the engine bits?

I would say in this scenario above that the belt driven supercharged combo would put more stress on the crank/motor due to it being force to drive the gearing for the supercharger ? Wouldn't the motor have to use/make more horsepower to produce the same boost pressure as the turbo ?
PS dont flame me i don't really no the answer just adding my thoughts..

[Uncle Tone]

I would say in this scenario above that the belt driven supercharged combo would put more stress on the crank/motor due to it being force to drive the gearing for the supercharger ? Wouldn't the motor have to use/make more horsepower to produce the same boost pressure as the turbo ?
PS dont flame me i don't really no the answer just adding my thoughts..

I guess the blower combo would produce less power per PSI because of this....but I dunno. How much HP does a turbo sap up by needing the motor to physically ram the exhaust gases through it?

Interesting point on the HP versus boost pressure.

[CarlFST60L]

I guess the blower combo would produce less power per PSI because of this....but I dunno. How much HP does a turbo sap up by needing the motor to physically ram the exhaust gases through it?

Interesting point on the HP versus boost pressure.

I think I remember a wise man once saying turbo's have about 2% loss and 10% for a good SC. I am sure there are plenty of different SC with plenty of different loss characteristics.

I am pretty sure a 471 supercharger will would kill the 6L if you wanted to make 400kwrw :lol:

[SICK SS]

I guess the blower combo would produce less power per PSI because of this....but I dunno. How much HP does a turbo sap up by needing the motor to physically ram the exhaust gases through it?

Interesting point on the HP versus boost pressure.

here a dyno sheet cyntrifical blower Vs turbo same engine different dyno same peak power but every rpm the turbo out preforms the blower and shits all over it in the torque department
turbo. turbo 9psi blower 10 psi
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh38/superminer12345/dynosheet.jpg
blower
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh38/superminer12345/DSCF0661.jpg
i roughly ploted the rwkw on the rpm line of the blower dyno sheet
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh38/superminer12345/blowerVsturbo.jpg

[SS346]

This is from Dave Handley,(he builds top fuel engines) he says that top fueler engine need 800hp to drive the blower, BUT, thats pumping 50-60psi of boost.

p.s. the fueler engines make about 8500hp, half of that comes from the fuel :eek:

[Ahyeah]

Honestly, if you can get 200,000 - 300,000km from either engine combo, providing they are sensible low boost options then whats the problem?

I mean how many people here honestly expect there n/a engine to last them well over 300,000km without ever touching any engine internals?

I know I dont expect that much from my engine... its only bits of metal, metal wears.

[SirNemesis]

Considering the cost of a crate engine, I'm perfectly comfortable with only getting 200,000k's out of an engine (or even 150,000k's). I don't have FI (yet), but I also don't have any fears forcing some air into an engine with 150,000k's on it.

[Delco]

I guess the blower combo would produce less power per PSI because of this....but I dunno. How much HP does a turbo sap up by needing the motor to physically ram the exhaust gases through it?

Interesting point on the HP versus boost pressure.


Mute point really , how much hp do you loose by restricting the exhaust , you need to use hp to make hp in both applications.

Boost is only a measure of the engines restrictionin the intake system , put smaller intake ports in and boost increases but power decreases , put a big cam and big intake ports and boost decreases but power rises.


And then there is different ways of delivering boost , a PD blower that has a flat boost curve , a belt driven turbo ( ie a vortech ) that has a slow boost rise and then a turbo which is in the middle.

Tone I would be worried more about wearing your engine out by idling it for extended periods on the turbo timer .

[Oztrack Tuning]

It all will come down to efficiency. We do both and have both to show customers. what it comes down to is preference. If someone wants a calmer quieter high performance feel then go Turbo. If they want a wild sound and feel i would go SC. Ofcourse you can make a turbo have wild sound but you arent going to get the same feral V8 beat of a heads/cammed/sc car.

[KeenGolfer]

I mean how many people here honestly expect there n/a engine to last them well over 300,000km without ever touching any engine internals?

Me for one, I'd expect a N/A engine to last over 500,000 kms like quite a few forum members have done.

[ATOMIC MALOO R8]

Me for one, I'd expect a N/A engine to last over 500,000 kms like quite a few forum members have done.

how many of you KEEP you car for 500,000 ks the most i have ever put on a daley is 180,000
if it is a taxi or a limo your are probably not going to FI it anyway :)

[SS Enforcer]

Tone I would be worried more about wearing your engine out by idling it for extended periods on the turbo timer .

I needed a bit of a laugh today and now I have it :jester:

Thanks for that.

cheers

[10sec_rx7]

Mute point really , how much hp do you loose by restricting the exhaust , you need to use hp to make hp in both applications.


you loose stuff all...

i tested this when finishing off Chris ute last week, had the wrong wastegate spring in it and on 2psi made 325rwkw.. pre turbo made 319rwkw...

[zackde]

Geez ... for Faraz to fire up, you've really hit a nerve Tone!!!


Mercedes use Superchargers
Holden use Superchargers
Toyota have used Superchargers

Porsche use Turbos
Ford use Turbos
Holden have used Turbos
Toyota use Turbos

Nissan and VW have/use BOTH at the same time!!!

blah blah friggen blah

Who give s a flying f__k???

If there was one clear answer, why would manufacturers use one over the other and vice versa?

Those twin charged VW's going around at the moment must be hand grenades eh Tone?

****en hell ... I don't know how your mates keep slapping your back on the great threads posted. :rofl:


Here's you so wanted answer Tone.

Unfortunately it involves you actually doing work, rather than posting whatever verbal diarrhea spews out of your mouth which you feel everyone should clean up.


You want reliability? Don't take an internet forums advice (amazing that this place is the source of all the knowledge in the world), go to a real race - like the Le Mans 24 Hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_of_Le_Mans



Find out what engines they run in the LMP1 format. (Their budgets are a little higher than LS1TurboTone.com's).
And there lies your answer.



(The answer is, they run whatever they want, that is reliable - and there is no right or wrong combo. Just make sure it is quality gear)

To clarify a point, Toyota currently use both forms of FI!! They have been Turboing there Diesel engines for some years now and have just recently released there TRD Supercharged range. It is interesting to note that there performance arm chose Eaton compressors.

[iamhappy46]

Not to mention that Holden also still use turbos on the Astra SRiT but then GMPP also have the LS9.

This thread needs to die!

[Delco]

you loose stuff all...

i tested this when finishing off Chris ute last week, had the wrong wastegate spring in it and on 2psi made 325rwkw.. pre turbo made 319rwkw...

2 psi means the engine has consumed more air than it needs as it is registering positive pressure in the intake, but it has achieved over 100% volumetric efficiency , so a 6kw gain is well down on the sort of performance increase you would expect .

Given the wategate was open then the exhaust restriction would be nowhere as bad as with the wastegate closed.

I have dyno'd a few cars that have blown intercooler hoses off while testing , power is always way down on its N/A form .

[iamhappy46]

2 psi means the engine has consumed more air than it needs as it is registering positive pressure in the intake, but it has achieved over 100% volumetric efficiency , so a 6kw gain is well down on the sort of performance increase you would expect .

Given the wategate was open then the exhaust restriction would be nowhere as bad as with the wastegate closed.

I have dyno'd a few cars that have blown intercooler hoses off while testing , power is always way down on its N/A form .

Just because it has positive boost, does not mean it has more than 100% volumetric efficency, especially with such a low boost pressure.

[Delco]

Just because it has positive boost, does not mean it has more than 100% volumetric efficency, especially with such a low boost pressure.

If the cylinder is full then 100% volumetric efficiency has been achieved , most modern engines get over 85% efficiency N/A , any good forced induction will get well over 100% VE . more boost just squeezes the air in denser.

Nothing to do with this thread , which seems to be the norm with tones threads.

[Evman]

here a dyno sheet cyntrifical blower Vs turbo same engine different dyno same peak power but every rpm the turbo out preforms the blower and shits all over it in the torque department
turbo. turbo 9psi blower 10 psi


Interesting it made very similar power, I would have expected the blower to be lower than turbo due to the power loss from driving it... Perhaps the power loss is exadurated? Compare that to a top-mount blower and then it'd be interesting. Then surely the peak power would be lower but the torue and possibly low end power would be up?

[iamhappy46]

If the cylinder is full then 100% volumetric efficiency has been achieved , most modern engines get over 85% efficiency N/A , any good forced induction will get well over 100% VE . more boost just squeezes the air in denser.

Nothing to do with this thread , which seems to be the norm with tones threads.

To generate 2psi boost on an engine with 85% volumetric efficiency, the VE fill rate would be under 97%. Forcing air into the cylinder under pressure from the intake manifold does not guarantee that the cylinder will be more than 100% filled by the time the intake valve closes. Just more air consumed than it would have sucked in being N/A.

Either way, your right. 6Kw gain from a roughly 13% increase in air flow is not huge.

[macca_779]

Just because it has positive boost, does not mean it has more than 100% volumetric efficency, especially with such a low boost pressure.

Delco is actually right here dude.. Don't take the VE table values in EFI LIVE as gospel VE.. They are only numbers.

[iamhappy46]

I am not, it is physics.

To make it simple:
Hypothetical engine consumes 850CFM N/A with 85% VE, then it requires a '2psi + 14.7psi / 14.7psi' increase in air flow to make 2psi boost(13.6% air flow increase), therefore the engine would only require 966CFM rather than 1130CFM to make 2psi boost :)

[macca_779]

I am not, it is physics.

To make it simple:
Hypothetical engine consumes 850CFM N/A with 85% VE, then it requires a '2psi + 14.7psi / 14.7psi' increase in air flow to make 2psi boost(13.6% air flow increase), therefore the engine would only require 966CFM rather than 1130CFM to make 2psi boost :)

Whoever said an N/A configured LS1 actually gets all 1 bar into the cylinder?

Have a read of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_efficiency

[Evman]

I am not, it is physics.

To make it simple:
Hypothetical engine consumes 850CFM N/A with 85% VE, then it requires a '2psi + 14.7psi / 14.7psi' increase in air flow to make 2psi boost(13.6% air flow increase), therefore the engine would only require 966CFM rather than 1130CFM to make 2psi boost :)

Whats the volumetric efficiency of a stock LS1? Is 85% a pretty standard figure? (Seriosuly, I have no idea :))

[iamhappy46]

Whoever said an N/A configured LS1 actually gets all 1 bar into the cylinder?

Have a read of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_efficiency

The formula is the pressure ratio formula for calculating boost pressure. It does not matter whether an LS1 can generate 14.7inHg of vacuum, just the formula required to generate 2psi of boost in the inlet manifold.


Whats the volumetric efficiency of a stock LS1? Is 85% a pretty standard figure? (Seriosuly, I have no idea :))

85% is typical for a stock 2 valve V8.

I got a peak of 111% in a little N/A Nissan 4 cylinder

[S2VYSS]

I guess the blower combo would produce less power per PSI because of this....but I dunno. How much HP does a turbo sap up by needing the motor to physically ram the exhaust gases through it?

Interesting point on the HP versus boost pressure.

Why are you always pointing out the so called "bad" points of superchargers?

I personally think the longer this thread is open the more likely people are to waste time the could be using to post on proper threads, reading this thread!

[JezzaB]

85% is typical for a stock 2 valve V8.
I got a peak of 111% in a little N/A Nissan 4 cylinder

The perfect NA flowing engine should see 100% Volumetric Efficency. How can you get 111% VE N/A? Thats like saying you get 109% Injector Duty Cycle. Its calculated but impossible.

[iamhappy46]

The perfect NA flowing engine should see 100% Volumetric Efficency. How can you get 111% VE N/A? Thats like saying you get 109% Injector Duty Cycle. Its calculated but impossible.

It is possible, having the intake air flow speed so high that the cylinder ingests more than 535cc of air per cylinder(it was a 2143cc motor) and does not suffer from reversion before the intake valve closes. Head flow data was over 330CFM@28 inches of mercury. Normally, these motors suffer from poor idle but the variable valve lift and timing head solved that.

Have a read of the Wiki article that was posted above, N/A engines are quite capable of flowing huge amounts of air. The Honda S2000 and Honda Integra Type R had factory VE figures over 100% not to mention the Nissan Primera BTCC cars had 115% VE :)

[Evman]

The perfect NA flowing engine should see 100% Volumetric Efficency. How can you get 111% VE N/A? Thats like saying you get 109% Injector Duty Cycle. Its calculated but impossible.

I've heard of getting over 100% VE. It was from the intake design. Apparently the particular engine (I think it got 109%) would pulsate inside the intake manifold and effectively pressurise the cylinder. Pretty good design if ya ask me :)

[JezzaB]

It is possible, having the intake air flow speed so high that the cylinder ingests more than 535cc of air per cylinder(it was a 2143cc motor) and does not suffer from reversion before the intake valve closes. Head flow data was over 330CFM@28 inches of mercury. Normally, these motors suffer from poor idle but the variable valve lift and timing head solved that.

Have a read of the Wiki article that was posted above, N/A engines are quite capable of flowing huge amounts of air. The Honda S2000 and Honda Integra Type R had factory VE figures over 100% not to mention the Nissan Primera BTCC cars had 115% VE :)

I stand corrected ;)

[iamhappy46]

I stand corrected.

No problems mate, its a tough concept to get the head around :)

As for the original off topic:

To put it a different way, just because you have 2psi of inlet manifold pressure does not mean you have 2psi of cylinder pressure. The cylinder itself can still be less than 100% full on low boost. Hopefully, that explains what I am talking about a bit better!

[Uncle Tone]

Mute point really , how much hp do you loose by restricting the exhaust , you need to use hp to make hp in both applications.

Boost is only a measure of the engines restrictionin the intake system , put smaller intake ports in and boost increases but power decreases , put a big cam and big intake ports and boost decreases but power rises.


And then there is different ways of delivering boost , a PD blower that has a flat boost curve , a belt driven turbo ( ie a vortech ) that has a slow boost rise and then a turbo which is in the middle.

Tone I would be worried more about wearing your engine out by idling it for extended periods on the turbo timer .

I don't have a turbo timer.

I'm interested to know, not so much what restricts power from both types of FI, but what puts strain on engine internals. For example, does the spinning of the blower cause as much strain on the engine as the exhaust gases being forced by the exhaust stroke through a turbo?

Which form of FI requires more work from the engine to drive it?

[Stelth]

I don't have a turbo timer.

I'm interested to know, what puts strain on engine internals.

One answer is for sure . . . WOT !

[seedyrom]

nevermind.

[Stelth]

nevermind.

I'm getting a bit like that myself.

[Uncle Tone]

I'm getting a bit like that myself.

Whoops. Did someone already answer the question and I missed it?

Silly me. Could you point me towards the answer? Cheers! :D

[seedyrom]

http://www.oz8.org/gallery/albums/Seedyrom/tone_001.png

[Hammer]

too much air pressure would be the #1 killer i would think tone in FI and excessive WOT. also with a off the side blower i would think the extra loading on the crank would predomintly wear the seal out quicker than usual. as i dont think they are viton based. also depends how u drive a fi car as well if u thrash it it will fail....

[S2VYSS]

Close this thread, no matter how you say it or restructure your question, its clear you dont like superchargers, just let it go! People who want to spend their money on them will and it shouldnt matter what they do as its their money!

[Hammer]

lol seedy now youve done it !!! he'll be on here searching for the answer to what the red pill does differntly to the blue pill now....

[Evman]

http://www.oz8.org/gallery/albums/Seedyrom/tone_001.png


HAHAHA! I love it. Not so much just for this instance but in general. Gold!!!

Haha it's even titled "tone_001" :jester:

[Uncle Tone]

Close this thread, no matter how you say it or restructure your question, its clear you dont like superchargers, just let it go! People who want to spend their money on them will and it shouldnt matter what they do as its their money!

Eh?? :confused:

Who said I didn't like superchargers? I was very close to buying one at the start of the year! :slap:

I'm not interested in what other people do with their money, so I don't know where that came from.

Can you answer the question? At all?? :toetap:

[clubbie]

So is that the question now?

[BlownLS7]

Tone,this should end your suspence,you have the best system (well style of FI anyway).oh 1 thing,if you only ever on the street.then your car will last a long time.as you dont race it.

but have a read let me know if this guy answers your question

If both systems are making 10 lbs of boost and thus generating a 40% increase in engine output on the same base 200hp engine, then the turbocharged setup would be producing 280HP and the supercharged setup would be producing 240HP.

The supercharger would have to increase boost pressure in order to make the same amount of power as the turbocharger. This extra boost pressure obviously will cause greater wear on the engine itself thus resulting in shorter engine life and less reliability

Another factor which causes superchargers to have less reliability than turbochargers is the fact that the supercharger system puts increase stress on the front half of the crankshaft due to the tension placed on it by the pulleys and belt that drive the supercharger.


Conclusion
When comparing supercharging and turbocharging systems and weighing out one’s options on what to buy to make one’s high-performance street machine faster, one must take into account the efficiency, reliability, versatility, and cost of his options.

If you choose to do so, you will undoubtedly see the overwhelming superiority of turbocharging to supercharging. Many arguments have been raised at cruise-ins, dinner tables, performance shops, internet forums, and even grocery stores.

But the only way to solve this argument is at the track. Time and time again, turbocharged cars have given out beatings to supercharged cars, and until the majority of racers start seeing through the facade created by supercharger companies to cover up their shortcomings,

cheers paul

ps i read this from net.

[seedyrom]

You've got an engine, with 8 x 200g slugs moving up and down.
The pistons (and conrods and pins - all up, probably a kilo each) are travelling at 58.96 ft/sec whilst at 4000 rpms.

In 1 second, if left travelling on a straight path, they would cover 20 metres, yet they are not. 66 times within that second they stop their forward momentum, and totally reverse their direction, head the other way, then do an about face yet again.

You've got 8 x 1kg (approx) bodies of motion attached to a crank shaft which push and pull it with phenominal force, in order to drive the car.

You can't even fathom what 66 times a second would look like. We are talking HUGE HUGE HUGE!! stresses on the engine.
(I think my maths must be out, it can't be 66 times a second can it?)

Yet you are getting caught up with a bees dick of load?


Even if the supercharger stresses an engine 10 times that of a turbo ... it is NOTHING!!!! compared to what the engine is doing to itself.


Enjoy your ride .... but it doesn't seem you ever will :rolleyes:
(yeah yeah - you love your car, its perfect, we've all heard that rhetoric)

The out clause is the super/turbo charging wont kill the engine any quicker, but poor installation/tuning/fueling will.

My maths is wrong :o

Its 66/8 times a sec.

But you get the idea :)

I forgot to add the "X" factor that kills any car due to any performance mod

[nudenut]

My maths is wrong :o

Its 66/8 times a sec.

Nope, right first time - each piston moves up and down 66 (and two thirds) times per second at 4000RPM.

But apart from that I agree, it's the higher combustion pressures and temperatures (and associated stress) that are much more likely to kill an engine, and they'll be very similar for the same levels of boost.

Bowlerr, not sure where you got that from, but if I had a S/C setup that only gave me a 20% increase in power at 10psi boost, I'd be very shat off.

[iamhappy46]

You've got an engine, with 8 x 200g slugs moving up and down.
The pistons (and conrods and pins - all up, probably a kilo each) are travelling at 58.96 ft/sec whilst at 4000 rpms.

In 1 second, if left travelling on a straight path, they would cover 20 metres, yet they are not. 66 times within that second they stop their forward momentum, and totally reverse their direction, head the other way, then do an about face yet again.

You've got 8 x 1kg (approx) bodies of motion attached to a crank shaft which push and pull it with phenominal force, in order to drive the car.

You can't even fathom what 66 times a second would look like. We are talking HUGE HUGE HUGE!! stresses on the engine.
(I think my maths must be out, it can't be 66 times a second can it?)

Yet you are getting caught up with a bees dick of load?


Even if the supercharger stresses an engine 10 times that of a turbo ... it is NOTHING!!!! compared to what the engine is doing to itself.


Enjoy your ride .... but it doesn't seem you ever will :rolleyes:
(yeah yeah - you love your car, its perfect, we've all heard that rhetoric)

The out clause is the super/turbo charging wont kill the engine any quicker, but poor installation/tuning/fueling will.

My maths is wrong :o

Its 66/8 times a sec.

But you get the idea :)

I forgot to add the "X" factor that kills any car due to any performance mod

Also, to add that an engine wear rate is exponential to its rpm. Double the rpm and four times the stress is placed on the engine due to the exponential nature of acceleration forces on the big ends.

[S2VYSS]

Eh?? :confused:

Who said I didn't like superchargers? I was very close to buying one at the start of the year! :slap:

I'm not interested in what other people do with their money, so I don't know where that came from.

Can you answer the question? At all?? :toetap:

But now that you have a twin turbo setup, you clearly dont like superchargers now

Everyone has answered the question in every way possible now

What answer are you looking for? When people said that superchargers put strain on the crank due to the drive system setup, you turn around and say, I wasnt asking that question!

BOOST IS BOOST! Regardless of what system puts it in the engine, it still is that many psi and will have the same effect

:vpo:

Mods please close this thread now!

[the big fist]

Seriously, people should just give up on these sort of debates.
Some people like strokers, some like blowers, some like turbos.
I would have a supercharger any day over a turbo, even if it produced the same power and torque at the same time with the same graphs.

[DaveHAT]

But now that you have a twin turbo setup, you clearly dont like superchargers now

Everyone has answered the question in every way possible now

What answer are you looking for? When people said that superchargers put strain on the crank due to the drive system setup, you turn around and say, I wasnt asking that question!

BOOST IS BOOST! Regardless of what system puts it in the engine, it still is that many psi and will have the same effect

:vpo:

Mods please close this thread now!

:bravo: ... you must remember that you're dealing with a cupcake who's created a thinly veiled way of reinventing the same question ... and asking it 57899 different ways.

Close one pointless thread and another another thinly veiled claptrapfest will no doubt spring up modified just enough to "appear different" to the last one. :goodjob:

Maybe we should all embrace the same pointlessness and ask mind challenging questions such as why is water wet ... or ... who stole the chips & why !!! :confused:

:closed:

[Blown 540]

Why is water wet ---:confused::confused::confused::rofl:

[S2VYSS]

Or when you turn on the light does the dark disappear or does the light just take over?

Are were does the dark go? Does it hide or just take smoko?

[Blown 540]

Or when you turn on the light does the dark disappear or does the light just take over?

Are were does the dark go? Does it hide or just take smoko?



:lmao::lmao::lmao::bravo:

[Ryzz]

Enough is enough. This is almost worse than the age old Holden vs Ford debate. Tone if you can convince me via PM that you STILL need an answer to this and you cant figure it out based on the countless views posted here, ill consider reopening the thread.

In the mean time this thread is closed. Enjoy the reading, there is a lot of good technical information in this thread that is well worth the thread. Thank you to those who actually contributed factual technical details, and thanks to the remainder of the "Me too", "What he said" idiots that just had to waste everyone's time and put in there pointless 2 cents - GROW UP.

:closed: