Turbo Vs SuperCharger
#16
10-29-2004 | 02:01 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,438
Likes: 1
From: Palm Coast, FL
I don't think you can really say one is better than the other. There are SO many types and variations of each kind of power adder, that one version of each probably works well on the same type of vehicle. You can install a turbo that's totally wrong on a vehicle and go much slower. Same with a blower. Each has different rpm ranges, efficiency maps, power bands, etc. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Positive displacement blowers like roots and twin screws have awesome low end punch, but don't pull up top like a turbo or centrifugal. They also rob TONS of power from the motor to drive them. Centrifugal blowers make mad top end power, but don't have the low end grunt of a roots or twin screw. That's because they are engine driven, and the impellers don't move lots of air down low. Turbos don't rob engine power to drive them, and with a proper sized setup you can make good low end power. Also, since the turbo isn't engine driven, you can spool it up for a quicker launch. However, turbo setups are pricey, take up lots of room, are more difficult to tune, and turbos are high maintenace.
I'd still stick with a positive displacement blower for a mostly street driven truck. You just can't match the low end grunt, and our trucks need it. but for all out performance, I think you will start to see turbo and centrifugal setup trucks taking over the top ET spots next year
.
I'd still stick with a positive displacement blower for a mostly street driven truck. You just can't match the low end grunt, and our trucks need it. but for all out performance, I think you will start to see turbo and centrifugal setup trucks taking over the top ET spots next year
.
#18
10-29-2004 | 03:31 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
From: Oklahoma
Originally posted by LightningTuner
I don't think you can really say one is better than the other. There are SO many types and variations of each kind of power adder, that one version of each probably works well on the same type of vehicle. You can install a turbo that's totally wrong on a vehicle and go much slower. Same with a blower. Each has different rpm ranges, efficiency maps, power bands, etc. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Positive displacement blowers like roots and twin screws have awesome low end punch, but don't pull up top like a turbo or centrifugal. They also rob TONS of power from the motor to drive them. Centrifugal blowers make mad top end power, but don't have the low end grunt of a roots or twin screw. That's because they are engine driven, and the impellers don't move lots of air down low. Turbos don't rob engine power to drive them, and with a proper sized setup you can make good low end power. Also, since the turbo isn't engine driven, you can spool it up for a quicker launch. However, turbo setups are pricey, take up lots of room, are more difficult to tune, and turbos are high maintenace.
I'd still stick with a positive displacement blower for a mostly street driven truck. You just can't match the low end grunt, and our trucks need it. but for all out performance, I think you will start to see turbo and centrifugal setup trucks taking over the top ET spots next year.
I don't think you can really say one is better than the other. There are SO many types and variations of each kind of power adder, that one version of each probably works well on the same type of vehicle. You can install a turbo that's totally wrong on a vehicle and go much slower. Same with a blower. Each has different rpm ranges, efficiency maps, power bands, etc. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Positive displacement blowers like roots and twin screws have awesome low end punch, but don't pull up top like a turbo or centrifugal. They also rob TONS of power from the motor to drive them. Centrifugal blowers make mad top end power, but don't have the low end grunt of a roots or twin screw. That's because they are engine driven, and the impellers don't move lots of air down low. Turbos don't rob engine power to drive them, and with a proper sized setup you can make good low end power. Also, since the turbo isn't engine driven, you can spool it up for a quicker launch. However, turbo setups are pricey, take up lots of room, are more difficult to tune, and turbos are high maintenace.
I'd still stick with a positive displacement blower for a mostly street driven truck. You just can't match the low end grunt, and our trucks need it. but for all out performance, I think you will start to see turbo and centrifugal setup trucks taking over the top ET spots next year
.
Best explanation of this issue I have seen, on these forums.
However, I think the "fastest" systems for the TRUCKS will be the Whipple 3.3 TWIN screw or a TWIN turbo set up (and related mods). These two systems "should" provide the best lowend, midrange and topend.
#19
10-29-2004 | 04:11 PM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,928
Likes: 1
From: The People's Republic of Los Angeles
Originally posted by LightningTuner
I don't think you can really say one is better than the other. . . .
. . . but for all out performance, I think you will start to see turbo and centrifugal setup trucks taking over the top ET spots next year.
I don't think you can really say one is better than the other. . . .
. . . but for all out performance, I think you will start to see turbo and centrifugal setup trucks taking over the top ET spots next year
.
"Which is Better on A Truck for 1/4 Mile Racing, A Turbo or a Supercharger."
#20
10-29-2004 | 04:38 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
From: MA
#21
10-29-2004 | 07:03 PM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,928
Likes: 1
From: The People's Republic of Los Angeles
Originally posted by whip
Dude, you don't have to play lawyer on every post! . . .
Dude, you don't have to play lawyer on every post! . . .
I'm not being "a laywer," I'm just being myself. Would you prefer that I pretend to be stupid?
If you have a problem with something that I have said, please be specific. Better yet, keep it to yourself. I really don't care. No matter what I say or do around here, some wiseass will comment.
#23
10-29-2004 | 08:00 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,097
Likes: 0
From: DETROIT, (formerly Eaton County, Michigan)
#24
10-30-2004 | 12:33 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
From: Louisville, KY
Originally posted by Tim Skelton
I agree on the last point, but the first two are simply wrong.
Turbos are not legal in top fuel racing, so the point is moot. Plus, as stated in a favorite Car and Driver article, "Top fuel cars are to passenger cars what kangaroos are to white mice -- They're related, but it was a long time ago."
Irrespective of the compression ratio, turbos are by a healthy margin the most efficient compressors, followed by centrifugals, followed by twin screws, and way behind are roots.
Additionally, consider the following boost curve chart from tests on an 04 Cobra in the December issue of Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords:
Power roughly follows from the curves, influenced also by mechanical efficiency and thermal efficiency. The Eaton and KB take lots of drive HP (heavy mechanicals to move), the turbos take the least. Add in the superior efficiency of turbos and it's pretty easy to declare a winner.
Also consider that both the centrifugals and turbos should really be spun faster to be a fair comparison. They are so much more efficient that, comparing outlet temp-to-outlet temp, the peak boost should be much higher on the cent and turbos, i.e., the engine would be just as happy with a few pounds more boost from the cent and turbos, as it would see the same intake temps as with lower pressure ratios from the roots and, to a lesser extent, the twin screw.
Bottom line: Turbos kick ***, even on a heavy vehicle.
I agree on the last point, but the first two are simply wrong.
Turbos are not legal in top fuel racing, so the point is moot. Plus, as stated in a favorite Car and Driver article, "Top fuel cars are to passenger cars what kangaroos are to white mice -- They're related, but it was a long time ago."
Irrespective of the compression ratio, turbos are by a healthy margin the most efficient compressors, followed by centrifugals, followed by twin screws, and way behind are roots.
Additionally, consider the following boost curve chart from tests on an 04 Cobra in the December issue of Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords:
Power roughly follows from the curves, influenced also by mechanical efficiency and thermal efficiency. The Eaton and KB take lots of drive HP (heavy mechanicals to move), the turbos take the least. Add in the superior efficiency of turbos and it's pretty easy to declare a winner.
Also consider that both the centrifugals and turbos should really be spun faster to be a fair comparison. They are so much more efficient that, comparing outlet temp-to-outlet temp, the peak boost should be much higher on the cent and turbos, i.e., the engine would be just as happy with a few pounds more boost from the cent and turbos, as it would see the same intake temps as with lower pressure ratios from the roots and, to a lesser extent, the twin screw.
Bottom line: Turbos kick ***, even on a heavy vehicle.
Dragsters are not a mute point. There is a reason why they don't run Turbo's
Root's can get a car into 3 seconds in the 1/4, Turbo's never have that I'm aware of. Is this also a mute point?
The comparison that I made was at 8PSI, if it were higher than that then things do change. I have seen charts that clearly showed at 8 PSI that a screw was more efficient than a Turbo. I tried to look through my history and Google to make a point, but couldn't find it. Maybe it was false, I don't know. You have made it clear that I am full of *****.
Am I against turbo's. Nope. A good friend of mine, that I work with, won the 2003 worlds most HP on a motorcycle shootout. I saw him run tonight. So I guess that I'm not such a dumb a$$ about turbo's that you think I am.
So while you don't agree, that doesn't make you right. Everybody has an opinion.
Sal,
A Turbo doesn't have free power. It is a blockage in the exhaust and therefore it does create a lot of backpressure.
All,
My last point was that everything has a place. It really all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want the best, get a roots, some top fuel, and run 6,000 HP. Not for the street, but a Turbo CAN'T be tuned to run a 6,000 HP engine. Although I have seen 2-3k HP Tubo engines. Again, not for the street. A lower end turbo may work fine on the street. Roots and screw compressors run excellent on the street.
Bottom line, do what you want, it's your truck. Just do a lot of research.
#25
10-30-2004 | 04:53 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Several months ago the discovery channel had a special on dragsters. And some of the points were on why they don't run a turbo. To get the dragster to do a 3-4 sec. quarter mile they need huge amounts of torque right now. With that huge fin on the back and going that fast it produces approx. 5000 lbs of downforce with the additional downforce of the front fin(which I can't remember) which keeps the front end down plus the weight of the dragster. The dragster literally bows down the track. To move that much force and weight a turbo would be way to big and heavy and not efficient on a dragster. So after seeing that I think in quarter mile applications only the supercharger is the better way to go....
Last edited by AZ fun; 10-30-2004 at 04:57 AM.
#26
11-02-2004 | 10:16 PM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
From: Southern Michigan
Just a shot at a turbo
Who knows how a turbo will perform in our L's. I've been working on a set up for a year now in my spare time. So far it consists of.
1. KarKraft Monster Block. 4.6L
2. 03 Cobra heads
3. 03 Cobra intake and Intercooler
4. B&E Aluminum Intake w/03intercooler (can be used for NA, w/nitrous, or Centrifical apts)
5. 03 crank
6. Manley pistons (10.1 comp)and rods
7. All ARP
I'm using a SHM recipe for a 1500hp DOHC 4.6 just toning down a bit. 1000-1100hp. I'll be going with a GTB98mm turbo. So thats where I'm at. I'll post a pic soon. Ed
1. KarKraft Monster Block. 4.6L
2. 03 Cobra heads
3. 03 Cobra intake and Intercooler
4. B&E Aluminum Intake w/03intercooler (can be used for NA, w/nitrous, or Centrifical apts)
5. 03 crank
6. Manley pistons (10.1 comp)and rods
7. All ARP
I'm using a SHM recipe for a 1500hp DOHC 4.6 just toning down a bit. 1000-1100hp. I'll be going with a GTB98mm turbo. So thats where I'm at. I'll post a pic soon. Ed
