JonyyB

<img src="https://www.cobaltss.net/articles/turbo.jpg" align="left" border="0" hspace="5" vspace="5">Decades after each gained prominence, builders advocate one way, the other or both

Sports fans expect a competition of any sort to be settled with simple-to-grasp finality -- win or lose -- but things are rarely so straightforward when it comes to the technology of automobiles.

Take, for instance, the question of which is the best way to produce horsepower: A large, lightly stressed engine can deliver effortless acceleration, but it is likely to be heavy and thirsty; a small engine tuned for high output should be more efficient, though it may be finicky to drive.

Both approaches to producing power are widely used today, with mechanical refinements helping to minimize the drawbacks of each; neither method is a clear winner.

Likewise, there is no undisputed champion when it comes to deciding the best way to wring maximum power from an engine built for the latest high-performance model. Turbochargers and superchargers each have loyal followers ready to cite the benefits of their favorite power-booster.

But neither can claim to be new: The turbocharger recently turned 100 and the supercharger is even older. And despite their long histories, neither seems a clear winner.

Which is best suited to a vehicle depends on the intended use. With both alternatives at their disposal, engineers consider cost, driving characteristics and the space available under the hood to determine which system belongs where.

Even on the same basic engine, the choice may change depending on the vehicle in which it will be used.

General Motors' four-cylinder Ecotec engine is a good example. It is supercharged when installed in the Chevrolet Cobalt SS and Saturn Ion Red Line, but turbocharged in the Saab 9-3 and the Pontiac Solstice GXP (a performance version of the roadster introduced this month at the Los Angeles auto show). In this case, the choice was driven by available space. Pontiac engineers may have been able to save some money by installing the supercharged version from the Cobalt, but there was room for only a turbo in the Solstice, whose engine is mounted front to back.

Turbochargers and superchargers are essentially pumps, raising output by forcing air into the engine rather than depending solely on the suction of the pistons to draw it in. (With more air, the engine can burn more fuel and generate more power.) Conversely, the same devices can be used to raise fuel economy by making smaller engines practical.

Alfred Buchi, a 26-year-old Swiss engineer, conceived the turbocharger in 1905 while researching gas turbines for a Belgian firm.

The turbo's 100-year path to success was not smooth. The first challenge faced by engineers adapting them to aircraft engines was improving the life expectancy of a device that is super hot on one side, below ice-cold (at altitude) on the other, and spinning at more than 30,000 rpm.

Countless improvements were needed to keep engines from blowing up under the high pressure developed by turbochargers. Because detonation is the Achilles' heel of any force-fed engine, high-octane gasoline developed for turbocharged engines in World War II fighters and bombers proved vital to making the technology practical.

Turbocharging took root in ships, trucks and locomotives; by the 1960s, it was ready for glamorous assignments in racecars and performance models. In 1962, the first turbocharged production car, the Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire, took advantage of a water injection system developed by the military to avoid detonation.

The advent of emissions controls in the 1970s kept engineers busy perfecting anti-pollution devices like catalytic converters, exhaust-gas recirculators and fuel injectors. Porsche revived interest in turbocharging first by blowing away competitors in the Can Am racing series and then by giving its decade-old 911 a new lease on life by sticking a turbo in its tail. Turbo makers tried to reach beyond sports and performance models by proposing turbocharged four-cylinder engines as replacements for thirsty V-6s and V-8s. But most makers concluded that their old-school engines were smoother and cheaper than the suggested replacements.

At the ultraluxury end of the market, where cost is definitely not an issue, turbos are the booster of choice for Bentley, Maybach, and three Mercedes-Benz models. But as further evidence that neither approach can claim superiority, Cadillac, Jaguar, Land Rover and, yes, Mercedes-Benz offer 10 supercharged-V-8 models. To further befuddle the wealthy, Mercedes sells its SL roadster and S-Class sedan with the choice of a supercharged V-8 or a twin-turbo V-12.

It gets better. Last fall, Volkswagen introduced a Golf GT in Europe that has both a supercharger and a turbocharger. The supercharger improves low-end throttle response; the turbo kicks in to help generate 168 horsepower from a tiny 1.4-liter engine.

source: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...418/1149/rss26

Visitors: Join the conversation. Signing up is fast and easy!

Mercury

Wow I had no idea that there is a twin-charged production car. Awesome!

mi6_

Still prefer superchargers. They sound better than turbos (IMO), last longer, and have virtually no lag making it easier to apply smooth throttle at the drag strip or on the race track.

I have read about that twin charging. Interesting, but that adds a fair bit of weight to an otherwise light engine, and offers a greater chance of reduced reliability. Only major advantage I see is increased fuel economy.

City

If turbochargers had NO lag, then TC > SC.

But in most normal driving applications SC > TC

BlackSS05

I like the supercharger because of the WHINEEEEEEEEEEEEeee gotta love it. Specially on pullied cobras. holy crap sounds like a little girl. I LOVE THE SC the only thing i like about the turbo is Blow off valve. but you be decelerating to hear that not like the sc that you hear when you are pushing 12-20 psi.

Leafy

Idon't know about you guys, but in my expirence with both Turbos and SC's, The turbo would come on and out power quicker than the SC does, because it takes RPMs to get the most out of the pulley.

I owned two Turbo 8 Valve Daytonas (commonly refered to as a Turbododge) where full boost and power was realized at 3000 rpm in the 2.2L and 2700 in the 2.5L engines, respectively. I have to wait until 6000 RPM on the Cobalt to get full boost, and 3/4 boost hits after 3300 rpm.

Just an observation, turbo lag really isn't as existent as Anti-turbo people make it out to be.

Superchargers may whine, but turbochargers SCREAM.

BlackElement

supercharged cars can be more reliable but a turbo car as more upgrades(imo). i like both, i have no preference. my cobalt is supercharged and i like it, but one of my future project cars comes with a turbo(1990 eclipse GSX/GST). the whineeee is nice and BOV's are awesome.

giovanhalen

Turbo cars are quieter and generally use a little less fuel at a given power level.

OniMirage

might wanna take your car in to get checked

p7x

Def get that looked at i make 12 through out the band and once it hits 5700 it pushes over 13.

Back on topic, Turbo's man they are the ****, lag is getting smaller. Supercharger instant power but don't sound as cool.

GeoChevyCobalt

Sc had boost at lower RPMs. It is controlled off the crank so it robs some power. You can control boost buy simply changing the gearing. It has its own benefits.

TC has to spool off the exhaust gas. It has some lag. It does not rob that much power off the engine. It has its Benefits also.

I think that twin charging give you the best of both. especially when you can take a 1.4 and give it a good power band plus get great fuel economy. There are so many factors in getting power out of an engine and twin is a good one to look at.

This kind of fits in every one goal to have something faster, smaller and better.

I can imagine a 2 cylinder engine in a car that can produce 160 ish HP and have a MPG from 70 to 15. Now that would be some car of the future.......

Just my 2 cents.

Nuclear

I like the supercharger better

Kritter

This is my first supercharged car, but in the past I had an 89 7MGTE supra, with the factory CT-26 turbo. Now, maybe it was the age of the car, or the fact that the turbo was a bit smaller than most performance turbos of today, but I have to say that between the two, I like my SC better, I find it performs best under a steady acceleration, that, and I know when the SC is going because I'm pushed back in the seat. With the turbo, I never really knew when it kicked in, but like I said, that could have been due to it's small size.

As for twincharging, I'm still not to keen on that idea, but that's just me.

Brian MP5T

IMO The Turbo is the better Sounding.

Great Article BTW. I enjoyed it.

P.S. BUSH..
https://www.msprotege.com/members/Br...George_W__.wmv

Pully Police

They call this the 100 year debate because there is not right answer and there is no wrong answer. For people who say that turbocharging is better than supercharging, you must be scratching your heads wondering why top fuel dragsters and funny cars use positive displacement blowers instead of turbos to make 5000 HP. For people who say that turbos have lag and superchargers make their boost instantly must wonder why my old VW turbo diesel would make 17lbs of boost at 1800 RPM with no lag whatsoever while a centrifugal supercharger on a VR6 engine does not make any useable boost until about 4000 RPM.

Each has its own merits and drawbacks. It all depends what you want out of your engine. Do you want to enhance the low end torque of your engine withouyt altering its top end power too much? - Then I can size a Supercharger and a turbo that will so the same thing and act in the exact same way. Do you want a race engine with gobs of top end power soley for drag racing? - Then I can size a superchager and a turbo that will act in the same way. Do you want an engine with instant boost at all rpms with lots of low, mid, and top end power and torque? - Then a can spec you out a staged turbo system or a twin supercharged system or even a compound turbo and superchanger to get the job done.

Packaging has alot to do with it also. A turbo generally requires more space for intercooler piping and the like while a supercharger can be made more compact due to the mounting of the unit.

I all really comes down to what you feel comfortable with.

-P

68Drop

Superchargers in my opinion are much better than turbo's. SC are instant power. Crack the throttle and your in business. On small engines, turbos lag heavily, and more so the bigger you go. I have buddies that put turbos on LS1 engines and have very little lag. Turbos like displacement, which is funny considering the rice rocket groups love sticking huge turbo's on these small displacement engines. Turbo's have their place, I think they work great of Fox body mustangs and even the newer mustangs. And thats only because ford needs forced induction to make any power. J/K

This debate could go on forever. Basically whatever each person decides is up to them. And of couse what they are looking for in their vehicle. But personally i would put a blower on anything im wanting to drag race, or road race. Instant power always wins over lag.

Pully Police

Not trying to start a war or anything..but not all SC's are instant power. A Centrifugal SC does not have instant response as it is not a positive displacement SC. Also, if you do your research and size your turbo properly, you can have a turbo that builds boost fast enough to give you the "instant power" that you are looking for.

For Example: I want to build a 4 cyl. drag car. So..I will spec a turbo that does not build boost too fast but gives me plenty of top end power. The reason is that in a drag race, instant power also means instant wheelspin and that means that you lose. You want your power to be lagged or staged and allow the car to hook up before the turbo(s) are at max boost.

Another example: I want to build an autocross car. Now I will look for a turbo with excellent low end response that will build boost as fast as I can hit the fuel or a positive displacement blower that will give me instant response. I dont want to be making maximum HP but I do want instant response and a healthy low and mis range torque curve to accelerate out of a corner as fast as possile.

Again...it is all in how you want to build and what your prefer but the technology is advanced enough on both sides so that you can spec out a SC with certain properties..and I can take the same engine and spec out the parts to build a turbo that will act in the exact same way as the SC...and vise versa.

-P

68Drop

Wrong wheel drive cars often have problems getting lots of power to hook...And wheelspin is a byproduct of bad design.....having tons of power and not enough tire or suspension to get it to work is the owners fault. This is why lower hp domestics can often ***** out lighter and more powerful imports on the street. They hook a lot better. But its not an argument guy. I said in my other post. The debate could go on forever, AND its up to the owner of the vehicle as to what they want.

Pully Police

Exactly. I apologize if I seemed like I was arguing. I did not mean for it to come off like that..I was just trying to look at it from a different perspective....like I do with all things - I take conventional thinking and throw it out the window and try to play devil's advocate in order to see both sides of the coin equally. If you ask me what I actually prefer, I would answer with this: "I like a stout engine with a meaty torque curve and excellent low end response. I would prefer a helical roots type blower or twin screw compressor as they are very reliable and fairly efficient for the RPM range that I would be operating in most of the time." So...I actually prefer the SC.

-P

Vryce

This is mildly off topic, but BMW is working on a new technology called turbosteam. Found it in this months PopSci. It works now, but BMW won't release it until it meets their weight requirements. In a nutshell, it uses two closed loops to retain up to 80% of the heat usually lost in through the radiator and exaust. The system enhances the heat and uses it to assist in maintaining engine temp and drive the crank. Tests show a 10% boost in HP and Torque as well as a 15% increase in fuel economy. Definately not going to replace TC or SC, but an interesting new technology. Imagine 20 more HP while improving MPG, using steam.

leviticus88

While your talking about new technology, I read an article in a magazine a while back about a ford svt lightning testbed pickup with a supercooler. It is supposed to use the compressed coolant (or something like that) to rapidly cool incoming air into the intake manifold. It would only work in short bursts like nitros but it supposably can make 50+ hp. Whether this is true or not im not sure but i did hear this somewhere.

leviticus88

Sorry, It's compressed coolant from the AC compressor. Weird Huh. Maybe I have no idea what i'm talking about but .. anyway.

Mwilson

Superchargers have 0 lag and produce much less heat as the gas is compressed. and trade of the fact that the power is not free a hydrocharged vehicle is cool but only in a paralle universe. All of that said the best turbos come from volvo. You also need to look at how you are getting the power to the ground. My example would be a RB26 out of a GTR castiron block that can take 35 PSI from stock and a all wheel drive systme that has a problem getting all of that poer to the ground all be it whenyou are looking at all of the things that you need to do in order to produce that boost I for one would say that a supercharger could have problems producing that kind of forced induction it's own for the 9.8K redline.

ralliartist

that's a great article jonyyb and it makes for a great debate. lag or no lag, if you are going turbocharging, you will see more hp and more torque, I think everyone must agree. Supercharging takes hp to make hp, but then again, there is no lag. it's instant. so both have their advantages and disadvantages. with the new technology today tho, you can make a huge turbo, such as a 60 trim, have almost no lag, which is a huge benefit nowadays since that's what everyone seems to complain about. Twin scroll turbos are awesome.

Blindside

Personally from driving my dad's Grand Prix GTP (supercharged obviously) and my RX7(turbo'd) I prefer the turbo. Once you get it spinning the work is done, whereas the supercharger keeps pulling some poneys to keep it moving.

Now I shall sit back and wait for a turbo kit for the 2.4L