Sc vs. tc continued....,
the quickest cars in the world are supercharged. this debate is silly because there is no debate. top fuel dragsters are the pinnacle of power per cubic inch and they do it with blowers.
they use superchargers because by the time the turbo would spool the car would already be down the track. It's not necessarily that they couldn't make more power with a turbo it's that it would take too long to spool. In a car with a bigger motor than a 6 cylinder, in a drag racing application, and without an anti lag launch control system, a supercharger will be the only solution.
Joined: 12-30-07
Posts: 14,079
Likes: 197
From: NEPA
There was lots of talk back in the day about a GM Stage 4 kit, and it was supposed to come with upgraded rotors for the current blower. Hmm, sounds like it could have been the H62. They only made 7 hi helix blowers, and were strictly experimental. They led to what is now TVS technology aka 6th gen blowers.
Last edited by Staged07SS; Jun 15, 2012 at 07:23 AM.
Joined: 12-30-07
Posts: 14,079
Likes: 197
From: NEPA
Top Fuel Dragsters are ment for straight line with FAST POWER to minimize loss between gears. You'r dumb if you think a supercharger is better for max power.
by the way, I own the supercharged cobalt, and I am glad I bought it. I got it for 7grand less then a turbo one and I have less miles. Am I saying SC cobalts are better? No. The TC is the upgrade. But having ridden in a turbo stock cobalt, I am not that impressed with it. The seats are hella more comfortable, and it does handle better, but for me being 20, the SC cobalt is just fine. And I love the scream of the engine.
^this
You missed my point.
My point was there is always something bigger and better suited for each person needs.
Who cares.
just an fwi, turbo are not "free energy" they do rob power because of how small the hot side is, it chokes the exhaust gases.
now there are two types of efficiencies that matter- volumetric and adiabatic efficiencies
the first deals with how well the blower moves air. the later deals with what you have to put into the compressor compared to what you get out.
now because turbos need to be intercooled, 99% of the time, they score low on the first but high on the second. supers score high on the first and low on the second.
so what does this mean, it means that super are better at moving air but are restricted to the boost air/boost they can run due to rpm limits, turbo are not. so that means lbs for lbs a super will make more power( comparable size blower to super, so say m-62 compared to the lnf turbo. ) then the turbo until the super becomes un-efficient at too high of boost levels.
and lastly yes super's "rob" power due to the belt, but it is very negligible because they are more volumetrically efficient, an M-62 for example "takes" 50 hp are 7K rpm to spin, that is about the same as the water pump/alternator/A/C etc.. so saying that as a negative is pointless.
the more serious negative thing about them is they wear out bearings faster then a turbo set up (rotating assemble bearing).
now there are two types of efficiencies that matter- volumetric and adiabatic efficiencies
the first deals with how well the blower moves air. the later deals with what you have to put into the compressor compared to what you get out.
now because turbos need to be intercooled, 99% of the time, they score low on the first but high on the second. supers score high on the first and low on the second.
so what does this mean, it means that super are better at moving air but are restricted to the boost air/boost they can run due to rpm limits, turbo are not. so that means lbs for lbs a super will make more power( comparable size blower to super, so say m-62 compared to the lnf turbo. ) then the turbo until the super becomes un-efficient at too high of boost levels.
and lastly yes super's "rob" power due to the belt, but it is very negligible because they are more volumetrically efficient, an M-62 for example "takes" 50 hp are 7K rpm to spin, that is about the same as the water pump/alternator/A/C etc.. so saying that as a negative is pointless.
the more serious negative thing about them is they wear out bearings faster then a turbo set up (rotating assemble bearing).
just an fwi, turbo are not "free energy" they do rob power because of how small the hot side is, it chokes the exhaust gases.
now there are two types of efficiencies that matter- volumetric and adiabatic efficiencies
the first deals with how well the blower moves air. the later deals with what you have to put into the compressor compared to what you get out.
now because turbos need to be intercooled, 99% of the time, they score low on the first but high on the second. supers score high on the first and low on the second.
so what does this mean, it means that super are better at moving air but are restricted to the boost air/boost they can run due to rpm limits, turbo are not. so that means lbs for lbs a super will make more power( comparable size blower to super, so say m-62 compared to the lnf turbo. ) then the turbo until the super becomes un-efficient at too high of boost levels.
and lastly yes super's "rob" power due to the belt, but it is very negligible because they are more volumetrically efficient, an M-62 for example "takes" 50 hp are 7K rpm to spin, that is about the same as the water pump/alternator/A/C etc.. so saying that as a negative is pointless.
the more serious negative thing about them is they wear out bearings faster then a turbo set up (rotating assemble bearing).
now there are two types of efficiencies that matter- volumetric and adiabatic efficiencies
the first deals with how well the blower moves air. the later deals with what you have to put into the compressor compared to what you get out.
now because turbos need to be intercooled, 99% of the time, they score low on the first but high on the second. supers score high on the first and low on the second.
so what does this mean, it means that super are better at moving air but are restricted to the boost air/boost they can run due to rpm limits, turbo are not. so that means lbs for lbs a super will make more power( comparable size blower to super, so say m-62 compared to the lnf turbo. ) then the turbo until the super becomes un-efficient at too high of boost levels.
and lastly yes super's "rob" power due to the belt, but it is very negligible because they are more volumetrically efficient, an M-62 for example "takes" 50 hp are 7K rpm to spin, that is about the same as the water pump/alternator/A/C etc.. so saying that as a negative is pointless.
the more serious negative thing about them is they wear out bearings faster then a turbo set up (rotating assemble bearing).
just an fwi, turbo are not "free energy" they do rob power because of how small the hot side is, it chokes the exhaust gases.
now there are two types of efficiencies that matter- volumetric and adiabatic efficiencies
the first deals with how well the blower moves air. the later deals with what you have to put into the compressor compared to what you get out.
now because turbos need to be intercooled, 99% of the time, they score low on the first but high on the second. supers score high on the first and low on the second.
so what does this mean, it means that super are better at moving air but are restricted to the boost air/boost they can run due to rpm limits, turbo are not. so that means lbs for lbs a super will make more power( comparable size blower to super, so say m-62 compared to the lnf turbo. ) then the turbo until the super becomes un-efficient at too high of boost levels.
and lastly yes super's "rob" power due to the belt, but it is very negligible because they are more volumetrically efficient, an M-62 for example "takes" 50 hp are 7K rpm to spin, that is about the same as the water pump/alternator/A/C etc.. so saying that as a negative is pointless.
the more serious negative thing about them is they wear out bearings faster then a turbo set up (rotating assemble bearing).
now there are two types of efficiencies that matter- volumetric and adiabatic efficiencies
the first deals with how well the blower moves air. the later deals with what you have to put into the compressor compared to what you get out.
now because turbos need to be intercooled, 99% of the time, they score low on the first but high on the second. supers score high on the first and low on the second.
so what does this mean, it means that super are better at moving air but are restricted to the boost air/boost they can run due to rpm limits, turbo are not. so that means lbs for lbs a super will make more power( comparable size blower to super, so say m-62 compared to the lnf turbo. ) then the turbo until the super becomes un-efficient at too high of boost levels.
and lastly yes super's "rob" power due to the belt, but it is very negligible because they are more volumetrically efficient, an M-62 for example "takes" 50 hp are 7K rpm to spin, that is about the same as the water pump/alternator/A/C etc.. so saying that as a negative is pointless.
the more serious negative thing about them is they wear out bearings faster then a turbo set up (rotating assemble bearing).
Just for fun:
Pointless thread. Who gives a crap between SC and TC, and which is better. Its like a Chevy vs Ford debate, you will have nut huggers on each side of the fence. It seems like a lot of TCs are owned by the younger, immature, or just plain ignorant crowd
L O effing L @ this post. After reding this and the signature below, all I could do was laugh and facepalm
Your good friend MIGHT need to learn to drive LMAO. I trapped 108 in a stock GMS1 Cobalt at my 6th pass of the night.
What about bone stock cobalts w/e85 tunes trapping 112MPH. Literally a free tune from your bro over 15min lunch break and your pulling the performance (handling breaking acceleration and power) of a SC with THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars poured into it.
I would still love a SC Stage3 Cobalt w/ the 50 shot... man id feel cool with nitrous. That part makes me jelly.
What about bone stock cobalts w/e85 tunes trapping 112MPH. Literally a free tune from your bro over 15min lunch break and your pulling the performance (handling breaking acceleration and power) of a SC with THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars poured into it.
I would still love a SC Stage3 Cobalt w/ the 50 shot... man id feel cool with nitrous. That part makes me jelly.
Sc, tc blah blah blah. Doesn't matter, both cars can be quick and fun. My m62 setup was fun and I probably would have been more than content just going with a tvs than a zzp turbo swap. A lot of people on here get hung up on numbers that other people run. Factor in climate, elevation, tires, suspension mods and you're lack of driving ability and your cobalt is not that 12-13sec car you think you have(that is with you driving). Sometimes I feel like this crap is north vs. the south and being a turbo lsj I feel like my ***** are straddling the mason dixon line. Remember just bc I'm a turbo lsj your car is still better bc of suspension and brakes right? Well when was the last time you raced someone and made turns? (key word MOST, i know some of you are hardcore enthusiasts) Most of that suspension out there is just getting wasted on pot holes and rush hour traffic. Oh and it only took me a measly couple of hours to upgrade my suspension. Omg rivaladore spent money to make his car handle better when we got it right off the lot. Who cares...I like working on, fixing and improving my car. End of story. Isn't that why we're here in the first place. Sorry I bought my cobalt a few years before you did.
people talking about the turbo vs sc thing with regards to lnf vs lsj are missing a huge difference, direction injection vs conventional injection. claiming the lnf makes more power because of the induction difference alone is simply wrong. id be very interested to see a intake manifold for a tvs fabricated for an lnf motor. the power difference would likely disappear.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: 11-14-07
Posts: 2,712
Likes: 1
From: Hinesville ga
people talking about the turbo vs sc thing with regards to lnf vs lsj are missing a huge difference, direction injection vs conventional injection. claiming the lnf makes more power because of the induction difference alone is simply wrong. id be very interested to see a intake manifold for a tvs fabricated for an lnf motor. the power difference would likely disappear.
What about someone who slaps a k04 on an lsj?
Also even though the k04 would prob win that battle anyways, you can't compare a tvs to a k04, you would have to compare it to the m62. If your going to use the tvs then it's only fair that the turbo cobalt uses one of the many after market turbos to choose from.
Youre using a lot of big words and concepts to try and say that lb for lb SC make more power than a turbo......I dont have any idea what proof you could possibly have to prove that or pounds of what youre talking about..... but at least 50% of tuned LNFs make more power than 95% of tuned and pullied LSjs. So regardless of what your thermodynamics blabbering is trying to prove, stock compressor LNFs make more power than stock compressor LSJs. And a large chunk of this is due to the fact that M62s do indeed have a serious mechanical parasitic draw on the engine. You cant explain that away.
Just for fun:
Just for fun:
Last edited by zrated89; Jun 17, 2012 at 11:14 AM.