Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-12-2006, 01:40 PM   #16
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
I bet if you done a Forum search of 'Supercharger' 'Turbocharger' 'Turbo Vs Supercharger' 'what's the difference' etc etc, you'd find atleast a few threads on this subject...
__________________


Please click here for the rules prior to posting, and here to introduce yourself!

Artwork courtesy of Gregg, aka Voda48
Cliffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2006, 04:00 AM   #17
DukenukemX
CF Newbie
 
DukenukemX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 29
Turbo doesn't put a load onto the engine while a Supercharger does. Also Turbo has a thing known as turbo lag. Superchargers don't get that.
__________________
DukenukemX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2006, 12:24 PM   #18
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
Turbo doesn't put a load onto the engine while a Supercharger does. Also Turbo has a thing known as turbo lag. Superchargers don't get that.
Just like most schoolboys, you have almost enough knowledge to sound like you know what you're talking about. While a turbo doesn't put a direct load on the crankshaft, it does increase exhaust backpressure which is a load on the engine. And if you're ignorant enough to think (apparently you are) that all turbos have lag, you need to spend more time hands on a car and less watching F&F.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2006, 12:32 PM   #19
True_Brit
Has a new job!
 
True_Brit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Falmouth, Backward County, UK
Posts: 2,432
look at Prodrives Concept Car, the P2 i think its called, it has a turbo (quite a powerful one too) but it has no turbo lag at all unlike the Mitsubishi Evo FQ400
__________________

www.myspace.com/jhn123
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanffAutoSpa_ap
........Greek warrior cant reply because hes probably beating it like it owes him money.
True_Brit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2006, 01:33 PM   #20
Wally
I Know More Than You
 
Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 2,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
Turbo doesn't put a load onto the engine while a Supercharger does. Also Turbo has a thing known as turbo lag. Superchargers don't get that.


What I want you to do is visit the Garett site and have a bit of a squiz. I want you to think about what surge, choke and PR are and logically workout the relationship between A/R and exhaust pressure.

Then you can visit a supercharger site of your choice and see what effect an ill sized huffer has on lagging performance.
__________________
"She gave me a look only a mother could give a child."

Last edited by Wally : 07-15-2006 at 02:04 PM.
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2006, 02:59 PM   #21
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Brit
but it has no turbo lag at all unlike the Mitsubishi Evo FQ400
I seem to recall the Evo being out accelarated at 50mph in 5th gear, by a Toyota Prius or something, lol
__________________


Please click here for the rules prior to posting, and here to introduce yourself!

Artwork courtesy of Gregg, aka Voda48
Cliffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 08:49 AM   #22
DukenukemX
CF Newbie
 
DukenukemX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwhobo
Just like most schoolboys, you have almost enough knowledge to sound like you know what you're talking about. While a turbo doesn't put a direct load on the crankshaft, it does increase exhaust backpressure which is a load on the engine. And if you're ignorant enough to think (apparently you are) that all turbos have lag, you need to spend more time hands on a car and less watching F&F.
God dammit man must you respond in a way that doesn't result in shitting on people?

You are right the backpressure does put a load on the engine but no turbo setup can eliminate turbo lag 100%. The only turbo setup that comes close is a sequential twin turbo setup. Which is very expensive and very rare to find.

In general superchargers do put more of a load on the crankshaft then a turbo will ever do. Up to as much as 30% with diminishing returns while a turbo is much more efficient. As you would expect a supercharger has no lag.

That's why top fuel drag racing uses superchargers because they can't afford any turbo lag because nobody has ever removed 100% of turbo lag. I make a three sentence post about common knowledge and you respond with enough bull to try and convince me that the sky isn't just blue.

Also it seems my signature is misleading on how I feel about F&F or even my age. It's bad enough as it is that you can't identify the other TV show where my custom animated gif stole it from. I guess a giant robot that has been modeled after muscle cars with a 1970 Plymouth Baracuda for a head crushing a ricer must make me a F&F fan.
__________________
DukenukemX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 11:29 AM   #23
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
God dammit man must you respond in a way that doesn't result in shitting on people?

You are right the backpressure does put a load on the engine but no turbo setup can eliminate turbo lag 100%. The only turbo setup that comes close is a sequential twin turbo setup. Which is very expensive and very rare to find.

In general superchargers do put more of a load on the crankshaft then a turbo will ever do. Up to as much as 30% with diminishing returns while a turbo is much more efficient. As you would expect a supercharger has no lag.

That's why top fuel drag racing uses superchargers because they can't afford any turbo lag because nobody has ever removed 100% of turbo lag. I make a three sentence post about common knowledge and you respond with enough bull to try and convince me that the sky isn't just blue.

Also it seems my signature is misleading on how I feel about F&F or even my age. It's bad enough as it is that you can't identify the other TV show where my custom animated gif stole it from. I guess a giant robot that has been modeled after muscle cars with a 1970 Plymouth Baracuda for a head crushing a ricer must make me a F&F fan.
With every word you type, you are proving yourself to be a typical internet moron. Let's take a few of your statements and look at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
You are right the backpressure does put a load on the engine but no turbo setup can eliminate turbo lag 100%.
One word. Bullsh*t. Perhaps you're unaware of turbos that are operation at essentially 100% efficiency at idle speed. How does this happen? Small impellers and low pressure. Simple, just like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
In general superchargers do put more of a load on the crankshaft then a turbo will ever do.
No sh*t? Really? Do ya think? Even someone with your low level of intelligence could figure this out, and you did. Even repeating what I said earlier but changing the words just enough to make it wrong. Superchargers put a load on the crankshaft because they're mechanically driven and turbos don't put a load on the crankshaft because... wait for it... THEY"RE NOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
As you would expect a supercharger has no lag.
Really? So all superchargers are operating at 100% efficiency from idle? Surely you're not even stupid enough to believe that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
That's why top fuel drag racing uses superchargers because they can't afford any turbo lag because nobody has ever removed 100% of turbo lag.
Well... NO. If you'd like to come back to reality and operate in the fact zone, the reason TF and FC cars (along with other classes) use superchargers is because THEY HAVE TO. It's the rules. They don't have any choice. That is what slingshot dragsters of the '50's used because they were cheap and available, and as the class progressed it became mandatory. Or do you want me to also believe that they only run 500 CI engines because they're the most powerful or have reduced the amount of nitro they burn because it makes them faster? That being said, they may very well still have been using a supercharger as a power adder, but there is no way of knowing for sure.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 02:05 PM   #24
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
To throw a little aside in here, the Gasser mustang picture was 6-71 blown, but the owner, "Ohio George," had a second one, identical visually except for color that was powered by a twin turbo BOSS 429. it didnt' leave the line as hard as teh supercharged cars, but out powered them on teh top end, and was the center of controversy in '72. it was the primary reason turbo cars were banned from the top classes in NHRA competition.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg gm_malco_mustang1web.jpg (71.5 KB, 12 views)
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 02:25 PM   #25
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
To throw a little aside in here, the Gasser mustang picture was 6-71 blown, but the owner, "Ohio George," had a second one, identical visually except for color that was powered by a twin turbo BOSS 429. it didnt' leave the line as hard as teh supercharged cars, but out powered them on teh top end, and was the center of controversy in '72. it was the primary reason turbo cars were banned from the top classes in NHRA competition.
Minor correction and additional info. It was 1971 and the initial run was a 8.50/167.

EDIT: Forgot the pics.

This is with the turbo.



Same car only supercharged.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993


Last edited by vwhobo : 07-19-2006 at 02:31 PM.
vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 02:43 PM   #26
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Thanks for the correction. I had thought the car showed up in '70-71 with theturbos (IIRC, the pic you showed with the supercharger was from '69 or so, when he won the Winternationals) , but the controversy didn't arise until '72, in response to the car's ability.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 06:31 PM   #27
DukenukemX
CF Newbie
 
DukenukemX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwhobo
One word. Bullsh*t. Perhaps you're unaware of turbos that are operation at essentially 100% efficiency at idle speed. How does this happen? Small impellers and low pressure. Simple, just like you.
So a turbocharged engine should be able to take off just as hard as a supercharged engine? I think not.
Quote:
No sh*t? Really? Do ya think? Even someone with your low level of intelligence could figure this out, and you did. Even repeating what I said earlier but changing the words just enough to make it wrong. Superchargers put a load on the crankshaft because they're mechanically driven and turbos don't put a load on the crankshaft because... wait for it... THEY"RE NOT.
Yes but you said in a previous post that a turbo does put a load because of the back pressure they create. Therefore loosing some amount of power. I misused the crankshaft to where to the power is lost. Obviously the power lost isn't done directly to the crankshaft but indirectly.
Quote:
Really? So all superchargers are operating at 100% efficiency from idle? Surely you're not even stupid enough to believe that.
Obviously nothing with you is 100%.
__________________
DukenukemX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 08:42 PM   #28
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
So a turbocharged engine should be able to take off just as hard as a supercharged engine? I think not.

They do anymore.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 09:27 PM   #29
DukenukemX
CF Newbie
 
DukenukemX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
They do anymore.
Did you mean to say they do now?
__________________
DukenukemX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2006, 09:42 PM   #30
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukenukemX
Did you mean to say they do now?

I meant what I said.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.