TT and SC?

motocross_masta

Registered User
Twin Turbos and SuperChargers?
-What Does What?
-Which ones better?
-Why?
-Why can't you have a car using both at the same time?
-Is it possible to prototype sumthing that uses both w/out blowing up your car?
 
A turbo is better than a supercharger. Superchargers rob horsepower in order to make horsepower. A turbo doesn't rob any horsepower.
 
Turbos Hhuuu???

Turbos Hhuuu???
Here is a question for you! If Turbos are better than superchargers for producing horsepower, then why do Top Fuel Dragsters run superchargers and not turbos?!

There might be one out there, but I have never heard of a turbo engine producing the amount of horsepower a Supercharger can.

Of course we are talking about apples and oranges…Meaning we are not comparing a SC with a twin turbo Porsch.

I think you might find the answer to be more complicated. I dont think turbos provide more horsepower than superchargers. You need to factor in drivability, engine life, cost, etc…
 
Turbo has a considerable lag time where it has to spool up unlike a supercharger which you get instant boost. But throw on a few bolt ons and your looking at an 11 second street car. Go take a peek at a gran national and a turbo regal club site to get a good idea of a turbo's potential.
 
Turbochargers make power by the exhaust. The exhaust leaving the engine spins a turbine, which blows air into the intake manifold.
Superchargers makes power by spinning engine. The crank spins a pulley which spins a belt which spins the supercharger and forces air into the intake manifold. A supercharger produces power similar to the way an altenator produces a charge, the belt spins the device.

Many people argue both sides to which ones better, i think it all depends on the application and what you want out of your car.
 
Yes… Turbos rob horsepower! Exhaust restriction for one…but…one could argue that even atmospheric pressure robs horsepower. Can anyone show me a Gran National that puts out more horsepower than supercharged top fuel car, or any other turbo engine for that matter?

I have seen a built 427 with a supercharger eat a built up Grand National for lunch. Not a race for my SC, but it was interesting.

This is a serious question. I would like to know if there is any turbo engine that can produce that as much power as an all out supercharged engine. I have never seen or heard of one.
 
I do believe that is the biggest turbo I have ever seen on a car! That looks great!
Still not quite 3000hp. Those guys and their rice burners (just kidding) still have a ways to go. I would bet someone has done better than 1200hp with a turbo set up.

Just listen to me. :p I must have around 200-210hp in my stock SC. It’s a beast… But I love it.

Someday I will get one of those Coy Miller engines. That will give me another 10 or 20hp
:D
 
No ones right

Motorcross masta search a 1271 detroit deisel that will explain turbo/superchargers on the same engine. And to say that one is better than the other is just semantics, it will go no where. one is power off the line, on tap at the push of the throttle, all the low end torque and a beautiful launch. The other (turbo) takes some time to spool, but it has more potential for the top end, and I dont care who says what it leaches LESS power from said engine. both are beautiful inventions that make cars fun. but there are so many different kinds of superchargers, roots, centrifigal (a turbo with a belt drive) etc.. and you can set a turbo setup so many different ways, single, twin (sequential/ non sequential) and the sequential has greatly reduced spooling but less overall potential than a big ol pie plate sized single one. All I can say is that you have to do the research and decide which one ticles you fancy the most. And yes "supercharger" does sound alot meaner than turbo;) But it doesnt make it better just different. For instance you can supercharge a rotary engine but it doesnt do well on street cars why cuz the power leech is to much versus a turbo, because a roary spits out a ton of exaust quickly and it spools pretty damn fast. I know we arent talking about rotary engines but thats just an example of a turbo being a better choice. So like i said Its all relative and no ones right.:cool: Thank you for making me think, I enjoy it from time to time.:D Masta I hope I helped with your question
 
Lessonintorque

That was a great explanation!
I’m not trying to prove anything, but I just wanted to know if anyone had seen a turbo engine put out 3000HP. A real speed machine! They do it with NOX! Why not turbos? Just seeking a little enlightenment.
 
I agree with most about each having its applications & advantages vs disadvantages. There are many things to consider.. but since you asked about TT vs SC, I will say some things which demonstrate how TT is more comparable to an SC than one T.

With a normal single turbo car, there is a compromise that must be made. Either it can have a small turbo which spools up quickly for less lag and thus more bottom end thrust, or it can have a large turbo for more horsepower & thus upper end thrust, but with more lag and less low power. Twin Turbo designs were created to address this compromise. By having two turbos, they can both be smaller than one turbo for easy spooling, less lag, and more low end power. Yet because there are two, they can still have upper end power like one turbo with their combined output. This spreads the power out over the RPM range. They will not spool up quite like one turbo of equal size, but certainly better than one large turbo. This is obviously beneficial over convential turbo cars, as demonstrated by the 3.0 liter, 4600 pound Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 & Dodge Stealth RT TT. These cars run the quarter mile in mid to low 13s stock.. with more weight & a smaller engine than our cars. Other variables do exist of course, such as AWD traction and OHC.. but the TT design does help out with this.

So in the case of TT, I believe it can be very competitive in conventional street cars as the best forced induction system.. in terms power output. But as mentioned, there are still other issues which the Supercharger has an advantage. The biggest which comes to mind is reliability. A turbo must be meticulously maintained, or else it will likely fail. Over the course of its life, its also likely to lose noticeable function. A Super on the other hand can undergo significant abuse without significant damage, especially the Eaton unit. I have seen these things run without oil and live for a long time afterwards (refilled). The supercharger is also not restricting the exhaust (maybe the intake) and reinserting "dirty" air into the engine. Turbos recycle exhaust gasses which while efficient is sometimes considered a deficit for the engine. Superchargers will still also probably have more low power, and some might even be capable of producing more boost than some TT designs.

Just some thoughts..
 
Just a few corrections:
4600 pound Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 & Dodge Stealth RT TT.
A 3000GT weighs more like 3700 Lbs not 4600Lbs

These cars run the quarter mile in mid to low 13s stock..
A 3000GT is capable of low 14's high 13's stock depending on the year

Turbos recycle exhaust gasses which while efficient is sometimes considered a deficit for the engine.
I am pretty sure that turbos don't involve reinserting "dirty" air back into the engine. They use the exhaust gasses to turn the turbine that in result turns the compressor.


The truth, each has its own place. I think that overall a supercharger is capable of making more power but takes more power to run. A turbo is easier to make faster for less money.

Do you want a supercharger whine, or do you want a blow off valve and the whistle of a turbo? It's all in the sound. :D

-Steve
 
a turbo engine put out 3000HP

I think that is why F1 banned turbos in the 80's ... 2.5 liter hondas were kicking out over 1000 hp with good fuels ...
comes down to rpm ...and displacement ...for which will be more efficient

high RPM small displacement = turbo
low RPM large displacement = supercharged
 
Back
Top