What is the best, Turbo or Blower??

[veilsidebr]

Well, both increase power too much. What´s the best and why, in your opinion.

I guess for the V8 engines the blower is better. So much power with no "lag". But for 6 or 4 cylinder engines, i guess turbo. With wastgate off course, and a big intercooler to "freeze" the air, increasing power.

[Fishey]

I am going to have to say turbo for High HP applications

Why?
More Efficent
less Heat
Sounds cool

For autoX I would go with a Blower!

[veilsidebr]

Yeah, i like turbos too... so much more in a Nissan Skyline GTR R34..oh my god.

:D

[coloradosilver]

It really depends of what your going to be using it for and where you want your power. For a smaller engine car, a you will probably get more use from a turbo. For big cube engines a blower will be more efficient. With a blower you will have more power in the upper RPMs and a turbo will give you better power down low since it is driven through the exhaust pressure and not through the crank as a blower is. A turbo will spool up exponentially with exhaust pressure, while a blower spools linearly being tied straight to the pulley system. Personally I'm partial to the blower just cuz I have one and I think they're much easier to work on.

[coombsie66]

A turbo will always be more 'efficient' than a blower as its run off the exhaust gasses, which would otherwise be wasted, whereas the blower is run off of what would otherwise be 'useable' power directly from the crank.
I personally prefer turbos.

[TeflonTron]

I find the modern use of turbos to be "funny" as they were originally designed to help fuel economy.

Personally, I'd have a blower and turbos. Have the blower for the lower rev range, and when the revs hit the limit where the turbos have spooled up, have the Supercharger disconnect via an electromagnetic clutch plate.

[RC45]

It really depends of what your going to be using it for and where you want your power. For a smaller engine car, a you will probably get more use from a turbo. For big cube engines a blower will be more efficient. With a blower you will have more power in the upper RPMs and a turbo will give you better power down low since it is driven through the exhaust pressure and not through the crank as a blower is. A turbo will spool up exponentially with exhaust pressure, while a blower spools linearly being tied straight to the pulley system. Personally I'm partial to the blower just cuz I have one and I think they're much easier to work on.

What is the spec of your car? Got any pictures?

[coloradosilver]

Right now I've got a D-1SC twin intercooler system on it. Running about 520 RWHP and 480 RWTQ. My avatar pic is my engine bay. I've got the car out right now getting a custom hood fitted and painted. When I get it back sometime next week I'll have some new pics.

[zevolv]

For drag racing you want a Supercharger since there is no lag unless you invest thousands and thousands of dollars in a really hightech turbo system. If you use a centrifugal supercharger you can intercool it and defeat the heat problem. The idea of using both types of forced induction is workable but electromagnetic clutch plates switching them on and off is rediculess using them both is the best idea you can use a Centrifugal supercharger forcing air into the turbo forcing the turbo to spool up that way and then sending it through an Intercooler since the heat created would be obsurdly high and the amount of room required to plumb all of it would be high and the engine would have to be bullet proof to be able to handle the amount of PSI going into it. The arguements for both are good but using them together just isn't efficient in any way. I use both in different cars of course and they are both usefull.

[astonmartinandy]

There isn't really a straight answer to the question - it depends on too many variables and so its really down to the individual application and what you want from the car. Personally I love the whine of a supercharger when it gets going but then but then the sudden rush of boost from a turbo is a great feeling.

[RallyeNLD]

A lot depends on space available in the engine bay. And a blower is most of the time heavier than a turbo.

There doesn't have to be lag with a blower, just adjust the transmission and you get high blower rpm at low engine rpm.

[coombsie66]

The idea of using both types of forced induction is workable but electromagnetic clutch plates switching them on and off is rediculess using them both is the best idea you can use a Centrifugal supercharger forcing air into the turbo forcing the turbo to spool up that way and then sending it through an Intercooler since the heat created would be obsurdly high and the amount of room required to plumb all of it would be high and the engine would have to be bullet proof to be able to handle the amount of PSI going into it.

The point about the electromagnectic clutch plates is due to the supercharger having to be disengaged after the turbo comes on boost, due to the blower restricting the engine after a certain rpm, compared to what the turbo can supply. Ur method would aid spool up, but once the turbo is on full boost its pointless cus the charger is still the limiting factor. Hence why it would need to have some form of clutch to disengage it.

[zevolv]

A lot depends on space available in the engine bay. And a blower is most of the time heavier than a turbo.

There doesn't have to be lag with a blower, just adjust the transmission and you get high blower rpm at low engine rpm.

Superchargers aren't connected the transmission so changing the tranny setup wont affect the Supercharger. there isn't any lag either since the supercharger spins even at idle so that when you lay on the throttle the power is instant

[coombsie66]

^^ i think he means the transmission system (or pully system) for the blower itself.

[zevolv]

You mean the surpintine system

[coloradosilver]

with a serpentine system, or any blower system, the power is NOT instant. The impeller blades are turning as long as the car is running, yes. But you don't get into any positive boost numbers until you start to climb in the RPM range. I have an 8lb pulley on mine and I'll still be in vacuum at 1,800 RPM. I don't even see +3lbs till I'm close to 2,800 RPM. The smaller the pulley, the quicker you'll get into boost, but it's never immediate.

[zevolv]

Well on my cars and my friends GTP the power is instant my car idles at 2000RPM so that mey be a factor but the GTP doesn't have to spool up either, The Camaro has such a large engine and soo much more done to it you would never notice.

[coloradosilver]

Idels at 2000!?!?! Damn thats high. Even my high performance car idels no higher than 600. Thats nuts. But I suppose that if you're already at 2000 when you hit the gas you would already have positive boost numbers. But that high idel can't be good for the car.

[scubywrxr]

superchargers produce the most horsepower - heard of topfuel dragsters ? 5000-6000 hp instantly :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[veilsidebr]

I just say one more thing:

For turbochargered engines, use a wastgate valve or pop-off. This will helps you and will give the famous tschhhhhhhhhhhh...

For blower engines, oh, this is really special, don´t forgive to put a Rof scoop on the bonnet. This makes a car nervous.

:D

[graywolf624]

It depends alot on the engine and the car.

[blah]

Its been proven that Turbos are always more powerful than a supercharger. Personally i wouldhave a turbo/Supercharger a supercharger to run while the turbo spools, and then shuts down.

[graywolf624]

"Its been proven that Turbos are always more powerful than a supercharger. Personally i wouldhave a turbo/Supercharger a supercharger to run while the turbo spools, and then shuts down."

Not necessarily true.

Some basic advantages to each (limited to my own knowledge):


Turbos are less subject to elevation changes.
Supercharges have less of an issue with placement in regards to heat they create affecting air intake.
Super chargers are not subject to the spool up like turbos are.
Turbos tend to work better with high rpm applications.
superchargers tend to work better with lower rpm applications.
Theoretically turbos are more efficient because they arent driven by the engine. That being said, it isn't that cut and dry in the real world.

The greatest setup is a supercharger turbo in series setup.

[graywolf624]

"with a serpentine system, or any blower system, the power is NOT instant. The impeller blades are turning as long as the car is running, yes. But you don't get into any positive boost numbers until you start to climb in the RPM range. I have an 8lb pulley on mine and I'll still be in vacuum at 1,800 RPM. I don't even see +3lbs till I'm close to 2,800 RPM. The smaller the pulley, the quicker you'll get into boost, but it's never immediate."

Wrong.
Things depend alot on the type of supercharger. During wot or under load your typical roots supercharger(which most of us have experience with) produces the boost regardless of rpms. The reason is that these devices have a fixed air displacement amount. Meanwhile the centrifigul setup which we see less actually depends on rpms. Read here for more info on each. The smaller the pulley the more boost is produced, not the quicker it is produced.


http://www.aerosuperchargers.com/Documents_and_images/Supercharger%20Basics_3.31.pdf

GM in general(and thus Grand prixs by default) use a roots blower.

[blah]

Turbochargers wil always make more power. It was proven, read hot rod magazine were they test 2 different blows vs a turbo charger, the turbo charger made over 600 horses, and 600 lbs of torque with the Mustang.

[graywolf624]

"Turbochargers wil always make more power. It was proven, read hot rod magazine were they test 2 different blows vs a turbo charger, the turbo charger made over 600 horses, and 600 lbs of torque with the Mustang."

1 application does not prove it. Did you miss where I said it depends on application? It might work that way for the mustang but that doesn't mean its true always. Yet again theoretically it is but real world it depends on the application.

[coloradosilver]

It's so hard to compare that though. They could be different sizes, spool at different rates, be putting out different lbs of boost. If you're talking about efficiency, than a turbo is better becsuse it poses no strain on the engine, but you have to wait for the pressure to cause boost. If you want quicker boost, than a supercharger is your best bet, but it will draw some of the power from your ehning in order to turn the blower.

[graywolf624]

And also.. Peak hsp versus a longer range of power. Which is better?
What setup depends largely on the application in terms of engine as well as what you are trying to achieve.

[SFDMALEX]

It does depened on the engine I guess. If your car only revs up to 5000rpm then I dont think you'll get much boost from a turbo. so a blower is this case. If your car can rev up to 8000rpm then the turbo will have enough room to spool up completly and stay like that since you'll not get below 3500rpm....on a track..... Anyway Im not expert, just my own little "theory"

[coloradosilver]

I think that a blower will give you a better powerband just because it's blowing linearly with the rotation of the engine. The quicker your engine turns, the more boost it will put out. Turbo cars tend to kinda lose that "pull" in the way-high rpm range. Unless you've got a huge turbo and it's tuned not to kick in until those high RPM, but then you're sacrificing the lower RPM power.

[graywolf624]

"Turbo cars tend to kinda lose that "pull" in the way-high rpm range"

Some superchargers do this as well(particularlly roots blowers).

[coloradosilver]

Mine's a centrifugal(spelling?) SC. It pulls like a MoFo all the way to red line. I think the reason that some roots blowers lose some power is because they're sucking the air in from inside the manifold (on FI cars) while the Centrifugal typs blow it in from the outside. Not sure if that makes sense, but thats my best guess.

[graywolf624]

" I think the reason that some roots blowers lose some power is because they're sucking the air in from inside the manifold (on FI cars) while the Centrifugal typs blow it in from the outside. Not sure if that makes sense, but thats my best guess."

Partially (they dont suck all the air from inside the manifold. They do suck some) and partially because they do not compress the air internally like centrifigual.

Thus you have heat inefficiency.

[Wutputt]

I just say one more thing:

For turbochargered engines, use a wastgate valve or pop-off. This will helps you and will give the famous tschhhhhhhhhhhh...
The "tschhhhhhhhhhhhh"-sound when lifting off isn't caused by the waste gate, but by a blow off valve or dump valve.

The waste gate is a tool to limit the turbo pressure and turbo revs. Otherwise turbo pressure would run away to high and the turbo would overrev. Most turbocharged cars have waste gates. Modern turbodiesel with VGT (Variable Geometry Turbine) mostly don't have a waste gate any more.

A BOV (Blow Off Valve) is used to keep the turbo spinning while lifting of your foot. Without BOV the turbo will be decelerated by the air in the intake between turbo and engine. So a BOV reduces turbo lag.
You have two types of BOV: a VTA (Vent to Atmosphere) and a recirculating. The VTA gives that nice hissing sound, because air in the intake is vented to the atmosphere. A recirculating BOV circulates the air between turbo and engine to the intake pipes before the compressor of the turbo.


Here some pics:

Wastegate (7):
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/jag/vw/engine/turbo/garrai3.jpg


BOV:
http://www.alltrac.net/members/MattYates/MattBOV.jpg

[zevolv]

A traditional supercharger like a roots system can actually make more power due to the size of the supercharger itself, with a roots setup the air is usually drawn in from the rear or in the case of older cars it could be through the top. these can actually draw more air than a centrifugal but the can cause way more heat because of the friction from the two "screws" forcing the air around in the housing. Centrifugal superchargers are good for compact setups where there isn't alot of room to install a roots supercharger like in Corvettes and S2000s unless you modify the hood. An advantage of centrifugals is that you can intercool them much easier than you can a roots blower. So in traditional setups a Roots can be better if you like to go big. There really isn't any performance difference between the two that would be significant enough to sway your choice, it's mostly about ease of install and the room available roots can be difficult to install.

[graywolf624]

"There really isn't any performance difference between the two that would be significant enough to sway your choice, it's mostly about ease of install and the room available roots can be difficult to install."

Wrong. A centrifigual supercharger gives non linear boost based on rpm. A roots gives linear boost based on rpm.

A turbo charger is often refered to as a centrifigual supercharger driven by exhaust. The reason is associated directly with the turbo lag (or lack of boost at lower rpms).

Furthermore the way they work is different so the performance at higher rpms differs. A roots does not compress air internally as a centrifigual or screw supercharger does. Thus it has more thermal problems.
A roots also does not allow for the air to flow backwards as a centrifigual setup does. Thus it is more subject to air leak.

Basically roots are commonly used on passenger cars because they are less expensive and due to room.

[coloradosilver]

On the LS-1 engine. The Centrifugal superchargers are making more power than the roots type in EVERY case (all other aspects of the car being equal).
:mrgreen:

[RC45]

On the LS-1 engine. The Centrifugal superchargers are making more power than the roots type in EVERY case (all other aspects of the car being equal).
:mrgreen:

Are you still running stock internals with yours?

[coloradosilver]

Yep. I've got Stainless Works Headers, Corsa Pace Car exhaust, LPE manifold (in avatar), 42lb injectors, B&M ripper. All the internals are stock until this spring. I'm having my tuner do a full-blown race set up head&cam package. I'll also be going with a single front mount intercooler and 10lbs boost. we're aiming for 650rwhp

[graywolf624]

"On the LS-1 engine. The Centrifugal superchargers are making more power than the roots type in EVERY case (all other aspects of the car being equal). "

Not suprising. There are very few supercharged ls1s out there. Id imagine the thermal issue for the roots isn't optimal for the layout of a vette engine bay. Then obviously you can design the centrifigual charger to work earlier (just like you can a turbo). I'd bet you at low rpms the roots would provide a larger burst of power. That being said roots is by no means the most efficient system because of the external compression of the air. You get a roots generally if your trying to save money and ensure reliability. You more generally see them on lower displacement engines.

[spicymustard]

TURBO

[blah]

It does depened on the engine I guess. If your car only revs up to 5000rpm then I dont think you'll get much boost from a turbo. so a blower is this case. If your car can rev up to 8000rpm then the turbo will have enough room to spool up completly and stay like that since you'll not get below 3500rpm....on a track..... Anyway Im not expert, just my own little "theory"

not neccesarily, because ones its spooled up, the turbo is will be there, the problem with the turbo is the spooling time, some people defeat this by using a smaller turbo, and a larger one, the small one goes first, while the large one spools. There are hundreds of vids, and pictures of turbo stangs, maros, corvettes (lingenfilter), vipers, and other cars.

[TeflonTron]

The idea of using both types of forced induction is workable but electromagnetic clutch plates switching them on and off is rediculess using them both is the best idea you can use a Centrifugal supercharger forcing air into the turbo forcing the turbo to spool up that way and then sending it through an Intercooler since the heat created would be obsurdly high and the amount of room required to plumb all of it would be high and the engine would have to be bullet proof to be able to handle the amount of PSI going into it. The arguements for both are good but using them together just isn't efficient in any way. I use both in different cars of course and they are both usefull.


Actually, I can think of many applications where a SC + TC setup would work well, and Koenig used this perfectly in their "Competition" to make 850+BHP. They also used an electromagnetic clutch plate, if my memory serves me right.

[SilverPhoenix]

I like turbo, as long as it is set up right.

[TeflonTron]

I've never been in a Supercharged car, so I can't comment. I've never even sat in m uncle's XKR *sniff*

[nthfinity]

there are all sorts of impeller /compressor configurations for turbos that all perform unique to itself..... some have small compressors, and larger impellers to give boost right off the line, but they die out in the upper rev band.... and they go to the other extreme
superchargers come in 2 basic configurations, roots type, and screw type. the roots type is typically cheaper to make/install, but ends up "robbing" the engine of 50-80 hp, whereas a screw type seems to keep working right on up the rev band.
hope that helps
gtp has a roots type, mustang svt has a roots type, ford gt has screw type, mercs have screw type.

[zevolv]

Roots and Screw are the same thing the different styles are roots/screw and centrifugal. A roots is also called a twin screw supercharger that's where the name screw comes into play.

[graywolf624]

Roots and Screw are the same thing the different styles are roots/screw and centrifugal

Wrong.

Officially there are 3 types. Please at least bother to read the article I posted. The only difference between a root and a screw are that a screw internally compresses air while the screw does it externally. As such the screw is more thermal efficient.

The Twin Screw Supercharger
The twin screw supercharger at first glance appears to look
similar to a roots supercharger both inside and out.The two
technologies are indeed similar, however there are significant
differences.At the heart of the twin-screw supercharger are
two rotors, or “screws” that rotate towards each other.
The rotors mesh together and draw air from the back of
the supercharger.The twisting rotors move the air to the
front of the supercharger, while compressing the air
before discharging through a port at or near the front of
the supercharger.
Because the compression is done inside the supercharger,
this design produces less heat than a roots supercharger—
in fact, it is almost as thermally efficient as a centrifugal
design

Here is another article. As you can see the main difference is the direction of rotation of the lobes.

http://www.kennebell.net/techinfo/general-info/twinscrew-vs-roots-fromcatalog.pdf

[TeflonTron]

Can someone explain to me how SCs "rob" power from the engine? I'm assuming that it's a case of they add, say, 150BHP, but because of mechanical "leeching" tey then lose 60BP of this? Someone please explain, as this has always confused me a little.

[coombsie66]

From what i understand it is as u assume, the supercharger is run off of the crank, which is usefull power, which would otherwise be used at the wheels. So it may add a certain amount of bhp, but in doing that it will rob the engine of a certain amount of power to spin the charger.
Im not sure why, but i think that chargers limit the power of the engine more as the rpm's rise.
If sumone could ellabourate feel free!

[SFDMALEX]

It does depened on the engine I guess. If your car only revs up to 5000rpm then I dont think you'll get much boost from a turbo. so a blower is this case. If your car can rev up to 8000rpm then the turbo will have enough room to spool up completly and stay like that since you'll not get below 3500rpm....on a track..... Anyway Im not expert, just my own little "theory"

not neccesarily, because ones its spooled up, the turbo is will be there, the problem with the turbo is the spooling time, some people defeat this by using a smaller turbo, and a larger one, the small one goes first, while the large one spools. There are hundreds of vids, and pictures of turbo stangs, maros, corvettes (lingenfilter), vipers, and other cars.

speaking of the spooling time.....the more cylinders an engine got the more exhaust it produces the more presure it can create on the turbo. So you can put a big turbo and have decent spooling times.

Ok new theory here lol. If you got a 12cylinder beast under the hood you gotta go with a turbo.

[coombsie66]

^^ It depends onthe capacity of the engine as well.
I think you dont put more 'pressure' on the turbine blades wiv more cylinders, its just that there are more smaller exhaust gas pulses than less larger ones in the same capacity less cylinder number engine.
This is where the exhaust manifold design is paramount, as you are trying to make the path lengths so that the exhaust pulses arrive at an even rate to the turbo.