Turbo v Supercharge
09-14-2009, 06:40 PM
#26
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want faster acceleration due to more hp and torque, in all areas of the powerband, especially down low, you'll opt for a turbo.
If you want to subscribe to the notion that SC's = massive torque, especially in low rpms, you can make believe you're making an intelligent decision by buying a SC kit. But obviously even a little bit of research will show you that no dyno runs have ever surfaced to show anything close to that.
With that said, if you want to pay next to nothing for a turbo kit, buy random hardware, slap it on and don't get it tuned properly, or invest in proper gauges, you will end up with a blown engine and remarking how turbos suck, when in fact you are brain dead.
Repeat after me:
Turbos aren't more inherent to failure than a SC.
Turbos don't give a rats *** that they're in the exhaust stream and it's hot down there.
Turbos aren't any more likely to blowing your engine than a SC.
Bottom line: You get what you pay for.
If you want to subscribe to the notion that SC's = massive torque, especially in low rpms, you can make believe you're making an intelligent decision by buying a SC kit. But obviously even a little bit of research will show you that no dyno runs have ever surfaced to show anything close to that.
With that said, if you want to pay next to nothing for a turbo kit, buy random hardware, slap it on and don't get it tuned properly, or invest in proper gauges, you will end up with a blown engine and remarking how turbos suck, when in fact you are brain dead.
Repeat after me:
Turbos aren't more inherent to failure than a SC.
Turbos don't give a rats *** that they're in the exhaust stream and it's hot down there.
Turbos aren't any more likely to blowing your engine than a SC.
Bottom line: You get what you pay for.
So is it the case that people have embarked on supercharging believing they'll get more low-mid range torque and it just hasn't proved to be the case? Or do they think that particular FI option will give more longterm reliability?
I guess I'm thinking that not all the people going down the supercharging route are deluded fools...indeed, I've met a few and they're anything but, striking me as intelligent, rational human beings. So, if it's as clearcut as the turbo camp seem to think it is, why does anyone bother developing superchargers?
09-14-2009, 06:44 PM
#27
Different people want different things. If your goal is max gains, you won't get it with a SC. If you just want more kick over a NA rx8, a SC will definitely deliver it. I won't deny that the gains with a SC are nice. They are.
However I repeatedly see uneducated people on this forum state that SC's are better because they deliver power down low, or more torque, and that's the opposite of reality.
However I repeatedly see uneducated people on this forum state that SC's are better because they deliver power down low, or more torque, and that's the opposite of reality.
09-14-2009, 06:53 PM
#29
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol. If anything, you should consider yourself FORTUNATE that people aren't jumping down your throat for asking one of the lamest possible questions. We get a TC vs SC question every other day and they usually end with 2 posts.
You have obviously not done any research on the topic, and have obviously not searched the forum for the dozens of threads that have asked your question. So the natural conclusion is that you are too lazy and want others to do the foot work for you. No matter who answers, your answers will be incomplete. No one is going to write a 40 page essay for you on the topic.
You have obviously not done any research on the topic, and have obviously not searched the forum for the dozens of threads that have asked your question. So the natural conclusion is that you are too lazy and want others to do the foot work for you. No matter who answers, your answers will be incomplete. No one is going to write a 40 page essay for you on the topic.
Besides, as a longterm ACTIVE member of this forum and my local RX8 community, I'd like to think I deserve better than being flamed but I'm not about to get all worried about it. I just wanted to avoid it in this thread if possible.
I've found that some of the most interesting discussions can start with a simple question, so I'm fine with that. I also wanted a discussion in here for the local guys who don't have the time and inclination to do the kind of research you refer to. It's not laziness, more location and convenience. And as posted above, I wanted to see what the local experience has been - too many of the other threads you mention are full of non-available options, etc.
I don't want a 40 page essay, just some views. Obviously before anyone spends the cash they'll do more reading and research but it's nice to have a starting point with locally available options discussed.
09-14-2009, 06:55 PM
#30
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-14-2009, 06:59 PM
#32
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different people want different things. If your goal is max gains, you won't get it with a SC. If you just want more kick over a NA rx8, a SC will definitely deliver it. I won't deny that the gains with a SC are nice. They are.
However I repeatedly see uneducated people on this forum state that SC's are better because they deliver power down low, or more torque, and that's the opposite of reality.
However I repeatedly see uneducated people on this forum state that SC's are better because they deliver power down low, or more torque, and that's the opposite of reality.
Personally, I'm not interested in a max gain. Obviously more is better but I need to balance that with longterm reliability and something a non-guru can live with.
It doesn't do me much good spending 15-20K on a car that's only worth 25-30K only to find it all goes pop after two track days or I'm spending every other month getting the thing tuned, tweaked and played with. I'd rather just save up for something out of the box and leave those games to the tuners and hobbyists.
Again, that's why I was curious to see how people have gone with locally available kits and tuners...
09-14-2009, 07:05 PM
#33
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
), it'd be an easy choice for me at least. However, I also respect the turbo charging work done by Archie at Mazfix (also in Qld) and the guys in Victoria.
Curiously, we never seem to hear much from DNA customers, who are Sydney based. They also developed their own kit...
And remember, Australia is a big joint!
09-14-2009, 09:17 PM
#35
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hahaha, nice work MM. But coast to coast for a sandwich?? 
When something's empty it always seems bigger...
Noted re: boost. Thanks. I've driven a supercharged car (DNA's procharger) and found it very progressive, almost to the point of being underwhelming. I suppose that's what you mean by softer, not the kick in the pants a turbo car can give you.
When something's empty it always seems bigger...
Noted re: boost. Thanks. I've driven a supercharged car (DNA's procharger) and found it very progressive, almost to the point of being underwhelming. I suppose that's what you mean by softer, not the kick in the pants a turbo car can give you.
09-14-2009, 10:14 PM
#36
"softer" refers to the claim that some SC people make when they say it's safer to run a SC over a TC. Softer and more gentle with your apex seals!
Obviously boost is boost, but arguing logic like that can turn into a major flame fest.
Obviously boost is boost, but arguing logic like that can turn into a major flame fest.
09-14-2009, 11:44 PM
#37
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're kidding me! With arguments like that to contend with no wonder you guys are bored with it all.
I suppose it's inevitable when people want to defend what they've spent money on though...
09-15-2009, 03:01 AM
#38
Hmmmmmm.........
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Dave in quick response to one of your avenues, I will feedback one thing about FI on the 8.
If you look at the chart Brettus posted up, start with the delivery of power when NA. Look where it starts and where it ends. This is one of the things that a lot of people enjoy about the 8. Its probably one of the things I miss the most with my car....most of the fun is over with by 6500/7000 rpm.
If you look at the chart Brettus posted up, start with the delivery of power when NA. Look where it starts and where it ends. This is one of the things that a lot of people enjoy about the 8. Its probably one of the things I miss the most with my car....most of the fun is over with by 6500/7000 rpm.
09-15-2009, 05:30 AM
#39
the other side of the argument is that fun at >8000rpm is way to fast to happen very often.
1st gear is ridiculously quick to 8000rpm.
on the reliability front what you need is good tuning. don't tune like me and you pay the price.
boost is boost to a point. comments like "turbos may have more back pressure and hold the heat in" are just un-provable. turbo's do have seal issues. but modern ball-bearing garrets are reliable. then you can have boost controller problems, waste-gates. it's a pneumatic system and your relying on many dumb mechanical devices to control the boost level. do boost spikes from a broken waste gate line kill a motor
superchargers wear out gears, bearings and the compressor lobes. no mechanical device last forever.
my transmission is making bad noises.
that is with a low torque at low rpm. an early 2004 build so maybe the build quality was off.
as for drive-ability. smoothness is a real + in my book, my 4cyl turbo has an elastic throttle and that is with a small sized factory turbo.
my supercharger is far more linear. it can be under-wellming at low rpm as revolver's impression of the procharger holds true with any centrifugal SC. but the car is deceptively fast to the driver. my SC still shocks me with it's performance at times. it seems temperamental but I think that is a bad rear seal.
I reckon A positive displacement SC like the pettit or hymee's would be a nice compromise between a turbo and a centrifugal sc. nice linear power even if it didn't feel as brutal as a turbo at 13psi.
the cost of positive displacement kits is a little high but with the exchange rate the pettit kit is getting to a price where my cheep *** would consider it. but in std form it doesn't hit the mark as well as the turbos.
if I had better car jacking and lifting equipment and could handle my car being off the road for a week or so I would have built a turbo.
it would be nice to drive them all back to back so I knew what I was missing lol
1st gear is ridiculously quick to 8000rpm.
on the reliability front what you need is good tuning. don't tune like me and you pay the price.
boost is boost to a point. comments like "turbos may have more back pressure and hold the heat in" are just un-provable. turbo's do have seal issues. but modern ball-bearing garrets are reliable. then you can have boost controller problems, waste-gates. it's a pneumatic system and your relying on many dumb mechanical devices to control the boost level. do boost spikes from a broken waste gate line kill a motor
superchargers wear out gears, bearings and the compressor lobes. no mechanical device last forever.
my transmission is making bad noises.
that is with a low torque at low rpm. an early 2004 build so maybe the build quality was off.as for drive-ability. smoothness is a real + in my book, my 4cyl turbo has an elastic throttle and that is with a small sized factory turbo.
my supercharger is far more linear. it can be under-wellming at low rpm as revolver's impression of the procharger holds true with any centrifugal SC. but the car is deceptively fast to the driver. my SC still shocks me with it's performance at times. it seems temperamental but I think that is a bad rear seal.
I reckon A positive displacement SC like the pettit or hymee's would be a nice compromise between a turbo and a centrifugal sc. nice linear power even if it didn't feel as brutal as a turbo at 13psi.
the cost of positive displacement kits is a little high but with the exchange rate the pettit kit is getting to a price where my cheep *** would consider it. but in std form it doesn't hit the mark as well as the turbos.
if I had better car jacking and lifting equipment and could handle my car being off the road for a week or so I would have built a turbo.
it would be nice to drive them all back to back so I knew what I was missing lol
09-15-2009, 04:52 PM
#41
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave in quick response to one of your avenues, I will feedback one thing about FI on the 8.
If you look at the chart Brettus posted up, start with the delivery of power when NA. Look where it starts and where it ends. This is one of the things that a lot of people enjoy about the 8. Its probably one of the things I miss the most with my car....most of the fun is over with by 6500/7000 rpm.
If you look at the chart Brettus posted up, start with the delivery of power when NA. Look where it starts and where it ends. This is one of the things that a lot of people enjoy about the 8. Its probably one of the things I miss the most with my car....most of the fun is over with by 6500/7000 rpm.
The more reading I'm doing, the more I'm thinking that a supercharged kind of delivery is what would suit my driving style but I've still got more research to do...
Thanks for the feedback.
09-15-2009, 04:59 PM
#42
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my supercharger is far more linear. it can be under-wellming at low rpm as revolver's impression of the procharger holds true with any centrifugal SC. but the car is deceptively fast to the driver. my SC still shocks me with it's performance at times. it seems temperamental but I think that is a bad rear seal.
I reckon A positive displacement SC like the pettit or hymee's would be a nice compromise between a turbo and a centrifugal sc. nice linear power even if it didn't feel as brutal as a turbo at 13psi.
I reckon A positive displacement SC like the pettit or hymee's would be a nice compromise between a turbo and a centrifugal sc. nice linear power even if it didn't feel as brutal as a turbo at 13psi.
I like a more linear feel too and I know what you mean about performance. Because the power progression is so smooth, it's not till you glance at the speedo that you realise how quick the thing is. And frankly, that's probably as much as my track skills can handle atm.
I'm starting to think the same thing about compromise and am making some enquiries with Hymee. However, still looking and learning about other options...
09-16-2009, 02:10 AM
#43
I have 3 boost controller settings
off : 8psi low down building to 11psi by 6000 . This gives superb throttle control and is excellent for windy roads
Lo : on verge of losing tractioon in 2nd gear great for embarrasing STI and Evo owners from a roll .
Hi : lose traction in 3rd gear . Great for getting wild and scaring the sh*t out of your mates .
Drivability is not much different than N/A on the "off"setting but gets more difficult as I go to "lo" and "hi" . Gobs of torque does that .
As far as lag goes - it is not the issue the SC guys make out it is if the turbo is correctly sized . I doubt whether you would even notice it .
09-16-2009, 04:58 AM
#44
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent. Probably the most honest thing I've read so far!Thanks for the other info. The boost settings obviously make good sense.
I appreciate the answers to some direct questions too. I've noticed from reading a lot of the other FI threads that there's a lot of tub thumping. More heat than light in some of them...
I appreciate the enthusiasm and dedication a lot of the turbo faithful demonstrate and I can understand why they're sold on it but the more I learn the more I'm thinking Hymee's kit is the one for me. Happy to leave turbo games to the hardcore gurus and enjoy a 'softer' experience.
09-16-2009, 05:05 AM
#45
Turbos can be "adjusted" too easily and can put much higher strain/torque on the engine so although saying SC gives "softer" boost is kinda ridiculous in a way , the truth is that the way a SC works is way easier on the engine and drive train .
Last edited by Brettus; 09-16-2009 at 05:16 AM.
09-16-2009, 05:10 AM
#46
Excellent. Probably the most honest thing I've read so far!Thanks for the other info. The boost settings obviously make good sense.
I appreciate the answers to some direct questions too. I've noticed from reading a lot of the other FI threads that there's a lot of tub thumping. More heat than light in some of them...
I appreciate the enthusiasm and dedication a lot of the turbo faithful demonstrate and I can understand why they're sold on it but the more I learn the more I'm thinking Hymee's kit is the one for me. Happy to leave turbo games to the hardcore gurus and enjoy a 'softer' experience.
Last edited by Brettus; 09-16-2009 at 05:18 AM.
09-16-2009, 05:22 AM
#47
Yes boost is boost but a turbo can make 13psi from only 3500rpm when a SC would be lucky to make 3psi . That is a huge difference and I think this is why turbos get such a bum wrap for blowing motors . If you are going to boost so high so early your tune has to be spot on .
...
...
why this doesn't translate to torque equal to a turbo on a dyno then you also see how turbo's often taper off after peak power- you don't catch SC's doing that.
09-16-2009, 01:53 PM
#48
you talking positive displacement or centrifugal SC? ether way both should do more than 3psi with 13psi up top. a PD SC should have 13psi all the way through the rpm range why this doesn't translate to torque equal to a turbo on a dyno
then you also see how turbo's often taper off after peak power- you don't catch SC's doing that.
why this doesn't translate to torque equal to a turbo on a dyno then you also see how turbo's often taper off after peak power- you don't catch SC's doing that.
As for turbos dropping off at peak - there are a lot of reasons this can occur and I think you will see better results as people realise why this happens .
The fact remains that if you look at the dyno chart on the first page and analyse the shape of the curve you will see that that the turbo car making 330whp is going to be significantly quicker than the SC car making 330whp .
Last edited by Brettus; 09-16-2009 at 02:47 PM.
09-16-2009, 05:28 PM
#49
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha, I know myself too well though. I'm not good at resisting temptation and I just know I'd be turning up the boost too often with a turbo. Pop would go the weasel within days I suspect.
I'd say the 'softer' delivery of SC would keep me within safer territory...
09-16-2009, 05:30 PM
#50
Shootin' from the hip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts