Which way, American man?
>>28194338Depends on the engine. Superchargers only make sense on large displacement engines that don't give a shit about some parasitic loss.
>>28194338NA high compression.
Neither. N/A all the way.
>>28194338Turbo all day every day.UNLESS I was doing an inline 6 in which case I may wish to preserve the superior exhaust note and use a supercharger.
>>28194385I6 is for turbos and v8s are for superchargers
Thinking about it, there's probably more supercharged than turbocharged British motor Corp petrol cars
>>28194338>Which way, American man?Not just using both
>>28194374>>28194379Wrenchlet faggots kek, just keep that shit in the slow lane and we won't have issues. So fucking gay lmao
>>28194338Those two have different power curves. The positive displacement type makes a lot of power low down in the rev range that falls off toward the top end. You can think of such an install as a large displacement N/A engine as it mimics that the closest.The centrifugal makes for an aggressively rising torque curve that results in an animalistic rush for the redline that mimics a very hot smaller engine the best. I find this one the most fun.
>>28194473Your motor's not as big as your mouth kid.
>>28194511>"Your motor">Pictured: (not anons motor)
Properly sized turbo with smaller cam.
If Aston Martin made a supercharged v10 I would shit in my pants
>>28194511>11 liter NA blockThat's fucking crazy ngl.
>>28194338Anything below 4.5L gets a turbo. 4.5L and up gets a super
>americans=niggerThey will say supercharger of course
>>28194338I just like turbo sounds. Supercharger may be the best way to make more power but turbos sound too cool
>>28194603https://youtu.be/SbhQPTx73X8?si=K7QbHDHmUWKdBeVb&t=118
For me it’s a huge turbo with lots of lag
>>28194338Use a turbo, if you want to hold on to some fuel economy. Otherwise, it's always a supercharger.
>>28194473Ricer shitjeets need to fuck off.
>>28194920ricelet slowfaglet "cope," to use the parlance of our times
compound supercharging
>>28194924A ricer pointlessly mashes turbos into things that don't need them, shitjeet. Go tape a "spoiler" on your 1.6l turbo chugbox that runs out of gears reaching highway speed while I comfortably cruise 15 over with an entire gear left over.
Both.
>>28194938My M5 cruises at a little over 2k rpm @ 88mph lol
>making a car FASTER is RICE!!!
>>28194938>I didn't need more power anyway, it's pointlessOff to /n/ with you tranny
>alternator>catalytic converterWhat did >>28194338 mean by this?
>>28194939But does it have the special sills or the speed extinguishers.
>>28194473500 hp na coyote is plenty of power for the streets. Eat shit, poser.
>>28194981Gets walked by a 500hp turbo k24
>want to supercharge but kits are hard to find and expensive (whipple and kb are discontinued and centris are for ricer faggots)>Would turbo but cramped engine bay means it has to be remote and all of the fuckery that comes with that, especially charge piping Life is pain
>>28195003Get cucked V engine faggot
>>28194338N/A first, super second, turbo third.alternatively a twincharge which is based.
>>28194944I'm not gonna turbo my flathead V8, shitjeet tranny lover.
>>28194338na for high revving gasoline enginesturbo for dieselssuperchargers for people who can't build gasoline engines
>>28195327Said no racing car driver/owner/builder ever
>>28195359>"Turbochargers are for people who can't build engines." – Keith Duckworth The father of F1 engines
>>28195359stupid ricer
>>28195442and he was summarily proved completely fucking wrong there wasn't he?>>28195443show me a racing series where forced induction is allowed without penalty, where the winning racers CHOOSE to run their engines N/A instead(it doesn't exist)
>>28195456yeah by regulations after 20 years of dominating
>>28195460>by regulationsShow me the open class where N/A engines win
>>28194338What is the point of centrifugal superchargers? Don't they combine the disadvantages of turbos and positive displacement superchargers?
Whiny supercharger is gay and a waste of energy.
>v6 3.5lturbo or superpooper scooper?
>>28194338Turbos have been debunked alreadyTurbos = fake power
>>28195539>replaces your displacementNuthin personnel, kid.
>>28195501If you have a super torquey engine a centri helps the balance out the power delivery, and creates a flatter torque. It's also more efficient and you don't need intercooling.
>>28195543But why not use a turbo in this case? Just because it doesn't need intercoolers?
>>28195554Yeah or packaging constraints, or you don't want to pull the engine
>>28195028>MeanwhileProject harder lol
>>28195562That makes sense, thank you.
>>28194379100% THIS.There's no replacement for displacement.
>>28195565>Hey I'm not a V-engine faggot.... I'm a trannyverse faggot!!Wow you sure showed me
>>28194757Turbos are the way to make more power.On stock cars Germans make 150-170hp/l with turbos, Americans make <140 with superchargers.Serious builds also use turbos, I was looking at WK Grand Cherokees and the 1000+hp builds use twin-turbos.That said I have a supercharged car and plan on getting another one.
>not using turbo compound
>>28194338Super charged V8. Even better if it's a big block.
>>28194338Superchargers sound betterhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO2AqK9Eli8
>>28195751>Turbos are the way to make more power.Lol no. Top Fuel dragsters that make 10,000 HP use superchargershttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Fuel#Superchargers
>>28194348superchargers work just as well on small displacement engines.
>>28195963only because the rules force them to.
>>28195959Its sounds like your moms vibrator
>>28195688>He thinks I was talking about myself Nigga u dum lol
>>28196195>doesn't know what "project" means
>>28194942Putting exhaust wrap on your downpipes and nothing else is rice, shitskin.
>>28196200>doesnt know what "meanwhile" means
>>28196249>meanwhile this is my real engine>you are projecting when you say I own a V engine
>>28194338Turbo so I can have quad turbo.
>>28196256You were saying?
>>28195963Turbos where banned retard
>>28195003>wah wah i cant buy a sc or turbski the pain!build your own, noob.
>>28195963>a mere 10,000hp for a mere 5 seconds of run time between maintenance intervalsPathetic.
>>28196000Not really. Historically supercharged i4's and V6's have always had terrible power outputs compared to the NA variants. The parasitic losses matter when you're not even making 300hp.
>>28194338Why not a belt driven turbo?
>>28194338Depends on the application. I have a special place in my heart for superchargers but in some instances, turbos make sense, like when it comes to altitude. Especially when it comes to towing, being able to maintain the same performance at altitude as you would at sea level gives turbo engines a leg up on N/A and supercharged engines.
>>28196377Because a turbo without a turbine isn't a turbo.
>>28196377Wouldn't that just be a supercharger?
>>28194338Eaton m90, just get two of them if one isn't enough.
>>28196985Would it not have made more sense to mount those upside down over the valve covers? There's a good chance they could've shaped the intake in such a way that the original hood still over the top that way.
>>28197014Looks like a drift build, if you had two superchargers world you want to show them off?
>>28197068Sure, but only if the work was worth showing off. I acknowledge that this is probably just a mock up for future planning, but just having them side by side on a flat plane looks piss poor, imo. If I was going to show them off, I'd at least have them canted a little.
>>28194338Why not both?
>>28196897The original NACA term for a turbo was a turbo-supercharger, piston aircraft ended up settling on multiple stage centrifical superchargers. Packaging is always the limiting factor for turbos.
>>28194995Bread on hood nigger.
>>28197126>centrifical
>>28197135>no bread on his 500hp coyote
>>28194338Undriveable cam 14:1 pistonsStroker kit The American way is throwing displacement at the problem, even when it makes no sense to do so.
>>28196985Because the losses go down volumetrically. There is no way that is as efficient as a single screw designed for the application, although last time I checked scrapyard Eatons are a lot cheaper than a 6-71
>>28194338My car has both
as much as I love the liner power delivery of a super charger they sound fucking lame! Nothing beats the SHHHHHHH TUTUTUTU
NA > supercharged > turbo try to get the most consistent, smoothest feeling power delivery
>>28198425Said no racing driver ever
https://youtu.be/-ZfLaGyPTQowhy not both
>>28198454nta but are you retarded? It's a pretty common opinion.
>>28198461Show me the racing series where forced induction is allowed without penalty, but the winning drivers choose to keep their cars N/A instead.(It doesn't exist)
>>28198468can am.
>>28198471[citation needed]
>>28198474wow what a newfag moment. Imagine shooting your mouth off about racing while not having at least a passing familiarity with can-am.
>>28198476>it was real in my mind
Why not both?
>N/A wrenchlets actually believe racing drivers would willingly choose to keep their cars N/A if the rules didn't penalise forced induction
>>28198541Turbo fags can't appreciate the beauty of ultra-fast responding engineshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Blszridpus
>>28200237Hey if you want to just say >"I think N/A engines are cool"I won't argue with you. Just don't try to pretend they're somehow magically better and DEFINITELY don't be retarded enough to think racing drivers wouldn't use forced induction any chance they got.
>>28196335Did he shave his eyebrows to reduce drag?
Everytime i consider either turbo/supercharging my car I think about how my oney is probably better spent working on the suspension.
>>28198468Desert racing. There's a reason why it's still dominated by NA LS's and NA big blocks.
>>28201340Specifically which?
>>28201940Trophy trucks, prerunners and some buggies pretty much all use N/A V8's.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2blUaxm0slA
>>28201959>Gasoline engines are naturally aspirated, and typically Ford or Chevrolet V8 engines, generating in excess of 1100 hp and 950lb-ft of torque. Turbo charged diesel motors are allowed, with a minimum size of 5.0 liters to a maximum size of 6.6 liters, with two turbo chargers. Turbo engines must be fitted with an air restrictor.Based retard
