Why don't we see more of these today compared to turbos? I never got it, even my lecturers when I went to study mechanics didn't know why we don't use them more than turbos.
>>28680504Because they're factually worse in every metric than modern turbo systems besides ease of design/installation
>>28680504Short answer is emissions.
>>28680515Of fucking course it is
>>28680504They’re less efficient in basically all cases, but have packaging advantages as well as driving dynamics (sometimes).
>>28680512If you're doing an aftermarket install on a previously NA engine or specifically competing in Top Fuel, then superchargers are probably better. Otherwise >>28680512
>>28680512>>28680522I get that they syphon power from the engine to opperate and don't utilize exhaust gasses for opperation which allows turbos to have a higher potential in perfomance, but you still get a net increase from supers and almost immediately. What's the point in the perfomance increase when there is only a select band where you can utilize it? If you want to remove that threshold you end up with a dual setup that causes more issues in terms of space and tuning.
>>28680534in picrel, red = supercharged and blue = turbocharged from an NA baseif you want supercharger-like performance out of your turbo then you could just give it an extremely harsh detuneyou can also basically completely eliminate lag with electric spooling, TT setups, and ECU/throttle magic
>>28680534if you take the supercharger off a 3.8 l67 and replace it with a turbo thats waste gated at the same pressure, you'll be making 300hp instead of 240. It takes 60 fucking horsepower to turn that Eaton m90, and with a properly sized turbo you aren't going to experience lag.
>>28680540>>28680534oop
>>28680534Modern turbos are really good across a much larger rev range, especially the ones with dynamic vane, making the efficiency gap even bigger. I personally think superchargers are better for off-roading as you can apply good power at very low rpm where even small turbos aren’t helping, and the power is linear.But yeah, Turbos are better for almost all road applications.
>>28680544Variable-geometry turbos are usually a diesel thing, unless you're Porsche.
God i miss my W202 with "Kompressor" lettering. 2.0 191 hp. Shorter grearing, it could beat E39 3.0Ds when everything was right.
>>28680504
>>28680512Turbos are for gay euros. Real niggas that actually WIN world wars ie AMERICANS use blowers. Don’t @ me Pierre Jamal Steinberg, I already left the thread
>>28680585but WWII US planes used turbochargersand turbines, as used in modern US fighter jets, tanks, and other vehicles, are much closer to turbochargers than superchargers
I get that turbos are 'better' but I'm not sure it really translates in the real world. Using an example Mercedes used a hot-V twin turbo V6 for the C43 AMG which is a good example of modern turbocharging, but it doesn't actually produce much more power than Jag's supercharged V6 which is an older engine design and just has a 1.4l roots blower bolted on top. The performance gulf between the supercharged yank and Jag engines vs the turbo Germans and Japs just doesn't seem to be there.
turbos are cheaper than superchargers>/thread
>>28680598That Jag V6 is actually making more power to the crank than the Merc V6, but a significant chunk of that is gonna be used for spinning the blower, so while the power going into the transmission is similar, the Jag V6 is gonna be using more fuel to do so and it's gonna be stressing its components more.
>>28680504Real question: why haven't electric superchargers made it into production yet?
>>28681333Generally the power required to power the alternator to power an electric supercharger is more than just having a regular belt supercharger.
>>28680522just add a clutch to them like Merc did.
>>28681340But you can operate it independently from RPM, and tune everything electronically for a completely flat torque curve from idle.
>>28680504>sucks power directly from the crankshaft>turbo sucks power from the exhaust which you were just going to have to muffle away anywayTURBO CHADS WIN AGAIN
>>28681333torqamp sells one, it's a start but the technology is still very much in its infancy.>>28681340one can dream that we'll eventually see electric turbos that can run off supercapacitors that can deliver enough power to run them without having to wait too long, if at all, to charge. best of turbos and supers
>>28680543That's probably a centrifugal supercharger, you can get a better boost curve from a positive displacement supercharger but it's still robbing power from the crankshaft.
>>28680512false; supers look cooler.
>>28681333Audi uses one to fill in while the turbos spool up in some of their models iirc
>>28680504Modern micro turbos don't have any "lag". Any "lag" you do feel is just the ECU cutting power to protect the tranny.
>>28680504Modern turbo cars aren't laggy.
>>28681343Mad Max did it first.
>>28680593Only some did due to how much space the turbo+ducting took up, the rest ran on 1 or 2 stage blowers
>>28680504Low end gains at a cost of top end in a world where v8 engines can will and do rev to 9k
>>28680504Cuz a moden 4pot shitbox with a turbo gets 50mpg and has 200hp at 2500rpm and will last 4 times as long as your old timer faffot rustbox
>>28680598>a hot-V twin turbo V6 for the C43 AMG which is a good example of modern turbocharging
>>28680504>More internal resistance>Parasitic power drain.>Higher end torque instead of lower end.As you might know, most superchargers now have a clutch pulley. If they didn't have a clutch pulley then the engine would sound like it's dying at an idle like it needs a pacemaker.
>>28681333they have, on some german diesel engines, like 10 years ago
>>28680553>it could beat E39 3.0DThat's not impressive.
>>28681340This should be negated by the fact that you can recharge the battery with regenerative blowing
>>28680504>No lagTurbo lag is virtually nonexistant with modern turbochargers in the smaller sizes you'd typically find in an OEM turbocharged street car. They spool super fast and are often tuned to be at peak torque across a massive swath of the RPM range.That whole "super peaky tiny power band huge turbo lag" mindset is a relic of the 80's. That's not how it is any more.
>>28681333you mean a vacuum cleaner?
>>28682290At idle the blower spins in a vacuum, it's not doing any work at all. the clutch isn't really the game changer that people think it is
one actual advantage of superchargers is that they run a hell of a lot cooler than turbos
>>28680504I imagine having a super charger connected to your drive train makes it a lot less reliable/hazardous compared to a turbo charger which is connected to a byproduct.
