Why are superchargers ded?The blower on my Jag is absolute kino
>>28797488Who need them when vgt turbo exist ?
>>28797498>*eats itself and deposits tip in combustion chamber*
>>28797500Why are you harboring so many negative, pessimistic thoughts?Just don't buy the cheapest turbos from China.
>>28797509I wouldn't but OEMs would.
>>28797500Would you care to explain how the diverter vane may end up in the combustion chamber ?
>>28797528Because its mounted on a 1/4" pivot pin in a device that sees 20,000 rpms with no lubrication.
>>28797769only 20,000? thought it was more like 100,000
>>28797488While I love a supercharger, naturally aspirated is my true love. Turbo charging is for the weak.
>>28797488to state the obvious the real reason is thermal efficiency. blowers have a lot of benefits in response and torque curves and packaging but have to rob useable mechanical power from your crank whereas turbos use energy that is normally just wasted as hot gasses out of the exhaust. that means more power for the same amount of chemical energy. that and there are practical limits to the compressor efficiency of most blowers compared to turbos which can easily make absurd levels of boost.
>>28797488Electric hybrid turbos negate the one advantage superchargers have over turbos, and they come with a whole host of other advantages as well.
>>28797488no nigga. Most of you are too much of a fag or too young to put Eaton on your MX5 anyway
>>28797780While technically true in that it is theoretically possible for a turbo to be more efficient… once you have them, it’s too much fun to feel daBoost and hear the Pshh-shhhhhhhhhhhh.Fuck the efficiency crank it up.
>>28797924you are misunderstand the implications of thermal efficiency. heat engines produce output based on energy_out + loss = energy_in. a more thermally efficient system means less loss and more of your power goes to the ground instead of being radiated as heat from the engine, exhaust, or cooling system. it's why high strung engines with high hp/L run super high volumetric efficiency for low pumping losses and try to get their coolant temps as high as possible before boiling.
>>28797488Because they're reliable, turbos are not, so you consoom more
>>28797488they'd be interesting with twincharging something ive always wanted to try on a barraturbos more fun and no parasitic loss and more interesting and customizable power deliverythat said if someone made a hybrid electric turbo + sc id be really interested in that porsche style
>>28797902This setup kicks ass I've only ridden in one once but it ripped for a street car on decent coilovers and r888s. Was only even a 1.6 (BRG).Superchargers are girth. Turbos are length.
>>28797488They're too parasitic especially now days when everything is powered by a low displacement glorified motorcycle engine. They need to squeeze all the power they can from that little midget cricket engine and can't afford to be gifting any power to the power gods.
>>28798076>everything is powered by a low displacement glorified motorcycle engine.But the h2 existsif they can literally do it in litrebike motors why not whack that engine in a car?!
>>28798083They're the only ones to do that which may or may not be a good idea. 250hp from a 1l engine would obviously not last long moving a 3500lb vehicle.
>>28798088>250hp from a 1l engine would obviously not last long moving a 3500lb vehicle.so just like the stupid engine in the GR yaris?1.6ltr~ in a 2500-3000lbs cars that grenade!!?!Ironically id argue the 1ltr sc bike engine would last longer as their overengineered as fuck and would outlast the car equivilants with a real gearbox
>>28798091Sport bike engines don't even last moving 500lb motorcycles.
>>28798096Again... can you answer why?Would it be the size of the crank ? Whats the bottleneck!?How is it any different than those 1.5ltr~ buzzbox engines that explode and have to run 0w-5 oil
>>28798099High RPM's are extremely hard on engines. High HP/L ratios are extremely hard on engines. Why do you think semi truck engines are 16 liters but only rev to 2500rpm and only make 400hp? No it's not ferda torque, it's for longevity. >How is it any different than those 1.5ltr~ buzzbox engines that explode and have to run 0w-5 oilIt's not. Both are fucking retarded to use to power a roadgoing vehicle.
>>28798106>High RPM's are extremely hard on engines. High HP/L ratios are extremely hard on engines. Why do you think semi truck engines are 16 liters but only rev to 2500rpm and only make 400hp? No it's not ferda torque, it's for longevity.my 6000-6500rpm 4ltr begs to differ more reliable than older versions at 5500~
>>28798114>6500 rpmnigger pushrods go that high.High rpm is 8500+
>>28798083to answer your question, bike engines don't have to last 100k miles. 60k miles is considered a shitton for a sport bike. longevity isn't a concern, only response and peak power. a car engine that only lasts 60k miles would trigger recalls and class action lawsuits. bike engines also have more frequent maintenance and way easier emissions standards so they can run different cam profiles, different bearing clearances, thickee oil, and just way more aggressive tuning overall.
>>28797812they're more complex and heavier than superchargers since they require a 48V subsystem
