Hey car guys, best forced induction?
Posted by Kind-Midnight-7280@reddit | askcarguys | View on Reddit | 43 comments
Hello I’m very curious what peoples opinions are on the turbo vs supercharger argument in the car community
rampas_inhumanas@reddit
I'm partial to superchargers because the internals are so cool, but there's probably a reason engine builders use turbos 99% of the time.
often_awkward@reddit
Turbos are cheaper and easier to plumb aftermarket so way more power per dollar. Also less parasitic loss.
xToyota@reddit
5k in a supercharger build vs 5k in turbo build is a huge horse power difference for most cars if u look at it that way. In the LS world that’s alike a 250hp difference
often_awkward@reddit
That's exactly what "horsepower per dollar" implies.
Bb42766@reddit
For daily driving. Super chargers will out perform in mpg as well as low end torque from a idle. It's instant boost.
Turbos perform as engine load and rpm increase. Suffering from turbo lag .
Anyone that denies these facts.. Obviously has never actually driven both induction systems on equal engines abd cars. There's absolutely NO comparison between the two for daily driving performance abd benefits.
Heavy_Gap_5047@reddit
Superchargers get better MPG, explain that one.
Bb42766@reddit
Prime example Equal car Same engine Buickv3 . Grand national turbo 17mpg Pontiac grand prix 3.8 super charged 26mpg
Ford Eco crap 3.5 turbo Mustang 420 hp 18 mpg
Shelby 5.2 supercharged 750hp 22 mpg
Turbos make efficient power only at high rpm fulll load. Super chargers make power from idle to redline rpm
mautorepair@reddit
I think your info on factory turbocharged vehicles may be a bit outdated. There is virtually no turbo lag and they reach peak torque at diesel-like rpm’s of 2k. Real world mpg is definitely suffering for this though. Not sure how many factory supercharged vehicles are even out there and getting better mpg. I’m only familiar with the lr4…. Which gets abysmal mpg lol.
Cautious_Implement17@reddit
this is not true, even with great modern engines like b58. if you're cruising and suddenly stomp on the throttle it's: downshift, wait a beat, get a ton of power. you don't get the peak torque number at 2k unless you're already on the gas.
Bb42766@reddit
Gt500 2019 Shelby. 60000 miles behind wheel. All tq instant at idle to 8500 rpm Turbo can't touch em for mpg or response
Jugg383@reddit
If you think a Shelby is getting 22 mpg then you're out of your mind.
Bb42766@reddit
Your a idiot obviously. I own 2019 gt500 Daily "driving" 22mpg not any issue. Playing, will drop to 12mpg If all you have is a turbo civic and think you know anything about a real car with a real engine. Then your best keeping you mouth shut.
Jugg383@reddit
Put that into English then I'll give you the time of day.
Bb42766@reddit
My first line was as English as it gets
TheAngryShitter@reddit
Not so crazy. I've seen corvettes getting like 30mpg
CarLover014@reddit
Yup can confirm. Averaged 31 mpg driving from NJ to FL in my 1996. Doing 80-85 mpg the whole way
Heavy_Gap_5047@reddit
Those aren't same car, same engine examples.
Part throttle efficiency has far more effect on MPG than peak power efficiency.
Really there's far too many elements to compare the two on such simple terms. I was just curious how you'd back up that claim.
Bb42766@reddit
Drive em lol backs it up. Noooo comparison for mpg or response
Flimsy_Train3956@reddit
I don’t know if this totally solves the turbo lag problem, but I’ve got an AMG GTC V8 hot vee biturbo. The turbocharges sit between the cylinder banks instead of hanging off the outside of the engine. I’ve never noticed any turbo lag, but I’m not an expert, so maybe I’m just biased.
Bb42766@reddit
Watch your boost gauge Anytime it's not at full boost, Like at a stop sign or red-light. When you start to go again. Your suffering from turbo lag, every single time
Flimsy_Train3956@reddit
Thanks. I guess the motor’s powerful enough I can’t really tell when the turbos kick in.
xmiitsx87@reddit
Just leave the lights off the 2step and there's no more turbo lag..
LeadfootYT@reddit
It’s about the identity of the car. Turbo makes more sense in most applications because you can choose how much power you need at a given time, but something about the supercharger whine in my Jag just feels right for a big grand tourer.
ChainOut@reddit
Supercharger whine, or your choice of bov sounds and/or a screamer pipe.
LeadfootYT@reddit
No need to choose, we have four turbocharged cars too
often_awkward@reddit
Why not both? There was a Lamborghini performance package that had four turbos and two superchargers. The superchargers were there to spool up the turbos and probably overcome turbo lag.
I've had both. I owned a front wheel drive Roots blown Buick in my younger years that I took down to a 12.8 second pass. The low end torque even on the 3.8 L V6 was amazing.
Later on I had a Cadillac with a 2 L 4 cylinder turbo I never took that thing to the track but I did put it on a Dyno and put nearly 400 horsepower to the wheels and I did a whole lot less work because of electronic boost control.
It really depends on the application which dictates what would be the superior solution. If we're strictly talking about internal combustion engines to boil it down simply there's three major ways to add power that are all basically the same thing - getting more air into the cylinder. You can make it bigger, you can spin it faster, or you can force feed it. Personally I like forced induction because you can have this low compression, small displacement engine for just highway driving or whatever but when you mat the throttle you essentially get displacement on demand.
FWIW I drive a dad van now. My naturally aspirated 5.3 L V8 Chevrolet Tahoe which is perfect for a dad that needs to pick up truck stuff but also haul his family around. I'm highly considering adding a blower. It would be cheaper to go with a turbo but the main reason I would go with a supercharger in this application is because I don't want to get crazy and mainly we do a lot of road trips and it would be nice to have forced induction when we go to the mountains and just huffing about 6 PSI wouldn't over stress the internals.
If I turboed that bitch there's no effing way I wouldn't be chasing 35 PSI. Say it with me children - electronic boost control.
tl:dr; I have no strong feelings either way other than I love forced induction.
PS - The Roots blower on an NHRA Top Fuel dragster has a parasitic loss of approximately 350 horsepower. To this day there's still no dyno that can measure the total horsepower of those engines that only essentially run under a thousand revolutions under load including the burnout. Anyway, they make like 800 horsepower per cylinder and outrageous torque.
megapickel@reddit
Lancia Delta S4 has entered the chat.
throwawayyourfun@reddit
Nissan March SuperTurbo is a car... it wasn't a performance giant, but it had both.
Binford6100User@reddit
Volvo XC90 is dual charged. Same reason, more linear boost curve across the rev range.
often_awkward@reddit
I love fellow car nerds. You guys are awesome.
turmiii_enjoyer@reddit
They each have their place. Superchargers create parasitic load, but create boost at low RPMs. Turbos have an incredibly negligible load on the motor, but have to spool up (which can be almost entirely mitigated with modern sequential turbo and anti lag systems.) Ease of install changes depending on the type of system, motor, and specific car model. I've ridden two stroke dirt bikes all my life, so the feeling of a big single spooling and snapping into the power band is incredible to me, at it's remarkably similar to getting on the pipe on my 300xc. But some people prefer the linear, predictable power increase that comes with a supercharger. At the end of the day it all comes down to personal preference and goals for the build
MaliciousMilk@reddit
I own a supercharged car, and there is also a turbo version of my car.
At the most basic level. Supercharged cars are more reliable, since it's a simpler system, have the whine, feel like an NA car since there's no lag at all, better low end torque, are slightly worse on gas, don't make as much power, and run hotter.
Turbo cars are easier to make power with, make more power, have turbo noises, but power is not instant (though lag in minimal on a modern, good turbo setup). Turbos are also getting to the point where they're cheaper to obtain, since they're so much more common.
If you want dailyable boost and it meets your power wants I'd go for a supercharged setup. If you want big power numbers I'd go turbo.
Best way to compare it to drive both though :)
1995LexusLS400@reddit
Basically all manufacturers have abandoned cheap and simple superchargers for complex and expensive turbos for a reason.
yogfthagen@reddit
What do you wang to do?
Turbo- runs off exhaust gasses from the engine to turn a turbine to compress air
Advantages- less parasitic power loss.
Works better at high rpm.
Doesn't make full power at sedate driving- can lead to less fuel consumption when you don't need full power.
Disadvantages- turbo lag/takes time to get up to full boost
Higher temperatures inside the turbo- can require running the engine at idle to cool down the turbo before shutting off. Higher temps also degrade oil faster
May require change in driving style to keep engine at high revs and in the power band.
Can have peaky power increases which makes driving at the edge more, ahem, "exciting." Finding your tires having an extra 100hp because the turbos finally spooled up in the middle of a corner means you may end up breaking loose in that corner.
Turbo seals. Every turbo car I've had needed the seals replaced. They ended up burning ool, some to the point of a tank laying down a smoke screen.
Extra plumbing for intake air and oil supply.
Higher intake air temps generally require an intercooler.
Supercharger- air pump/compressor that is mechanically driven off the engine. Usually off the crankshaft, but some new ones are electrically driven.
Advantages- instant power, no power spikes/turbo lag. Don't need to run engine at high revs to get full effect.
Easier to turn on,/off. Can install a clutch to not have it running all the time.
Cooler intake air. Intercooler not as necessary
Simpler install (kinda.....) but they're a lot harder to squeeze under the hood.
Less maintenance.
Disadvantages- more expensive
Uses more fuel (always on vs sometimes on)
More parasitic loss of power because you're turning this big pump - higher fuel consumption at lower power.
More complicated than a turbo.
For street cars, turbos have more advantages. For race cars, too, with caveats. For drag cars, superchargers are preferred.
So, what do uou want to do?
rothordwarf@reddit
Power down low, super.
Power up top, turbo.
AFB27@reddit
I am much more of a turbo person, it's so genius to use the exhaust gas to intake more air. Also the thrill of the spool up is so fun.
IrritablePanda@reddit
They both have their place and different applications call for different solutions. Generally, turbo is always the better choice for power when possible because there’s no parasitic loss driving a belt.
But superchargers can be a lot easier to package and install with many being self contained fluid and not needing specific exhaust routing.
Racer-X-@reddit
Turbos still have some parasitic loss because the engine has to push the exhaust through the turbine. It's not a "free lunch." But some energy is recovered from heat and expansion that continues after the exhaust valve opens. In a N/A engine, that energy is usually wasted.
Realistic-March-5679@reddit
While this is true the amount of loss is a literal order of magnitude less. The power required to drive a supercharger is measured in horsepower, if you calculated the loss of power on the motor from back pressure you’d be in the tenths of a horse power. The main driving force of a turbo is already moving and heated air, that air is already leaving and the turbine is not enough of a restriction it slows down appreciably. Not only this but the design of the turbine coupled with a larger exit actually speeds the exhaust air up as it enters the lower pressure of the backside of the turbine so once its up to speed it’s sucking air through it in addition to being pushed from the inlet. The amount of energy is low enough you could accurately call it no power loss because the amount you lose is within the margin of error for your turbocharger power gain calculations. So while technically true, in practice it really doesn’t matter. It’s not a free lunch, it’s a lunch that’s going to cost you a shiny penny you just found on the sidewalk. Inconsequential in practice.
Cozzywestside@reddit
Drive both and see what you prefer, the linear boredom and whine of a supercharger or the steadily growing orgasmic thrust of a big turbo along with all the super cool noises they make.
It's very much a personal choice unless you have specific performance goals.
Emanresu909@reddit
Supercharging mimics an increase in displacement by giving you a linear increase in power and immediate onset. The drawback is parasitic powertrain losses and a lower ceiling for total power gains.
Turbochargers ceiling for gains is limited only by the engine's ability to handle boost and fuel availability. The 503 engine built off of toyotas 3sgte four cylinder ran nearly 50lbs of boost and made over 480hp in its' 24 hours of Daytona trim. The drawbacks are that you generally have delays in boost onset the bigger you go with your turbo, and they generate a massive amount of heat.
slammed430@reddit
Nitrous is fun
Jimmytootwo@reddit
Both are great