Why do “there’s no replacement for displacement” people not mind supercharging even though they hate turbocharging.

[-]

ohwell_______@reddit

I mean in simple terms: Start with a big ass engine, add forced induction for crazy power = extremely cool. Start with a big ass engine, replace it with a tiny engine and add forced induction just to get back where you started = not very cool.

Reply

[-]

ALaLaLa98@reddit

Why would you not *also* start with a big ass engine for the turbocharging comparison? Why forget the fact that superchargers have also been used for downsizing?

Reply

[-]

Kraven_Lupei@reddit

Meanwhile I feel like crazy Uncle Steve because I love seeing small turbo engines push some numbers. The technology and the spirit behind "tiny thing with surprising power" always made me smile. Then again I guess it's not that surprising since I drive a 1.4L turbo

Reply

[-]

cilantno@reddit

What are 1.4 multiairs topping out at? I've been amazed by some EA888 numbers.

Reply

[-]

aquatone61@reddit

The EA888 is like an old school game cheat code. Tune? Instant +50 hp and 80 lb-ft torque. Add some bolt ons and you can easily do 100+ hp. Stock DSG will take up to 400hp with zero issues and a tune allows even more. The RS3 engine is even better.

Reply

[-]

TheLewJD@reddit

Same with the B58, simple mods and crazy power.

Reply

[-]

cilantno@reddit

I had a stage 2 EA888.1 (MK6 GTI, MT) and stage 2 EA888.3 (MK7 R, MT), lovely engines to drive with great power curves. Not the best exhaust sounds though lol

Reply

[-]

apandya277@reddit

Aside from big power, the curves also influence daily driving feel. I found I preferred the driving experience of the 3.0T over the EA888. Linear power build > turbo torque. Supercharger whine is just icing on the cake.

Reply

[-]

SecretPantyWorshiper@reddit

Tbh while cool its not really that impressive anymore. Pretty much every performance 2.0L get make roughly 400hp-500hp with FBO and push in the 500hp 600hp range with upgraded fuel and E85. K20C1, Mustang EB, Theta II, B48, are all capable of huge numbers.

Reply

[-]

MisterDoctor___@reddit

Still fun. My big turbo EA888 really put the hurt on some cocky modded V8 and some V10 owners.

Reply

[-]

martin509984@reddit

Absolute hp record for a 1.4 is, apparently, a 532hp Alfa Mito running at 3 bar of boost with meth injection and 95AKI/100RON octane, which is way more than I thought for something that doesn't even have an iron block. However, it seems more reasonable street 1.4s top out in the 300s. https://www.italpassion.fr/en/alfa-romeo/power-record-for-this-alfa-romeo-mito-with-fiat-1-4l-multiair-532-hp-engine/

Reply

[-]

AcanthaceaeNo948@reddit (OP)

I mean there are compound turbo 2.0s that make 3000 hp. I’m sure you could go way beyond 532.

Reply

[-]

martin509984@reddit

I mean, this is pump gas and (I think?) stock block.

Reply

[-]

AcanthaceaeNo948@reddit (OP)

Stock block is fair. Though I’m pretty sure 100 RON with a methanol injection isn’t exactly pump gas.

Reply

[-]

martin509984@reddit

95 AKI isn't exactly pump gas but it's not E85 either, so hey.

Reply

[-]

cilantno@reddit

Holy shit, 532hp from a 1.4 on non-E is nuts.

Reply

[-]

megacookie@reddit

I think regardless of power, we kind of associate small engines with small cars and big engines with big cars. Small turbo 3 and 4 pots are excellent in a hot hatch or lightweight sports car, put the same thing in a 2.5 ton luxury sedan and people complain even if it's boosted to the moon and makes as much power as a V12 used to.

Reply

[-]

Pitiful-Mobile-3144@reddit

I agree with you, there’s something cool about doing more with less using some advanced metallurgy and tech. Seeing a 2.0 turbo hit the same numbers as a 4.0 v8 from a decade ago is different than, but just as cool as, seeing a supercharged modern 5.7L v8 putting out crazy hp numbers

Reply

[-]

OpneFall@reddit

>just as cool as No, it's definitely not as cool.

Reply

[-]

AnastasiusDicorus@reddit

I like to see tiny turbo engines push numbers too, like a 4.8l LS engine pumping out 1000hp.

Reply

[-]

thatgymdude@reddit

Nailed it, don't forget that a supercharger gives immediate power while a turbo will always have lag. The character of a supercharged engine is unforgettable too while a turbo is peaky and very unsatifying.

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

Turbos are only peaky and unsatisfying when people plop oversized turbos chasing dyno sheet numbers. My stock but built ej207 spooly boy is punchy af, especially on e85

Reply

[-]

thatgymdude@reddit

Honestly I hate turbos the more and more I drive newer cars especially EVs. Even a 911 still has turbo lag and BMW's B58 you need to rev boost to get any meaningful power. Even if a car is slower for it I happily pay more to avoid turbos, hate to say but the boomers have a point saying there is no replacement for displacement.

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

If you're racing, the turbo is almost always in boost. The boomers are wrong.

Reply

[-]

thatgymdude@reddit

For racing yes I agree but on the street turbos are almost worthless because you are sitting in traffic. A turbo needs revs or complex electric anti-lag systems which never work right at a stop, while a supercharged engine is like hitting a switch.

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

This is very far from the truth. Most stock turbos are sized appropriately for the engine and do not have that much lag. Which turbo cars have you driven and had this experience in?

Reply

[-]

NeverEverMaybe0_0@reddit

"do not have that much lag" ≠ " no lag

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

Also, I'd rather have a turbo in stop and go traffic rather than a supercharger that's constantly a parasitic loss on the engine. Unless it's a big v8, you're gonna feel that power loss at low rpms especially if stopping frequently a lot more than you would with a turbo setup which has no parasitic loss.

Reply

[-]

Plus-Hand9594@reddit

Which is why the 2.4L WRX engine is more appealing than the 1.6L GRC engine.

Reply

[-]

Astramael@reddit

The GRC engine actually makes more power on a stock block, and more power before going to a billet block, and more power without major configuration changes. So this is a pretty bad example.

Reply

[-]

Plus-Hand9594@reddit

The WRX stock makes as much HP as the GRC stock with 10psi less boost. When using equal psi, (which the WRX can easily do with zero modifications) it wipes out the GRC. The GRC NEEDS a billet block to do what the WRX can do on the stock block.

Reply

[-]

Astramael@reddit

> The WRX stock makes as much HP as the GRC stock with 10psi less boost. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but 271 is less than 300. > The GRC NEEDS a billet block to do what the WRX can do on the stock block. This is straight false. You’re just lying.

Reply

[-]

Plus-Hand9594@reddit

Subaru underrated it. On the same dyno, same day, the WRX actually makes a few more HP than the GRC. However it's low gearing, low redline and lower torque make it slower. Once those artificial limits are removed, it destroys the GRC.

Reply

[-]

Astramael@reddit

> make it slower Glad to see that we’re done here.

Reply

[-]

El_Chupacabra-@reddit

Did your feelings get so hurt that you forgot that you're the one that brought up how much power engines made? Lmao

Reply

[-]

Astramael@reddit

I know better than to waste my time arguing with a liar. You completely made up easily verifiable information, then when I called you out you reconfigured the goalposts. You’re clearly not here in good faith. Goodbye.

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

Fa24 has oodles more tuning potential than the GRC

Reply

[-]

Astramael@reddit

Depends what you want? It’s easier to make 350-450HP with the FA24, and easier to make 500-600HP with the G16E. That means the FA24 is probably more useful to most people since people like being in that range. The G16E is usually more expensive to mod since it’s new, although it’s cheaper at higher power levels because you don’t have to build the block with the G16E, but you do with the FA24. But “oodles more tuning potential” looks to be incorrect.

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

200hp per cylinder sounds like a bad time

Reply

[-]

steakpienacho@reddit

Yeah this comment pretty much sums it up. Forced induction very good. Opting for smaller engine with forced induction to make same power as larger engine NA, not so good. Larger engine with forced induction excellent

Reply

[-]

BurninCoco@reddit

Thunderbird SC was my dream car when I was a pubert

Reply

[-]

ScotchnScotch@reddit

My dad had an '89, but he sold it before I was old enough to drive it 😭

Reply

[-]

BTCminingpartner@reddit

Now take that turbo 2.3L and drop it in a pinto. Excellent sleeper.

Reply

[-]

jalopaf2@reddit

The 2.3 was the turbo coupe the SC was a supercharged 3.8. Both super cool cars

Reply

[-]

Whatfforreal@reddit

Holy shit, I haven’t thought about that car in decades! Gotta go search…

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

Strictly speaking if you absolutely had to pick a single factor, a single number, that ultimately limits the output of an engine more than anything else, it’s displacement. Top Fuel represents some of the most power being developed by any automotive type engine, and they’re limited to 500 cubic inches. None of those teams are going smaller so they can make more power. Similarly the most powerful production ICEs are relatively large displacement forced induction engines. The whole phrase and argument is stupid. It’s just some moron with a V8 talking shit and some nerd with a turbo 4 being like “well actually” It’s (current year) we need to move on.

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

> Strictly speaking if you absolutely had to pick a single factor, a single number, that ultimately limits the output of an engine more than anything else, it’s displacement. It's oxygen, which is why you can achieve similar power numbers from less displacement by forcing more oxygen into the system.

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

*looking for oxygen concentration on a spec sheet*

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

You said: > Strictly speaking if you absolutely had to pick a single factor Strictly speaking, that factor isn't displacement. And the evidence for that is forced induction. Large displacement and FI are different solutions to the same limiting factor, which is that the limiting reactant for power output is oxygen

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

*still looking*

Reply

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

You won't find it on a spec sheet because a spec sheet doesn't capture what limits an engine's power. As a rough guide yeah more displacement means more power of you compare two NA engines. But it doesn't mean more power than a smaller turbocharged engine which is why, *strictly speaking*, it's not accurate to say displacement is the limiting factor.

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

Comparing an NA engine to a turbo engine is completely missing the point. Elsewhere it has been discussed a record 500 horsepower out of a stock block 1.4 multiair. Great number, but not a lot of power. What’s holding it back? It’s got boost. It’s got a sophisticated valve design. Sophisticated fuel injection systems. Optimized in every regard I’m sure. But 500 horse. That’s all they can get out of that 1.4 liters. What if they wanted to make more power? What is the automotive enthusiast to do?

Reply

[-]

ParticularWhole9433@reddit

People were pushing 1500 HP out of a 2.0 20 years ago. there's no reason you couldn't make at least 1200 out of a 1.4 today. So, to answer your question, if you wanted to make 1200 HP out of a 1.4L block, but could only make 530 HP, what should you do? Hire someone that knows what they are doing.

Reply

[-]

AcanthaceaeNo948@reddit (OP)

Many cars advertise boost pressure tho?

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

Hilariously, among performance cars, frequently the engines taking about 10 pounds of boost are probably making double the power of the engines taking 25+

Reply

[-]

SirLoremIpsum@reddit

> Similarly the most powerful production ICEs are relatively large displacement forced induction engines. If straight-line speed is the only thing you care about sure. But weight, handling, driveability, fuel economy are all things in the real world that benefit from smaller displacement forced induction motors.

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

Famously supercars with 6+ liter V12s, Corvettes, etc are absolute pigs in terms of handing due to their engine displacement. Oh wait they’re literally the sharpest handling cars on the market. Something like that.

Reply

[-]

Supersize_You@reddit

Also, tiny engine with big turbo to get back where you started = more reliability issues

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

Yeah but just think about how cool you'd look vaping in that WRX while the engine vapes its head gaskets

Reply

[-]

Reconvened@reddit

You can turbo a big engine and end up with even more power than supercharging it.

Reply

[-]

SecretPantyWorshiper@reddit

Yeah but that adds more cost

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

And lag

Reply

[-]

Sought-After-27@reddit

This. Plus big ass engines go BLUG BLUG BLUG at idle, and sound like the gates of hell opening up when you step on the loud pedal. Small FI setups mostly sound like zesty farts.

Reply

[-]

When_hop@reddit

Hey now, we subaru owners like the smell of our zesty farts! Did I say smell? I meant sound

Reply

[-]

franksandbeans911@reddit

A fat lumpy sport cam on a v8 that barely idles is pretty glorious to hear, or drive. Friend rebuilt a 64 1/2 Mustang 4 speed once with that cam. Every gear was a smile and the stoplight soundtrack was GLUG GLUG GLUG GLUG.

Reply

[-]

Sought-After-27@reddit

10000%. When I come across cars like that, where you can literally feel and hear the cam turning over - I will roll my windows down in the pouring rain to hear it every time. I don't care how fast electric cars get, I'll take glorious v8 roar every time.

Reply

[-]

newbie415@reddit

How's this have so many likes lol. It doesn't even address the op's question.

Reply

[-]

Ok_Reputation3298@reddit

Not very cash money

Reply

[-]

aquatone61@reddit

The power levels that OEM can get out of 4.0 liters these days are just unreal.

Reply

[-]

5GCovidInjection@reddit

They probably still think turbos are laggy. Modern turbos are nowhere near as laggy as the old ones from the 80s. Though the Land Rover LR2 I drove in 2014 had some of the worst turbo lag known to humankind.

Reply

[-]

Rude_Thought_9988@reddit

The whine. Superchargers sound cool as hell.

Reply

[-]

MisterDoctor___@reddit

So do turbos. I personally prefer the whistle over the whine.

Reply

[-]

SecretPantyWorshiper@reddit

Yeah bit sadly modern turbos have a diverter valve so you dont hear that old school blow off valve of a 2 step antilag system

Reply

[-]

MisterDoctor___@reddit

That’s why I like BMW engines. Even with the diverter valve, once you slap a downpipe on, it sounds like a fucking jet engine about to take off.

Reply

[-]

SecretPantyWorshiper@reddit

Yeah BMW engines are probably the best sounding turbocharged engines. The M4 GT3 and M4 GT4 sound so badass

Reply

[-]

stoned-autistic-dude@reddit

Turbos sound good but muffle exhaust note. Superchargers don’t have that issue. It matters less on a V8 but it’s still pretty prominent. Superchargers give you whine and exhaust note.

Reply

[-]

Rihsatra@reddit

I miss my 944 Turbo when I would stomp on it and hear the whoosh of the turbo spooling up.

Reply

[-]

randeus@reddit

Or just get a centrifugal supercharger and sound similar to a turbo set up while still being a supercharger. Personally the route I’d go on my Mustang.

Reply

[-]

CorrectCombination11@reddit

Ba dum tst

Reply

[-]

Geofferz@reddit

That's a turbo sound... .. Or was that the joke?

Reply

[-]

CorrectCombination11@reddit

People whine about engine size. Superchargers whine.

Reply

[-]

Geofferz@reddit

No I get that. I was making a joke about yeh sound of your response. Badum tssss. Like a turbo, kinda... Anyway, I hope you're having a good evening

Reply

[-]

username555666777@reddit

Because supercharged cars often don’t replace displacement, they add to it. German V8: 4.0 L turbo American V8: 6.2 L supercharged

Reply

[-]

AcanthaceaeNo948@reddit (OP)

I’m pretty sure the average dohc 4.0 v8 is physically bigger than the average 6.2 pushrod v8, and probably makes more power naturally aspirated, unless it’s very understressed.

Reply

[-]

hackspy@reddit

Superchargers have less lag, and more low end torque. Usually the areas that muscle car owners are concerned with. And superchargers have linear power so they’re sometimes easier to tune as well. Understand nothing is absolute or 100 percent. That’s the beauty of cars and bench racing. Cheers 🍻

Reply

[-]

mini4x@reddit

I feel like most people that hate Turbos are remembering Turbos from the 70's.

Reply

[-]

MichiganGeezer@reddit

YouTuber Cleetus McFarland seems to have caused a shift in people's love for twin turbo big blocks. They're cool now.

Reply

[-]

LemursRideBigWheels@reddit

Honestly, I think part of it is cultural. Folks who are into big motors, in the US at least, are into working on their own cars. You can build a understressed big motor in a basic shop or in your own garage. It will work and be fairly reliable. However, if you want a highly stressed turbo motor, that is a full on engineering job…not just something you can slap together. Likewise, there is the culture of drag racing which goes back almost 80 years. Drag cars run big motors and superchargers. As a result, big motors get superchargers…

Reply

[-]

reddisaurus@reddit

Superchargers can improve throttle response, enhance torque at redline, and still achieve a linear horsepower response. Turbochargers do not do all three of these.

Reply

[-]

Tiny-Art7074@reddit

Because some people are brainwashed ideological idiots who take other peoples opinions personally and feel threatened by it.

Reply

[-]

Flashy-Wrongdoer-628@reddit

A roots blower adds more displacement. Duh

Reply

[-]

Napalm3n3ma@reddit

I used to be in that club then I experienced lighter cars with turbo’s and that’s just an idiotic mindset. You can have your cake and eat it too and the car is lighter etc.. Dunno, I was a Mustang guy now my favorite car I own is a Honda Civic Type R lol.

Reply

[-]

Sneakystrong86@reddit

Who are you referring to? I'm not aware of anybody that's an actual automotive enthusiast that "hates" turbo charged vehicles. Forced induction is forced induction. Can you give one specific example of what you're talking about or are these just generalities?

Reply

[-]

bombs551@reddit

For me the question only really applies to muscle cars. Muscle cars at their core were about big ass engines that shake the car when you turn it on. Throwing a 4-banger into one just seems to miss the point of the car. But nowadays I can have a Mustang GT with 485 hp from the dealer or I can buy an ecoboost and put money into it just to get it up to the same power. Don't get me wrong, what we're able to do with 4-bangers and a turbo is crazy awesome. I've seen the hp numbers from an RS3 and the Merc AMG (I forgot what model it was that was like 400 hp from Merc) and its sweet as hell. I would love an RS3. But I wouldn't want a 4-banger in my 'Stang.

Reply

[-]

Dark_Lantern@reddit

I just dont like the way superchargers or turbos sound, I just want motor and exhaust noises its all just personal preference

Reply

[-]

ProgrammerCapable985@reddit

Big displacement NA engines need RPMs to create power. A Supercharger increases low end torque while keeping the power band linear (ie. the same hard acceleration all the way up to the redline). To do that in a twin turbo setup requires a ton of trickery and cooling. Turbos inevitably have lag between throttle input and boost. So when you punch it, there’s a delay while boost builds and then you get pushed back into the seat. It’s less desirable from a drivability standpoint but better for fuel economy and peak power.

Reply

[-]

lesubreddit@reddit

Displacement guys want low end torque with no lag. Superchargers fit this mentality. Turbos (historically speaking) do not.

Reply

[-]

franksandbeans911@reddit

Superchargers are like, if your foot is in it, you're getting power. Turbos (old ones) were like floor it and wait for it to spin up and we'll feed you the boost all at once. That's why sequential twin turbo setups were born out of necessity; smaller one building boost down low and spinning up the second one when needed to prevent the perception of lag. Volvo played both sides with the T6 engine. 2 liter 4, why not both? Supercharger runs most of the time, turbo kicks in at high speed, but both can work together for highway passing or whatever. I just don't like the fact that they used a complicated high stress little 4 where a 3.5l v6 would have done the same job. It's not like the T6 has fuel economy on its resume.

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

Can confirm, Camaro and Polestar aren’t that different on fuel consumption. Polestar is a couple mpg better city. Real world experience I have no idea what’s claimed.

Reply

[-]

franksandbeans911@reddit

I had an S90 T6 with the Polestar tune back in 2017. I liked it, people loved it, the S90 wasn't pushed hard enough. But these days you mention Polestar and it's reskinned Geely EV's. Threw me off until I saw your cars.

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

Makes sense. I drove a polestar 2 for awhile last year on a trip, perfectly competent car but I think it’s fair to say the name has lost a little meaning and a little prestige with the EV rebrand.

Reply

[-]

franksandbeans911@reddit

Yeah, don't get me started on leveraging their performance brand then just gluing it to the hood of Chinese EV's. Very long story short, the S90 should have had Polestar parts beyond a USB tune as Volvo promised parts by bringing them in-house back in 2016-2017. No parts for Volvo emerged after that, basically went straight to work on Geely EV's, Volvo-izing them. In fact, the Polestar One was IDENTICAL to the S90 coupe that Volvo never released. Same height, same track width, it was indisputable what actually took place there.

Reply

[-]

TheWayOfEli@reddit

I may be taking some liberties with my assumptions, but I'd say because of how supercharging and turbocharging differ for the end user. Supercharging, despite being FI, feels like your car is just organically making way more on-demand power. Functionally and in spirit, it feels more in-line with what these buyers and enthusiasts want. From the sound to the immediate power, it falls neatly into what they find exciting about big, fast cars. Turbocharging feels entirely different. We've significantly improved turbo systems in the past 10 or so years, but there's still a lag, it doesn't sound the same. Even if it makes the car fast, even if you work some decibel magic and make it deeper and louder, it doesn't hit the same. My belief is that these things that may be minor to someone else, significantly impact these other buyer's enjoyment of their vehicle. I'd also assume it's because mechanically, the supercharger is far simpler than a turbocharger. Far less components, easier integration into the vehicle. It falls more in-line with the purist philosophy. This isn't me dickriding either approach. I just like cars that go fast; I don't give a shit if it's MT or DCT, how many cylinders, or whatever. I just like the experience of velocity and high speeds. This is just my assumption based on what I know from people I've spoken with that fall into the "no replacement for displacement" category of enthusiast, so I could be way off lmao.

Reply

[-]

JeremyFromKenosha@reddit

With turbos, there are two choices: 1. Big boost with big lag 2. Small boost with not much lag Today's turbos seem to be fitted to engines that were made smaller, with the intent for the turbo to make up the difference. For example, the 1.6 L turbo put into the Honda CR-V. Are you kidding me?! They're asking a lot of that turbo. They were going for adequate power (yawn) with good economy. They're more efficient than superchargers, because they don't drag on the engine; they use waste exhaust pressure, so it's almost free power. My 2022 Subaru WRX had a 2.4 L turbo that was just fantastic. Very little lag and the base engine was already big enough. My dad put a small supercharger into his 2001 Miata; it was awesome. It replaced the low-RPM torque the car really needed. It made power everywhere. I could be wrong, but I think superchargers are typically more reliable than turbos as well. These days, hybrid powertrains are replacing both of them. My own CR-V Sport has a 2.0 L gas engine with hybrid power train. The hybrid gives a bit of boost and can also let the gas engine turn off under low demand cruising or stop & go rush hour traffic. It's still a bit wimpy, if I'm honest, but with a bit more beef in the electric side, it would be perfect.

Reply

[-]

franksandbeans911@reddit

Your conclusion, that's how I feel about the Volvo T6 engine vs the latest T8 trim. It's a new hybrid system where the electronics fill in the gaps and give it a respectable 0-60 time, better power spread across the RPM range, and the black magic of the all-electric mode so your 15 minute commute is only battery but you don't get a side of range anxiety. I'm leaning really hard toward that powertrain but they're not exactly giving it away.

Reply

[-]

JeremyFromKenosha@reddit

The trick with Volvo is that they're nice, but they don't seem to be all that reliable. It's hard to justify paying the big bucks in that case. Meanwhile, Honda & Toyota are reliable and nice, but they usually seem to settle for "adequate" performance.

Reply

[-]

franksandbeans911@reddit

The perception is often wrong with them. People see the price, the origin, and think European luxury. They're not, just a boutique brand that is premium, not luxury. So immediately you gotta adjust your expectations. I mean who uses manually (as in get a spanner and go around to each shock and torque on it) adjustable shocks on any luxury vehicles? Nobody. Premium, probably still nobody lol, their Polestar engineered models are just strange. I have owned a ton of Toyotas and a few Hondas. The Accord Coupe that got nice leather and a healthy 3.5l v6 back in 2003 or something was the last one I had, loved it. Volvo probably just did this monkey business on the SPA platform with the T5/T6 trims and the 4 cylinder for packaging reasons and to save money by cramming the exact same powerplant in everything, only this one gets a supercharger AND a turbo. Anyone who knows engines knows immediately, if the motor is setup to handle all this boost reliably, it's an absolute mutt off-boost, which it is. Plus their ownership story was the town bicycle for decades, just getting passed around and with no sugar daddy to really save them, just keep them afloat. The Ford Volvos were bad. Just like the Ford Jaguars. Couldn't be helped. Their global sales numbers are probably a fraction of anyone else's despite some recent big successes, they're not big enough to make any real volume cars to boost the numbers, i.e. they don't have a Corolla or a Yaris. Bringing it back full circle, regardless of brand, you can have anything done well, pick two. Fast, reliable, or affordable. The T8 hybrid is fast and reliable. :)

Reply

[-]

aroundincircles@reddit

They hate tiny 4 cylinder turbo charged cars. There ain't nothing wrong with big v8 turbo charged cars. Supercharging requires a lot of torque to spin the belt, so really only is applicable to larger displacement engines (I know smaller displacement super charger engines exist, but they are rarer). It also is a smaller package than a turbo charger, as it requires less ducting, with the intercooler between the super charger and the intake, often watercooled vs air cooled. You also have less heat to deal with in general. So when you slam a big V8 into a small car you don't have a lot of room around the engine to work with, so putting a super charge on top, you just need a hood that accommodates the height, and run some small hoses to the cooling system.

Reply

[-]

thatgymdude@reddit

They should try superchaging 4 cylinders honestly as its incredibly effective for jetskis and motorcycles. I have ridden a Kawasaki jetski with that supercharged setup and its like another dimension for jetskis. I also want to try their H2 motorcycle sometime as well because everyone raves about how crazy the supercharged experience is on a bike.

Reply

[-]

Snazzy21@reddit

Any trick you use to make the smaller engine more powerful can be applied to the large engine to make it even more powerful engine. You cant overcome that fact.

Reply

[-]

blackreplica@reddit

No lag Still sounds good

Reply

[-]

BuriedMystic@reddit

Parasitic on engine power. Wastes gas in everyday driving. Loud and conspicuous once the novelty of the whine wears off.

Reply

[-]

V12MPG@reddit

You make an excellent argument for why a Toyota Camry doesn’t need a supercharger and a terrible one for why an enthusiast wouldn’t want one on their Camaro.

Reply

[-]

BuriedMystic@reddit

Ok but why bother with that in the age of hybrids. You can get instant torque that actually saves fuel through regenerative braking. For modern times a V6 hybrid is way more attractive than a supercharged V8 IMo.

Reply

[-]

V12MPG@reddit

Because many enthusiast cars aren’t bought for fuel economy but rather to experience the mechanical texture of the machine. People who like NA V8s don’t care about instant torque but they do care when efficiency technology disrupts their experience by isolating them from the powertrain. Just look at Dodge. They nearly destroyed the company trying to follow your suggestion because they somehow failed to realize that their customers prioritized the experience more than efficiency.

Reply

[-]

RealMadLadStalin@reddit

You’re arguing with someone that went out of their way to spend 70k on a brand new buick enclave

Reply

[-]

Kavani18@reddit

Oh the HORROR of owning a very nice vehicle! The absolute SHAME! Y’all are fucking insufferable

Reply

[-]

BuriedMystic@reddit

It’s the AVENIR model with AWD. You chuds just don’t get it.

Reply

[-]

RealMadLadStalin@reddit

I sure hope it had AWD at 70k

Reply

[-]

AcanthaceaeNo948@reddit (OP)

That’s the most damning indictment of someone’s taste in vehicles I’ve ever heard.

Reply

[-]

BuriedMystic@reddit

I guess they should be like Harley Davidson and cater to the same aging demographic forever

Reply

[-]

blackreplica@reddit

And i could not care less. I’m here to enjoy my engine not be a numbers nerd

Reply

[-]

BuriedMystic@reddit

Triggered

Reply

[-]

blackreplica@reddit

You must be 9 years old if you think i care that much about what you think

Reply

[-]

BuriedMystic@reddit

I am in fact 12 years old.

Reply

[-]

noSSD4me@reddit

Having owned an NA V8 in the past and currently driving an NA I6 along with turbo-4, main reason in my opinion is engine noise. There's nothing like a deep rumble of an NA V8. Adding supercharger introduces a whine, but overall the sound of the engine is more or less unchanged. Turbocharging often times changes the sound and the character of the motor. But as I was said by many below, you give these guys a properly built TT V8, and then will happily drive that one too 😂

Reply

[-]

simon2517@reddit

Turbocharging was cool back in the 80s and 90s when it was rare. Now it's common it's considered boring. Superchargers are still comparatively rare.

Reply

[-]

noSSD4me@reddit

We've had a big shift towards efficiency with more and more stringent emission laws, so turbos are naturally much better at that than superchargers.

Reply

[-]

hurricanePopsicles@reddit

Turbos are more efficient

Reply

[-]

Bladechildx@reddit

I mean technically supercharging does increase displacement.

Reply

[-]

Extesht@reddit

No it doesn't. The displacement of an engine has nothing to do with the density of the air going into the cylinders.

Reply

[-]

Hop-Dizzle-Drizzle@reddit

The physical volume of the cylinders doesn't change. But the amount of air they move does. Also, superchargers are measured in displacement size. So it add more but different displacement.

Reply

[-]

Extesht@reddit

When was the last time you saw an engine described as "x displacement at sea level" or "at x temperature" since the volume of actual air in an NA engine partly depends on altitude andambient temperature?

Reply

[-]

Hop-Dizzle-Drizzle@reddit

Never. But I also think you're taking me and the previous commenter too seriously.

Reply

[-]

AcanthaceaeNo948@reddit (OP)

I mean using that logic so does turbocharging?

Reply

[-]

Hop-Dizzle-Drizzle@reddit

Yeah. I think it was said in jest, though. Not meant as a serious answer to your question.

Reply

[-]

AcanthaceaeNo948@reddit (OP)

I mean using that logic so does turbocharging?

Reply

[-]

wave_action@reddit

Isn’t the power delivery very different?

Reply

[-]

dantose@reddit

Yes, turbochargers use exhaust to spin a turbine. Superchargers use a belt powered by the engine. Turbochargers are basically free power, but with a lag Superchargers are instant power, but hurt efficiency.

Reply

[-]

RevvCats@reddit

There’s no lag so the engine feels more powerful across the board, good for things like drag racing where starting from zero matters. Turbos are more efficient when spun up so for something like a race car where the engine is constantly at high rpm it’s a better option.

Reply

[-]

Astramael@reddit

I don’t think they hate turbocharging either. They just like lots of displacement and the engine character that comes with it. If you turbocharge a big engine, they’d like that too.

Reply

[-]

rudbri93@reddit

I mean im a big displacement whore because i love the power curves of big cube engines, bit i definitely also have love for turbos and superchargers.

Reply

[-]

BetweenFourAndTwenty@reddit

Turbo lag vs instant torque? I know which one I'm choosing.

Reply

[-]

hurricanePopsicles@reddit

Instant torque also takes power to make that power.

Reply

[-]

datums@reddit

Because turbochargers have a very complicated effect on the way an engine runs. A through the rev range, they create varying pressure behind both the intake valves and the exhaust valves. And those pressures are also affected by how quickly the revs are changing at any given moment. So it’s introducing all kinds of nonlinearity that’s difficult to predict and tune for. Also, because you’re adding pressure behind both the intake and exhaust valves, you create more pressure in the cylinder (again, in an unpredictable fashion), and that’s what blows engines. A roots type supercharger simply multiplies the pressure at the intake by a set ratio, like you just connected your intake to a planet with an atmosphere denser than earth’s. It’s linear, not rpm dependent, doesn’t care how fast revs are rising or falling, and doesn’t add any pressure at the exhaust, and has a simple and predictable impact on cylinder pressure. At the end of the day, it’s basically like just adding displacement without changing anything else.

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

I don’t think anyone thinks a twin turbo LS is boring. A turbo 1.5 or 2.0 four cylinder probably is though. I dunno why people get twisted into knots over this.

Reply

[-]

V12MPG@reddit

This reminds me of a phrase I’ve heard before many times. Something about there not being a good substitute for an engine with a large total cylinder volume.

Reply

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

It’s a complicated concept.

Reply

[-]

SecretPantyWorshiper@reddit

Because most of the superchargers now are still on big block V8sm

Reply

[-]

justin_memer@reddit

Large superchargers take like 30 horsepower to run, which is probably a big reason.

Reply

[-]

ChuckoRuckus@reddit

Large superchargers take much more than that. The supercharger on a LS9 (C6 ZR1) takes about 100-125hp to turn at redline.

Reply

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Unfortunately your comment has been removed because it contains a link to a delisted domain. This is almost always due to spam from the domain. Please use a different source. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

[-]

Modsmoddy-74@reddit

Don’t like . N/A is preferred. Less complexity, less weight, (especially considering a supercharger), no whiny noises, less shit to break

Reply

[-]

DaveCootchie@reddit

Super charging increased the volumetric efficiency of the engine by a direct drive to the crank. Low rpm low boost and the inverse is true. From a driving perspective this feels like you are just making the engine bigger. Where as turbos (turbine super charging) you need to wait for the turbo to spool to increase power so the powerband becomes non linear and can feel like a slingshot. You can add sequential turbos but that adds weight and complexity or change turbo sizing to balance this but it's always a compromise. TL:DR supercharged engines drive like a bigger N/A engine and some people prefer that to turbos.

Reply

[-]

WabbitCZEN@reddit

I say this as someone who loved my 2.0T GTI. There's nothing like the whine of a supercharger.

Reply

[-]

Tony-cums@reddit

Yeah. Any real car guy love turbochargers. V8s get them too. I’ve never seen any hate towards forced induction.

Reply

[-]

AnastasiusDicorus@reddit

Seems like a faulty assumption. If your engine is big enough for the car without a turbo or supercharger, and you're just adding forced induction for extra power, nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you try to take an engine that's too small, and use a turbo to boost it's power up to the minimum needed. Too much stress on a small engine.

Reply

[-]

screamingcheese@reddit

For the most part, a properly implemented turbo setup requires clean-sheet planning, and is often used to squeeze more out of smaller engines, but slapping on a supercharger is simpler to do with traditional wrenching. Or maybe its just because its not the kind of sound you can feel in your chest.

Reply

[-]

Pitiful-Walrus5102@reddit

Many of these people like the power delivery and sound of N/A engines. Turbos change both of those. I have owned both. Strong prefer an NA motor. The man supercharged. Then turbo. I care more about the experience than numbers. But if you just want to go fast, go turbo

Reply

[-]

rooftop_druid@reddit

You supercharge big engines and turbocharge smaller ones in most applications. If I already love a good muscle car v8 I’m gonna love it even more when you strap a rocket on too thats now poking out the hood.

Reply

[-]

mustangfan12@reddit

I think its because your starting with a big engine that is already powerful and making it even more powerful. Vs factory turbo setups start with a tiny engine and turbo it to try and match a NA V6 or NA V8 Something like replacing a NA 4 cylinder in a CUV with a turbo 3 cylinder is a pretty stupid idea for an example, or throwing a turbo 4 cylinder in a big SUV

Reply

[-]

I_like_cake_7@reddit

Turbocharged engines are so common these days that I think some enthusiasts just don’t find it very exciting anymore. You can buy economy cars with turbocharged engines these days. On the other hand, supercharged engines are much less common, and are usually only seen on large displacement engines with high amounts of horsepower.

Reply

[-]

4r4r4real@reddit

Supercharger power delivery is a lot more similar to NA than turbos are. Sounds way better too. If those kind of engine character things are important to you one makes sense and the other doesn't.

Reply

[-]

AngryScottish@reddit

Don't try to apply logic to a dumb catchphrase.

Reply

[-]

V12MPG@reddit

Yes. As you note, superchargers avoid many of the downsides of turbos so it makes sense that people prefer them. Also consider that some of the most popular applications of superchargers are things like Dodge and GM supercharging a 6.2L V8 or JLR supercharging a 5.0L V8. By contrast turbos are often being used in conjunction with downsizing such as Lamborghini replacing a 5.2L V10 with a 4.0L V8 or Toyota replacing a 5.7L V8 with a 3.4L V6. In other words superchargers in enthusiast cars are often not paired with a substantial reduction in displacement whereas turbos often are paired with a reduction in both displacement and cylinder count.

Reply

[-]

russsl8@reddit

Most people chasing horsepower on engines understand turbos are more efficient. This includes people with high displacement V8s. There are reasons to go with superchargers which have already been covered. As for the snobs, ignore them.

Reply

[-]

Sir_Clyph@reddit

I think you're putting more thought into this than the people that say this kind of shit. They're just dumb.

Reply to Post

169 Comments