Settle a friendly argument between me and youngmatt...
06-06-2006, 11:48 PM
#1
Ban[B][/B]ned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Pool.
Posts: 34,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Settle a friendly argument between me and youngmatt...
You have to identical cars, One is turbo charged pushing 300bhp and one is super charged pushing 300bhp. What will be faster..
0-60:
0-100:
60-100:
1/4 mile:
Cheers ben.
0-60:
0-100:
60-100:
1/4 mile:
Cheers ben.
06-06-2006, 11:53 PM
#2
15000
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
depends on what type of car they are but id say in fwd a turbo would be faster as the car would have chance to get grip unlike a super charged version as the powers the all the the time .
if the cars were 4wd or rwd id say supercharged version would be faster because of the low down torque
if the cars were 4wd or rwd id say supercharged version would be faster because of the low down torque
Trending Topics
07-06-2006, 12:04 AM
#8
CUNT!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: BLUE PILL or RED PILL ... All I offer is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. You choose.
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but IMO thats a bizarre, ridiculous and unanswerable question. For a start:
Thats a contradiction in terms; how can they be identical if they are not the same, i.e. ones turbo charged and ones supercharged? 
I think I know what you mean but it still doesn't make sense - Too many variables too little information to answer properly.
"You have to identical cars, one is turbo charged pushing 300bhp and one is super charged pushing 300bhp."
I think I know what you mean but it still doesn't make sense - Too many variables too little information to answer properly.
07-06-2006, 12:18 AM
#11
CUNT!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: BLUE PILL or RED PILL ... All I offer is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. You choose.
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Benni
Genesis Engineering Obviously not as slipslide just answerd it. 
Not really he didn't. If lag was useful for aiding traction i`m sure lots of top fuel dragsters wouldn't be using superchargers. Superchargers normally have very progressive power delivery, i.e. are very smooth, turbos are normally more on/off, so I think traction should be more controllable with a supercharger. Having said that I don't necessarily think a supercharged car will be quicker than an equally powered turbocharged car.
As before I still think there's too little information and too many different variables to be able to give an accurate answer, low compression, high compression, anti-lag?, etc, etc' your trying to make a comparison between two cars on the basis they are identical when they obviously arent.
All only IMO ....... but I am right
07-06-2006, 01:18 AM
#13
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go on, I'l have a go at this.
Assuming both are running the same levels of boost, and are capable of shifting the same CFM, I reckon :
0-60 : Supercharger (due to low lag)
0-100 : Turbocharger (due to less drag on engine)
60-100 : Tough call.
Standing 1/4 Mile : Turbocharger.
I'm no expert, but I would have thought the power losses from the Supercharger would hit harder the faster the car's going.
Assuming both are running the same levels of boost, and are capable of shifting the same CFM, I reckon :
0-60 : Supercharger (due to low lag)
0-100 : Turbocharger (due to less drag on engine)
60-100 : Tough call.
Standing 1/4 Mile : Turbocharger.
I'm no expert, but I would have thought the power losses from the Supercharger would hit harder the faster the car's going.
07-06-2006, 02:17 AM
#15
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 4,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if both engines were built to exactly the same spec [and thats where the comparison is flawed as for optimal performance turbo and supercharged motors would be speced differently] and both ran the same boost the supercharged one would produce more torque so it should be faster than the turbo.
The very fastest drag cars use supercharging not turbocharging
The very fastest drag cars use supercharging not turbocharging
07-06-2006, 08:21 AM
#17
15K+ Super Poster!!
Dont agree with Supercharger making more torque - in the power band being used ie top of rev range, turbo would develop more. But both with 300hp then torque at peak power is identical - so prob no diffence. Integrate under the power band and u have ur answer.
07-06-2006, 08:26 AM
#18
NONSENSE question, you absolutely cannot possibly answer it.
There is no way that anyone can make a sweeping statement about which of those two cars would be quicker, beause the devil is in the detail.
Superchargers dont make more torque like is implied, in fact if you allow a turbo to spike massively in the midrange then often the opposite is true.
There is no way that anyone can make a sweeping statement about which of those two cars would be quicker, beause the devil is in the detail.
Superchargers dont make more torque like is implied, in fact if you allow a turbo to spike massively in the midrange then often the opposite is true.
07-06-2006, 08:30 AM
#19
Impossible to answer as they CANNOt be identically specced engines due to the Turbocharger requyireing a restrictive turbine hosuing and teh supercharger not. In most cases, due to teh above fact, the supercharger will often make more power due to having a higher VE IF the boost level remains constant, however, the supercharged one may throw a rod when the turbocharged one wont.. ROFLOL.
However.. since both are 300bhp, dunno, plainly NOT identical at all then. roflol.
However.. since both are 300bhp, dunno, plainly NOT identical at all then. roflol.
07-06-2006, 08:41 AM
#20
You would have to see the power curves in their complete state to be able to answer that. The fact that they make identical power is irrelevant - it is how they make that power and where they make that power. As Rick states, you would need to see which one had the most area under the graph. However, invariably superchargers run LESS torque in road format, as they are usually bolted on to high compression engines and they don't start to flow a high amount of air until high rpm, so the power curve is linear and an identical state to the original one - just "pumped up". The turbo car is normally lower compression, so with a mid-range spike will actually produce more torque.
Also if the power produce is 300bhp each, the fact that the supercharge is parasitic is irrelevant, as despite the fact that it looses 50bhp to make 300bhp - it is STILL producing 300bhp AFTER this is taken into account.
I would say that the linear power band would make the supercharged car easier to get off the line with minimal traction issues, but a good driver in the turbo car could negate this.
However, it would still be the car with the most area of power under the graph. For example, my 385bhp 0.48 a/r conversion was quicker in every aspect than my 419bhp 0.63 a/r equipped engine, except from 115mph onwards, purely because it had more area under the graph, so peak power means nothing without the whole story...
385bhp
419bhp
Also if the power produce is 300bhp each, the fact that the supercharge is parasitic is irrelevant, as despite the fact that it looses 50bhp to make 300bhp - it is STILL producing 300bhp AFTER this is taken into account.
I would say that the linear power band would make the supercharged car easier to get off the line with minimal traction issues, but a good driver in the turbo car could negate this.
However, it would still be the car with the most area of power under the graph. For example, my 385bhp 0.48 a/r conversion was quicker in every aspect than my 419bhp 0.63 a/r equipped engine, except from 115mph onwards, purely because it had more area under the graph, so peak power means nothing without the whole story...
385bhp
419bhp
07-06-2006, 08:42 AM
#21
I love the way that so far all the people commenting on the characeteristics of a supercharger havent asked if its a displacement one or a centrifgual one, when the two give TOTALLY different engine characteristics!
This thread deserves to be in the muppet room
This thread deserves to be in the muppet room
07-06-2006, 09:01 AM
#22
Originally Posted by chip-3door
I love the way that so far all the people commenting on the characeteristics of a supercharger havent asked if its a displacement one or a centrifgual one, when the two give TOTALLY different engine characteristics!
This thread deserves to be in the muppet room
This thread deserves to be in the muppet room
.
07-06-2006, 09:03 AM
#23
Mike, you would get most of the info, it would tell you nothing about lag on the turbo car, so still wouldnt be a 100% comparison, but my comment wasnt aimed at you, i pressed reply before your comment was posted, it was at all the ones further up who were trying to describe what a supercharger engine is like for power delivery etc.
07-06-2006, 09:08 AM
#26
To add weight and excuses to my serious fookup, heres why i think its a posi...
http://www.focussport.com/supercharger.htm
As ive mapped a few, and they were all teh bolt on american type that many UK tuners pretend they designed and installed themselves. 
http://www.focussport.com/supercharger.htm
As ive mapped a few, and they were all teh bolt on american type that many UK tuners pretend they designed and installed themselves.
07-06-2006, 09:10 AM
#27
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
To add weight and excuses to my serious fookup, heres why i think its a posi...
http://www.focussport.com/supercharger.htm
As ive mapped a few, and they were all the bolt on american type that many UK tuners pretend they designed and installed themselves.
http://www.focussport.com/supercharger.htm
As ive mapped a few, and they were all the bolt on american type that many UK tuners pretend they designed and installed themselves.
07-06-2006, 09:22 AM
#31
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
Typical, place obviously do a few different kits now, the ones ive seen from there are normally Eaton M62s 
Yup ok Stu, full of it...............
07-06-2006, 09:25 AM
#33
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
Chip.. scroll down the page you Tw@
07-06-2006, 09:26 AM
#34
On a serious note, what a fooking fantastic quality kit. Buy it all in a box and i reckon you could have it all running in around 7hrs, including the ecu, which again, some UK tuners have charged people 500+ for mapping, it fooking comes with the kit ready to roll!! 
07-06-2006, 09:28 AM
#35
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
On a serious note, what a fooking fantastic quality kit. Buy it all in a box and i reckon you could have it all running in around 7hrs
07-06-2006, 09:28 AM
#36
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Crapola..........
On that note i best go do some work as sitting at home drinking tea dont pay the bills.....Wish it did...
Have a good day all.....
That includes you Stu you git
On that note i best go do some work as sitting at home drinking tea dont pay the bills.....Wish it did...
Have a good day all.....
That includes you Stu you git
07-06-2006, 10:02 AM
#38
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Building a gearbox in Markyate
Posts: 1,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely power to weight ratio is what governs rate of acceleration?
Two identical cars with identical power...
Two identical cars with identical power...
07-06-2006, 10:07 AM
#39
Originally Posted by gearboxman
Surely power to weight ratio is what governs rate of acceleration?
Two identical cars with identical power...
Two identical cars with identical power...
Identical power at what point in the rev range?
What gearing?
blah blah blah etc etc etc
You cant just view 2 cars as both "300bhp" and expect them to be equal in all respects.
The devil is in the details (of the power curve mainly, as Mike mentioned) which is why its a poinless question.
07-06-2006, 10:36 AM
#40
Borg Warner EFR Equipped!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: In the unit, building a 450bhp Time Attack Focus!
Posts: 5,810
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Well, i've got two friends who both have similar cars to your description - Simon has a ST170 running a GT28R Turbo with 301bhp, Ian has a ST170 with a Powerworks 'Big Boost Kit' Supercharger with 307bhp.
Don't get me wrong, there are too many variables to incorporate into the equation, but as timing figures go - the turbo is quicker
Don't get me wrong, there are too many variables to incorporate into the equation, but as timing figures go - the turbo is quicker