Question for the Masses... What's the Difference Between a SuperCharger and a Turbo?

Mega-Man · Aug 31, 2004

Hi Guys,
I've tried to come up with a simple way to compare the two, but to no avail. Can anyone tell me what is the major difference / principal on how these two function? Also, what are the pros & cons to each?

I'm not looking for a super technical explanation, just to get an idea / picture of how the two systems differ and operate.

Thanks!

JonJon · Aug 31, 2004

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm

Howstuffworks.com said:
Let's start with the similarities. Both turbochargers and superchargers are called forced induction systems. They compress the air flowing into the engine (see How Car Engines Work for a description of airflow in a normal engine). The advantage of compressing the air is that it lets the engine stuff more air into a cylinder. More air means that more fuel can be stuffed in, too, so you get more power from each explosion in each cylinder. A turbo/supercharged engine produces more power overall than the same engine without the charging.

The typical boost provided by either a turbocharger or a supercharger is 6 to 8 pounds per square inch (psi). Since normal atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi at sea level, you can see that you are getting about 50-percent more air into the engine. Therefore, you would expect to get 50-percent more power. It's not perfectly efficient, though, so you might get a 30-percent to 40-percent improvement instead.

The key difference between a turbocharger and a supercharger is its power supply. Something has to supply the power to run the air compressor. In a supercharger, there is a belt that connects directly to the engine. It gets its power the same way that the water pump or alternator does. A turbocharger, on the other hand, gets its power from the exhaust stream. The exhaust runs through a turbine, which in turn spins the compressor (see How Gas Turbine Engines Work for details).

There are tradeoffs in both systems. In theory, a turbocharger is more efficient because it is using the "wasted" energy in the exhaust stream for its power source. On the other hand, a turbocharger causes some amount of back pressure in the exhaust system and tends to provide less boost until the engine is running at higher RPMs. Superchargers are easier to install but tend to be more expensive.

There's tons more info there through various links, click on the link

Pitch Black · Aug 31, 2004

turbo = exhaust driven
super = belt driven

biggest difference

Dr. Wu 2000 · Aug 31, 2004

turbo: big power, big cost
supercharger: nice power, less cost

jas142 · Aug 31, 2004

Turbochargers, run by exhaust gas, generally make more power. A supercharger takes engine power to run it, like the A/C, but it gives back much more power then it takes to run it.

Turbochargers have more power but spool up, so that power is only avaliable at higher RPMs. Supercharger boost is constant.

BigHairyMonkey · Aug 31, 2004

^ thats not neccesarly true

04DarkShadowGT · Aug 31, 2004

If you have a properly designed turbo system there will be really no lag.

A turbo will be able to creat more power with the same psi amount vs a supercharger.

The negative and reason most stay away from a turbo is the install. Its significantly more difficult and time consuming to install.

Check out the last issue of MM&FF they have several articles about companies that make turbos as well as several components you can buy.

The initial investment of a turbo might be more expensive but it comes with headers, midpipe, and all the other various fuel management stuff. So when you take the cost of a S/C and add headers, midpipe, etc then they are quite comparable.

downsouthman1 · Aug 31, 2004

This's pretty much already been said but a turbo uses the exhaust gases pressure coming directly off the headers to spin (spool) the turbine, thus increasing airflow in the intake chamber and subsequently increasing power. A supercharger, being driven by the drive belt generally produces more power the quicker the drive belt revolves. The reason being that the turbine spins quicker as the belt revolves faster.

2000BLKGT · Aug 31, 2004

My take is this:

Blower
Stepping up to a nice blower set up takes money, dedication and balls...the sweeter the set up...the more money, dedication and balls.

Turbo
If done right (aka Snykypete's car)..it takes money, dedication and balls...if you go with something like a twin turbo done right...it takes boatloads of money...head-spinning dedication...and balls the size of grapefruits.

my 3 cents (aka 2 cents CDN)

Mega-Man · Aug 31, 2004

Super! Thanks for the information and links, guys. Much appreciated.

So it looks like if you already have an aftermarket exhaust, it would / you'd have to replace it with the exhaust setup which comes with the turbo kit? Or can you just keep what you have an add the headers (in a typical X / H-pipe and catback setup most people get)?

Lastly, if the above is true (where you have to use the turbo exhaust which is included in the kit), is this the reason why you see so many people with superchargers as opposed to turbos?

Thanks!

mike2858 · Aug 31, 2004

would a turbo be safer for an engine? for example say a S/C car has 8 psi and 400 hp and a turbo has 6psi and 400 hp would the turbo engine last longer becuase it has 2 less PSI or would the equal HP basically negate the difference in PSI

twogts4us · Aug 31, 2004

Generally speaking, turbos are more complex and therefore expensive for serveral reasons. There are issues with heat, proper tuning, custom fabrication, etc. There are some kits available, but typically there is still some fab needed.
But with kits like the KB blower (complete!), you can install this yourself with basic skill knowledge.
The simplier way for boost for the masses is a supercharger...less exotic, but I think you'd be much happier in the end.

hobbes80 · Aug 31, 2004

jas142 said:
Turbochargers have more power but spool up, so that power is only avaliable at higher RPMs.

Actually, the power is available most of the way through the RPM band.. it isn't the RPMs as much as the load on the engine. That's why turbocharged cars are such a bit** in the snow... you go to start in 2nd to try to get moving slowly, just as you start to move, the pressure kicks the turbo in and you build boost and spin out.

JetBrett · Sep 1, 2004

Mega-Man said:
So it looks like if you already have an aftermarket exhaust, it would / you'd have to replace it with the exhaust setup which comes with the turbo kit? Or can you just keep what you have an add the headers (in a typical X / H-pipe and catback setup most people get)?

Lastly, if the above is true (where you have to use the turbo exhaust which is included in the kit), is this the reason why you see so many people with superchargers as opposed to turbos?

Thanks!

The turbo guys can give the definate answer here, but I believe only the headers need to be replaced in a turbo set up. ie: you keep your mid-pipe and back.

Most people go with superchargers since these kits are mass marketed and well tested. There are just not many well known companies producing turbo kits where you can just hook up and go. There is also the very big issue of cost. While I think turbo's have an big advantage in terms of capability, supercharging is easier, cheaper, and produces pretty health gains for street driven cars.

Check out this months Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords. The mag has quite a bit on turbos and lists some of the compaines making kits for the 4.6 including Turbo Technology right down the road in Tacoma.

AirWolf87 · Sep 1, 2004

everything said here is pretty much true. The reason most people tend to run s/c instead of turbos, is bc even thought the turbo itself is cheaper, it is attached to the header, so you need a specialy made header not to mention turbo timer, boost controller, for the added backpressure wastegate or blowoff valve, and because of the heat you will need an intercooler, and tons of other work it takes to instal. A supercharger on the other hand is just a big ass bolt-on that normaly works with your current set-up. Its a lot cheaper, and because it doesnt consist of as many parts, theres less things that can go wrong. Its not as effecient bc as stated, it uses engine power to add power. however its also easier to tune. if you want more boost, just bolt on a smaller pully. A supercharger doesnt require an intercooler because it doesnt generate as much heat, but should you choose to use one, it helps that much more.

Question for the Masses... What's the Difference Between a SuperCharger and a Turbo?

Mega-Man

New Member

JonJon

Pitch Black

New Member

Dr. Wu 2000

New Member

jas142

BigHairyMonkey

04DarkShadowGT

Member

downsouthman1

Member

2000BLKGT

Mega-Man

New Member

mike2858

twogts4us

hobbes80

JetBrett

New Member

AirWolf87

New Member

Similar threads

Question for the Masses... What's the Difference Between a SuperCharger and a Turbo?

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency