As for the twinturbo ford GT, they couldn't keep it straight on the strip, it was fine on the street. There was a bit of the film dedicated to tyres. I just loved him crying at the end .
Aye, but he's talking about the old Mini's which never had FI as stock. And the old minis weren't made by BMW. The biggest engine you could get on them was a 1.3 as standard I think
You are correct. However, the post I was replying to mentioned the weight of the Golf as the reason a supercharger was better for it. However, the Cooper S is still the lighter of the two modern cars, and it's still the one with the supercharger, at least for the last few years. As you mentioned, they've gone and stuck a turbo on the new model, and I'm quite pleased with it. Like I said, I prefer turbos to superchargers.
Its about the size of engine you have, a v6 can usually go both ways but if you have a v8 or larger your going to need a lot of air going in there all through the powerband. A turbo usually works better on a smaller engine, not as much power at first and then it starts coming on later in the powerband.
Even though you generally get more power with a turbo, Supercharged cars seem to have much more usable power.
When it comes down to it, specific application is the key when choosing between the two (aftermarket), size of engine isn't really a huge factor, hell, you can get turbo's in plenty of different sizes/combinations!!!... I prefer turbo's though. Own an Evo IV at the moment.
Turbos can be better for gas mileage, since they make efficient use of the exhaust, but superchargers are much simpler to integrate and easier to maintain. A turbo can have the bearing go out, cracks in the exhaust manifold, split welds on the turbo's housing, etc. Superchargers are on the most part pretty solid. I agree, it depends on the application. Most stock turbos will never fail as I described, I was speaking mainly to aftermarket applications.
Well. Most common turbo's suffer from Turbo-Lag, wich is just terribly annoying imo. So because of that reason I would have to say SuperChargers. But! The new Porsche 997 Turbo has a new Variable Twin Turbo. Wich basically means it's always on but the turbo's added power depends on the exhaust pressure (rev's), so it's variable. Thanks to this, there is no more turbo-lag! Makes sense to do it this way, imo. Turbo's have alot advantages over a supercharger, the big disadvantage was the lag. But if that is no longer the case, then definatly Turbo! So my vote goes to Turbo. L PS: Didn't feel like looking this up again, it's how I remember it from some time ago when the 997 Turbo was released. Hope the info is correct.
I once looked at turbo'ing a Micra with CVT transmission - apparently a turbo is perfect for this transmission as the engine is always at 2000-3000 RPM because this is the speed it is most efficient at and there are no gears. I'm not sure a CVT 'box would take any more than a small amount of boost though.
As you say turbos run a lot hotter which causes problems but superchargers can also have issues, just different ones. For example on my polo the supercharger design means oil seals can easily pop off and bearings should be replaced every 20,000 to 40,000 miles. However modern superchargers like the eatons seem much better! Also another thing is superchargers don't always have bad fuel consumption. When my car was stock i managed 50mpg on a 40 minute run.
I expect turbochargers could be made to take up the least amount of space, but the difference is negligible if you're designing from scratch. Obviously when using an existing engine or car you have to work with what fits.
You can get both of them in a variety of sizes, but turbochargers are better on smaller engines - As someone else pointed out, it's easier to move a lot of air with a supercharger, so they are great for big engines. On the other hand, some bigger superchargers take a couple hundred horsepower just to run them, so if your engine doesn't have at least that much without the supercharger, it won't do much of anything. I'm not sure why the Cooper S used superchargers in the past, but they are switching to turbocharging for next year. The Bugatti Veyron probably uses quad turbos simply because it's historical to do so - the EB110 before it was also AWD with quad turbos. However, I don't know why that car had them either. In general, you can put either one on any car if you choose your size correctly. Superchargers usually end up on bigger engines and turbos usually end up on smaller engines. In my opinion, having driven naturally aspirated, supercharged, and turbocharged cars, some of it comes down to what you want the car to do. If you want to go fast, superchargers are great. It's just like having a bigger engine. Rally-based street cars like the Evo and STi use turbos because their little engines don't have enough power to get the same level of boost out of a supercharger. However, for somthing with a small amount of boost, like the VW/Audi 2.0T engine in the Golf GTi and the A4, or presumably the new Cooper S, the turbo adds character. There's a tiny amount of lag and then beastly torque. It's not the fastest thing in the world but for street driving it's extremely fun. I love it.
what was the "busa"? i couldnt understand the guys english? Was he halking about the hyabusa? as in the Kawasaki?
Suzuki Hayabusa (also known as GSX1300R) I'm not sure if it's still the fastest bike out of a factory but it used to be.
Yeah thats the one damn fugly bike, I allways got confused with suzuki and Kawasaki. tho my fave bike was and still is the Yamaha R1.
in the past i'd have always favoured the superchargers, due to the lack of lag, but with the new twin scroll and sequential dual turbos i can't think of any situation where a supercharger is beneficial
personally I tend to think about engine size as far as forced induction goes. Large engine could use turbochargers very well simply put because the torque is there from low revs and when the engine starts to flatten out torque wise the turbo can kick in and compensate giving the engine a good boost with ought breaking the bank. Small engines don't have the low down torque a large engine does (reason for launching your car instead of just flooring it off the get go) and would do allot better with a supercharger giving them instant power on the down low to get going quick but staying with the engine until you go up high. Turbo charging if done the frugal way can cost less than supercharging. Ive seen garret turbos on sale for little over 400bux new good for 15-20psi up to 2.5L engines. All you need then is a custom manifold welded for the intake and exhaust probably costing a lil over 400bux done from a local welder. I figure a few more bucks to replace the injectors and possibly a fuel pump and a waste gate would run for a grand total of around 1500bux if you really pick and choose. However a supercharger usually runs for 3-5grand. Also another rule of thumb is that a supercharger needs less pressure to create the same hp as a turbocharger. I will be looking into a supercharger when I get my mustang (hopefully), simply because I want even more down low power.
