supercharger vs. turbocharger

[Slowpoke]

could someone give me a quick explanation of the difference between these two? compare and contrast them?

[Slowpoke]

is the difference basicl the SOURCE of the power used to run the compressor? This is what I always thought it was but someone is trying to tell me that there are other differences.

[cyclone03]

Basiclly a Turbo is driven off exhaust pressure/heat.

Superchargers as we refer to them, are belt driven.

[Joe Walsh]

Superchargers are belt driven, Turbochargers are driven by the exhaust gasses leaving the engine. Positive displacement Superchargers give you more low end power, turbos don'y really start to work until @ 3000 rpm. Superchargers are either centrifugal (like the Kenny Brown kit, Vortech kit, Procharger kit) or positive displacement (like the Trilogy kit, Kenne Bell kit, Whipplecharger kit). The centrifugal superchargers are more like a turbocharger, in that they don't do much until @ 3000 rpm. Turbochargers are more efficient because they reclaim wasted exhaust energy to drive the compressor, but they are harder to mount and create a bunch of heat in the engine compartment. They also need a pressurized oil feed from the engine. IMHO a 'PD' Supercharger is the way to go on a HEAVY car like the MM...you want a lot of torque down low to get the beast moving!

[HwyCruiser]

:dunno: turbos are for diesel pickups and imports?

I had a '90 Mitsu Eclipse GSX that's exhaust manifold would glow a low orange after several hours on the highway. You were supposed to let the car idle for a while before turning off the ignition so the oil can circulate through the turbo to cool it off. I did this (fairly) religously and never had a problem with it all the way to 100k miles before I traded it in. If you didn't let it cool down, it could "coak" or turn the oil in the turbo to sludge and ruin the turbo. I think modern turbos are also water cooled.

Its probably easier to turbo charge a transverse engine because all the goodies needed are pointing towards the front. I don't know why turbos are the way to go for diesels... anyone?

- JD

[Warpath]

:...I don't know why turbos are the way to go for diesels... anyone?

- JD


Old Detroit Diesel engines were supercharged. The positive displacement blowers refered to as 6-71s or 8-71s etc. were from Detroit Diesel engines of the same name. A 6-71 was 6 cylinder engine with 71 cc per cylinder. An 8-71 was an 8 cylinder w/ 71 cc per cylinder. I am not sure why the change to turbos other than they are much more efficient than s/cs. An s/c can use 50 - 100 hp or more to turn depending on size and design. Turbos on the other hand use something like 10 hp or less to operate. In addition, turbos utilize the heat energy from the exhaust gas. So, the hotter the exhaust, the better. Perhaps turbos on diesels are more efficient because of the high compression ratio.

[Bigdogjim]

Old Detroit Diesel engines were supercharged. The positive displacement blowers refered to as 6-71s or 8-71s etc. were from Detroit Diesel engines of the same name. A 6-71 was 6 cylinder engine with 71 cc per cylinder. An 8-71 was an 8 cylinder w/ 71 cc per cylinder. I am not sure why the change to turbos other than they are much more efficient than s/cs.


Very true. 6V-71's actually lastted longer than 8V-71's. A lot of large fleets used them. Thicked heads, better protection about the water jackets. I only had experience in the bus field. They recycled an old truck engine the silver 92 and gave it to for a while. In the early 80's European companys sent their road coaches over with Detroit or Cummings 6 cylinder inline 4 stroke engines, turbo-charged.....NICE! Real power(compared to the old Detroits) off the line and in city traffic:) Highway MPG were about 7-8 compared to 4-5 for the old engines.
Had to go auto transmissions because the standard trans lost the boost between shifts:)

[sailsmen]

Turbo - powered by exhaust gases, very efficient but a big heat sink

Roots S/C - immediate pressure, not as efficient at higher RPM's, generates heat

Centirfugal S/C - pressure builds over RPMs, less efficient than turbo more efficient than Roots, generates less heat

Screw S/C - immediate pressure & builds over RPMs, good efficiency, generates less heat

An engine is an air pump the more air that goes in the more HP that results. An S/C or Turbo is an air pump that pumps more air in the engine.

[mpearce]

Turbo's aren't so bad...I'll have to call on SixAppeal to chime in here shortly. As far as I know an intercooled turbo is quite efficient. Check these sites out for more info.
www.turbobuick.com (http://www.turbobuick.com)
www.turbobuicks.com (http://www.turbobuicks.com)

-Mat

[Joe Walsh]

Turbo - powered by exhaust gases, very efficient but a big heat sink

Roots S/C - immediate pressure, not as efficient at higher RPM's, generates heat

Centirfugal S/C - pressure builds over RPMs, less efficient than turbo more efficient than Roots, generates less heat

Screw S/C - immediate pressure & builds over RPMs, good efficiency, generates less heat

An engine is an air pump the more air that goes in the more HP that results. An S/C or Turbo is an air pump that pumps more air in the engine.


I've made several requests to Kenne Belle concerning a 'twin screw' S/C kit for the MM...they say; "NO!, not in their plans". I e-mailed them and told them to look at our Website and how many members modify their MM, I said that they might want to reconsider.
I have not talked to Whipplecharger...has anyone asked them about a MM kit???
I'm definitely sold on Trilogy's Kit...it looks great..but I keep reading about the Mustang Cobra owners chucking their Eaton S/Cs for a Kenne Bell/Autorotor S/C and getting nice HP gains.

[BillyGman]

Yeah, the twin screw S/Cers are supposed to be superior. That is the type that the new 2005 Ford GT comes with. But Kenne Belle like most aftermarket companies must believe that there's no great profit in iot for them to make a kit for the Marauder since there just isn't a whole lot of Marauders made as compared to Mustangs, Camaros, or Trucks. And I wouldn't even consider putting a S/Cer in my car w/out having a complete kit that was engineered and designed specifically for a Marauder. And if you don't agree, then just ask "Effster" of this board who installed a Kenne Belle on his Marauder. Sure, his car is making 430 HP at the wheels from merely 8 PSI of boost, but ask him about what a major hassle he had installing it, and getting it right. He'll tell you. And keep in mind that he's a professional car mechanic, and is co-owner of a speed shop too.

[Joe Walsh]

I totally agree with you about attempting to 'piece together' a twin screw S/C and trying to make it work on the MM...Major HASSLE! The only encouraging thing Kenne Bell had to say was that they are working on a Mustang Mach I kit. HMMMMM, now if only I could get a mirror image S/C intake for a Mach I kit I'd be set... DOOOOOHHHH! there I go again!

[Warpath]

...I keep reading about the Mustang Cobra owners chucking their Eaton S/Cs for a Kenne Bell/Autorotor S/C and getting nice HP gains.

Yes, 650 - 700 rwhp plus is very nice indeed. They switched to KB's blowzilla blower making something like 22 psi.


...Very true. 6V-71's actually lastted longer than 8V-71's. A lot of large fleets used them. Thicked heads, better protection about the water jackets. I only had experience in the bus field. They recycled an old truck engine the silver 92 and gave it to for a while. In the early 80's European companys sent their road coaches over with Detroit or Cummings 6 cylinder inline 4 stroke engines, turbo-charged.....NICE! Real power(compared to the old Detroits) off the line and in city traffic Highway MPG were about 7-8 compared to 4-5 for the old engines.
Had to go auto transmissions because the standard trans lost the boost between shifts

I was actually referring to the inline engines before the V's. But, in this context, its all the same.