DaTenshi

If the point of having a supercharger and a Turbo is for low end RPM torque and then the Turbo for high end why just twin turbo it?

HobieKopek

iTrader: (8)

Even with a twin turbo setup there will still be less low end torque than compared to a supercharger. Can't really lose either way, but the SC/TC is a combo that's really hard to touch so far as I understand (and figure).

bahamut

SC has linear powerband w/ low end TQ at the sacrifice on overall topend speed.

TC is a bit different. Turbo lag was big in the early 80's and 90's because of technology. Now, the system has improved so much over the years, especially ball-bearing TC'ers (ie WRC - hear that whistling sound . . . constantly spooling) that lag is virtually eliminated.

Of course, this theory doesn't apply to any TC that is larger than T4 setup - bigger topend bang at the sacrifice of low end TQ. Basically, you can't be putting a T6 on a 4 banger for the street . . . lag will kill your driving pleasures.

As for twin turbo, they are sequential, meaning one kicks on every time while the other at certain rpm to kick boost up. Very hard to tune properly on the ecu side. Remember the Buggati (sp?) supercar that had tri-turbo (sequential low, mid, and high) and the famed F40 (twin turbo - low and high end).

BTW: please don't toss the idea of NHRA top fuel cars in the debate on SC'ers.

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

Sorry Hobie, missed this part. I think the major problem with putting a mid- to high-boost supercharger on a small 4 cylinder engine is that the mechanical drive losses are HUGE. You could be looking at a 10-15 horsepower loss at low RPMs. A turbo doesn't have this problem.

A drawback of turbos on a V engines is the that either plumbing gets more complicated or you have to have 2 turbos - either way racks up the cost. A supercharger can just sit in between the V (very common) and feed both cylinder banks.

Make sense?

<(Turbod-Evo)>

I'd have to go with the turbo cuz it does not take any power away from ur car( unlike a supercharge that takes some power away when the belt is spinning the pulley for the supercharger ). Also because u can intercool turbo cars, u cant intercool all supercharged cars.

HobieKopek

iTrader: (8)

Thanks, Billy.

That's exactly the kind of response I was looking for. Preciate all the help, gentlemen.

Not like I really want to/can afford to do either to my Lancer, but it's always good to learn this kinda stuff.

zlancer

iTrader: (1)

you can put an intercooler on any car u want. you just have to find some way to run the pipes. you do loose power with a turbocharger because all the exhaust gases have to go through a really really small slit to spin the turbine. but its not as much of a loss as a supercharger. i say a turbo would be better because you then don't need the special belt to spin the turbine incase it ever breakes your screwed. superchargers also usually cost more too.

some_ZERO

Twin-Turbo Stage 3 would be good....

BlackLoTuS

I can't believe the lack of any technical knowledge in a lot of you guys! Why does everyone think that a turbo adds "free" hp just because its not driven off the crank? Does anyone ever stop to think that the restriction that the turbo itself presents robs hp? If you were to take an NA vehicle and place a turbo on it (but prevent it from pressurizing the engine intake) you are saying that there would be no power loss at all? You would have to lose at least 10-15hp on a 160-170hp car. Granted, an sc still takes more power to run but it makes the difference less noticable.

Point 2 Most people are assuming that you are using a roots sc which by design is very inefficient and has no internal compression thus being more suited to low boost applications. I hardly consider the centrifugal type an option as turbo's can have much less lag and higher boost than with one of these. What about using a Lysholm type sc? These can be made very efficient (much more than a turbo compressor), have internal compression (good for higher boost), and are positive displacement (instant boost off the line). Contrary to what some here believe, sc's can use IC's (a lot of manufacturers just try to simplify to save $$$).

I think that a well designed Lysholm type SC w/IC would be a great power adder for an AWD Evo. Anyone want to prove me wrong?

b_tapper

You'll soon learn no matter how right you are...you're still wrong at this place. I've given up arguing my point because no matter what, I'm wrong. All of their knowledge comes from magazines. Me and a few other people that know what's going on read these posts for comic value only.

Don't even get me started on the whole SC w/ IC, I know there are few threads with me arguing that it is possible to do that.

Guess the problem is, these kids just get all their info from super street and scc

HobieKopek

iTrader: (8)

I don't think he ever clarified whether he meant a USDM Lancer or an Evo. Not to mention the vast majority of us couldn't tell the difference between superchargers if one of them was our mother.

EDIT: I kinda assumed we were talking about USDM since they're NA to start and adding a different turbo to an Evo would just be so much more logical as far as cost so far as I can see.

BlackLoTuS

You're right about that. I haven't learned anything whatsoever (technically) on this forum. I used to frequent a couple of other forums that had many knowlegable guys in them but I figured I'd check out this one since I'm sick of honda's (even though I own one 94' GSR) and soon hope to get an Evo.

I would honestly like to find out a place that could help fabricate a good SC setup for an Evo (if I get one) to be different, among other things.

HobieKopek

iTrader: (8)

It might help if the car was more readily available to us. You may not learn, but others do. All help is appreciated. I seriously doubt most people would do an SC setup on an Evo, but more power to whoever does. Upgrading the existing turbo woudl be so much simpler that most people probably wouldn't even consider superchargin. Oh well.

All We'll Drive

iTrader: (3)

BlackLotus,
It seems as if you have a good amount of automotive knowledge, maybe you should think about what you can add as oppossed to what you can take. Members with knowhow are very valuable, I know it is frustrating to mix it up with people who just say this and that, and have no clue, but that is how people learn, and thats the point. Thanks for your input.

GPTourer

I think the main reason you don't see much SC+TC setups is
because of cost. Just because the Meguairs car makes all that
hp doesn't really impress me because its for all practical purposes
a show car, I don't think it has to prove itself like a factory car does.

And BTW, they are really called aftercoolers, and they can be put on any
car. Most factory SC cars are low boost and don't have to deal with
the heat that TC cars do. So they aren't needed. It is just a well
established misonmer to call them "inter" coolers. Remember inter
means between. As in the boosted air out of one turbo goes through
the intercooler and then into another turbo to be pressurized again.
You'll only find something like that on big diesels, in trains, or boats
I guess, I don't think its ever been on a car. I know, I'll keep calling
them intercoolers too.

Someone also said don't bring up top fuel dragsters as a point for SC'ing. Why not? By taking it to that extreme, you can see why V8 guys
prefer their blowers. In the top fuel scene those blowers can consume
up to 800 crank hp, to produce however many thousands they give.
Can your little 2.0L afford such a parasitic device? I know, neither can
someones 4.6L or 5.7L pony car, but you get my drift (I hope) they
can afford the bigger parasitic drag a big blower because they have so much low end torque. As far as turbos are concerned, I think twin setups
are just more complex and take up so much space that most V8 owners
don't have the room, but Buick GN owners do fine with a single turbo on
their V6's.

In short the net gain is better on a smaller engine to use a turbo, and
the superchargers are cheaper and more bang for buck on V6's and up.