Argue
Hard edition: you can't choose N/A. stand with one side or don't stand at all
turbo cuz I see no use for a supercharger
>>14707255
Superchargers or bust.
>>14707255
Turbo.
Stupidchargers are memes.
turbo
efficiency is king
What are you on, that's an alternator and a starting motor.
>>14707255
Turbo for wooshing
supercharger for reeeeeeeeeeee
both sides are good
>>14707279
turbo
>dat hisssssss
>>14707255
turbo no parasitic loss
>>14707255
Why not both?
>>14707255
NOS
>>14707318
>cutting your engine short 30k miles because you wanted to go fast
depends on the application
for pure power supercharger
for efficiency turbo
Turbo no doubt.
More torque, higher possible power gain, no >belt parasites
This should not need to be discussed, nor should someone have a preference for one or another.
Superchargers have their uses in very specific applications (rapidly going from no load to full load).
Turbochargers work perfectly in the rest of applications with modern designs (variable geometry, twin scroll) all but eliminating turbo lag.
>>14707309
laughed desu but mainly because I'm semi-drunk
>>14707296
The effect of parasitic loss is way overblown. any parasitic loss is easily overcome by the amount of power it makes.
It's all personal preference.
Turbochargers ALL have some form of lag. Even new cars.
Superchargers have instant response and instant boost.
Both have their downsides though because power isn't free.
The parasitic effect of a supercharger is well-known and blown out of proportion.
But Turbo's aren't free power either. Turbo's place a massive restriction in the exhaust. This restriction also exacerbates turbo lag.
Turbo's will make more power, but it all depends on your goals. Do you need a turbo setup capable of 500 HP on your 2.0L that makes 250 HP? A supercharger will do the same job just as well at that level, but will be more reliable.
>>14707377
When you make generalizing statements you're almost always wrong in some form. Having 3 turbochargers with overlapping spun up boost levels will remove all lag.
>>14707377
I guess the main pro with superchargers is the fact that the intake temps aren't as high as with a turbo and the power increase is linear?
And obviously the response too.
To be honest in a realistic setting, if I was looking for more power out of my car I would most likely stick an M122 on top of the engine rather than go through the trouble of getting a turbo + intercooler + new ecu to be able to map the huge and sudden power increase and go through the trouble of all the supporting mods and what not.
There's a reason why the M3 with its inaccessible ECU only gets supercharged by tuners like VF or Hamann, instead of trying to stick a turbo on it and make it work.
>>14707397
>3 turbochargers
Why? That's so needlessly expensive
>not getting the best of both worlds
>>14707416
More like the worst of both worlds.
>>14707416
>compound turbo setup
>best of bolt worlds
No. That would be twincharging
>>14707450
>biggie smalls turbo set up
That's a centrifugal supercharger, not compound turbos
>turbo lag
Call me autistic if you must but for all of you ignorant dickweeds in this thread turbo lag =/= boost threshold.
Turbo lag is the throttle response when in boost. Your in boost, you let off the throttle then get back on, the lag between you applying throttle and receiving power is turbo lag. Modern turbos have so little lag it's practically negligible.
Boost threshold is the amount of exhaust flow required to spool the turbo. If your thinking "hurr turbos take 3/4 of the rev range to make boost" you are thinking of the boost threshold.
You faggots sound mind blowingly stupid when you attempt to argue about FI driving dynamics using the wrong words. Your not impressing me or anyone else with your "hurr parasitic loss vs hurr lag" when you hardly understand what those concepts mean.
>>14707255
Pd blower plz
>don't have to spend hundreds of hours to fabricate manifolds and an exhaust system
>no plumbing a rat's nest of oil lines
>fits in a much more convenient package
>doesn't have the throttle response of a fucking boat
>dat whine
>dat instant torque
>>14707463
look again retard. That's a roots type Eaton M90 supercharger along with a turbonetics turbocharged on a GM 3800 V6, in a FWD car. front of the engine is to the left of the pic. You know. Where you see the fucking supercharger BELT.
>>14707416
Centrifugal superchargers are literally the worst lmao
>>14707500
I was talking about the pic I posted, you said they were compound turbos. They're centrifugal superchargers you fucking dumbass
>>14707480
>>14707506
I never expanded the pic. forgive my laziness.
>>14707481
>supercharger
>torque
lol
>>14707507
>>14707506
>op here
mfw i see this argument
>>14707512
Fucking faggot retard gm cuck
>>14707266
I used to know someone who had that same airbox on his GTP. That car was almost as much of a piece of shit as he was.
Are we talking bang for buck here?
Or just pro/con?
>Bang for buck
Turbo
>Pro/Con
Turbo
Pro:
>Free horsepower
Con:
>Turbo lag
Supercharger
Pro:
>Instant power
Con:
>Takes HP to make HP
Either way they're both cool and serve their purposes
forced induction masterrace
>>14707481
>>dat whine
i find supercharger whine kind of annoying. turbos are best for sounds. blow off, flutter, etc.
>>14707536
>Pro:
>>Free horsepower
see:
>>14707377
>Both have their downsides though because power isn't free.
>The parasitic effect of a supercharger is well-known and blown out of proportion.
>But Turbo's aren't free power either. Turbo's place a massive restriction in the exhaust. This restriction also exacerbates turbo lag.
As a diehard n/a lover.
Superchargers. They add that blower whine while leaving the exhaust note intact. Turbo cars sound like sputtering turbine engines to me. I don't care about "muh efficiency, weight difference, x makes yyyy hp" etc. I drive street cars on the street.
>>14707534
Burned bridges, ouch.
>>14707507
I worded it a little odd on re read but I'm not wrong fag.
Turbo lag = your already in boost, how long between throttle application and full boost power. This is very short in most modern cars
Boost threshold = engine speed needed to make boost in the first place, below this speed no boost.
Boost threshold is the main disadvantage of a turbo car, supercharger boost threshold is practically idle, turbo depending on size is much higher.
The only time turbo lag is noticeable is with huge turbo on small engines, when you may be making a little bit off boost at say 4K but you don't achieve full boost until 6k. But for intelligently paired engines and turbos your lag is very very short.
I would love to supercharge a car one day. maybe in a few years when I have a car that would take it.
and the money to pay for it of course
and time
:(
>>14707584
Aren't turbos more economic?
Turbo because cheap and easy for most builds.
but supercharger because WHRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>>14707619
Nope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YdCZ3Hm7g
>>14707633
Turbos are NOT cheap. and for most builds, a supercharger is easier/cheaper.
>>14707255
Kek, this faggot wants to talk about superchargers and he posted a picture of a turbo and an amplifier
>>14707647
prove it
>>14707634
>>14707647
Still waiting for your response to my re explanation after you so astutely claimed I'm a moron.
Any day now bud.
>>14707653
M8 r u dumb supercharger is a lot cheaper than turbo
Idk how much an eaton supercharger costs but you literally just APPLY it and reroute the air box vs turboing where you gotta add oil lines and an intercooler & shitloads of piping and what not
>>14707653
google it yourself lazy shit
also it will vary if there is a kit/size that fits already vs custom
>>14707669
>>14707667
have you ever supracharged before
>>14707653
GM 2.2 Ecotec.
Supercharger. ~ 2k.
http://zzperformance.com/ecotec/superchargers-eaton-parts/2-2-2-4l-bolt-on-supercharger-kit.html
Turbo kit. ~2.3k
http://zzperformance.com/ecotec/turbo-parts-kits/2-2-2-4l-turbo-kit.html
>>14707680
Yes, I have.
>>14707692
how much did you pay in the end
and have you turbahcharged
>>14707660
>>14707689
I can see that your just going to ignore getting BTFO and pretend it never happened.
In the future a quick Google can save you the embarrassment of being very wrong.
>>14707633
>cheap
>ebay special
Yep
>easy
You need to cut your front end to install an intercooler, and if you really want to go cheap, fabricating a downpipe or manifold with your shit harbor freight mig will take you more time than an afternoon.
>>14707397
Show me an engine bay where you can fit 3 turbos+piping+intercooler and have room leftover for anything.
And you can play the same game with superchargers. Just use a small electric engine powered by regenerative braking to spool up the supercharger. Done, no parasitic losses, better braking, and a controllable level of boost. It won't fit in any car but it's a cool idea.
>>14707704
forgot my black man
>>14707660
chill, and if you are going to be a faggot trip up so we can ignore you
Supercharged is probably more fuel efficient because the exhaust is not restricted in the low rpm letting the air to pass easier for complete combustion. Also a turbo hitting boost causes a surge in air volume, therefore larger fuel dumps. You need to upgrade your fuel pump for a turbo build for a reason, and its cause it need more fuel
I'm ordering a supercharger for my car. Should get it up to around 270whp with 8lbs of boost, which is all I really want for daily driving to keep the car reliable. Plus will have a warranty and carb legal.
>>14707689
it says here you have real experience, but that's a bolt on kit ?
>>14707728
>bolt ons
>experience
>>14707709
>>14707728
>>14707728
>needing experience for a kit you bolt on
Are you even white
>>14707716
No, a blower with PTO and interference seals is not more fuel efficient than either a radial or axial turbine. Where do you people get off on rehashing blatantly false shit? Positive displacement pumps are more fuel efficient than compressors, charge air temp is lower with a blower, you dont need to upgrade your fuel pump with a blower.......... This is all false and the same amount of time taken to post this utter offal through the thread could have been used to actually find the data and know these facts.
Take every 'fact' in this thread with a few grains of salt. There is some real pearlers here that are so off target yet so widely repeated it's somewhat impressive.
>>14707763
you can get it easy with cheap parts but fabrication will be hard or you can burn your money for an "easy" installation bolt on kit.
Nothing is easy, it's either more work or less work but I might have contradicted myself right now.
>>14707728
Even a bolt on supercharger or turbo takes some level of skill and coordination. I doubt even you could install one without hitting at least a couple difficulties.
>>14707763
You didn't bother :^)
Said more than any response could.
>>14707255
>faggots still think parasitic power is a thing
lol keep raging fags.
Superchargers provide better power for their size/limitations, some can produce power higher than N/A even at idle RPM and they have no lag.
Turbos only sound and look better.
>>14707712
sukk my kokk
>>14707534
your first mistake was making friends with someone who drove a GM product
Turbo because I am not a massive cuck
>>14707844
lol he said "and leftover room".
The fucking guy had to remove part of the hood and the headlight to install the quad turbos. Granted, looks great and would probably make a shit ton of power, but an average-sized twin-screw supercharger would make the same power with much less size and less fuel/oil consumption.
>>14707824
>Turbos only sound and look better.
and perform better
and have better efficiency
really though who here has installed a supercharger or done their own turbo build
>>14707870
>>14707712
It's so ugly that you've forgotten it
>>14707878
>efficiency and performance
Depends on the amount of pressure the turbo adds compared to the supercharger. You cant get same power with better efficiency nor more power with the same efficiency nor get both.
Superchargers, however, have no lag, parasitic loss even on a big size twin screw is around 10hp when its not producing power, they can produce power even at idle RPM, and they are much smaller than turbos made to give the same amount of power/torque curve.
>>14707870
that quad turbo setup makes 45 lbs of boost. an average sized twin screw is not making 45 lbs of boost
>>14707923
prove it
>>14707870
That's an I6 though.
>>14707923
A single turbo can make 45psi why put 4
Not practical or even usable.
>not having a twin turbo setup running 22psi each instead
>>14707915
nope a turbo is more efficient than a supercharger plain and simple its just inherent in the design
turbos pretty much always make more power too
no one gives a single fuck about idle power and turbo lag is borderline nonexistent these days
and blowers arent smaller either what the hell
>>14707923
>comparing a quad turbo expo/power-only setup to average supercharger.
lol.
Turbo recovers wasted energy
supercharger takes energy to make energy and ends up making more energy to lose through the exhaust.
>>14707878
You just need the right balance is the problem, smaller snail = more response, DANGER TO MANIFOLD at high RPM
larger snail = more lag, better flow at high rpm
>>14707931
Read the gauges
>>14707931
http://noriyaro.com/2015/01/quad-turbo-at-nikko-caroline-racings-2jz-silvia/
>3bar=43~psi
close enough
>>14707946
>nope a turbo is more efficient than a supercharger
wat.
What in the world of fuck makes you think that somehow a turbocharger will consume less fuel than a s/c?
If you somehow actually meant about energy efficiency, which i doubt since i honestly dont think you could be THIS retarded, congratulations, get the fuck out of /o/.
The bigger the turbo, the bigger the lag.
The bigger the supercharger, the more power without lag.
If you add twin turbos, say goodbye to reliable daily drive use.
>>14707945
it's the guys tuning project, no real point to it.
>>14707951
yeah I know it's a stupid comparison, the guy asked to see a triple turbo setup and I remembered seeing pics of a quad turbo s14 so I posted it.
>>14707959
So you're saying if you turbo a supercharger then you get infinite energy?
>>14707963
>read the gauges
was going to post the video with it but the boost gauge is hard to read have a video though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyrxR0Is1TU
>>14707335
>for pure power supercharger
HAH
>>14707963
>You just need the right balance is the problem
pretty much
plot that shit on a compressor map and youre good to go
>>14707964
man
you literally know fuck all about superchargers or turbochargers read a book nigger
superchargers are inefficient shit why do you think most of the industry uses turbos and not superchargers
>>14707255
>turbo or supercharger
itb's
>>14707967
no, rolling my eyes pretty hard right now.
Lemme say it in more simple terms so a dipshit like you can understand.
Engines aren't efficient so they lose more than 50% of the energy of the combustion through the exhaust. A turbo uses that once wasted energy to increase power instead of letting it leave out the back end.
Superchargers cause the engine to run harder at all times because the crank has to drive it at ALL times. You are running higher manifold pressures at all time. It takes some upwards of 100 horsepower to run some superchargers. Now running higher mean effective pressure nets you more power but now you're still losing 50% energy through the exhaust, super chargers are inefficient.
![quotihappentobeanexpertont[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/6yr7x3d.png "quotihappentobeanexpertont[1].png")
Freindly Reminder:
>Nitrous>Turbo>>>>>>>Supercharger
>b-but muh cheapness, muh easy installation, muh no lag and other bs spoutted by supercharger plebs
Nitrous is king in making power for cheap, you can even get a progressive controller and change the amount of gas injected depending on the RPM, its cheaper and easier to install and has 0 parasitic loss
if you are actually getting mechanical forced injection you better do it right and get a turbo
>inb4 assmad supercharger plebs
>>14707781
But you still got things wrong from the post before
man this thread is cancer
Fuck OP, we need to not bump this
>>14707989
Man.
I am a fucking mechanic.
If you somehow think that turbos are better just because they use exhaust energy you are mentally handicapped. That was literally fucking advertisement they used in the 80's to make you think somehow turbo was better than N/A or S/C.
Think about fucking physics for a second. Yes, turbos are "more energy-"""""""efficient"""""""".
So what? they still waste the same/more fuel, they produce the same/less power than a supercharger, they take more space. Repeating what the jews in the car companies said to make you buy a small engine cuck car wont make you right
>>14707945
Not a drag car
Have a neato supercharger though
>>14707993
>you can't choose N/A
They do make a nice sound though but only give a bit of power which is still better than a shitty "STAGE 3 RACE FILTER POD"
>>14708013
>they still waste the same/more fuel
top kek
>Repeating what the jews
dumb /pol/ack detected, ur opinion is invalid
>I am a fucking mechanic.
a fucking dumb one
>>14708004
>It takes some upwards of 100 horsepower to run some superchargers
nigga what? where did you hear that?
any power lost is gained 10fold anyway
>>14708005
>Nitrous>turbo=Supercharger>Methanol
FTFY
>>14708004
Holy fucking shit are you from reddit? kill yourself.
>A turbo uses that once wasted energy to increase power
But that only explains how the turbo spins up, it doesn't magically make more power than natural aspiration without more fuel consumption.
>Superchargers cause the engine to run harder at all times because the crank has to drive it at ALL times
Literally less than fucking 15hp of difference for a device that gives you power at either idle RPM or less than 1k more RPM than idle. Your point?
> You are running higher manifold pressures at all time
If you make a turbo/supercharger car and you dont change the exhaust/intake manifold then you are a piece of shit and you should kill yourself to begin with.
>It takes some upwards of 100 horsepower to run some superchargers
Maybe in 1960's, with fucking iron twin screws.
>>14708013
>I am a fucking mechanic.
i doubt it
if you are youre terrible one
>they still waste the same/more fuel, they produce the same/less power than a supercharger
nope turbo does better in all categories pretty easily
>>14708028
>I don't know what root superchargers are
>>14708028
various videos i've seen from old muscle cars running 8-71 or 10-71 blowers.
>>14708027
Wow, dude, nice ad hominem, you sure convinced me that turbos are better. You didn't even do anything other than shitposting insults, please, keep posting, i am sure my mechanical studies and experience will not compare to your reddit browsing skills.
WAT engineering coming out with new rotary twin turbo bi supercharged tri alternator set up
keep your eyes open
>>14708031
>turbo=Supercharger
supercharging is garbage, its in no way in equal terms
>methanol
wat, thats Fuel Altered, a complete different topic
>>14708035
[citation needed]
>>14708049
yeap
doesnt provide any proof to back up his claim but wants proof when someone calls him out on bullshit
why should I waste my time gathering links when you can google
>>14708042
I dont give a shit if I conviced your retarded ass of anything
you are dumb, your mechanical studies are just as dumb if you belive supercharger are in any way superior to turbos
a retarded argument like "it's da jews making the whyte man belive turbos are better" is fucking stupid and basically proves you have no idea what you are talking about
>b-but muh cheap, muh no lag, muh easy installation
thats why nitro exist
>>14708032
>it doesn't magically make more power than natural aspiration without more fuel consumption.
only if it is spooling fast enough to make power, otherwise you are barely conuming any more fuel
>>14708047
You didn't read it right
Nitrous over Turbo = Supercharger over Methanol
It's like RPMDrivenXDrivenDiameter = RPMDriverXDriverDiameter
>>14708053
>i am not going to back up my claims but i will criticize you for not doing it yourself
lol, keep diggin the hole, turbofag.
Turbo
Stupid question. Modern twin-scroll variable geometry turbo charges get supercharger-like response and massive top-end, with no parasitic loss, less heat and far more efficiency and are far more tunable than superchargers.
>>14708059
>being this much of a fucking faggot
Get back to /r/, cuck
>>14708068
yeap
keep doing the exact same thing while actually being wrong
its amusing
>>14708013
lol you're not a mechanic, you're just a retard
turbocharger all day long. Electronically controllable boost, more efficient, and you can tell girls that your car has a turbochargah
>>14707377
is there an intercooler built into the manifold?
>>14708070
>Modern top-end tech turbos in experimental phase that only exist as concept prototypes perform better than anything in the market today
>>14708079
>>14708082
keep doing the exact same thing while actually being wrong
>>14708077
>ur a faggot!
>ur a redditor!
>ur a cuck!
kek, stay mega anally hurt supercharger pleb
give me one reason why anyone who wants to make power for cheap should consider a shitty supercharger instead of nitrous
>brotip; there is none
>>14708087
aren't they on koenigseggs?
>>14708095
How's removing an intake manifold for a 1999 Dodge caravan?
compound turbo
Use a tiny turbo to spool a massive turbo and get 40psi from as low as 2000rpm
>>14708099
>still using ad hominem to prove turbos are better
Get back to /r/, you faggot cuck.
>"b-but turbos are more power-efficient!"
Yes, they are, congratulations. They waste the same amount of fuel and generate less/same power, occupy more space and have lag. Now kill yourself.
>>14708064
please explain your point
>>14708103
Yeah, but this thread is about comparing average domestic S/C vs turbos. Not about what cars aiming to get as much HP as possible find/do.
>>14708116
Not a bad idea, anon, but the smaller turbo will still draw some power away compared to the big monoturbo only
>>14708084
No that's the supercharger.
>>14708087
BMW uses twin scroll turbos.
>>14708120
>They waste the same amount of fuel and generate less/same power,
there he goes being wrong again top kek
wont even back up his facts
>>14708087
lol twin-scroll vg are readily available for purchase and have been for 2-3 years now. And not even far more expensive than typical garret spec big-turbos. Look at borg-warner
>>14708130
>BMW uses twin scroll turbos.
Confirmed. Still think that is not enough to prove me wrong, and to be honest, if a modern car reuqires a turbo to get 100hp/l then its shit to begin with
>>14708116
>40psi from as low as 2000rpm
boom goes most engines
but I guess if you willing to push that much boost you'd upgrade the engine to the max
>>14708121
The Nitrous is the Nominator, which is the top. The Turbo is the Denominator which is the bottom. Thus the formula Nitrous/Turbo is equal to Supercharger/Methanol. Nitrous equals Supercharger, they compliment each other. Turbo equals Methanol, they too compliment each other.
>>14708120
>pls stop hurting my feelings ;_;
kek
>Yes, they are, congratulations.
all that matters
>They waste the same amount of fuel
lel
you are not consuming high quantities of extra fuel unless you are on boost
if your boost starts at 4.5k and you are cruising at 3k rpm, you arent wasting less fuel than a supercharger
lrn how turbos work
> generate less/same power
>less
kek
if you run the same boost on a supercharger and on a turbo, the supercharger will make less power because it is driven by the crankshaft
>occupy more space
literally irrelevant because you can fir the intercooler and turbos at the back
> have lag
not with sequential manuals /autos, you can always get an anti-lag system or run nitrou to make up for the low boost at low RPMs
you still did not answered my question, why should anyone get a shitty supercharger over Nitrous?
gg fag
>>14708139
>wont even back up his facts
What facts? you mentally handicapped retard? Its not about "facts", its about fucking physics.
If a turbo adds twice as much pressure to the cylinder compared to the standar air pressure, your car gets twice the power and twice the power consumption. Do you also need me to explain physics to you?
>>14708151
Dude, I don't care which side your own but I think I may go blind from reading your post.
>>14708155
>physics
physics prove the turbo is better
supercharger is always adding its shitty drain on the engine
turbo only does it when you want it to
turbo>super
>>14708158
*you're on
>>14708151
>you are wasting less fuel
>>14708128
The real answer to all turbocharging woes is to mount the turbo inside the Vee. You lose every disadvantage.
Better packaging, boost off idle, and with today's efficient cooling, intercoolers can be downsized.
>>14708147
yeah obviously your not just gonna slap it on your dads corolla and hope for the best
>>14708151
>if you run the same boost on a supercharger and on a turbo, the supercharger will make less power because it is driven by the crankshaft
Turbo charger and supercharger power are directly derived from their size, not from the RPM, retard.
>if your boost starts at 4.5k and you are cruising at 3k rpm, you arent wasting less fuel than a supercharger
And why the fuck would you not want low end RPM? If you have anything other than N/A in a car its because you obviously want to benchrace.
>literally irrelevant because you can fir the intercooler and turbos at the back
Doesn't prove anything. You can change the way you organize shit, but the entire turbo setup will STILL occupy more space.
>> have lag
not with sequential manuals /autos
Wat.
>you can always get an anti-lag system or run nitrou to make up for the low boost at low RPMs
Wow, nice, tell me, is there any faster way to destroy my engine and fuck my shit up, anon?
>you still did not answered my question, why should anyone get a shitty supercharger over Nitrous?
Lol i am not that anon. I personally think that nitros are kinda expensive to do the same thing than turbo/supercharger and also being limited and requiring refill.
>>14708158
im on my phone familia
>>14708155
the difference is it onlymakes power when you want to, unlike a supercharger
>>14708167
Until you pass 2000 horsepower then a supercharger is better.
Or if you enjoy nice engine noises then a KB Cobra is just head and shoulders above every turbocharged engine.
>>14708167
>physics prove the turbo is better
Fucking prove it you piece of shit.
We just made clear that the power/fuel consumption is relative one to the other and that both depends on the size of the S/C/turbo.
Just because "LOL TURBO USES EXHAUST" It doesn't mean its magically better. You could fucking stretch it by 10 miles and say "its TECHNICALLY slightly more power-efficient" but its still consuming the same/giving the same power, taking more space, having lag, etc.
>>14708171
shit, not a bad idea, but cant imagine the fucking price of those things.
>>14708184
>i want power at low RPM
Wow suddenly your point is invali
>>14708184
a turbo charger will make power when it spools, not 'when you want it to'
unless you have a huge turbo that spools at 3k or some awful piping (or both), any factory turbo and any well-designed modern set-up should make boost at daily RPMs.
>>14708032
> I don't know how manifold pressures work.
Based on what you said you seriously don't.
A supercharger increases Brake Specific Fuel consumption
Go back to your fucking forums, you clearly have no idea the mechanics behind these things.
A quick google on "how much power does a supercharger take" validates what I said.
>>14708192
>Until you pass 2000 horsepower then a supercharger is better.
tell my why nearly every fast drag car making over 2000hp is turbocharged or uses nitrous
>>14708194
sorry m80
put a quarter in your ass you played yourself
you brought physics up and physics prove you wrong
you can keep sperging out if you want to
>>14708116
The tiny turbo doesnt spool the big one, it adds power down low util the engine can spin the big one up at higher rpms. It gives power through out the entire rpm band.
>>14708219
>you brought physics up and physics prove you wrong
Where the fuck am i wrong? oh, sorry, i am wrong because it doesn't align with your opinion, its ok, you dont need to be ashamed of being a retard on the internet.
>>14708226
It's basically a sequential setup
>>14708219
>every fast drag car making over 2000hp is turbocharged
wut
Last I checked, top fuel dragsters were required to use superchargers
>>14708208
Well the C63 AMG is 84k
The M5/M6 is 94k
And those are really the only two cars that take advantage of the tech (besides the Mercedes F1 car, which is why it is SO much better than anything else)
But realistically, give it ten years and this will be the norm. It's just new and innovative and the engineering isn't commonplace yet.
>>14708234
nonoon its compound turbo setup, in sequential both turbos feed into the manifold separately(parallel), compound 1 feeds into the other(series).
>>14708234
There are two ways to make a twin turbo:
You either have a small turbo in the intake THEN a bigger turbo, that way the bigger turbo has parasitic loss from the low pressure coming from the small turbo
Or you could have 2 intakes pipes with a small and big turbo, disadvantage being that the turbos spool up slower.
>>14708244
No shit in 10 years it will be the norm. I dont hate turbos. Its just that right fucking now superchargers are better in a few ways.
>almost 100k
Lol that's a fucking shit ton compared to a C7 or a GTR (meme not intended)
Test
>>14707255
please educate me, and yes I am a new faggot to it all
what is the difference?
>>14708130
yeah, i see the sc. do you see an ic?
>>14708241
>nearly
top fuel isnt nearly every drag car
there were a couple top fuel turbos back in the day but they had traction issues (nothing to do with making more power I guess)
>>14708257
Who said you hate turbos? I was just answering your question as to how expensive they were. And the answer is, not really.
>>14708272
>turbochargers have 2 turbines, connected by a small rod. One of the turbines is in the middle of the exhaust, the other one in the middle of the intake. When the exhaust forces the turbine to spool up the intake one also spools up forcing more air inside creating a vacuum in the intake of teh car.
>superchargers have a similar system, but they take power from a small belt connected to the crank, the bigger ones are similar but they are twin screws inside shaped in such way that theey take air from above, which is given through the bug-catcher intakes that you saw in muscle cars.
>>14708277
I think you're talking about the heat shielding. A roots-type or twin-screw supercharger is bolted straight to the intake manifold.
>>14708183
>Turbo charger and supercharger power are directly derived from their size, not from the RPM, retard.
no?
a big massive turbo depends on the speed and volume of exhaust gases, which is directly related to the engine speed, and a supercharger is fixed to the engine, so it makes boost so it will only speed as fast as the engine
>And why the fuck would you not want low end RPM?
because it mean you can cruie at low RPM and waste less fuel?, if you want power at Low RPM just get a smaller turbo
>If you have anything other than N/A in a car its because you obviously want to benchrace.
muh feels faggot detected
>Doesn't prove anything.
neither does your inital argument of "superchargers take less space"
>Wat.
lrn how autos and sequential manuals work
>Wow, nice, tell me, is there any faster way to destroy my engine and fuck my shit up, anon?
>what are exhaust side anti-lag system
lrn 2 anti-lag
> I personally think that nitros are kinda expensive
>$300 ameridollars for a nitrous kit and $50 for gas
>expensive
what
>>14708208
>i want power at low RPM
Wow what are smaller turbos,sequential turbo, and anti-lag
>>14708210
> not 'when you want it to'
>size the turbo according to where you want yur boost
>not "where you want to"
>>14707397
>overlapping spun up boost levels
What kind of go kart micro turbo are you trying to use to get boost at ~1000 rpm
>>14708272
Turbo are fucking alpha and ounds and feels like a jet aircraft
Superchargers are basically overrated sewing machines
turbo vs supercharger threads always suck because we can never discern who is talking about streetable motors and who is the idiot discussing top-spec racing engines.
anyways, turbo is better. that's why you can't buy any supercharged cars from the factory floor anymore. sorry billy bob, your inefficient shit machine isn't relevant in 2016. once engineers sorted out turbolag and brought the prices way down and the reliability way up, it was a done deal. the only reason anyone would want a supercharger any more is....is...well...maybe....yeah i can't think of anything.
>>14708353
>that's why you can't buy any supercharged cars from the factory floor anymore
not even trying / 10, and i am a turbofag
>>14708313
then i suppose you could say initially there isn't one. why do you keep telling me what i'm looking at? "roots/ts don't use intercoolers" boom. what's with assuming i am confused about what's IN THE IMAGE when i asked about the thing CLEARLY NOT IN THE IMAGE?
>>14707255
Turbo all day every day. Why is this even a question?
>>14708321
>a big massive turbo depends on the speed and volume of exhaust gases, which is directly related to the engine speed, and a supercharger is fixed to the engine, so it makes boost so it will only speed as fast as the engine
Fucking wat.
That's not about boost, that's about the way they spin up.
A turbo is NOT related to the RPM, its related to the exhaust load, this means its related to both the RPM and the engine size AND this variant changes with the size of the turbo. The supercharger is fixed to the crank RPM, true, so what?
>because it mean you can cruie at low RPM and waste less fuel?, if you want power at Low RPM just get a smaller turbo
lol why would i want a small turbo that produces low power and no lag when i can get a S/C with a lot of power and no lag? like i said, if you have anything other than N/A for a DD then you are doing it wrong.
>>If you have anything other than N/A in a car its because you obviously want to benchrace.
muh feels faggot detected
That's ad hominem and i am still right. F/I reduces MPG, adds something that can break to the car, increases weight and reduces engine bay size. If you want a DD you do not need/want something quick. If you want something quick then you fucking need low-RPM power.
>neither does your inital argument of "superchargers take less space"
>a smaller object taking less space is somehow not a point
lol
>what are exhaust side anti-lag system
A piece of shit its what they are
>>$300 ameridollars for a nitrous kit and $50 for gas
>expensive
wat
I live in southamerica. Nitro kits are at least 2k and each bottle is almost 100 dolaridoos.
>what are smaller turbos
No big power at high RPM its what they are
>what are sequential turbo
The dual-intake reduces individual efficiency, single-intake makes the air slow down when going through the first small turbo before going to the big one at high RPM
>what are anti lag
Already stated. One of them is a piece of shit, the misfire breaks ur car
>>14708366
I think you have temperament problems.
>>14708396
What fucking website do you think you are?
>>14708406
i am internet
>>14708425
you are retard
>>14708382
>That's not about boost, that's about the way they spin up.
>boost pressure isnt the turbo spinning up and compresing air
come on now
>A turbo is NOT related to the RPM, its related to the exhaust load, this means its related to both the RPM
>A turbo is NOT related to the RPM
>its related to both the RPM
>NOT related to RPM
>its related to RPM
wow
> The supercharger is fixed to the crank RPM, true, so what?
it means it only makes relative to the engine speed, a turbo does not, you need it to spool up and then it will spin faster than the engine, making more boost
>when i can get a S/C with a lot of power and no lag?
prob because ur a fag
if you have no money for a proper sequential turbo or anti-lag, nitrous is a far better alternative to supercharger in this scenario
>if you have anything other than N/A for a DD then you are doing it wrong.
except with chemical supercharging you get the benefits of N/A fuel consumption and the extra boost
>a smaller object taking less space is somehow not a point
basically, glad you get it, it' not an issue on drag week cars
>A piece of shit its what they are
that' rich for a guy throwing tantrums about "muh ad-hom"
you surely just proved you don't know how many racecars use anti-lag
>I live in southamerica
well shit senpai, you could prob till get the kit for cheap and get the hoses, buttons, and nozzles for cheap at home, you can use regular tanks anyway
the nly actually hard to get part is the one that bolts below the carb/throttle body
>each bottle is almost 100 dolaridoos.
just go to a paintball shop and get it filled with N20
>No big power at high RPM its what they are
sequential
>The dual-intake reduces individual efficiency
wat?, if you are talking about the piping, it is no different from a twin-turbo set up
this reduced efficiency still affects the engine far less than what the parasitic load of a supercharger does
cont.
>>14708483
>Already stated
>the misfire breaks ur car
exhaust side anti-lag does not alter timing, plus you are conveniently forgetting a big supercharger or one that spins too fast will destroy your crank bearings, because it puts masive load on them
>>14708483
>>14708495
i cant believe you shitpost like this to try to be right. You know what? its 2 am. I am obviously not gonna change your mind, so go think what you want. You win. I still prefer S/C. The winner is you.
On a small capacity engine I would go for a turbo.
On a large capacity engine I would go supercharger.
Some of the gains from a supercharge are lost to the powerbelt, taking torque from the engine.
That is why turbos are better suited to small capacity engines.
It all depends on the application and what I need to do?
Do I want more low-end torque for faster acceleration? Supercharge.
Do I want more horsepower for higher top speed? Turbo.
>>14708382
>Exhaust load is not related to RPM
LOL wat? I had to stop reading there.
>>14708518
Exhaust load IS related to RPM. I stated that. But its not ONLY related to RPM retard, its also related to engine size.
>>14708507
Superchargers are a stupidly good choice for high-RPM engines.
Imagine Takumi's 11kRPM revving engine with a supercharger.
>>14707964
lol supercharged are far less efficient. Turbos use waste energy to make boost, supercharged use energy that would otherwise be used to turn the wheels to make boost and therefor will use more fuel to turbo the supercharger.
![5849504+_7f768f660e09609e69401ac5a9c96389[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/E3GwNQk.jpg "5849504+_7f768f660e09609e69401ac5a9c96389[1].jpg")
>>14708502
I come to /o/ to swear and shitpost, you should too
> I still prefer S/C.
thats alright, but i dont see why you refuse to unerstand they have masive drawbacks
a turbo is literally an upgraded supercharger
>>14708512
you can turbo for low end power
literally all turbo-diesel trucks
>>14708518
The more an engine spins, (RPM) The faster the pistons are firing.
The faster the pistons fire, the more exhaust exhaust gas is produced...
The more exhaust gas is produced the faster the turbo spools.
A turbo gets it's spool from a cars exhaust.
>>14707255
Anybody who chooses a supercharger in 2016 is a fucking retard.
>>14708536
You just said it wasn't.
I think you may have dyslexia or problems communicating clearly.
>Imagine Takumi's
Okay I have had enough, lol.
>>14708537
>Turbos use waste energy to make boost
pls stahp with this meme.
I dont care if it uses waste energy. Its still consumes more and produces same/less power than an s/c.
>supercharged use energy that would otherwise be used to turn the wheels to make boost
Bullshit. The supercharger takes a very small amount of power and it produces power at idle/slightly over idle RPM. This has been already stated. Stop eating the fucking memes for fucks sake.
>>14708539
>thats alright, but i dont see why you refuse to unerstand they have masive drawbacks
>a turbo is literally an upgraded supercharger
Because i used to be a fucking turbofag too.
Then i fucking learnt actual physics and became a mechanic too.
Yes, modern variable turbos are better than S/C, but i still think that base S/C (implying we talk about twin screws) are better than base turbos.
>>14708557
You're a fucking delusional cunt, huh?
It's been proven time and time again that turbos make more power than superchargers, no exceptions.
And they don't take 'very small' amounts of power you filthy faggot, they can take upwards of 100hp on <1000hp engines, hence why turbos always have an always will make power.
Fuck off and learn something.
>>14708551
>disliking dagumi fushigara
lol get off my board
>>14708382
>A turbo is NOT related to the RPM,
>this means its related to both the RPM
But then you said
>A turbo is NOT related to the RPM,
but in the same sentence
>this means its related to both the RPM
Now lets brake that down.
>means its related to both the RPM
> its related to both the RPM
> its related to the RPM
>RELATED TO RPM
But just a few words before that
>A turbo is NOT related to the RPM
Please learn to make sense.
>>14708576
Let me explain myself.
When i said "turbo is not related to RPM"
I meant
"Turbo is not ONLY related to RPM"
>>14708568
I love initial D but mentioning a cartoon in a serious auto discussion is like saying.
>Imagine if GTR from fnf2 had the engine from the charger in fnf1
>>14708576
>Not related purely to the RPM
There, that help?
Get some reading comprehension, dickhead.
>>14708562
Don't need modern at all you lying sack of shit, a pig disgusting old purely oil cooled journal bearing turbo is better than any supercharger ever made.
>>14708585
Yeah work on your typing skills when trying to discuss something technical or you will end up looking like an idiot.
Which you do. Lucky you did this anonymously on 4chan and not in public.
>>14708557
you actually have down syndrome. Turbos consume NO power what so ever, the only power drawback they may have is a slight exhaust restriction - which is microscopic compared to power it takes an engine to turn a supercharger. PLUS turbos make more power, use less fuel AND make more torque EASIER (proven facts from decades ago).
The only advantages supercharged USED to have over turbos was response, but modern turbos can be just as responsive if set up correctly which makes supercharges obsolete ancient dinosaur technology for people who fuck their sisters.
>>14708590
Learn to type properly young kid.
Then people will able to comprehend what you are saying.
>>14708587
>mentioning a cartoon in a serious auto discussion
>/o/
>serious auto discussion
>not mentioning initial D on /o/
>>14708600
Not him, retard.
>>14708603
We're genuine benchracers and we live up to our name
>>14708598
I screencapped your comment.
I want to print your comment
I want to frame your comment
I want to remind myself whenever i am about to use logic in an engine-based argument in this board that people like you populare this place.
>turbos dont consume more fuel
""""""technically"""""" if you bolt on a turbo on a fuel-injected car and dont worry about modyfying anything else the car will bring more air, not use more fuel, but either you will see a 3hp increase or you will lose power.
You see, anon, let me reason with you for a second:
- If you want more power out of a car in any significat way, you NEED to waste more fuel.
You cannot have a car produce more power without consume more fuel.
You can have small things like increased compression, intake/exhaust efficiency, air cleaning, less objects to slow the crank down, etc.
But you either need a bigger displacement car to generate more power, or you need more RPM. There is no workaround that.
>>14707712
>>14708626
Hey, dumb cunt, guess what happens when you're using light throttle loads on a turbo?
Now guess what happens when a big screw charger that saps 100hp is constantly being spun at low throttle loads?
>>14708562
>Then i fucking learnt actual physics
can you explain what "physics"?
because by "physics" alone, a turbo will make more power than a supercharger if they are both running at the same presure, because the supercharger will drain power
and it wont consume more fuel, because while a supercharger is making boost at low RPM a turbo is not, meaning you can cruise at low RPMs and conume les fuel
this are literal facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0vq7QwlRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyeotHRZ-XI
This thread is gay as fuck
>>14708639
Wow, its almost like if somehow you think that i dont want power at all times if i am modifying a car to have high power!
>>14708663
Wow, it's almost like you're a fucking retarded 13 year old that knows nothing about cars!
>>14708649
>because the supercharger will drain power
So will the turbo since the exhaust turbine blocks exhaust fumes from leaving the car fast enough.
>because while a supercharger is making boost at low RPM a turbo is not, meaning you can cruise at low RPMs and conume les fuel
Why does all turbo fags think that i dont want low-end RPM?
Seriously, is it so hard to fuckin get? Why does turbofags think that somehow getting a steep and uneven torque curve is good?
>HURR DURR, MY CAR DOESN'T PRODUCE POWER AT LOW RPM, THIS IS AN ADVANTAGE!
Holy shit
>>14708662
Cant believe i am agreeing with a tripfag.
>>14708678
Wow, its almost like if using as hominem is gonna prove you right! You know what? it does. Congratulations. Here's your prize. Now go on about your life.
>>14708639
>guess what happens when you're using light throttle loads on a turbo?
You have got to be shitting. Because nobody crawls away from stop lights. CRAWL. Are stupid people like just leftovers from the 80s?
>hur duur don't exceed 1.5 rpm you'll be fine
>>14708682
Cool.
Now fuck off, you know-nothing spacklecunt.
>>14708679
>hurr turbo drain power
Except an exhaust restriction increases exhaust velocity at low revs actually giving you better low down torque and then when you're coming onto boost the exhaust restriction no longer matters because you're adding so much more power anyway.
>hurr steep and uneven
Congrats on having never driven a car, child.
A properly designed turbo setup will be onto boost by 1500rpm, if you're trying to accelerate before then you're either a fucking moron or you're driving a semi and will be using a turbo system that spools at 500rpm.
>>14708626
fuck man your parents must hate having a little cunt like you in their family.
Two identical engines
One is supercharged running 10psi (A)
The other is turbocharged running 10psi (B)
Engine A will make less power and still use more fuel, which the only power advantages being seen from below 2000rpm, and lets be honest, its rare that a racecar will drop to as low as 2000rpm unless the driver is a sped, and its easy to just downshift in a street car if for some reason you are cruising at 1500rpm.
AND engine B will have a lighter drive train because the crankshaft doesnt turn the turbo - and lighter drive train is better throttle response.
>>14708698
>an exhaust restriction increases exhaust velocity
This is biblical-tier levels of bullshit i am reading.
>>14708687
Are you actually this completely fucking braindead, cunt?
What do you do when cruising on the freeway? Fucking use 100% throttle until you're breaking the limit before braking back down and using 100% throttle again?
Is this a goddamn PS1 and you're playing GT2 with no analog stick?
>>14708702
You're an idiot. I bet you think only guy thinks so too.
>>14708702
>HURR DURR TURBOS PRODUCE MORE POWER AND USE LESS FUEL! ITS OBVIOUS!
Tell me how do i also replace my toilet with a computer, since all you do is shitposting
>>14708711
This is fact you're reading, retard.
Go learn how an exhaust works, more restriction = higher gas velocity, increasing low end torque by scavenging. This stops working at higher RPMs.
>>14708679
>So will the turbo
minimal compared to a supercharger, plus the turbo wont detroy your main bearings
>Why does all turbo fags think that i dont want low-end RPM?
get a smaller turbo or a sequential, an exhaust side anti-lag or fix the lag with a nitrous injection, we have already dicused this and you decided to ignore it
>Why does turbofags think that somehow getting a steep and uneven torque curve is good?
because turbo engines don't get uneven torque or power curves
you have obviously never driven a turbo and a supercharger car, being able to make low power at low RPM means you burn les fuel, which increases your mileage
>>HURR DURR, MY CAR DOESN'T PRODUCE POWER AT LOW RPM, THIS IS AN ADVANTAGE!
except turbo cars do make power at low RPM, again, sequential, anti-lag, smaller turbos, and nitrous to deal with the lag
and again, making low boost at low RPM means you can increase your mileage
power at low RPM is not an isue with turbo, faggot, stop grasping at straws
>>14708715
lol if you admit that, then why bother arguing?
>>14708713
except he is right
>>14708715
look at this supercharger cuck not even arguing the points that other anon posted, I bet you are the same cuck throwing tantrums about "muh adhominem" kek
>>14708712
3000 rpm at 70mph in 6th gear. Like everyfucking body else with 4 cylinder. Car idles at 850 rpm, and JUST to let the clutch out takes 1000rpm. To Let the clutch out and accelerate slowly takes 1500 to 2000 rpm and that would mean 20 seconds to get to 45 mph to keep ANY boost from not happening.
>>14708720
>get a smaller turbo or a sequential
Both have disadvantages the S/C doesn't has. Already explained this above.
>So will the turbo
minimal compared to a supercharger, plus the turbo wont detroy your main bearings
No. Not much more minimal compared to the S/C at least.
>because turbo engines don't get uneven torque or power curves
YOU HEARD IT FIRST HERE, GENTLEMEN! THE GUY WHO CLAIMS TO KNOW BETTER THAN DYNO TESTS!
>again, sequential
Has issues
>anti-lag
I dont want to rebuild my engine each 1k miles.
>smaller turbos
Generate less power.
>nitrous
I am not a faggot. Maybe you are. But i dont like NO2.
>power at low RPM is not an isue with turbo, faggot, stop grasping at straws
I am not using strawman. You assume that low power at low RPM is good. I think its not good.
>>14708729
No, YOUR wrong samefag. You do this shit all the time. I've said it many times....you are the worst shit poster on this board.
![tumblr_inline_o2ytgyGrE81rpvz53_500[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lbu1hPH.jpg "tumblr_inline_o2ytgyGrE81rpvz53_500[1].jpg")
kek this supercharger cuck complaing about "muh ad-homs" and saying "muh physics prove me right" is getting absolutely BTFO
>>14708732
And once again, faggot, we are NOT TALKING ABOUT ACCELERATING.
The fact that you don't know what low/light throttle loads are proves you have never driven a car.
>>14708735
Anti-lag doesn't damage engines at all.
Smaller turbos generate less power than bigger ones, they still make more than a useless supercharger.
My twin turbo has more torque at 1200rpm than whatever piece of shit you drive has at peak.
>>14708752
>Anti-lag doesn't damage engines at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hds9tFMuU8o
>>14708752
You should have said we were talking about idling then. But me, I like to move away from stop lights rather than get honked at and eventually ticketed.
And we were talking about accelerating...that's what a fucking throttle does when the car is in gear.
>>14708760
Ahh, it's so cute how you're so completely fucking clueless you stupid cunt.
Anti-lag damages TURBOS.
It does not wear the engine at all unless you let the turbo become so bad it sends blades through.
Now how about you fuck off? You clearly know nothing about cars and have never driven any.
>>14708760
>retarded timing
>retarded you
>>14708752
You don't drive a car. It's obvious at this point. 1500rpm is about as far from heavy acceleration as Japan is from Kansas.
Boom turbos are dead. They died in the 80s. Turbo'd cars boost almost immediately now, so that the power in linear.
>>14708763
You are a literal retard.
Right now your claim is that on the freeway you use 100% throttle until you hit 65mph or whatever the limit is, then you brake down to 45 and then accelerate at 100% again up to 65 and repeat the process.
You have never driven a car, and are quite possibly the stupidest poster ever to exist on /o/, and i was around for dead so that's fucking saying something.
>>14708771
well lad, last i remember a turbo was part of the engine, but ok.
You are also wrong, since it wont damage "The turbo"..
In fact, turbo doesn't exist, so you are wrong. It only damages the exhaust turbine.
Check yourself before you shrek yourself. You obviously know nothing about cars nor have driven any nor even played with my hotwheels
>>14708786
STOP SHITPOSTING
>>14708789
Yeah except if you weren't a fucking moron you'd know the turbine is connected to the compressor with the shaft and it's almost always the compressor that lets go when the bearings are dead.
>>14708786
>Right now your claim is that on the freeway you use 100% throttle until you hit 65mph or whatever the limit is, then you brake down to 45 and then accelerate at 100% again up to 65 and repeat the process.
Nice try retard. That's YOUR claim, and where the fuck you came up with it is a fucking mystery.
>>14708802
And the turbo is also connected to the engine, but ok, the turbo is not the engine. The turbine is not the turbo either, so the misfire doesn't damage the turbo, since the turbo is only the sum of the components, it only damages the turbine. Get your facts straight.
>>14707377
>A supercharger will do the same job just as well at that level, but will be more reliable.
So much well thought out stupid in one post but that takes the cake.
![JerrysTwinDynoChart[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SYMoWWi.jpg "JerrysTwinDynoChart[1].jpg")
>>14708735
>Both have disadvantages the S/C doesn't has
a sequential turbo doent have any disadvantage over supercharger other than weight
>Not much more minimal compared to the S/C at least.
lel, yes it does
why don't you post a source that back your claims up? I already provided two videos
>THE GUY WHO CLAIMS TO KNOW BETTER THAN DYNO TESTS!
pic related cuck, a tiwn turbo big block
>Has issues
minimal compared to the isues supercharging has
>I dont want to rebuild my engine each 1k miles.
kek, you are going to have to rebuild it if you install a supercharger because the harmonics in the belt will fuck your main bearings up
>Generate less power.
get a second bigger one, its called sequentila
>I am not a faggot.
kek, your posts baically prove otherwise
> But i dont like NO2.
I don't remember asking waht you like, cuck
>You assume that low power at low RPM is good. I think its not good.
lel
again its good to be able to make low boost at low RPM because you burn les fuel this way
>>14708743
>only one person is pointing out how worng and how much of a faggot I am
kek
>.you are the worst shit poster on this board.
go back to red-dit then cuck
>>14708809
Except for how the turbine doesn't get damaged. It's the bearing that support the shaft that wear and allow the compressor blades to touch the housing and therefore send metal into the engine.
If the turbine blades ever got damaged it either wouldn't hurt the engine at all getting blown out or you will have fucked up so bad it takes the compressor out with it.
Come back when you have a fucking clue.
>>14708820
ok.
>>14708760
>>14708778
>I dont know what are exhaust-side anti-lag system
dumb faggot
>>14708792
>proving I am a dumb faggot is shitposting
>>14708825
except its not the bearings. The heat only weakens the metals, making them more susceptible to being broken by the pressure of the exhaust.
Get your facts straight
>>14708834
glad you get it
remember: Nitrous>Turbo>>>>>>>>>>>Shit>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Supercharger
don't want to see your retarded ass shitpoting about superchargers being good on the next thread
>>14708836
Exhaust-side anti lags are pieces of shit that almost never work.
>>14707309
>>14708842
ok. But supercharger is still better.
>>14708846
if it doesnt aid in spooling the turbo it is because you are a masive gayboi that installed it incorrectly
>>14707619
Yes, significantly.
>>14707647
Must you keep being wrong?
GT86 320hp turbo kit £3600 installed
310hp super charger kit £4750 installed
VR6 kits are the same.
>>14707667
>Idk how much an eaton supercharger costs but you literally just APPLY it and reroute the air box vs turboing where you gotta add oil lines and an intercooler & shitloads of piping and what not
No, just no. If you aren't going to install the supercharger correctly why bother installing the turbo correctly>
>>14708849
>But supercharger is still better.
proof?
your feels and "what I like" are not valid btw
>>14708858
Oh no, it DOES spool the turbo. But misfire systems are better and the exhaust-side is a piece of shit to install.
>>14708860
I have posted proof. I have seen every fucking proof you turbofags gave to me. I still found flaws, i was still against that, but you still fags kept throwing ad hominem bullshit and provide bullshit claims to try to be correct.
I just honestly dont think i can fix your stupidity, the fact that all of you prefer a turbo over a S/C is a clue about that tho.
Its like arguing with a liberal. They dont realize why they are wrong and think they are right.
Some day you will get it.
>>14707255
does the engine sound good n/a? supercharger
engine already sounds like shit? turbo.
>>14708870
>misfire systems
I'll just stick to a variable scroll or twin scroll, no thank you.
