>le "one method of forced induction is objectively better than the other" meme.
as always it depends on
>packaging constraints
>budget constraints
>performance goals
>type of performance goals (all top end power, all low end, something else)
>what pairs best with your engine in general

>>14875957
name one application where supercharging is better than turbo or nitrous

>>14875968
my car, actually
>m62 v8
>engine bay is quite cramped, previous applications of turbos have had mixed results, since they almost always need to be remote turbos resulting in pretty noticable lag, power is hard to distribute evenly, and they tend to impact the exhaust note in a non flattering way.
>superchargers give nice torque curves with plenty of power potential and just pair well with the engine

>>14875968
In an engine that will be at a middling RPM for extended periods. As a boat tech, superchargers are the only way to go when seeking big gains from forced induction. Turbos are possible, but heat and size constraint really limit the boost levels and turbo sizes you can run. Nitrous requires refilling, though it is one of my favorite power adders, and filling stations can be few and far between. Really, every type of forced induction has its place dependent on what you want. For a full race, high rpm application, id rather have a turbo. For overall mid and low range grunt with a more gradual torque and horsepower curve, blower all the way.

>>14876008
>boats

literally who cares

>>14875992
>google m62 turbo
>literally thousands of results

>>14876019
Oh, so thats what this is going to be. If you wanted to start a shitpost thread all you had to do was ask. We have those kind of threads all the time.

>>14876035
>facts are shitposting

Turbochargers are just another type of supercharger

>>14876019
>Literally who cares about boats.

Fun fact: The average yacht price averages about the same as a Veyron. Boat labor is significantly higher pay than cars and trucks and most diesel jobs for semi tractors. Parts costs are also higher than the equivalent 350 SBC (same base casting for an OMC 5.7 block). People that buy newer boats usually have serious cash to spend and maintenance on a boat ranges from once every 2 months to constantly.

Source: Former diesel tech that became Mercruiser and OMC certified to make really good money.

If I understand correctly, superchargers and turbo chargers do the same thing but one if powered by the exhaust and the other is belt driven.
Right? What are the pros and cons?

File: large963.jpg (96 KB, 363x470) Image search: [Google]

96 KB, 363x470

Turbo literally can't compete, they're called SUPER for a reason

>>14875920
When I was about 19. Me and my friends used superchargers previously, I decided to try turbos. Instantly far better results. We all run turbos now.

>>14875920
Why do older American cars with large engines tend to be supercharged? Why didn't they put turbos on them?

>>14876400
Generally turbs make more high end power and supes make more in the low end.

>>14876491
Because they're stuck in their ways and scared of technology. They also run fucking carburetors.

>>14876400
Turbos rely on the speed of the exhaust gasses to spin a turbine that drives the compressor it is bolted to, forcing more air into the engine.

>Pros
Doable to nearly any automobile (though not always the best choice)
Can make great power over a good range of the revs via different size housings
Slightly cheaper than a supercharger.
Easier install
>Cons:
Boost is normally peaky and even though they can come on early, you sacrifice top end power. Top end power focus means more lag. Even variable geometry turbos encounter this.
Boost is not a constant factor when off throttle and must respool.


Supercharger (I'm choosing a Rootes style, but twin screw would be similar)

>Pros
Power is available from idle to redline with no lag.
Power curve is much more gradual meaning mid gear wheel spin is reduced (dependent other factors but all else being equal...)
Reliability is very high, normally last longer than a turbo.
Can be on demand with clutch style pulleys.

>Cons
Draws power to make power, whereas turbos are "free".
More costly than a turbo setup.
Belt slip can occur on a non cogged belt at higher RPMs.
Installation times, though they vary from car to car, are usually longer on a blower.
Hood clearance on some cars.


There is much much more to it and more to consider on a car to car basis but the general belief is:

I4: Turbos
I6: Turbos
V6:Either
Legacy V8: Rootes or twin screw SC
Modern OHV V8: Procharger or Turbo

Again that's a mass generalization but fairly accurate. Not saying there aren't twin turbo hemis or supercharger K20s but they are much rarer.

>>14876491
They care about more than peak power on a dyno. Also dat blower whine.

>>14876504
See my post of pros and cons. Old V8s tend to have a ton of torque anyway and jabbing a ton of horses behind it halfway to redline may be fun, but it slows you down. You can turbo a carbs car with blow through carbs, but at the time they were made, turbos ran on journal bearings and were quite inefficient and suffered from lag and reliability issues.

There is nothing wrong with a carburetor. Sure, you may make less power overall by about 2-6% but I can rebuild a carb on the side of a highway at night with 2 screwdrivers and carb cleaner. If I lose an injector its misfires all the way to the parts store which may not have one for my conversion setup (dont say carry another injector, I don't carry a rebuild kit just some gasket material and a basic tool set on road trips).

>>14876584
Use a smaller modern turbo and you'll get a powerband very similar to a supercharger, except with less power loss due to drag. The only reason people still run superchargers is for simplicity and because they don't understand how to size a turbo. Or they're limited by class rules.

>>14876633
The difference is that with EFI, malfunctions like that are pretty rare. With carbs, it's constant. Don't pretend like it isn't; I've used carbs on a variety of vehicles for many years and eventually came to the conclusion that carbs are for people too dumb for EFI.

But whatever, enjoy retuning for different weather and elevation, and having less power due to both the restriction caused by the venturis and having to run less boost due to the lower fuel metering accuracy. And enjoy tuning around fuel starvation/flooding issues due to lateral g-forces.

>>14875920
Never any form of forced induction that actually works is good in my book

>tfw like the noise better
>tfw want a car with butterfly valves the size of my fist on a blower sticking out of the hood
>tfw super whine
>tfw no lag
>tfw they're more reliable

Turbos for performance, supers for feels. I want both for different reasons, I do not feel like this has anything to do with age or "growing up".

>>14876832
I'm not bashing EFI or saying carbs dont need adjustment or make more power that is illogical due to airflow. I've used both and know the strengths and drawbacks of both systems. Cost, installation, tuning ease, performance, replacement part availability, and reliability aren't just a black and white spectrum with fuel systems like it is with say longtube headers vs stock manifolds.

As for turbos, yes they can emulate similar curves to a blower until the boost hits its peak, but using an ratio that would produce an upward line or flat curve means sacrificing midrange power. If you make it spool quickly via a smaller housing or with a variable geometry turbo setup, you still wont be able to hit the peak of a supercharger as your turbo is the system restriction. The only turbo setup I've ever seen that definitively reduces lag under 2500 RPM and still has power being made to peak RPM is a sequential setup with different sized primary and secondary turbos. However, the cost is double that just in parts over a single, the labor is beyond a rootes blower in both time and difficulty, and you have also added more weight than the equivalent blower.

Turbos and superchargers can be very good on any application, but in certain instances such as I stated above, each shows strengths and weaknesses