Supercharger Vs Turbo: Help me with your Google-Fu

MTIRacing wrote: turbo for peak HP numbers ie... i'm a better human being because my car makes 800hp supercharger for higher "under the curve" power makes better power in the rpm range that you actually drive around in. twin charger is for real men.

Miataturbo in particular likes to take supercharger dynos from people who say such things, then overlay turbo charts over them.

Rare is the circumstance where what you say is actually true.

That said, it comes down to the choice of supercharger, and the choice of turbocharger.

Long tube headers are for balancing the exhaust pulses and to maximize exhaust flow rate. Because without using the exhaust for something you just need to get it away as fast as possible.

I was talking about long tube TURBO headers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zhg2S5JI4

this is lolz but simple to understand, turbo header content.

Finally got a chance to watch that video...

Certainly good for a laugh... but i dont think anything more should be read into his comedic rant than that he prioritizes a shorter/straighter flowpath in the exhaust manifold over equal length runners. Which, yeah, im fine with that. 99% of enthusiasts do not run their junk hard enough to deserve to care about the differences. But his whole insinuation that the exhaust flow loses significant heat energy while it's flying past the extra few inches of runner length of an equal length tubular manifold way faster than you can blink.. for one, should not be taken without a grain of salt, and for another should not be taken as supporting the idea that heat retention is the end-all, otherwise he would be talking about a cast log manifold with 3 inches of runner length as the best Volvo manifold on the planet.

Heck, by that standard a stock 1980s K-car manifold is pretty close to the pinnacle of turbo manifold design.

"Foolish man argue which one bettah. Wise man ask 'Why not both...and a shot of nitrous to get the ball rollin?"

BWEEEEEEEEEEESSSSHHHH!

Superchargers look better. This is what I call "HELL YES!"

But the other part of my knows that's a hideously inefficient blower and it would be all but useless for anything but the dragstrip. It would make tons more power with a turbo and an intercooler, but then again, that silly thing doesn't need more power, just look at it! Here it is again!

Tell me your mind doesn't say "HELL YES" when you see that.

tuna55 wrote: Tell me your mind doesn't say "HELL YES" when you see that.

Actually, what my mind says is "Hm. Those image links don't seem to work." :)

(edit, weird, now they do.)

Ok, could someone explain the statements earlier in this thread like:

"Heat is the primary motivator of a turbo once it gets moving."

EGT and heat retention ahead of the turbo can definitely affect the performance, but that heat energy impact flow and velocity, on its own the heat doesn't make anything spin.

I realize the EGT's drop from the input to output side of the turbo, and that is due to the pressure drop and expansion. (same concept that makes your A/C work). That drop in temp should also give an idea of how much back pressure there is if the temps can drop 200-300 degrees after the turbo
(PV = nRT).

My understanding has always been that the problem with heat lost between the exhaust port and turbo is the drop in velocity due to reduced volume. As the air cools it takes up less space and the velocity drops. That drop in velocity, not the drop in temp (although it results from the temp drop) is what has the negative impact on the turbo performance. It is one (of many) reason why rear mounted turbo system is not as efficient as one mounted at the exhaust manifold.

^ Good man, but dont get your hopes up about real answers! You just shot ahead of 99% of the internet and we'll be lucky if someone smart enough to answer your prompts actually sees them.

"Foolish man argue which one bettah. Wise man ask 'Why not both...and a shot of nitrous to get the ball rollin?"