General MINI Talk Shared experiences, motoring minutes, and other general MINI-related discussion that applies to all MINIs, regardless of model, year or trim.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Turbocharged vs. Supercharged?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 11, 2007 | 11:21 AM
  #1  
olcorral's Avatar
olcorral
Thread Starter
|
2nd Gear
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Fremont, CA
Turbocharged vs. Supercharged?

Like the title says:
Which is better? Which do you prefer?
I've read this article http://www.superchargeronline.com/content.asp?ID=19
but want to know your experiences. Real world.
http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/turb...-up-29060.html
Preferences? Anyone, anyone?
See you on the line!
 

Last edited by olcorral; Jul 11, 2007 at 11:26 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 11, 2007 | 12:11 PM
  #2  
CooperGear's Avatar
CooperGear
Banned
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
From: Greater Chicagoland. Ich Bin Ein Midwesterner!!!
If you do a search I am sure you will find MANY threads the same as the one you just posted.
 
Reply
Old Jul 11, 2007 | 12:13 PM
  #3  
Loony2N's Avatar
Loony2N
6th Gear
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 15,966
Likes: 1
there are other threads. What it comes down to, assuming they are otherwise equal in specs, a supercharger requires a separate power source (usually a pulley and belt), which itself drains power. A turbo requires no additional power source.
 
Reply
Old Jul 11, 2007 | 12:36 PM
  #4  
tigwantstoplay's Avatar
tigwantstoplay
6th Gear
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,782
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, Ca
The solution in my household. GET ONE OF EACH!
 
Reply
Old Jul 11, 2007 | 12:48 PM
  #5  
Ken Cooper's Avatar
Ken Cooper
4th Gear
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
a. The supercharger saps energy from the engine for development of enhanced compression. b. The turbocharger makes use of engine waste byproducts to accomplish the same. The better question might be, which is the no-brainer?
 

Last edited by Ken Cooper; Jul 14, 2007 at 11:35 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 11, 2007 | 01:05 PM
  #6  
Gromit801's Avatar
Gromit801
6th Gear
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,600
Likes: 1
From: West French Camp, CA
It all boils down to personal preference. I got a 2006 with a blower when I heard 2007 was going turbo. I don't care for turbo's, the lag, the extra heat under the hood, the less then smooth and even power band.
 
Reply
Old Jul 11, 2007 | 01:25 PM
  #7  
lhoboy's Avatar
lhoboy
6th Gear
20 Year Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,223
Likes: 0
From: DC
Originally Posted by LynnEl
there are other threads. What it comes down to, assuming they are otherwise equal in specs, a supercharger requires a separate power source (usually a pulley and belt), which itself drains power. A turbo requires no additional power source.
No, but it will cause additional back pressure in the exhaust manifold. Laws on entropy: you can't get something for nothing. The question is , which causes less parasitic loss?

Another issue to consider is the spool up. I am now starting to see comments regarding the use of brake dragging through a turn to have adequate spool-up on the turbo to allow a strong pull out of the turn. (Not something you have to worry about with a supercharger.) That's something I would do with my turbocharged motorcycle with the rear brake only, but not something I would recommend on a MINI as it would put excessive traction loads on the rear wheels since the braking could not be limited to the front drivers. I'm guessing it would result in severe oversteer.
 
Reply
Old Jul 11, 2007 | 01:38 PM
  #8  
Tüls's Avatar
Tüls
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
you do not have to have entropy with a turbo... the exhaust gases have to get out... if they are spinning a wheel on the way out... YAY! the hot side just has to be big enough not to cause an over abundance of back pressure... and same goes for lag... but just don't make the hot side too big.... a proper sized turbo has virtually no lag... (R56 is for me a small turbo but there is little lag) which is nice cause if you know how to size a turbo you can get what fits you style of driving...

the SC has it's own type lag... for that matter... why... cause it can only make boost relative to the speed it's spinning...where as a turbo can peak and hold

Also, the SC is parasitic.... period... this was evident when comparing the TC to an R53 turbo only.... the Turbo only car was significantly faster and "free" especially on the big end...
 
Reply
Old Jul 12, 2007 | 06:34 PM
  #9  
kgdblu's Avatar
kgdblu
6th Gear
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
here we go.....






I need that popcorn eating smilie....
 
Reply
Old Jul 12, 2007 | 08:57 PM
  #10  
DixonL2's Avatar
DixonL2
6th Gear
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 2
From: Pgh, PA
Drive both and see for yourself! Supercharged = whine, turbo = faster at lower revs (surprisingly), faster at higher revs (as advertised), but in a larger, smoother chaassis. Yes, I like my '06 better, but have to admit the '07 S I drove was mighty nice.

I've driven a passel of turbos, the lag you either get used to or ignore (above 2500-2800RPM it's not an issue), and as for smooth power delivery, let's not hold our '02-'06 MCSs as paragons of smoothness! Turbos can make sweet noises too... mine = Mazdaspeed Protege, chipped VW 1.8T Passat, Pontiac Sunbird Turbo (don't laugh, that was actually perhaps the most fun of all of 'em, a little Brazilian-built 1.8 turbo without a gnat's a$$ of chassis sophistication, just a bunch of power and big tires - in 1984...)
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 05:37 AM
  #11  
rc'S's Avatar
rc'S
5th Gear
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
From: Ocean View VA
Having owned and driven both types of blown vehicles, the turbo is fun in peddle to the metal driving, but the supercharger feels more satisfying in everyday driving. The supercharged engine always feels like it is a bigger engine than it is. The turbo always feels like it is making up for a small engine, even though the peddle to the metal is the same or faster than the supercharger. Face it, most of us do more everyday style driving in our MINI's than we do pttm driving.
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 05:39 AM
  #12  
Loony2N's Avatar
Loony2N
6th Gear
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 15,966
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by kgdblu
here we go.....






I need that popcorn eating smilie....
Really.... waiting for the generation wars to commence......
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 06:16 AM
  #13  
DixonL2's Avatar
DixonL2
6th Gear
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,173
Likes: 2
From: Pgh, PA
No wars here, I actually thought the turbo MCS felt stronger at all RPMs than my '06 MCS - and folks have told me my MCS is a pretty strong one! The '07 felt like it had a bigger motor across the board, without the rubber-bandy turbo powerband of other turbo cars.
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 12:48 PM
  #14  
Jurrell's Avatar
Jurrell
4th Gear
iTrader: (1)
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 490
Likes: 1
From: Millersville, Maryland (stationed in Beaufort, SC)
I like how low maintenance superchargers are.
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 12:58 PM
  #15  
z3bum's Avatar
z3bum
5th Gear
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Alexandria, VA - Old Town
All valid concerns for old-style turbos and certainly they were my concerns as well.

I have to say though, that MINI tips the turbo world over on its ear... there is no lag, in fact my MCS feels like it has a small V8 under the hood. And power? Well, it builds almost to the redline, with peak torque ready at 1600 or so rpm. This new engine is really, really cool (meaning neat, not necessarily cool running) It's efficient, produces low volumes of pollutants, and with the JCW kit... it will make the new MINI faster than a GP. What more can one ask for? Go for the turbo, I did and I don't regret it.


Originally Posted by Gromit801
It all boils down to personal preference. I got a 2006 with a blower when I heard 2007 was going turbo. I don't care for turbo's, the lag, the extra heat under the hood, the less then smooth and even power band.
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 01:00 PM
  #16  
Tüls's Avatar
Tüls
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
ha ha and this is why I have both! LOL just kidding... I'll go turbo only when the time is right...
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 01:06 PM
  #17  
Gromit801's Avatar
Gromit801
6th Gear
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,600
Likes: 1
From: West French Camp, CA
Originally Posted by z3bum
All valid concerns for old-style turbos and certainly they were my concerns as well.

I have to say though, that MINI tips the turbo world over on its ear... there is no lag, in fact my MCS feels like it has a small V8 under the hood. And power? Well, it builds almost to the redline, with peak torque ready at 1600 or so rpm. This new engine is really, really cool (meaning neat, not necessarily cool running) It's efficient, produces low volumes of pollutants, and with the JCW kit... it will make the new MINI faster than a GP. What more can one ask for? Go for the turbo, I did and I don't regret it.
I have also read recent reports that the new Mini does have some lag. Might depend on driving style. I'm waiting to see how an '07 does in autocross for myself.
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 01:12 PM
  #18  
korby's Avatar
korby
6th Gear
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,735
Likes: 0
From: South Orange County
I've noticed no lag with mine.I would not buy VW GTI because of the lag.When I hit the gas I expect to go now ,not a few seconds from now.
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 01:24 PM
  #19  
Dr Obnxs's Avatar
Dr Obnxs
Former Vendor
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,340
Likes: 4
From: Woodside, CA
As usual, the devil is in the details...

the mini turbo is small (like Tuls mentioned) and uses the dual scroll technology. These two effect reduce lag a lot, and more noticably, bring on torque at very low RPMs. Those that say the SC is more immidiate forget that's only true once you're over 3000 RPM. In the MCS, driving at engine speeds lower than 3k is painfully slow. Just look at the torque curves.

What's helping turbos now is the rapid pace of materials science. Temps that would have melted turbos in the 80s are common now. Manufacturing tolerences are better, so tighter assemblies can be made without braking the bank.

And yes, both techologies take power, but the turbo takes a lot less to drive than a SC. Lots and lots who've gone turbo only will attest to that! There are very few examples of how much power a turbo takes, because you'd have to drive it with the exhaust of a different car to see for sure! But despite the "conventional wisdom" that a turbo takes no power to turn, that's just impossible. What is really meant is that the power to turn is much much less than the power gain, whereas with our little Eaton it's a significant percentage of the power added.

I think what will put the SCs to rest is economy more than power or lag. Like the current Mini shows, you can have a turbo with little lag. Just don't expect it to have the peak power of the bigger turbos. But I was reading some mileage thread, and the 07 is doing about 100 miles more a tank than the 06 and earleir. Now that's significant!

Matt
 
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 03:03 PM
  #20  
70spop's Avatar
70spop
6th Gear
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 0
From: Sacramento, CA
Originally Posted by Gromit801
the lag, the extra heat under the hood, the less then smooth and even power band.

double post
 

Last edited by 70spop; Jul 13, 2007 at 03:05 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2007 | 03:04 PM
  #21  
70spop's Avatar
70spop
6th Gear
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 0
From: Sacramento, CA
Originally Posted by Gromit801
the lag, the extra heat under the hood, the less then smooth and even power band.
Hmmmm, I've got all those with my R53...
 
Reply
Old Jul 14, 2007 | 10:01 AM
  #22  
Jenn B's Avatar
Jenn B
6th Gear
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
Originally Posted by tigwantstoplay
The solution in my household. GET ONE OF EACH!

Same here


And for the comment above, my current turbo car gets WAAAAAY better gas mileage than my two SC MINIs did.(and on a slightly larger engine with moreHP) It's quite nice... and yes... I drive the car, I don't just cruise.
 

Last edited by Jenn B; Jul 14, 2007 at 10:06 AM.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2007 | 07:05 AM
  #23  
olcorral's Avatar
olcorral
Thread Starter
|
2nd Gear
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Fremont, CA
Okay, thanks for all your input BUT--
How about life expectancy of the turbocharger??
I just read about 4GASM's super C blowing up after 170K miles. Now that's pretty darn good to see a bolt on item last so long.
How about the turbo? We still haven't seen them on Mini for the proving-ground 5 year/100,000+ mile test.
 
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2007 | 07:09 AM
  #24  
Loony2N's Avatar
Loony2N
6th Gear
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 15,966
Likes: 1
This was discussed, or disgusted, before on other threads. Fact is, there is a great deal of history on both superchargers and turbos outlasting the motors. Longetivity of both should not be a concern.
 
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2007 | 07:35 AM
  #25  
Mini S Pilot's Avatar
Mini S Pilot
5th Gear
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Well I'll have the best of both worlds so to speak...

I'll have the turbo in the Mini, when it gets here anyway.

I've already got a supercharger (sorry, not in a Mini) in the DH's 2007 Shelby Cobra GT500, not to mention all modded out with a JLT Cool Air Intake, tune, and pulley. He's at 560 RWHP and with torque at 545. Oh, and he's crawling the walls for a Kenny Belle. Poor guy. Don't even ask what we do with all that power!

So do you think he'll be wanting to mod my Mini as well?
 
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 AM.