Turbocharged vs. Supercharged?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trending Topics
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...
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...
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$$ of chassis sophistication, just a bunch of power and big tires - in 1984...)
I've driven a passel of turbos, the lag you either get used to or ignore (above 2500-2800RPM it's not an issue), and as for smooth power delivery, let's not hold our '02-'06 MCSs as paragons of smoothness! Turbos can make sweet noises too... mine = Mazdaspeed Protege, chipped VW 1.8T Passat, Pontiac Sunbird Turbo (don't laugh, that was actually perhaps the most fun of all of 'em, a little Brazilian-built 1.8 turbo without a gnat's a$$ of chassis sophistication, just a bunch of power and big tires - in 1984...)
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'll have the turbo in the Mini,
I've already got a supercharger (sorry, not in a Mini) in the DH's 2007 Shelby Cobra GT500,
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?




