Okay, i tried researching but have failed. Can anyone break it down in basic terms.. the difference between turbochargers and superchargers. ?

For example the sound? effect of mpg? more effective? advantages/disadvantages of each? more pricy? which better performance?
and lastly maybe a reason why turbos are used instead of superchargers now in MINIs

 

Some of your answers. The turbo will cost more. It's a newer model and that's why. MINI went to a turbo because it would get better gas milage and they change the engine too. I have an 07 MCS and like it a lot. I get about 30 in town and 36 on Hwy. Thats if I keep it below 80 mph.

 

HowStuffWorks has a good article on this:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm

For your specific questions:
the sound?
Superchargers have a characteristic whine at high RPMs that some folks (including me) love. Turbos have a different sound, as well as some additional sounds from blow-off valve, etc.

effect of mpg?
supercharger is powered by a belt using energy from the crank - so there is some parasitic energy (power) loss in driving a supercharger. turbocharger is driven by exhaust gas, and is mostly "free" energy.... so turbo is more efficient. This, plus other efficiency advantages of the 2nd gen MINI Prince engine, make the newer cars considerably more fuel efficient.


more effective?
Effective at what? The Prince engine with the Turbo has considerably more low end torque...

advantages/disadvantages of each?
Approaches to tuning / adding power differ. the turbo MINIs haven't been out long enough to judge relative long-term reliability. More aftermarket tuning options for the 1st gen supercharged engines at this point... but more 2nd gen turbo tuning options are becoming available.

more pricy?
2nd gen cars, mostly because they're newer...

which better performance?
Comparing two stock cars, the 2nd gen turbo has considerably more torque... but 1st gen cars can be considerably improved with supercharger pulley, cam, header, head, etc....

and lastly maybe a reason why turbos are used instead of superchargers now in MINIs
Fuel efficiency.... somewhat simpler mechanically.... possibly more reliable...

 

The key difference is that a supercharger is belt driven. It derives its turbine speed from being mechanically connected to the engine's crank. The faster the engine turns, the faster the supercharger turbine turns. The upside of this is very little lag from the moment of stepping on the gas, and getting positive pressure. The downside of this is being mechanically linked to the engine, meaning it takes power away from the engine to operate - like having a very heavy a/c condenser connected.

Turbochargers, on the other hand, have their turbines being driven by the engine's exhaust gas. The upside to this is that it does not cause a drag on the engine, and generally speaking, has a higher power output potential. The downside is that it relies on the production of exhaust gas to get it going, and therefore has some lag before it hits (step on gas, feel absolutely no power, then woosh, it all comes on at once).

As to which one is 'better'.... it's too subjective to say. I love the whine from the R53s, but the whir-blat-blat of the R56 has its own allure.

 

There are new style superchargers being developed by manufactures that are bridging the gaps of S/C efficiency vs turbo, mainly the new TVS from Eaton. But it will be awhile before this can be applied to the R53, if at all? It is interesting that the most powerful automobile based engines are supercharged, ala, Top Fuel dragsters, but turbos are normally used for street driven cars.

 

I do not think you can wait in a dragster for the turbo to operate in its power band. I would assume for the needs of a dragster and speed achieved the ability to push all of that air in a very short period of time is needed and no turbo powerbands to worry about.


Now the fastest production car in the world the Bugati has 7 turbos I believe and can hit 235MPH. I thought most if not just about all of the high performance cars today have turbos, Porsche, Corvette ZR series, Ferrari, Lamborghini.

 

2009 Corvette ZR1 is supercharged.

 

the Bugatti Veyron 16/4 has 4 turbochargers and has been verfied on multiple occasions to hit 253 mph, making it the world's fastest, and most expensive ($1.5 mil) production car. and soooo totally cool.....

 

As is the 2009 Caddy CTS-V. What a monster.

 

Wow thanks guys this is really informative reading all of this.
Thanks again, sorry if the question seemed annoying to you guys; i'm clueless when it comes to whatevers under the hood

 

Just to add the ZR1 uses the TVS 2300 and the CTS-V uses a TVS 1900.

The Cobalt SS was an Eaton but switched to Turbo after the launch of the Solstice and Sky.

The ZR1 Blue Devil was a Twin Turbo setup but it caught fire and burned to the ground. They then went with the Eaton.

Oil return lines with scavenging pumps can have fire issues when they leak.

 

after you learn more about the difference the same between them, you'll learn there is no advantage or disadvantage between them.

superchargers run off your engine's power therefore in turn robbing engine power to give it more power, which is why a lot of times, superchargers offer less power/boost than a turbocharger. a supercharger takes power from your engine to force more air into your engine. it sounds like a whine getting louder as you gas it.

turbochargers run off from the exhaust of your engine, therefore not robbing any of your engine power, to force more air into your engine, think of it as recycling. however, there is a 'lag' in turbo chargers, they take time to start working from the build up of your exhaust gases. turbochargers have a small whine, but not anywhere as loud as a supercharger. that small whistle sound is due to a Blow off valve, which doesn't do anything in terms of giving more power. it's purely aesthetics.

 

Thanks for starting this thread, I was embarrassed to ask. It was like everybody knew but me.

 

I think it's worth mentioning that in the MINI, the Super and Turbo actually behave the opposite way of what you'd expect from the above descriptions.

With the 1st Gen Cooper Ses (R53), that use a Supercharger, there is a definite "lag" on the low end before power really kicks in. However, with the 2nd Gen Cooper Ses (R56), there's a lot more low-end torque than you'd expect.

The reason for this? MINI chose to use a very small Turbo in the 2nd Gen Cooper Ses, which means that it gets spooled up really quick. The downside is that it peters out at the top end. However, the Supercharger in the 1st Gen pulls even harder all the way to redline.

They both feel very different... and for most drivers on the street, who don't like to redline much anyway, the Turbo probably feels better. Me? I love to redline, and I love the sound of the supercharger whine, so the SC works just fine for me!

This thread is definitely worth looking at - it is a dyno test of all of the stock 1st Gen models... and they also tested a stock R56. This was done before the R56 JCW Stage 1 and R56 factory JCW (Stage 2) were available, so a future test comparing all of the stock R56 options is probably valid:

Mach V MINI Dyno Test

 

I don't know much about superchargers, but I think of turbo cars as more mechanically complex and less reliable because of all the exhaust plumbing needed and the tolerances in the turbo itself. I have a turbo golf and wrench on it. Isn't a supercharger relatively simple?

Quick question re topic: Turbos are great at compensating for altitude, no loss of power at high alt, the turbo compresses intake charge as needed via boost control. Is a blower capable of similar?

 

You also need to look at replacement price. When our turbo went out it was about 1000.00 to rebuild it, or 1800.00 for a new one from the dealer. Our mechanic found us a new one on EBAY for 1000.00 so we went that way. It's the same as the OEM one without the MINI badge.

Now when the Supercharger goes out on my R53 I can get it rebuilt and ported for about 900.00.

I have also been told that the labor is less for the supercharger than the turbo.

 

I doubt the labor is less on a SC. The turbo is right there under a heat sheild in front. I mean it seems really easy to remove....but I have never done it

 

In terms of reliability, which engine tends to be reliable, the one with the supercharger or the one with the turbo ?
i would assume that the turbo engine would be hotter and therefore more wear and tear ?
perhaps other have different take on this. I;m no mechanic.

 

On a mini asking this question is kinda muddied by the fact the turbo cars and SC cars have entirely different motors from different factories, different desgin teams in bodies that simply look similar, but are different...hense the gen1 vs gen2 name...
Both have pluses, and mises...norealwinner...
Sc is a bit simpler,turbo a bit more complex (secondary water pump and oil feed issues), butother motor and car issues are more important...you need yo look at the ehole package, not just "which is better". Simpley put, different one is right for different people depending on goals and needs.

 

yes, agree on you on this regards. That's true.
Set aside, performance issues, built originality, etc...
based on what i read, it seems that the 1st GEN has lesser issues than the 2nd Gen. with this in mind, wonder why MINI decided to change to a different engine manufacturer if what they had @ first was already very good especially in the reliability area. why fix something when it ain't broke ?

 

Gen1 motors were orgionaly a project by rover and crysyler...rover was bought by bmw, and crysyler by dalmher benz....so bmw/mercedes sharing a joint venture was odd...was terminated at the end of the agreement...hense the end of the tritec motor company..the factory was literly crated up,and moved to china..and the motor isstill in production for chineses domestic use...as one of the 3 lower, simpler versions. It is a pretty basic old tech 8 valve cast iron block motor desgin.

 

so, with this in mind, who now owns MINI and who makes their engines ?

 

Bmw bought rover, which owned MINI, keeping the mini brand, sell the others...redesgined about 50% of the new mini that rover was working on...became the gen1 mini...currently the gen2 mini is 100% bmw/mini desgined, the gen2 motor was jointly desgined with the french carmaker puegot...
Bmw has been said to be desging the gen3 motor inhouse.

 

Thanks for the clarifications.

 

Just a couple of thoughts to go with what Zippy had to say.

Turbos are more efficient because they use waste energy and superchargers take energy from the motor to turn the supercharger.
However, turbo's are prone to fail with lesser maint because the heat involved and the impact on the oil that flows through the turbo. So you must keep good oil in a turbo car at all times or risk killing the turbo.
YMMV