Turbocharger vs. Supercharger (non-roots type).

Which do you say will last longer?

To me it stands to reason that a Supercharger will last longer than a Turbocharger.

My simple explanation is, Heat kills...

I've never had a supercharged car and have had two turbocharged cars. I had to replace cartridges on both and on one I had to replace the cartridges several times. However, since then Turbochargers have gotten twin bearing, better seals and become oil and water-cooled.

So again, my question is, “Does one last longer than the other”.

 

This is a tough question to answer. It probably depends on how you drive your car. The turbo is not producing any more heat when just cruising around, but the SC does produce heat continuously, becuase it is constantly spinning. SC's also have belts that need periodic tightening and replacing.

If you are talking about the physical SC or Turbo assembly, I would lean towards the turbo assembly offering more longevity. It's not uncommon for quality turbos to last for 100K miles. Not sure I can say the same thing for cent SC's.

 

Can anyone confirm what the relative inlet air temp. differences are between a S/C and a Turbo under normal driving conditions and also under "similar" spirited driving conditions.

Additionally, how do the engine temp's compare under these conditions...

 

Mostly I'm talking about the entire unit. On my Conquest I had to replace the cartridge twice with very few miles on it. On my Supra I had problems with the turbo, just not as bad as with the Conquest.

To me it would stand to reason that the seals separating the two fans would not react well to the hot exhaust gasses used to spin the turbo. Convection should make the entire housing hotter and especially the bearings and seals on the shaft.