A very good article about the different types of forced induction:

http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_s...h_engine_3.htm

"A typical supercharger transforms the engine very much - very torquey at low and mid range rpm, but red line and peak power appear much earlier. That means the engine becomes lazy to rev (and to thrill you), but at any time you have a lot of torque to access, without needing to change gears frequently. For these reasons, supercharging is quite well suited to nowadays heavy sedans, espeically those mated with automatic transmission. On the other hand, sports cars rarely use it.

The noise, friction and vibration generated by supercharger are the main reasons prevent it from using in highly refined luxurious cars. Although Mercedes-Benz has introduced a couple of supercharged four into the C-class, they are regarded as too unrefined compare with the V6 serving other versions.

The introduction of light-pressure turbochargers also threathen the survival of supercharger. Volkswagen group, for example, dropped its long-standing G-supercharger and chose light-pressure turbo..."

 

Depends very heavily on the design. Put on a smaller pulley and get a specific boost at lower RPM, put on a bigger pulley and get it later. Vibration? Sure if the engine isn't designed for it and it isn't designed for the engine. There is very little noticeable vibration on my friends stock intercooled supercharged SVT versus my other frineds RX-7 TT. All you feel is your back pressing into the seat...harder.

Enforcer

 

m477, I can't believe you posted this. This guy has no engineering background, he doesn't even drive or own a car. He admits that he gets his information from magazines. Read the FAQ on his website. This is one mans opinion, take it with a grain of salt. I think you just posted this for points. Anyways, I guess you get some now.

Straight from the FAQ on his website:

Q: You does not work in automotive field. You even don't drive. You are not qualified for writing about cars.

A: Well, read my news and reports and make your own judgement. Do you know some soccer coaches do not play soccer ?

 

Why do I disagree,,

2 cars to ponder:

1. Mustang SVT Cobra (390 HP, good reviews)

and if that isnt convicing enough:

2. Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG (493 HP I think,, PHENOMENAL reviews)

Sure the Merc's an automatic, but supercharged manual sports cars are nothing new,, and I honestly dont see why it would bring peak horsepower down to a lower RPM,, even if it does, it is illogical to conclude that beyond that in RPM, you would have less HP than stock....not that anyone is saying that or anything

just my .02

RaymanZ

 

This guy is stupid and you shouldn't listen to anything he says. Whether a supercharger or turbocharger is preferable is a personal decision to made made by a owner (if we're talking aftermarket). To each his own. I would prefer a turbo (I was very close to getting a WRX before I got my preorder).

 

Superchargers are probably much more durable in general over turbos. Don't have to worry about cooking the oil if shut down hot for one thing

 

Like I said in a different post, take that website and its information w/ a gain of salt because some of his information is incorrect.

I nearly fell back in my chair reading his article on turbochargers.

Michael.

 

You should study up on superchargers in finer automobiles. The SC in the AMG C32 only comes on when you get into the throttle. Only when you want it. Only when you need it.

 

Ok, so maybe that wasn't the best article ... but turbos are still much cooler that superchargers!

How come every car like the Supras, Skyline GT-Rs, RX-7s that are modded to make make 1000+ hp are all turbo and not supercharged? I'd like to see someone try to make 1200hp in a 2.6 liter 6-cyl with a supercharger!

Plus, turbos just sound waaay better than superchargers. The jet engine sound of the turbos spooling and then the 'PSHHHT' of the blow-off valve when you shift is one of the greatest automotive thrills ever. Superchargers sound like a blender. Screw that.

 

The name is "DUMASS"

 

Apparently, you've never heard a Ford Lightning w/ just an intake. On a dyno, it sounds like a freaking 747 taking off; it's so loud, you'll need ear plugs or you'll go deaf REAL soon.

BTW, I thought some NHRA drag cars were supercharged.

Michael.

 

Woo hoo! It sounds neat. Here ya go, dude. All of your problems are solved...



You are so gonna rock!

 

I'm thinking (as I know many of you are too).....

GROUP BUY!!!

 

"BTW, I thought some NHRA drag cars were supercharged."

I hope that is NOT the standard in which we are judging this on, I don't know about you, BUT I don't know how to rebuild my engine after every 2 quarter miles (just a thought)

Of the research I have don't BOTH can work very very well (ex Porsche 996 turbo and AMG SL55), it all depends on how the technology is applied. I like Turbos better, BUT that doesn't mean I am opposed to SC's

 

Yay. Another "guy" has the answer to the decades old "supercharger" versus "turbocharger" battle. Look at my excitement.

 

Yes, drag cars typically are supercharged because they need the power on demand. If you want to get that 3 second quarter mile... you can't wait for a turbo to spool up.

Also, I believe Mercedes superchargers use a clutch to engage and disengage depending on the power and fuel economy needs.

 

As much as I like Turbos for their output, I have to say a good NA motor feels so much better. I recently bombed around a track in a 425 RWHP RX7 turbo. Although it was fast, I still didn't like the off/on power effect of the turbo. You have to modify your timing in and out of corners. I think a supercharger will offer the best overall feel in the Z, especially for the highway.

And as already mentioned, modern superchargers use clutch designs to "spool up" when needed. While the clutch can wear out, the overall unit will last longer.

My 2c.

Fly

 

Top Fuel Dragsters, and Funny Cars, just to name a couple. Both can run over 300mph in less than 5 seconds. Yeah, superchargers suck.