Why Superchargers Aren't As Good as Turbos
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.พ. 2022
- Superchargers are a reliable way of adding more power, so why the hell is no one using them? Turbochargers have a huge monopoly over the forced induction scene both with manufacturers and the aftermarket.
But it still stands that if your car is going to come with some sort of spinny thing that creates more power - it’s more likely than not a turbo-charger - NOT a supercharger.
So why is it that Superchargers always get forgotten about?
Maybe, (and hear me out on this), it’s because superchargers aren’t very good
⭕ Porsche's Genius Turbo Design
• Porsche's GENIUS New T...
⭕ Why Moving Rear Wings Won't Catch On
• Why this Wing Won’t Ca...
🔴 Would you like to be featured in a video with your car? Submit it here 👉 forms.gle/ZWMfzqCyDTBwJsqX8 🏁
Press enquiries: press@driver61.com
#Superchargers #KindaSuck #Cars - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Would you buy a car with a supercharger? Or would you go Turbo?
Turbo cars are much more exciting, especially older ones as you feel the boost increase from the turbo lag as you accelerate.
Supercharger ofc
It depends on the car and what I’m using it for but mostly turbos
ofc a Electronic turbo supercharger!
Turbo
For anyone who doesn't know, turbochargers being "neatly tucked away" actually translates to "major pain in the ass to work on" compared to a positive displacement supercharger
Yes, it seems my son's diesel needs a new turbo, the suspension needs to come out, together with the drive shaft and engine mounting. Just go for a bigger engine, in the case with petrol anyway.
Yup.
pulled the blower off my amg in an hour, so simple. Doing a turbo replacement on my gfs BMW and it's a 20hr job on the books lol. I do like the simplicity of a blower
@Cummins_12V sorry, you'll have to explain please.
Oh boy and how. I once blew a turbo on my car and cuz I'm an engineer I thought: 'Hey, no need to pay a fortune for someone else to put in the new one, I can do this myself'! Oh boy... but for some reason I didn't learn from the experience and only a few years later thought the same when it came to replacing the clutch.
It is absolute nonsense that a supercharger has to be on top of the engine. That's only a case for V engines. On inline engines they're much more commonly placed on the side.
They also make superchargers that look similar to a turbo and are mounted kind of like an alternator. I believe procharger makes them or something
Edit: oh he says that in the video
@@brickson98m yeah, centrifugal superchargers. They're a slightly different style, but still very much a supercharger.
Those are called prochargers
@@jackdaniels2657 it's called a centrifugal supercharger. Procharger is the most well known brand name among suppliers of centrifugal superchargers.
Also he talks about an electric turbocharger which doesn't make sense since It has no turbine, it's an electric supercharger.
I feel like I learned more by reading the comments than watching the actual video.
Yes,the presenter isn’t good at teaching beginners,which is awful
fr
Most of the comments were ignorant misinformation... by people who clearly don't understand how a turbocharger works.
I hope not... most of the comments here were made by knuckle dragging grease monkeys who dropped out of high school.
Your second try on "Gottlieb" was absolutely flawless. I'm not kidding. It was perfect.
Nailed it!
Calm down it's a 2 syllable word
Joa, Nachname war halt so meh XD
Oh cos you and him, were bros from Way back aye, so you know how it's said! Calm down mountain ranger! It's just a name! Who cares if he nailed it or not!
But he still messed up Daimler (pronounced more like Dime Lah).
"They used the term 'Kompressor' with a 'K' because that's just better"
Or because Mercedes, based in Germany, used the german spelling.
That’s what he said … German is just better!*
*While I know very little German, all 16 of my great great grandparents were born within a 50km circle in Germany and Switzerland. I also learned to count to 20 in German before English and still haven’t forgotten it.
No way genious...
Nah, it's because the roof on the first gen SLK can be used to crush beercans ;)
Or, it's because you wrongly assumed that he didn't know that and wasn't making a joke
Its legit one of the worst names for a car lmao. " Hey dad, get the Kompressor!"
"Why? Are your tyres flat?"
XD
Fun fact: although it's way less than super chargers, turbos also produce some paracidic loss.
A turbo makes it harder for an engine to push out exhaust gases, creating a tiny amount of extra resistance in the exhaust stroke.
OFC it's far less than the power increase you gain, but it just shows that you never get energy for free. A perpetomobile is still impossible.
Yes was searching for this. That Turbos use "free" or "wasted" energy is just plain wrong, the piston needs to exert energy on the exhaust stroke to push the gas through the turbine. this pressure difference across the turbine can be directly converted to power use.
*Turbochargers have no parasitic loss under load. They produce a net gain in thermal fuel efficiency and net horsepower output.*
@@faxxzc That is incorrect, the *Temperature Difference* between the turbine inlet and turbine oulet temperatures is directly linked to power output of the turbine wheel.
The Turbocharger is a HEAT ENGINE and operates using the BRAYTON CYCLE.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 No. As stated before:
While they do have a massive power increase compared to their losses, you don't get that power increase for free. This isn't a perpetomobile. As the exhaust gases push on the turbine wheel, the turbine wheel pushes back on the exhaust gases, which pushes back on the piston. That's newtons 3. law!
And also as stated before, this paracidic drag is incredibly low compared to superchargers, that's why everyone's using turbos and not superchargers!
@@dariolinder4508 Wow! Ok...I see you do not understand how a turbocharger works.
A turbocharger is a type of heat engine, it operates using the BRAYTON CYCLE.
As the exhaust gasses pass through the exhaust turbine *THE TEMPERATURE DROPS*
This drop in temperature is directly linked to amount of horsepower generated by the turbine wheel.
This energy is then recovered by the reciprocating engine by the centrifugal compressor which unloads the engine by reducing the pumping loss.
This reduction in pumping loss results in a net gain in horsepower at the crankshaft without an increase of fuel consumption.
This incease in power does not require additional fuel and is thus "free energy" although its is not the best way to describe it.
The best way to describe it is increased energy efficiency through heat recovery..
Turbo is actually short for "Turbine supercharger", which hasn't changed. The terms weren't separated at all, because the correct name of a supercharger always comes with what type it is, i.e. a positive displacement supercharger etc. Turbo is just neat and short.
Cool video though!
You both are correct. The turbo uses a turbine to drive the supercharger... But colloquially it has always been turbo supercharger, shortened to turbo charger, shortened to turbo
Crazy how much random shit I learn in the YT comment section 😅
Marketing doesn't like long names, turbo supercharger was too long, turbo is short and punchey.
If you read books and engineering publications from the 1930's and 1940s the term _Turbo-supercharger_ is used often.
The modern abbreviated term _Turbocharger_ became more popular and replaced the earlier term.
The Big reason it was/ is turbo supercharger is because turbo normalizers exist which create no boost and only bring the incoming air to sea level pressure of 14.7 psi
I read somewhere that the supercharger on a top fuel or funnycar costs about 700 hp in parasitic loss, runs at about 50psi and delivers about an extra 3,000 hp! That and the instant power make them a must in those categories of drag racing where 0 to 100 mph in about a second is where you want to be. Fitting one to your Dodge Charger (other 70's muscle cars are available...) is just street terrorism...
Funny Cars and top fuel cannot afford *ANY* lag... and the the fact that Nitro-Methane fuel run on Air-Fuel-Ratio of 2:1... Any boost is good boost as apposed to 14:1 AFR for petrol or diesel; 12:1 for ethanol.
ALSO they run closer to 11,000 HP total... No engine dyno can run them... the HP are calculated by math needed to complete the 1000FT in 3.6 seconds
I don’t think that’s quite right. I’m not very knowledgable about top fuel dragsters but I believe turbos were used in the 80’s or 90’s but they banned them because of the ridiculous power and speed they could make.
While they were slower off the line the turbos very quickly caught up with and beat the superchargers. And dragsters rev the engine before the start so I believe most of the boost is already built up since they’re not starting from idle
@@GertieYTube They're banned because of safety issues related to running the turbo and top speed limits introduced by NHRA after folks were getting killed at crazy speeds (much like WRC did in the 80s too).
@@th3airraidsir3n5 top fuel does not rev there engines at the starting line. Top alcohol revs at the starting line.
@@orangejjay good old deadly Group B vibes lol.
Superchargers don't suck, the main reasons why you don't see many stock cars with them are really 1) they cost more than turbos, quite a bit more for the OEMs in fact and 2) it's harder to fudge fuel consumption homologation tests with them (you know what I mean, all those "downsized" turbo engines that supposedly get 45mpg but in the real world you can't get more than 25 out of them).
The idea that a supercharger is a waste of engine power while a turbo is "free" power is also not really true. The turbo gets some of its energy from the expansion of exhaust gases, but how much exactly depends on operating conditions and in many situations a turbo can get much or even most of its power from the *flow* of the exhaust gases (not their expansion) which creates backpressure on the engine which creates a breaking torque (just like superchargers), plus turbos heat up intake air far more and turbocharged engines are more limited in terms of compression ratio.
In light throttle conditions turbocharged engines are often very efficient, but at full power they are usually less efficient than naturally aspirated engines, sometimes even less than supercharged ones too.
This comment has the ring of authenticity. The video appears to be someone who has taken a shallow look at the topic and lacks deep knowledge.
You can also tune superchargers to be a lot more linear than turbos. In my experience, hitting the boost threshold mid corner with a turbocharged car has sent me toward many a tire wall
I would add that centrifugal superchargers do NOT have lag. What they do have is constant increase of boost (not sure if linear or exponential) as the engine RPM increases. This means that at low RPMs the centrifugal isn't doing much, but as you climb the RPM range, the engine keeps getting more and more boost. In fact, I've seen people with experience adapting both centrifugal and roots to the same engines (Mazda L5-VE in NC MX-5's) reporting that the former has slightly better throttle response.
@@espvp Superchargers are a linear increase of boost. Engine RPM multiplied by whatever reduction ratio the pulley is.
@@Samus5164 *Not true, the boost pressure curve is dependent on the type of compressor used... centrifugal superchargers do not have a linear boost curve.*
*Any questions son?*
3:38
Actually the Twin Screw rotates inwards unlike Roots that rotates outwards, and this reduces the friction experienced by the air, thus reducing heat and power required. This is why Twin-screws are more common on "newer" charged v8s like the Hellcat or the LS9. However, due to reliability issues and higher production cost as the lobes aren't identical and the female should rotate faster than the male, this solution is very rarely used. Most modern roots blower are heavily twisted anyways, so it's similar in workings to the twin screw without the need of a female rotor.
Very interesting tidbits ^_^
Very cool !
twin screw and roots rotate the same way... also The VW1.4 TSI and Volvo T6 use the roots type supercharger
@@EngineeringPerspective I've seen enough sources to prove that the twin screw rotates inwards while the roots rotates outwards.
@@EngineeringPerspective "TWIN SCREW OPERATION
INTAKE: Incoming air is sucked into the rear of the supercharger. Note the rotor rotation is the opposite of the Roots to avoid pumping air between the rotors and case. This more efficient “internal compression” of air reduces the high turbulence, friction, heat and pumping losses found in the Roots."
direct from Kenne Bell, supercharger manufacturers... Whooooooops.
Having owned vehicles with both, I found the supercharger to be better as it had no lag and also much more linear power delivery. The turbocharger seemed to be much harder to modulate power, it was very peaky, sort of an all or none kind of power delivery. Nonetheless, both vehicles were very different, one was a supercharged 5.4 V8 and the other a turbocharged 2.5 flat 4 so it’s not a balanced comparison.
Turbochargers produce more power and are more efficient than superchargers... that is exactly why they are more popular.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 not everyone cares for more power.
@@Dominik189 True, vehicle manufacturers are very concerned about efficiency, which is why turbochargers have become so popular.
I like turbos with lots of lag because they really wake up suddendly and kick, and it's really fun, kind of like vtec
@@sandervanderkammen9230 I actually prefer NA or Supercharged. Because I like the peaky nature.
I think Superchargers make more sense for performance and sport cars, precisely because of the no lag thing, and because of the linearity too, it kind of keeps the N/A feeling of an engine while increasing its power, that´s his beauty IMHO
Nope. They make no sense at all when you consider the parasitic power loss.
You want no lag? Get a hybrid turbo. You want even less lag? Get an anti lag. Superchargers need oil change and stuff so... What you've just said is completely wrong.
@@omursaraslan6316 or just get a supercharger...
@@nade5557 Why when turbo is way more efficient?
When World Rally championships and F1 were less constrained by the rules, we all saw turbochargers dominate the field. That is for a reason. If you are driving aggressively, you are bound to be in the right rpm and keep the turbo spooled, even when you go off the throttle, there are ways of keeping the turbo spinning by letting some air past the throttle, adding gas to it and igniting it super late so that flames spit out of the exhaust keeping the turbine spinning. Its called an anti-lag system.
@@omursaraslan6316 yeah antilag…. Just call me back when your turbine blows up… listen the closest forced induction system to n/a is a root or twin screw superchargers… as a performance shop mechanic I can’t count on both my hand how many times I’ve had kids with blown up turbos come up and be like "wELL iT wAs aLl gOinG wEll tHeN iT wEnT pOoF" all I have to say is "2 step or anti-lag right?" And 90% of the time I’ll get an ashamed "yEs" and all I can offer them is a brand new engine because they ripped their turbine and compressor out and went straight to the cylinders…. 2 steps and anti lag which are 2 REALLY different things is only for purpose built track cars/rally cars that can afford to change turbos every 3-4 races and have spare engines….
From what I remember from physics class, increase in pressure in the same amount of volume increases temperature, so not sure why intercoolers are mentioned specifically in certain parts of the video. All types of forced induction benefits from intercoolers, air or water cooled.
Positive displacement compressors tend to heat the air more too.
All forced induction motors?
Not true, when running racing methanol the charge cooling makes ice on the intake of the supercharger casings. An inter cooler at the point just makes the blower up high for no reason(if under it) or is there for no reason. Ice water intercoolers can’t cool the intake temps that low.
@@dallynsr A Roots supercharger is internal compression type, so its outlet temp is even hotter... the efficiency is low but still benefits from intercooling...
@@dallynsr That doesn't apply when using port fuel injection or GDI...
@@dallynsr That would be because the methanol is evaporating and reducing the temperature.
PV=NRT, where P is pressure, V is volume, N is the quantity of gas (this is correlated with the mass), R is the molar gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature (measured from absolute zero).
By evaporating, the water and methanol (or NO2, if it is used) mixture changes from a liquid (which is not counted in the above "ideal gas equation") to a gas. It takes away some of the T and increases the N, so no power is lost, whilst the temperature is reduced and hence the efficiency of the motor increases, so making more power. That same effect is why running rich will result in cooler combustion temperatures and hence less knock and more power (to a point, beyond which more and more energy is being used to partially break down the fuel without combusting it, sooting up the cylinder and reducing power).
However, in forcefully compressing a fluid, one is doing work against the internal energy of the gas, as one applies a force across a distance. This increases the internal energy (called "heat"; related to but not the same as temperature. That equation PV=NRT is for constant heat, so basically heat is the temperature times the mass of fluid) of the gas, and therefore raises the pressure by more than one might expect given the compression ratio (which confusingly measures the change in volume, not pressure). This is what makes diesel combustion possible, and is also largely responsible for knock.
The opposite happens on an increase in volume, which cools the gas down as the gas is the one doing work. In order to "pay" for this work, it loses some of its heat and hence it's temperature.
1:45 as an Austrian i can say that the second "Gottlieb" was absolutely correct.
Cadillac also has the 4.2 TT blackwing v8. I think superchargers will always have a place in this world. Turbo and superchargers both have pros and cons and both have there place as long as ICE engines are around.
you're way off, it's a 472hp 3.6 TT V6 in the CT4-V. The CT5-V has the 6.2 S/C V8 with 668hp
Internal combustion engine engine
@@masonmullins5527 he was talking about the ct6 blackwing
@@gtasanandreascluckinbell ✅
fun fact: superchargers do actually suck. literally
xd
Lol. I don’t care about power or speed. My supercharged Mini just sounds like Heaven every time I press the accelerator. That whine sounds beautiful. And it’s fast enough for the speed limits.
@@mohammadkamran5862 he meant that the supercharger sucks air, you missed the joke
(Morpheous Voice) "Are you sure that supercharged you're breathing?" All they do is compress air 😉 which creates low pressure area before it and the weight/pressure of the atmosphere pushes more air in as it flows from high pressure to low.
Turbos suck too 😉
One area the supercharger will always win over a turbo is *exhaust note*
And maintenance 😂😂
Fun
*laughs in Stututututu*
@@abhishekagrawal4575 and killed the exhaust note 💀
@@abhishekagrawal4575 to be technically correct stututututu is not the exhaust sound but wasted intake
Turbochargers do cause a parasitic power loss on the engine, but it's way smaller than with superchargers.
NO, that is a common misconception among amateur enthusiasts, the Turbocharger does not present any parasitic load on the engine, this is why Turbochargers produce so much more power than Superchargers.
I find it insane how much horsepower a super charger robs from an engine. Requiring much more boost to make the same horsepower a lower boost turbo was making. Talking to a racer, comparing two engines, running 19 pounds of boost, super charged on an LS, it made a bit more than 700 horsepower. Then swapping to a turbo, same boost, it made 900 horsepower, just touching it.
Excellent comment.
No, it's really easy to "fight the supercharger's corner" - as you said, lack of lag is one thing, and less obvious upsides like less maintenance and easy access are others. What you have from an engineering standpoint is a set of upsides and a set of downsides. You present that to your managers and executives, they see "EASIER TO APPEASE THE EPA" on the turbo's pros list and pick that. You know, unless they actually drive performance cars and know how a supercharger's behaviors and traits help.
This guy talks about "engineering reasons" without any numbers. Turbos still cause parasitic losses because they create an exhaust restriction. The gane to loss ratio may be lower with supercharger but the trade-off is usually worth it because of the instant power at low RPM.
There is no parasitic loss with the turbocharger... the energy to drive the compressor comes from the heat in the exhaust.
This is often a difficult concept to visualize and grasp for someone without proper education or professional experience in engineering.
Its a popular misconception that the turbocharger causes back pressure and restricts exhaust flow, this is in fact completely false, turbochargers increase exhaust flow and this is why they produce more horsepower than superchargers.
Any questions?
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Okay so we want to get out of a tunnel, in our metaphorical supercharged engine we can run straight through. However in our metaphorical turbo tunnel we have to push our way through a rotating door.
Which ones faster? Admittely we're talking -10hp tops but the mathematical difference is there.
@@branney6914 The gases, accellerated by heat strike the rotating door and push it open... not the reciprocating engine.
Turbochargers use an *Impulse Type* turbine.
There is no overall reduction in gas flow, on the contrary... turbocharged engines have higher gas flow.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 You are talking out of your ass. No parasitic loss would imply 100% thermal efficiency which is simply not true. The average thermal efficiency of a turbo is about 55%.
@@bobopaapoe1774 Who said anything about thermal efficiency of the Turbocharger?
It is obvious that the efficiency is not 100%... besides violating the obvious law of conversion loss the exhaust gasses exiting the turbine would have to match *T1* or ambient temperature... this is not what is observed.
The Carnot Formula tells us that the Brayton Cycle cannot achieve 100% efficiency.
The reason why Turbochargers produce more power and have better BSFC performance than superchargers is because there is no parasitic drag on engine, the turbine wheel is driven by the waste heat energy.
A turbocharged Otto engine is a Combined Cycle Heat Engine.
Significantly improving thermal rejection and volumetric efficiency and most importantly and often overlooked is the significant reduction in pumping loss.
Any questions son?
I admit turbos are better than superchargers. But I firmly believe that superchargers are cooler than turbos.
Especially fucking loud hellcat super chargers
I don't think so . They are both nice but from experience can say that for an economy a turbo is much better. I baffles me how he didn't mention that shifting early and keeping you me revs down makes it able for you to not use your turbo charger at all and kinda use it if some sort of overtaking tool. This gives you speed when you need it .This is the real main reason why they use them
K series with a supercharger will always have a place in my heart for this reason
@@Narekz that makes them less cool, superchargers want that power to be there at the drop of a hat whether you need it or not
Nothing cool about making less power...
On a 90° V motor you can package the roots/twin between the heads reducing packaging to almost non existent
The superchargers corner is defiantly drag racing. Screw and centrifugal blown cars usually dominate
Electric dominates drag racing. Atleast if you dont go to Funny Car/Top Fuel territory
I could swear that I have red and watched multiple videos where it turns out superchargers aren't dominant because they're better in those conditions. They're dominant because turbos got banned in most of those. The turbos actually allowed more power and faster ETs. I think superchargers really shine when it comes to disassembling the motors after every race.
@@custommotor no, there are definitely classes where turbos and s/c are allowed. generally, when making big big power, direct drive centrifugal s/c dominate there.
@@rykehuss3435 racing most of the time comes down to class, your mostly racing people just as fast as you through qualifying.
@@rykehuss3435 absolute cringe lol. The quickest electric dragster in the world, built to be racing against top alcohol, could not compete with street cars. They're trash.
You can’t convince me superchargers suck. It all depends on application and what you’re looking for. A turbo will have lag, while a supercharger does not. A turbo doesn’t have parasitic draw, while a supercharger does.
It’s all a game of pros and cons, and how you need to balance them for the best experience in your build.
Turbos make more power than superchargers and use less fuel.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 but they have lag, no matter how many sequential turbos you have, there will still be lag while superchargers are completely linear
@@motia4888 Lag does not mean slower, turbo cars are generally faster in accellation.
Lag is only a problem for inexperienced or less skilled drivers.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 it does in fact mean slower from a stop, because power isn't delivered linearly, it takes time to build boost
@@motia4888 That is a bald faced lie, some of the cars that produce rhe fastest 0-60 mph times are turbocharged.
I love my Jaguar F Pace SVR. 542 bhp, instant massive torque without turbo lag, exhaust sounds better not muffled by turbo, nice little bit of whine from the front. On a long run I get about 29 mpg (UK gallon) driving at the speed limit, whereas my old 240 bhp XJ struggled to do 27, so not as inefficient as you claim. I don't like turbos, even if they might give slightly more mpg.
Aftermarket superchargers are usually less complicated to install, and if memory serves they might be more reliable long term. With that said, it’s not unheard of for turbo chargers to last multiple hundreds of thousands of miles.
I like the concept of two serial turbos, where a smaller one provides the boost at lower rpm, and a larger one takes it to redline, basically eliminating turbo lag.
aye. I don't know about superchargers, but if you floor a big turbo cold, you can throw it in the trash (the turbo). They need lubrication a lot. Don't get me wrong superchargers too, but apart from the centrifugal, they don't spin at crazy insane speeds.
In reality these days, it’s not hard to build a supercharged motor past its mechanical limit to make power. If we want higher mpgs a smaller displacement motor with a moderate turbo charger has less cruise impact on mpgs. But when we can make nearly 2000hp with a supercharged v8, why do we care if it could make more than 2000 if then built up at huge expense to do so?
The parasitic crowd focuses on the pennies instead of the quarters. (small parts instead of the big picture)
@@dallynsr Why leave power on table and use more fuel...
Turbos deliver more power and use less fuel.
I think running the turbos into the supercharger is the hot tip, particularly with an engine configured for "mid range" torque but not high RPM. The lagging turbos compensate for the "diminishing returns" at higher RPM, while the "mid range" tuning offers strong low-end torque by default, even w/o a supercharger.
@@xxxYYZxxx That is exactly how 2-stroke Diesel engines operate with turbos..
2-stroke Diesel engine requires the supercharger to start and run but loses efficiency at higher rpm.
Turbos blow through the supercharger and unload it, reducing the parasitic drag on the crankshaft and increases power and fuel efficiency.
This system is commonly used in buses, trucks, locomotives and marine engines.
My audi s5 is supercharged and has a clutch that detaches from the crank when not booting it increasing cruising MPG. I still get over 30 MPG on average with a 3.0 litre which isn't bad efficiency at all!
which s5? the b8?
@@faxxzc yeh
Same on my A6. Runs on the NA 3 liter unless you stomp it and then it starts to whine.
Not bad, but there's a dude who got 40 US (48 UK) MPG in his 5.7 C5 Corvette 😀
@@lorddoosworth8175 using the corvette is basically cheating because it‘s so light and aerodynamic 😄
Sequential turbo charging provides all the benefits of s supercharger, however the only problem is the massive heat created and sheer complexity, as opposed to dropping a roots style blower in the engine bay. That's my take on the issue even before I watch the video
Twin turbos still have lag and are less powerful than your one big turbo setup. Bi turbos are better but.... Why would you want a Bi turbo in a build? lmao.
@@youngrody2386 He said sequential not twin...Sequential turbocharging refers to a set-up in which the engine uses one turbocharger for lower engine speeds, and a second or both turbochargers at higher engine speeds. This system is intended to overcome the limitation of large turbochargers providing insufficient boost at low RPM which is why you would want a sequential turbo build however the bi-turbo staged application is more suited for larger compression engines V6 , V8 ( Mercedes Bi-turbo for example) which split the exhaust more evenly V6 (3 cylinders per turbo ) V8 (4 cylinders per turbo )
Or you could use a twin charging system combines a supercharger and turbocharger in an arrangement, with the intent of one component's advantage compensating for the other component's disadvantage so you get that instant supercharged power while the turbo is spooling up . Hope that helps as to why you would want a Bi-Turbo build and a Sequential Turbo build and potentially a Twin Charging system vs a single large turbo
I dont think superchargers NEED to be mounted on top of the engine. I have seen some 4 cylinder engines with supercharges mounted on them and they are on the side of the engine.
With a long enough belt drive (which may suffer from power loss ofc) and piping, I'm pretty sure you can get a roots SC anywhere close to the intake. That said, the shorter belt you got, the better
I've got a Merc with a kompressor and the SC is not even close to the top of the engine. It is mounted on the side.
I did always like Turbo Engines, great Power and at same time Fuel efficient and if you may unplug the right connector also a funny sound ;)
But after the experience with the first Supercharger i do have clearly a new favorite !
Engine with almost the same Power feels so much stronger because the Torque comes instant if you hit the Throttle, absolute amazing, i dont care then about 1 or 2 L/100km Less fuel efficency.
Also After Long use of them they do not overheat like every turbo... 15 Min Autobahn and you have to Cool the Turbo down for at least 10 Minutes.
Not a Problem with a supercharger ;)
Turbos can arguebly use more fuel if your wanting the power output from a turbo that a supercharger can do you'll be using just as much fuel imo turbos in most cases still mean more fuel anyway
@@leakyrexa1060*That's completely FALSE!*
*Turbochargers use LESS fuel.*
*Turbochargers significantly increases thermal efficiency of the engine and thus has Lower BSFC, this is the amount of fuel per horsepower produced.*
@@sandervanderkammen9230 you still need to ignite fuel faster to build the gasses quickly to turn the turbo tho and turbos make more heat
@@leakyrexa1060 No, when running Turbo-normalized there is no fuel enrichment, the Turbo simply increases pumping efficiency.
When operating with manifold boost, they use have the same fuel enrichment as a supercharger to slow down ignition and reduce knock.
If the engine is direct injected than there is even less fuel consumption because there is no pre-ignition or knock (that's why all the new GDI engines are turbocharged.)
No, turbochargers do not make more heat, they run on heat... they reduce heat rejection.
The EGT drops 200° to 300°F as it passes through the turbine wheel.
The exhaust temperature at the tailpipe is lower than a supercharged engine.
Any questions about how turbochargers work?
@@sandervanderkammen9230how tho is what I'm trying to understand how does a turbo save I get the idea that purely using the natural exhaust pressure to turn the turbo to suck in more air therefore making more power and when you make more compression without fuel consumption you get better fuel economy which is why probably like an Audi A3 is so cheap to run but a turbo Barra for instance costs more to run the THE NA version and they literally nearly exactly the same just a slightly thicker compression ring and the turbo set up but here's the thing BC your turbo is shoving more air into your cylinder the more compression you have when a piston pushes the air up and causes compression it's squeezing and making the molecules move more rapidly which is friction what does friction do? Makes heat so no matter what if you add a turbo it's always gonna make more heat and you can't always just add more air and not add more fuel into the mix to get the right AIR and fuel mixture not even you wanna make more power don't get me wrong a lot of manufactures do that anyway BC of em mission standards but that doesn't mean your not gonna use a lot of fuel non the less to compensate for the amount of air that's just been shoved in so to put it simply you can use the fuel of a normal NA engine to spin the turbo to shove in extra air to get more compression so you might need less fuel to make tourque which is obviously gonna give you more fuel economy but if you are not injection and igniting fuel at a faster rate while recieving the air needed you are not gonna make the rpm and it's as simple as that and the faster the air escapes into the exhaust manifold the more friction it suffers the more friction the more heat yes you can use a turbo to have better fuel economy and maybe a little more power but you cannot have a lot more power and have better fuel economy your gonna have worse fuel economy as a result
The 2005 and 2006 Mini cooper S is most people favorite mini. The low power torque the supercharger gives is great for getting around town.
Yeah they were really zippy pieces of junk even with maintenance.
Turbo chargers use engine power to make more power as well. It's a restriction in the exhaust
Wrong, turbochargers run on the waste heat energy in the exhaust... they do not cause any parasitic load on the engine.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Its a restriction in the exhaust it's not rocket science.
@@mavadoroaster No, its not rocket science... its JET ENGINE science! The Turbocharger operates on the Brayton Cycle same as a jet or gas turbine engines.
No restrictions that cause a parasitic load on engine.
Interesting theory I'll look into it. So you're telling me without that if I stick a turbo in my exhaust on my car without running the compressed air thru the engine that their will be no power loss in the engine??
@@mavadoroaster Are you not familiar with the Bernoulli Principle?
Pressure _Drops_ as Velocity increases.
Parasitic loss is barely even an issue on production engines, its the top fuel monsters that need 100's of horsepower to turn over
You can’t feel it on the but dyno, it’s just a calculation.
Turbochargers are banned from Top Fuel and Funny Car
@@sandervanderkammen9230 They are probably sensitive regarding air to fuel ratio.
@@raymonds7492 Nitromethane fuel contains its own oxidizer... allowing for much richer AFRs and lower sensitivity to air to fuel mixture rate.
AFR is based on the formula of the fuel and the percentage of available oxygen in the fuel itself.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 even if they were not banned the turbos would be bad than good for horsepower
I am planning to supercharge my 205 in the long run.
More responsive, lineair powercurve. Also no need for custom headers, saves a lot of money.
Superchargers are linear and the motor itself is already (fairly) linear while a turbo has an exponential function that just makes driveabililty anywhere under full throttle better.
Exactly.....belt driven power adders are directly connected to crankshaft rpm. The ECM knows exactly what each driven device is doing because of programming. The supercharges is predictable...at all times. That's from the wheels up......
A very well known performance expert told me long ago...." ANY TURBO CAN DESTROY ANY ENGINE YOU CONNECT IT TO IF NOT PROPERLY CONTROLLED....POWER WITHOUT CONTROL IS CHAOS..."
@@mikef-gi2dg ECMs use the same MAP sensor on Turbocharged engines to determine intake manifold pressure.
The MAP sensor reading is usually combined with a mass air flow sensor to more accurately determine the best AFR and ignition timing maps to prevent damage from preignition and detonation.
Intake charge temperature and barometric pressure sensors are also used to trim fuel and ignition outputs on both types of engines.
A supercharged engine can be just as quickly and easily destroyed by detonation due to high pressure, high temperature and a lack of fuel enrichment needed to suppress knock.
Both superchargers and turbochargers can use a intake manifold pressure relief valve to prevent overboost, turbochargers can be managed by both a blow off valve and and wastegate for more accurate management of intake manifold pressure.
Intake charge Aftercooling (intercoolers) are equally effective on superchargers as turbos in managing temperature.
The biggest problem that destroys forced induction engines is lack of proper fuel enrichment to suppress knock, and of course in is also possible to simply exceed the pressure stress limits, the strength of the indivual engine components.
The biggest problem that most shade tree mechanics have with turbocharger engines is a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of internal combustion technology and how turbochargers actually work in a combined cycle.
A supercharger is simply a pump, a turbo is pump driven by an external auxcillery heat engine.
Any questions son?
And with all that...your point is?????
Is it you are the sole keeper of knowledge?
Only you understand these things? All knowledge flows through you? What?
@@mikef-gi2dg *Just the facts here kid, turbochargers make more power... its that simple.*
@@mikef-gi2dg *if you don't want to look like a fool? Don't post comments on a topic that you clearly don't not understand.*
Turbos are neat in that they're the only type of supercharger where it's best to keep the drive mechanism at crazy high temperatures. Turbo blankets work purely because they trap heat in the manifold and turbine housing. That heat energy means the exhaust is gonna move faster through the turbine and push with more force. Exhaust gases can be partially assumed as "ideal gases". PV=nRT. Increase the temperature of the exhaust without increasing the volume, the pressure goes up.
Had a c230 compressor. Best car ever except the $6k piston replacement. Super fun to drive and with ps2's it was buttery smooth and handled like it was in rails- even in the rain. Lovely car- but the repairs...I'll say this; if can't afford a new Mercedes that with a warranty there's no way you can afford an old one that doesn't.
My dad had a 2006 C230 sport V6. It handled so well and had a super advanced 7 speed for the time. Of course, the faulty timing chain sproket killed it, it jumped timing. However, it made it much further than most C230s (most died at 50-100K miles, some before even) and his made it to 175K partly because of luck and partly because of oil changes every 4,000 miles. I miss that thing!
I have an c320 avarange and have been thinking aboat adding the c32 amg's supercharger on it but idk becourse it feels nice to know that the engine can hold so much more power than it has right now/i dont need to worry aboat it when im flooring it. I am still going to add some becourse getting 220 hp from an engine that could have gotten 350 from the factory is just sad.
I like supers because they're instant power and they're far easier to package. All without that excessive heat that you get with exhaust driven setups. Still much more efficient than naturally aspirated but technically less than it's exhaust based counterpart.
Turbochargers make more power and use less fuel..
Turbo lag is not a real problem... its more of an imagined one.
Centrifugal turbo chargers are the best, good size and constant boost
You men centrifugal supercharger
@Murcielago American definition in most regions is a super charger has 2 spinny bois :P Centrifugal chargers are essentially a driven turbo with the hotside replaced by a belt so just one single moving piece for the compression
Cool video, but there is some missing information and some possibly misunderstood information. This leads me to believe that while most of the video is spot on, some of the research was misunderstood, or missed entirely. And in some cases, likely in the interest of viewer time and topic complexity were excluded from the video entirely. So while I don't fault the creators of the video for any of their errors as they seem perfectly reasonable to make, I would like to add to the discussion for anyone willing to read further.
1) Yes Mechanical Superchargers use some of the mechanical work done by the crankshaft reducing the fraction of crank shaft work that can be used to move the car in order to increase the overall amount of crankshaft the engine is capable of. (The basic premise of the video is correct)
2) But Turbochargers are not faultless in this either.
Turbochargers increase backpressure at the exhaust manifold which increases the amount of work the engine has to do to expel it's hot exhaust gasses. This means that without the compressor on the front hooked up, the exhaust turbine would decrease the power output of the engine. Engineering calculations on whether one should use a mechanical supercharger or a turbo take this into account. The losses due to backpressure are not negligible, but are usually less then the losses due to driving a mechanical supercharger. Also, taking a naturally asperated (N/A) engine and turbocharging it does in fact reduce the overall engine efficiency. However, using a smaller engine with a turbo may provide the same power as the N/A engine while being overall more efficient. There are some calculations you can do to find the cases where that is true, but it is part of the reason why we have so many small turbocharged engine on the market right now.
3) Application can be important. This was glazed over very briefly in the video in such a way as to make the casual viewer think that it is unimportant. Sometimes overall efficiency is not the most important consideration. Having quick response, or good low rpm torque can be very advantageous compared to good efficiency and high peak power numbers. There are also situation in non-flat out driving where the boost from a mechanical positive displacement supercharger would be more advantageous than turbocharged power. Application! Application! Application! There is a reason why Lotus used a mechanical supercharger on the 2ZZ rather than a turbocharger.
4) This one is minor, but what in the world is an Electric Turbo?
Joking aside, Electric Turbocharger is a misnomer for Electric Supercharger. It would be okay to call a Turbo-Electric Supercharger an Electric Turbo, but most of the time the term is used there is no turbomachine involved. Here is where the original name of a Turbo comes in. A Supercharger is a device that forces air into a combustion chamber. We call them Mechanical they are driven by a mechanical linkage, Turbo if they are driven by a turbomachine (turbine of some sort), or electric if they are driven by an electric motor. So a Turbo-Electric Supercharger would be a Supercharger driven by both an exhaust turbine and an electric motor. Most "Electric Turbos" are centrifugal superchargers driven by an electric motor with no turbine to be found. The correct technical name for the electrically driven centrifugal superchargers is Electric Supercharger because they are electrically driven superchargers.
5) Not mentioned in the video because it does not pertain to the video's topic, but mentioned here because it does pertain to my above comment.
Turbo is the prefix given to any turbomachine. There are Turbo-Jet Engines, Turbo-Fan Engines, Turbo-Electric Generators, Turbo-Pumps and many other Turbomachines. One that you may find interesting is the Turbo-Axle.
I wish I had all of the books that I have read on this topic with me to put in the references here to support my points, but I'm sure that you smart people can find the information, it's out there.
My first three points are primarily supported by my Internal Combustion Engine Design text book from my ICE Class MECE 391(fall) at Grove City Collage taught by Dr. Dixon. I am also in a Propulsions class which talks at length about Turbomachines called MECE 391 (A) (spring).
Other points are from all of the research that I have done over time. It's a topic that I find interesting, so I have enjoyed learning from videos like this one and in fact I did learn some from this still, but I have also learned quite a bit of technical details from engineering school.
Thank you to Driven Media for encouraging people to get into the automotive hobby and helping to educate us to the best of your ability. This was in generally a great video. My above comments were mostly for those who want to go a bit deeper.
An actually logical comment written by someone who has a clue what they're talking about instead of "screwey thing bad"
Its called turbocharger because it is driven by a gas turbine, turbos are turbines directly coupled to a compressor.
They are HEAT engines and comply with the Law's of Thermodynamics described by the Carnot Cycle Formula.
Turbos operate using the BRAYTON CYCLE the same as a jet engine or turboshaft engine.
The only difference is they operate as a Second Pass heat engine in a _Combined Cycle_ engine.
The exhaust gas temperature drops as it passes through the turbine wheel and this temperature drop is directly proportional to the amount of shaft horsepower generated by turbo.
Once you fully understand these fundamental concepts the discussion of "back pressure" will seem rather rediculuous and irrelevant.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 what a heap of nonsense. Backpressure exists wether you cry about it or not. Real turbo manufacturers take it into account, clearly you know nothing.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 The issue is your fundamentals are right in an Idealized world, such as you may find in a Thermodynamics classroom, but real engines live in reality. And Reality is not an Idealized world.
There are things called mechanical losses, and back pressure is one of those losses. Increased back pressure will make the turbine work more effectively but will make the Hybrid Cycle Piston Engine less effective. If you neglect the fact that air is compressible between your cycles, then yeah, back pressure is silly because it does not exist. However, in real world engineering, neglecting the compressibility of air between the exhaust valve and the turbine inlet is silly, because it leads to non-trivial losses.
So I get where you're coming from, but it just isn't right when you get to real world calculations. The losses can also be seen imperially though data collected in testing.
@@THESLlCK He doesn't know nothing, which is why he disagreed with me. What he said is right and would likely get him a passing grade on a Thermo 1 exam, and maybe even a Thermo 2 exam. The issue is that he only see's the first half of the picture. Much like how minor losses tend to be more than major losses in fluid mechanics problems, the mechanical losses are not insignificant in a heat engine problem. So while the theoretical limit of the efficiency of a turbosupercharger is defined by the Carnot efficiency, a real world turbine won't reach that. Compound that with the fact that he is most likely misinterpreting where the losses due to back pressure manifest themselves and his statements becomes quite understandable as the increased back pressure will have no negative effect on the turbine itself.
I love the videos from you guys. The combination of info and good photography/graphics along with humor and personality is well done.
The noise made by a Blower Bentley from the 1920s and the Lancia Delta S4 is a good enough reason to fit a supercharger , even better with a turbo as well.
The supercharger doesnt have to be on top of the engine. The 4A-GZE have the supercharge under the intake manifold to the left of the engine (viewed from the timing belt side)
The gear driven centrifugal charger on my 1.5L helps in the creation of 275hp. Fuel economy be damned
VW used a compressor in many 1.4 TSI Models. It was used for lower revs where the turbo does not produce any power and was disengaged with a magnetic coupling at higher revs.
Slight correction. A positive displacement pump, like an external or internal gear pump, gerotor pump, vane pump, axial or radial piston pump, displaces a fixed volume of fluid per revolution of the pump regardless of output pressure (unless it deadheads and assuming a static swash plate in the case of the piston pumps). An engine is itself a positive displacement air pump. A non positive displacement pump delivers less flow at the outlet as outlet pressure rises, think like an engine water pump, turbocharger or any fan basically. Positive displacement pumps mechanically take chambers of fluid from the inlet and force them into the outlet, non positive displacement pumps persuade fluid to move from the inlet to the outlet. If you blocked the outlet of a non positive displacement pump, like a turbo, the shaft and vanes could still spin. If you blocked the outlet of a positive displacement pump, the pump would lock up and cease cycling.
Just wondering, could you have both systems on one engine?
You can and do.
VW did this a while back, this is what TFSI used to be before they repurposed the term for anything forced induction.
Low rev supercharger provides easy driving and after a certain rev and pressure, the turbo takes over and the supercharger is decoupled to increase efficiency. (Superchargers usually have a clutch)
There are also twin turbo designs that are smaller turbos and this have lower lag.
If you want to know more, having both on a car is usually called "twincharged" engine, featuring double systems, each mitigating the limitations of the other.
Compressor's main faults are inefficiency and cost (which is why it's being phased out, a compressor setup is 1-7K) as well as the sound. Turbos are cheap and efficient, but suffer from lag and have quite the limitations when it comes to high boost.
Which is why manufacturers put turbos on cars mass produced (cheap, efficient, less exhaust, no noise, lower capacity) and compressors on high end (excellent power delivery, easily tuned, expensive). Twin systems exist but if it's a high end car just strap a giant supercharger to it and solve all issues (that high end car owners care about).
Doing for a while, Lancia on rally cars in the group B era as per the other comment VW group with the 1.4 twincharger engine. But these where garbage and since turbo tech came on, they were replaced with 1.4 turbos for low power uses and the 1.8 EA888 in higher end uses
The only current engine Im aware of in production at the moment is the Volvo modular 4 cylinder with in the higher power application uses the twincharger set up.
Most OEMs are going down the electronic turbo/supercharger route now with a mechanical turbo to help the low down response
Volvo does it.
the Zenvo ST1 is also twincharged if I'm not mistaken
@@farrel66 I think it's gone through a few different stages. I thought the latest one was just twin supercharged (I could Google but can't be arsed lol)
2:56: "the ... doesn't actually compress the air ... makes it more of a belt driven air pump" ... What ! - Wow - just wow.
The purpose of these 'air pumps' is to force more air into the engine. All variations do this by raising the engine charge pressure - ie - Higher inlet pressure = more more air mass flow = more power. 10 pounds into a 5 pound bucket requires pressure.
Came here to say this. Boost and compressing the air are the same thing. And a centrifugal compressor does not take TIME to build boost, it takes RPM. This is because a centrifugal compressor's pressure is not linear with RPM, but squared. A turbocharger does take time to spin up but since a supercharger is crank driven, it spins up almost instantly upon downshifting. Of course there is some intake volume that must be pressurized and that takes a bit of time.
"Boost" is when manifold pressures are higher than normal atmospheric pressure at sea level.
Many engines are equipped with compressors that do not produce "boost" they are _Normally Aspirated_ as opposed to _Naturally Aspirated_
@@alexkram *depending on the type of compressor*
Some are _Postitive Displacement_ like the Roots, while others are not positive displacement like a centrifugal type.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 can you give an example?
@@sandervanderkammen9230 agreed, I mentioned centrifugal compressors. Positive displacement should give nearly constant boost under open throttle but I've never owned one.
You got two things factually incorrect:
First, the most common type of supercharger on a modern car is not a roots type it is now a twin screw.
Second, the car that you showed sample of a roots type supercharger was a Dodge hellcat which in fact it is a twin screw supercharger made by IHI.
Had an E55 for two weeks already ate two belts lol. Love the car and the power band though, and it makes all the right sounds. Honestly it just feels really raw, a German hot rod.
Would you be able to take a supercharger and make an electric motor for it specifically that is electronically hooked to the engine RPMs so it spins faster as needed that. Being completely dependent on a battery that can supply the needed power. Even if you need to add an extra battery. Would that work ?
Its been done, but its not very practical.
Audi/ VW have developed a very good hybrid turbo that uses a high speed electric motor to very quickly spool up the turbo into boost mode. But this electric motor is only on briefly before exhaust gas pressure takes over.
Constantly powering the turbo Or supercharger takes a Lot of power, more than is practical for Electric motors alone
DONT ASK SANDERSPARKY....
Not a car guy… but an aspiring engineer… Are there any electrically driven turbos?
It seems like keeping one spinning could be done without using the engine to directly drive it.
I wouldn’t replace the exhaust system driving it while at desired rpms… just curious if any electrical enhancements exist to keep one spun up when at a lower rpm.
There actually is eletrically assisted turbos if im not mistaken
Most turbo anti lag systems use an air bladder that blows compressed air into the turbo to spin up the turbine if it's not in boost and you put the hammer down. The air bladder itself is electronically controlled. I'm not aware of any electronically assisted turbine anti lag systems, but I'm sure one exists somewhere as a prototype or proof of concept at the very least.
Audi and BMW I believe are using Electric Turbos. They use low pressure ones for very low RPM until the exhaust driven ones spin up. (One of them has a quad turbo diesel with one of the turbo being Electric)
Watch until the end of the video
You could have googled it in 1 second.
The old Audi S4 featured a small Hot-V supercharger.
And from 2011(?) onwards, you can go into the engine management system and select "Performance Mode" and the car will go from 320 to 420 BHP instantly.
One of the greatest car upgrades of all time, by enabling a software option.
YOU ROCK, AUDI!
What? I own an S4 and none of that is true
It's not instant and that's called a remap my friend. It typically costs £300/$500+ and a disclaimer that you're responsible for anything that goes wrong (including an engine going bang)
It's not a "hot-V". A hot-V engine has the exhaust ports on the inside of the V; the supercharged V6 on the S4 had a conventional engine layout with a supercharger on top of the intake manifold. Should have stuck with that, too.
@@S.ASmith what the hell is he talking about with “Performance Mode”
@@murraydmark Probably clap trap and really means a stage 1 remap.
Love the graphics used👍, makes it way easier to learn
Attributing the whine that race cars make to straight cut gears is a common misconception. That whine is from the solid mounted differential. You can not hear the gear box over the diff.
It is straight cut gears making the noise in the gearbox. In a rear mount diff, front gearbox, the noise comes from the front
I am constantly asked why I do not Supercharge my Lotus Elise. Many reasons: First and foremost it would lose its screaming 8500 RPM red line. Second it defies Colin Chapman's mantra 'Simplify, then add Lightness'. 3rd it would push the curb weight above 2000 lbs. And 4th it would reduce the longevity of the engine.
Buuuut, cool whine and more speed😁
@@obbezwiers The whine when the 2nd cam kicks in with the Larini exhaust trumps the SC noise. More mid-range torque for sure with an SC, but not worth losing the high revs. As they say, no normal driver can get 10/10ths out of an Elise as is.
@@daveblock1688 gotta say, I envy you and your car!
Many thanks! if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
@Dave Block agreed. The 2ZZ, especially with a TRD airbox, in an Elise is awesome. I have an early series 3 with a 2ZZ. For the extra 30hp and a wallet lighter to the tune of about £6000 GBP supercharging is not worth it. On the other hand the blown 2GR-FE in the Evora 400 series (Evora GT in the US) and the V6 version of the Emira is a no brainer.
Using exhaust gas still takes power from the engine because of back pressure. If you place a resistor on an exhaust pipe, the engine will need to push the exhaust out instead of just letting it flow out. A resistor can take many forms, from catalytic converters to bends in the pipe to simply the length of the exhaust pipe. All of these put more resistance on the flow of the exhaust gas, reducing engine power. A turbo does the same thing to a much higher degree, since it is usually very close to the engine and therfore very hot. You should all know that air is compressible (that is why turbos and superchargers are a thing) and you should know from the context of the video that cold air is better at compressing. The reason mufflers and catalytic converters are usually at the very end of the pipe is to give the exhaust gas a chance to cool off a bit, which is better for the longevity of those parts but it also allows the air to compress more before encountering the higher resistance.
Superchargers are not always mounted on top. That may be the case on a V style engine, but on an inline engine, it is usually mounted off to the side. My 2006 Chevy Cobalt SS has an Eaton m62 roots supercharger that is mounted on the intake manifold which happens to be off to the side, or at the front of the engine bay being a transverse engine.
I've always been skeptical of this Turb's are all efficient, and Super's aren't comparison.
Firstly, when we talk about efficiency, we're usually just talking about fuel consumption, and hence running costs. Even if a Turbo uses less fuel, I gather they're typically more expensive setups. So you have to drive a hellava long time to regain the money. Also because you get a laggy performance hit with turbo's, and because they're most effective at higher speeds, you'd typically run higher peak boost, which presumably is wearing and tearing the engine block faster. Plus Turbos would presumably burn oil faster, or require higher grade oil, a hidden cost hit
What never enters this conversation either is use case scenarios. Turbo's aren't automatically and inherantly more fuel efficient vs NA motors. If ur on consistant moderated boost, it is, but if ur in stop and go traffic where ur constantly high throttling the engine to overcome the lag repeatedly, it's not efficient, cause ur spending most of the time trying to spool the turbo rather than reaping the boost benefits. Turbos operate best in open road or racing environments.
Superchargers being much larger lose efficiency much quicker up the RPM range (more friction), but without the lag, you don't have to throttle it so hard off a standstill, and can operate effectively at low engine RPM, so they'd presumably be more efficient at low RPM cruising.
Well yea but actually no turbo cars are efficient because they can use smaller displacement and less pistons so they are more efficient for cruising because when off boost they are effectively na 2L Hondas. when on boost all fuel efficiency goes out the window they have to run rich because you never quite know how much boost you actually have so it’s harder to resist knock but with performance because they have higher peak hp outputs due to the recovery of some of the exhaust losses so faster lap times when straights are long and and corners are fast so that small blip of no boost isn’t important.
Modern centrífugal supers are even more efficient than turbos. And about efficiency I thought we always talked about the parasitic energy vs the "free" energy for turbo which is a lie. You are adding back pressure to your exhaust gas
Edit
What matters is staying into the efficiency zone of the fi element. Turbos en supercharger have a sweet spot between work and air emitted. After all they all are air pumps in a sense
@@ulisesavila2879 Yeah, ultimately i think it's all a moot debate, we're seriously discussing some miniscule fuel efficiency differences either way.
Traditionally i just say, you want a forced inducted engine, if you want a faster (or more powerful) car. Not for the sake of fuel economy.
Any fuel efficiency gains are lost to a more expensive, more complex, likely less reliable and higher maintainence engine.
On that note, a Super's main adv over Turb's is its very simple setup
@@ulisesavila2879 Yes. To add to what your saying, the engine as a whole is often referred to as an "air pump." The more air it can move the more power it can create. Bigger displacement can move more air more easily, but tends to have more losses due to having to move more "metal" or move that "metal" more. For any given engine, N/A is most efficient; however, a smaller engine with forced induction can make the same power while being more efficient.
@@hamishfeast5803 ur argument about a smaller block requirement theoretically applies equally to a Supercharger. Though we can't whimsically choose our block sizes, so the mathamatical argument is that the added torque allows us to operate the same engine at lower RPM/higher gear ratio's.
Agreed, turbos aren't efficient at full boost, I mislead slightly denoting the racing environment. I guess i just meant a continuous pace (no spooling).
Where I suggested Superchargers maybe more efficient than turbo's, is in that very low speed, stop and go traffic, or for heavy hauling.
I haven't had the luxury to drive and attest to all these engine designs, I'm just guessing that a Supercharged motor will allow much torquier gentle take off's, and higher gear traffic commuting.
I own and drive a 1.6T Pulsar. My life is 98% metro. The lag sucks, trying to quick zip an intersection opening means foot to the floor
Most informative video! I'd take a Centrifugal Supercharger like Rotrex cause it's arguably the best of both worlds
I literally sold my R56 Mini with an N18 in order to buy back my R53 with the supercharger because it is sooo much more fun and still have it until this day
2:20, doesn't dodge use twin screws, not roots types?
Yep, they do use twin screws
Yes everyone uses twin screw.
Turbochargers also create parasitic draw on the engine, because they create tons of exhaust back-pressure which makes it much more difficult for an engine to push out exhaust gasses. Which not only takes power, but can cause leftover exhaust gasses to remain inside the combustion chamber.
WOW! You are clearly not educated or qualified to speak inteligently about this topic, you need to learn about how a turbocharger works.
You've earned 1+ sub. Keep up the good work.
Gotta say your Second try on Gottlieb was very accurate!
Guy on Video: "Superchargers suck"
Lancia Delta S4: "Really now? HOLD MY BEER!"
The supercharger made a game-changing difference in aircraft in the 1940s, increasing the altitude ceiling, and performance at all altitudes.
Turbochargers made the Lockheed P-38 the fastest fighter aircraft in the world when it was introduced into service
I'm 54 years old and I knew way back in HS that an electric drive induction system would be ideal. They are just now catching up to my genius.
Electric superchargers still produce less power than turbos... you can't get around that _First Law of Thermodynamics_
I guess you didn't go to university?.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 I can tell from all you comments that you love turbo's. Turbo's might make more more but superchargers make better power. It's always there and is more controllable.
@@guntherferguson2369 one of my favorite cars of all time is twin supercharged, the Auto Union Type C.
I just understand without any personal bias that turbochargers are superior for a very important reason that many seem to forget.
More power is "better" power, nothing is more true in motorsports or tuning.
The question? is the driver skilled enough, turbochargers require more skill because they produce more power.
That's an awesome video... Loved that
The centrifugal superchargers comes with one advantage, by producing the bulk of its boost at higher rpms it limits low end torque, compared to other forms of superchargers. If you're building a sleeper with lots of power and relatively skinny tires, the centrifugal supercharger will limit boost and torque at lower rpms when the driver launches the car, which will make the launch easier to control. The boost and torque/power will arrive once the car is moving and the tires have the ability to handle them. A positive displacement supercharger will produce lots of low end grunt, which is fine if the car has the traction to handle it, but that could led to the torque being lost to wheelspin if the tires can't handle it.
That would assume that your gearing and tire size are not ideal for an engine with a centrifugal supercharger... something that most production cars don't have...
The instant throttle response of a blower is addictive, drive both and you will want to drive the blower car. Turbos are great, but difficult to modulate power, and the lag on big turbos is another issue. Yes, the turbo is efficient and make more power pound for pound. But the sound of blower whine is second to none.
A less skilled driver is often intimidated by the additional power produced by a turbo car... faster cars are in fact harder to drive..
I had a 2010 Scirocco 1.4 tsi which had a turbo and a supercharger (was it also in the Golf GT?). I believe they had a habit of failing in a lovely cloud of blue smoke (though mine lasted fine until I sold it) and they later quietly dropped the engine.
Apparently there was a recall but, to be fair, it was destined to fail as an engine as small as 1.4 has very little excuse to not spin a tiny turbo.
Still, NA engines are the best
Nitrous assisted? 😉😂😂
I agree though man, you can't beat the sound of a highly tuned n/a engine, especially on carbs or throttle bodies
@@Matty.Hill_87 Independant. Throttle. Bodies. 👏 No replacement for displacement
@@branney6914 Bigger is better!
Nice video,
I think this pandemic has taught people the importance of multiple streams of income, unfortunately having a job doesn't mean security rather having different investments is the real deal.
The economic hardship, recession, unemployment and loss of jobs caused by covid 19 pandemic is enough to push people into financial ventures..
@David Scott You're right, but i will advice everybody who is into cryptos to Stick with ETH and BTC as much as you can. everyone sells when it starts to fall, which some points it will, the dream may be lost because it being too volatile for companies to get behind.
Investments are the stepping Stones to success, I wanted to trade shiba but got confused by the fluctuations in price
Trading crypto with Expert Edward Miller has brought great progress in my life, I invested $15,000 and cashed out $54,700 after 3 weeks. I still wonder how he gets he's analysis
@Linda Smith I was able to see that he is a registered trader, cause I don't believe 😩 anything I see online but I'm definitely shocked that he is real, how do I reach him please ?
My Terminator Cobra screams to heaven and i love that.
2:20 funny because hellcats use a twin screw set up. Both twin screw and roots blowers make a similar sounding whine
Any spinny thing bolted to an engine uses power from the engine. Water pump, Altenator, Supercharger, Turbo, Cooling Fan...
3:15 actually positive displacement means the volume of air pulled in is the same volume forced into the engine. And I'm not sure what you mean by it isn't a compressor but an air pump a compressor makes pressure/boost, if it didn't do that then it'd be completely pointless in the first place
Actually the volume going into the engine is less. For fifteen pounds of boost the air is twice as dense if cooled back to ambient temperature. The supercharger then sucks in two litres of air for every litre shoved into the cylinder. Positive displacement means there is no way the air can flow backwards towards the intake. This can happen in turbines if the back pressure is too high, known as stalling. Very dangerous in an aircraft engine.
@@ericrawson2909 the technical definition does not figure displacement under boost, because depending on how much boost you run with it you could get like you said half the output volume at +1 bar and even less at higher pressure. It just makes it easier for the consumer to figure it out
@@ericrawson2909 The VOLUME is always the same, the MASS however varies based on altitude and temperature.
Positive Displacement compressors always flow the same volume.
Centrifugal and Axial compressors have a Curvalinear flow rate based on rpm.
what if you have the regular crank driven pulley for the supercharger but then also had the exhaust side of a turbo hooked up and instead of the exhaust gas turning the compressor wheel it could add extra torque to the supercharger or idk maybe if there not enough torque from it use that to replace the alternator as they usually take 2 hp idk maybe im stupid just thought it could be a good idea
2:20 NOOO! Hellcats' superchargers are twin screw, not roots
On a Roots type blower, what would happen if one reverses the blower by using internal compression instead of external compression like we do now ???
3:20 A positive displacement blower supplies air in a direct fixed relation to revs so twice the revs is twice the amount of air, not the same amount of air over the rev range. And pressure has little influence on the amount taken in.
"Won't look that good on my golf"
Golf 1.4 TSI Supercharged - "Am I a joke to you?"
I'm a big fan of superchargers. My 2013 Chevy Cruze is turbocharged. But the turbo lag on that thing is atrocious.
It wasn't until I purchased a Chevy Silverado with an electric motor that pre spools the turbo, virtually eliminating the lag that I became a fan of turbos.
Good easy to understand explanation, really like the video!
So don't get me wrong, no hate here, but there's a few things that I feel could be better explained or need correcting:
1. ALL different types of chargers (even the roots) compress the intake air. That's the whole point of a super- or turbocharger: increasing the intake air compression to fit more air into the fixed engine volume so that you can burn more fuel for power. Btw: A perfect methaphor to explain how the roots charger works would be 2 revolving doors that are overlapping in the middle pushing a constant stream of people into a hotel lobby: You can use either of the revolving doors on the outside to get into the lobby, but where they overlap, the doors leave no place for anyone to get back out. Now, if you only let a small elevator full of people leave every few minutes, people in the lobby will pile up (compress) untill the lobby is so full that enough people squeze into that tiny elevator to offset the constant stream being pushed in. And, like with compressed air, the temperature in the lobby will automatically rise, which leads me to the next topic:
2. Because all chargers compress air, all chargers increase the air temperature and all chargers can benefit from intake air coolers. You can think of intake air coolers as a secondary compressor that works thermaly rather than mechanically. By cooling the compressed and heated intake air at a (nearly) constant pressure, the volume shrinks and the air is therefore compressed even further. Also, since the intake air cooler is usually the last thing before the cylinder head, and not the compressor itself, this seques nicely to:
3. None of the charger HAVE to be placed in any certain area of the engine. The only thing that most superchargers need is a connection to the fan belt, but that could place it nearly 360° around the engine. It's usually just about reducing pipe length (more pipe -> more volume -> takes longer to bring up to pressure).
The reasons many superchargers are often placed on top of the engine is because:
A: that's where a V-Engine (by far the most common candidate for supercharging) have the air intake, making for shorter distances to travel from charger to cooler to intake
B: Many chargers, especially the redicilously oversived ones, are after-market solutions and it's much easier (and more structuraly sound) to make space by cutting a hole in your hood/bonnet than it is to start cutting half of your wheel house or subframe off to create the space.
C: completely contrairy to what you said during the roots explenation: it's actually one of the least hot places in the engine room.
4: I hope you'll give your kids a better explenation of the birds and the bees cuz that did not really explain how a screw compressor works ;). The biggest problem is that diagramm. The compression is done along the screw axis, so a cross section is just badly suited to explain this. Tho to be fair, they aren't the easiest concept: By having a (nearly) airtight seal in the middle between the 2 screws, the compressor traps 2 pocket of air on the outsides of each screw, which start where the rotors meet (lets call this the bottom), wraps around the screw once until they meet again at the top. At the intake side the air can flow into the pocket as it is opened up until it is transported far enough for the "bottom" to close up. Then, as the screws rotate, the "bottom" rolls further and further up the screws, pushing the trapped air pocket along in front of it. At some point, the air pocket reaches the far end, which is a closed wall except for a tiny outlet. The "bottom" will keep moving up, compressing the air against the wall untill the pocket is rotated over the outlet where the air can escape. (Best I can do without pictures/animations, I hope that helps)
5: Last but not least, the joke needs to be made: Superchargers don't suck: They blow. :D
(Obviously I am also just human and prone to errors; so if I made a mistake above, please do correct me in a civilized matter)
There are a few things in you comment that need correcting, first off,
1.) There are 2 types of compressors, Internal compression and External compression.
2.) Internal compression heats the air more and are less efficient.
Any questions?
Not going to mention how lotus or Chevy prefer supercharging? I prefer turbos but they deliver power too aggressively when you are wanting big power due to lag. My turbo threshold is around 4000 rpm so unless I’m trying to race it actually makes my car slower and unresponsive feeling. The advantage you didn’t mention to superchargers is that they bring on the power progressively and give the car a more responsive feel so they are much more controllable on the track coming out of a corner and more useable on the street. You could argue that small turbos are more responsive but what’s going to make more power and be responsive at the same time a large supercharger or a small turbo? Turbos have their downsides as well which are very much worth mentioning.
I love my R53 mini but it's so inefficient. Did a steady drive the other day over around 150miles. It did 32mpg (UK gallons). If I drive it hard it's low 20's or high teens. It's shocking and not that quick. My daily is a MK3 Leon FR with a 2.0 turbo with 190bhp. Same journey steady it gets over 50mpg. Even driving it hard I struggle to see much less than 40. Do enjoy the linear power though and the SC noise.
Does supercharger needs to cool down wait for 5 mins or you can turn it off?
isn't it possible to design an hybrid centrifugal super/turbocharger with a turbine and a betl that would be a bit more complex but would have no lag and still use exhaust gasses energy to reduce power loss or even send power to the engine ? although electric turbos are probably simpler and can harvest energy when slowing down, store it and provide more boost on full load.
The supercharged Lotus Exige was quite a lot of fun. It did not suck but perhaps the other examples cited in the video do. In principle, it’s a technology evolution issue. Superchargers will be missed as they join other technology from a similar era: drum brakes.
The reason i would use a supercharger would be in a drift car because of the equivalent boost relative to throttle acceleration. Meaning more control of the car when slippage occurs. A turbo has exponential boost, which will be less controlled in drifting
Yeah no, That isn't how drifting works. It might pay to watch and see what cars get out there on the track and notice that most of drift hacks tend to be turboed. th-cam.com/video/BazbxtS7Dk4/w-d-xo.html
@@ceffydriver they do learn how to work with a turbo due to the fact that it tends to throw a lot of horsepower and allow slippage to occur resuling in a drift. It does take skill but it can work out better then a supercharged engine
@@vroomvroom4061 Drifting (at least at higher speeds) is more about upsetting the weight of a car by shifting the weight by skandoing (Scandinavian flick) to get any car regardless of power to shift it's weight from the direction you wanting to drift, and then using the momentum from that to rotate the car on it's axis rather than the front end leading the car into a corner and then use the loss of traction to effectively act as thrust to oversteer through the corner.
I think what you are implying is just powersliding, basically just holding a long burnout.
We have so many people here in australia that drift NA cars too (like some shitty KE70 corolla) or even NA fords and holdens as entry level drift hacks and still do a better job at it than people with high powered cars.
The reason why turboed cars work so well is because most turboed cars are japanese, like my cefiros and it's because they have great chassis balance and handling that just works well.
Superchargers are not that great for drifting as the drive belts don't really like being on and off of throttle constantly, superchargers are also locked into making boost on RPM rather than load.
Lastly PD superchargers also cost way too much per HP, just have a look how much a M112 SC costs by comparison to turbos like TD06h 25g, 3076, 3582r.
@@ceffydriver hear me out on this one because you are definitely right but from my perspective i work with cheaper cars. I know a turbo is somewhat cheaper then a supercharger, yet turbos put intense pressure on cast iron and aluminum blocks, which can destroy the engine. I would much rather replace belts more often then engines. I am just looking at this from the expensive build cheap car perspective in that the weight tends to be balanced throughout the car 50/50 or 60/40. A slightly heavier component in the front would keep the front wheels down and the weight of the rear the same so lateral acceleration creates a logarithmic-spiral force from momentum and centripetal force. Now a high end jdm or pony car could lose some weight using a turbo and use a front splitter for high speed drifting using aerodynamic force to apply weight to the front wheels. Of course a cheaper way of doing this is buying a front wheel drive with weight already in the front
The air in your turbo/supercharger gets hot mainly because it gets compressed and hot air is less dense so cooling it gives you more air, you don’t pass it trough the intercooler just because the charger is on top of the engine… although that heat also has an influence on the air
I had Rotrex supercharger on k24 Honda in an Ep3 500hp and with the correct pulley on it I never noticed any lag, was fantastic fun and very reliable charge Temps were great too. 22mpg on average.
Very easy to install. Just saying I enjoyed my supercharger experience.
It doesn't change the fact that turbochargers are superior to superchargers for one very important reason
@@sandervanderkammen9230 both units are superchargers technically. Rotrex type has much better charge Temps and so easy to fit makes it a great add on. Turbo gives more power on same set up but more complicated. Both have advantages and disadvantages. As for the last word response just grow up.
@@slartybartfast1 It does not change the fact that turbochargers are inherently superior to superchargers.
Supercharged engines have higher pumping losses and lower thermodynamics efficiency so they will always make less power and use more fuel per horsepower generated
Your taking rubbish
@@slartybartfast1 Just the facts here son, didn't you pay any attention to the video?
You don't seem to understand the difference between a turbo and a supercharger?
Never realised the job of a supercharger was to force Air into the Engine Bay and not the Inlet manifold. Who knew.
what? their job *is* to put air into the intake manifold
I think some things are glossed over here or only briefly mentioned, a summary would be good. Superchargers have better sound, exhaust note, power band/delivery and are generally easier to work on. Turbochargers are more efficient, have a much lower parasitic effect and are often more compact. Both suck (air) and both are great, just in different ways.
Is it not feasible to install a tank of pure oxygen and force that into the intake with a regulator?
Or would that be to costly, or oxygen bottles would take up to much space?
Nitrious Oxide is mostly Oxygen... in a more dense liquid state, its more practical and effective than pure Oxygen and is used to boost engine performance.
A supercharger can still help meet regulations while delivering more power, and still sound fun. It's the compromise option where everyone wins.
Centerfugal all day for aftermarket set up. Yes it does have lag like a turbo. But incredibly easy to install don't need to mess with exhaust. Well worth it even with parasitic loss