Alot of People like this show, i mean their uploads sometimes interfere with sleep, study for tests, work, toilet, and even business meetings(if my boss is reading this im sorry) but yea
@@skyfox585 I f*cking know I'm not a potato, what I'm saying is don't come talking Yankee ponys in an Australian show. Australia has the best measurement system
@@PatDavis-qg5no I understand horsepower better than I understand kw and I'm aussie. Most of the car culture comes from places that measure in hp so it's just more familiar to people.
I have a cool idea guys, on the drag strip or street you should accelerate and then let off the gas at the same time, then punch it again. See if the supercharger beats the turbo since the turbo will dump all its boost and supercharger wont. Might beat in a race that way and would be a cool way to show turbo lag in normal day to day driving.
Thats a great idea but for the red mx5 boost turns on at 2800! thats like hardly any lag. Its so easy to get up to 2800 it would still be barely noticeable like they mentioned already.
+Jarom Pollister Turbo lag is not about the revs where the turbo kicks in. If you lift off the throttle on 5000 rpm, wait 5 sec, then the turbo will stop spinning. Then once you press the accelerator, the turbo will need some time to build the pressure
One of the most informational videos you guys have made. No matter how much I know on this topic already, it is very nice to see some "controlled science" and testing. Well done.
Great video!! The one elephant in the room is the different types of superchargers. The centrifugal supercharger that was used brings boost linearly and slowly. However, the root style superchargers create boost much faster. I know it is a ridiculous ask, but a comparison of a turbo car vs a twin-screw supercharger would be a much more ideal and educational comparison. I would imagine the twin-screw would be dominant from idle until the turbo hits (about 2500 RPM), they would then be decently matched in the middle of the RPM band, and the turbo would then make the higher numbers as the supercharger would fall off several 1000 RPM before red-line. Best solution for maximum simultaneous bottom and top end performance is a torque-filled (with an electric motor) turbo engine. How much are McLaren P1s going for nowadays?
2:10 I love when he appears in your videos. I've said it before and pretty much everyone agreed (surprising), but Scott is such a smart guy when it comes to tuning cars. I love when he starts to explain things. It's fascinating how smart he is. He can tune a car perfectly from what I hear.
I feel like centrifugal SC is basically where you take the best features from a roots SC and a turbo and throw it in the trash then are left with everything bad from each one.
not sure how you get that a Centri is more reliable then the others, especially a roots or screw. the most dangerous thing about forced induction is going lean, which isn't caused by the unit itself.
because a centrifugal creates much less heat then any of the others, has a simpler design and requires less maintenance than any other option. thats where the reliability comes from.
hey Marty and Moog don't forget that you have a centrifugal supercharger. There is also a roots type and a screw type which make boost way earlier than the centrifugal type. I can't wait to see what happens in your next video. Let's see all of the unicorns haha
A roots style supercharger in most cases will make TONS more power at low RPM then a turbo can. Zero lag with roots style supercharger. They used a centrifugal supercharger, which builds boost with RPM..
if it was a twinscrew supercharger it would be on full boost before the turbo, even a rotor supercharger still be quicker. You chose a centrifugal type which is the issue on late boost
Russell Taylor they did that because centrifugal is what the DIY guy with limited ability can do himself because they literally bolt straight on, personally I would rather have a supercharged car if I were to swap a naturally aspirated engine, but factory would prefer a turbo car, at my current skill level at least
Christian Robar so is any positive displacement Literally just taking off part of the intake and bolting on a supercharger and putting on the throttle body
No, I suspect they did this because they found a miata that was already supercharged and another NA one and decided to buy both and turbo the other one. there are a large number of DIY bolt-on positive displacement supercharger kits on the market, a belt driven turbo is terrible for low end power which is where what most actual car guys call superchargers (positive displacement blowers) actually beat turbos.
Guys, i realize you are not deep in the weeds car guys like Mechanical Stig and others, but you could have at least mentioned positive displacement superchargers. I don't think you have said this yet, but from what I am seeing I assume you went with that S/C because you found a Miata already equipped with one, fair enough, but if you have it in the budget at all, maybe do a follow up swapping the centrifugal for a roots or twin screw S/C?
My wife has a twin charged Golf. It is amazing how hard it goes for a 1.4. 240 Nm of torque 1700-5100 rpm! It's also cool to hear the supercharger whine followed by the turbo whistle!
I am so glad you guys did this. I had my mind set on a turbo and I am convinced now that it is worth the extra work for plumbing and heat management. The power output and boost are just a no brainer and the numbers speak for themselves. Beside, I think a turbo can handle more and is tougher than a super charger. Less complicated parts really. And no extra belt for a turbo.
I'm not sure if anybody else is wondering about this, but the particular supercharger that was chosen is a centrifugal supercharger. I suspect this is because that is what is available in an easily installed kit form for that particular car. A centrifugal supercharger produces boost that increases as the RPM of the engine increases as we saw so clearly in the graphs at the end of the tests, but a positive displacement supercharger (like an Eaton or a Roots) are more able to get full (or at least mostly full) boost even at lower RPMs. I suspect that would mean that its torque and power curves would more closely parallel the ones produced by the turbocharger. I don't know if there is a supercharger kit of that type available for the MX5s of that vintage, however.
That's correct a centrifugal supercharger isn't air tight but the Roots style is so it ends up forcing more air into the engine. A fan can only blow so hard before air comes back out of it but screws can turn together and force the air in without coming back out. It's still a linear power curve unlike a turbo but the instant throttle response and huge low rpm torque make it take off really fast and easily burn rubber. www.superchargersonline.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=7
Mighty Car Mods I support your effort. You did shine a needed light into a poorly lit corner. And kudos to you for that. I am only pointing out that it's important to note that there are a few different kinds of superchargers and their modes of operation and their characteristics differ greatly. Thanks for the great videos (I'm subscribed and love the channel, by the way) and I look forward to seeing how the rest of this series goes. I'm especially interested in seeing how the two MX5s compare in real world driving, both around town and out in the more open roads that I am sure must be lurking out beyond the city limits. I'm sure others are, too. Keep up the good work, fellas. I'll keep watching.
sirgallium It is more accurate to say that the pressure ratio of a centrifugal compressor is a function of how fast it's spinning whereas for a positive displacement compressor the pressure ratio is fixed. If you had a variable speed drive on the centrifugal you could approximately replicate the performance of a roots or screw type blower.
Guys I'd love to see a roots or twin screw supercharger comparison. Just to see how completely different the curve would be. The typical throttle response and low power isn't really associated with centrifugal supercharging. But still great episode
Twincharging is ideal but expensive and with today's turbo technology not really needed. An Borg-Warner EFR 6258 spolls quickly (full boost by about 2800 rpm on 2.0L DI engine) and pushes out enough air for 450hp, assuming you fix the air going in and going out bottle necks. Garrett GTX2867 same thing, almost Disco Potato like spool but again 450 hp vs the GTX2860RS which is the new 400hp version of the disco potato that make 400 hp where the original DP struggled to make much more than 380 hp maxed out. Same spool better design. Great street turbo vs supercharging; on a MX-5 it will run 11's at 400 hp.
these guys have a great channel, ive been watching for years now and they make me maintain my enthusiasm for cars. meeting these guys is on my bucket list, top 3.
5 pages? Don't take this the wrong way, but from my perspective, that is not much. Then again, I am not a product of American schooling, plus that was almost 10 years ago.
Thanks for the Kilowatt to horsepower conversion! Saved me having to bring out the calculator. Enjoyed the vid! You guys simply hit it out of the park every time.
On the track circuit, not drag strip, supercharger delivers power that is easier to control mid corner when you need that fine control through power transition. On the drag strip turbos are king. Great vid guys , loved it!
I'm amazed how much gains you achieved on those little cars just by slapping a bit of forced induction on them...doubled the wheel power on stock internals, crazy!
Would be nice if you could log the transient response in a few different rpms. That is, drive at for example 5krpm, get off throttle then full throttle. Then measure how long time it takes for the respective engine to give its full power (full boost) at that rpm. That way we can see the real difference between these two. The supercharged will have almost instant full power ( at the rpm), while the turbo will lag (less the higher up the rpms). Your dyno graph doesn´t really show this.
***** A good turbo engine can build boost quickly in higher rpms, but it doesnt make sense that it would be faster than a supercharger that is already spinning at its desired rpm, all you need to do is open the throttle and let it push the boost inside the engine. And a second or two is very bad transient response.
bingoberra18 that's a second or two for 30+ pounds. I make boost almost instantly. Basically, as the vid shows, I can make 30lbs of boost at 2k rpm, where as if any supercharger can do that I'd be amazed. At higher rpm which would be the only benefit to a supercharger, I can make boost much faster.
For most people a turbo is great and the feeling of accelerating torque is undeniably awesome, but that low end throttle linearity is really good for other applications that may not apply to regular driving.
You could in perhaps increase cfm density by adding a Cold Water injection/ Induction system for both turbo and supercharged cars this would increase water to air ratios for a denser charge of air.
Adding a air to water Induction system for the the supercharged car would definitely Lean the air to fuel mixture then maybe you wouldn't have add more fuel but in that case adding fuel would really benefit the whole combination.
you mean methanol injection not cold water that makes no sense. it lowers combustion chamber Temps in increasing a little power and promoting safe detonation.
aaron monke, water doe's the same thing the 2016 bwm m4 gts i believe uses a Water injection Induction system via heat exchange cold directly into the intake manifold, You make no sense dumbass Water or alcohol your your choice the noth promote safe donation i should know i made a prototype that does the same thing with perk's like trapping incoming debris in to the water therefore school boi dirt to water and i also have to refill my water container just like BMW's and it stays cold, currently seeking a patent.
wish yall would have done a roots vs turbo it was obvious from the 1st video that the turbo would have won....the roots makes up for the parasitic loss where the centrifugal does not
Great comparison and i had a feeling the turbo would come out ontop for total power. Can't wait to see how they actually drive though I'm an auto sparky by trade so obviously come across many different pedigree's day by day but interesting to see direct comparisons like this! As said by others, roll on at speed tests on the dyno would paint a completely different graph for your sciencey graphs (to simulate many...lets say, spirited street sessions, which usually happen rolling on at speed, like 50/60kph, even 80+ for those brave fools on the freeways), be interesting to see the graphing of power and torque vs time and road speed, those extra kw's wouldn't mean much if you end up a car length or more behind before your power came through. Though i do own a BF XR8 with a vortech centrifugal blower on 8psi (No intercooler, should be noted Centri blowers actually don't heat the air nearly as much as turbos or PD blowers, pretty efficient in that regard, so would be interesting bypass the cooler and see what effect that has on power (down cause its a little warmer? up cause of the shorter intake length?, does it lower the kit total price much?) and had many drives in BA/F + FG Turbos and tbh i love the vortech v8 more, daily driving it gets around exactly like it did without the blower (still gets over 500km per tank!), hit the throttle though and all hell breaks loose, but still the power is clean and delivered linearly, making it a predictable (plus the advantage is the soft delivery is easy on the boss engine when compared to shock loads of turbos or PD blowers on what is a N/A engine often ends up shortening the boss's life considerably) That said, end of the day a centri blower was probably cheaper, easier to install and made *not much* less power without further tweaks, excellent way to grab some extra power without much hassle, really eager to see how it drives, knowing how my centri reacts i'm thinking the differences won't be all that obvious between the 2 cars on the street and dare i say, the blown one might actually be a little friendlier/perkier to drive as its always got that little bit of extra air waiting at the throttle plate for those little (couple seconds) blips/light-half throttle rev ups off the street light line/out of driveways/etc/etc wheres the turbo could feel a little muddy unless you feed it the exhaust and extra throttle it wants! ps, sorry for the long post lol
Supercharge and turbocharge both, run sequential twin turbos in one and successional twin turbos in the other and keep the supercharger at 10 bars and lets see which type of twin turbo is more beneficial for certain projects.
My question from the very 1st SC vs TC video stands; why did they use a screw/roots charger instead of centrifugal? Just curious, as my understanding is that centrifugal is basically a lagless turbo that doesn't spin as fast.
Mostly because of cost and installation time. The centrifugal charger is small enough to be tucked into the cramped engine bay, works as its own pump for a tiny dedicated cooling\lunication system and runs off the serpentine belt just like an air conditioner compressor or other accessories, a roots is less efficient and loads in pulses, so this approach doesn't really work as you get belt slip. For the Roots you'd need more space, to run a dedicated toothed belt, to plumb into the existing oil system (and often coolant system) and requires far more hours of installation in addition to its higher purchase cost and less universal fitment. A screw is the same but with a little more efficiency and reduction of pulses, but at much higher cost again due to tight machining tolerances and fussy temperature range of operation. So as much as I'd love to see some positive displacement, this is a comparison of what is common\availble as kits and on a dyno or drag race the turbo is going to do better anyway. Only reason I'd recommend a supercharger outside of engine packing and cost is for events where fine power control makes more difference than more power, like tight autocross tracks or downhill torgue.
Hey guys,I have a question for tuning fork. Could you get a similar power curve on the supercharger if you ran a higher boost pulley, and limited the boost to 10lbs via a wastegate on the intake?
they covered it in the video, you can do it a bit, but if you try to make the super act like a turbo, you'll overrun it and run into all sorts of issues. Of course you could get a bigger super, but then that's not really comparing apples to apples.
With the old JRSC kits (Jackson Racing) Sport Compact Car was able to swap the 45 series blower for a 90 series blower with minor changes and easily got up to 280 hp around the same boost that maxed out the 45. The supercharger on the black car is a Rotex which is sort of like a belt driven turbo. They can't get the multiplication needed to have the supercharger spin faster sooner. That is the specialty of a Roots type system or even better a Screw type, both no longer available for the Miata/MX-5 (Jackson Racing or Kenne-Belle) The Kenne-Bell especially made the MX-5 a rocket, out of the box the kit made 250 hp, but could easily be cranked up to 300+ hp with a pulley change and it was intercooled as well, no extra heat generated.
JustKyzuuh they sort of explained that in the video. They said running a supercharger at a higher boost pressure with a smaller pulley would start to become inefficient and you're spinning the charger faster creating more heat and it will take more engine power to spin it faster. You could use a larger supercharger and then do that idea limiting it to 10 or so yes
That and the SC12-14 SC`s on 4A-GZE`s being even shittier for this application is why twin charging by putting a T25 or something thereabouts is so popular on 4A-GZE transplants on AE86`s in Japan :)
I'm curious guys. Did you happen to take a fuel mileage reading on each car? eg. supercharged might use less fuel but have have similar power to the turbocharged. And have you considered draining the tank in each car and putting (eg. 5 litres) of petrol in each tank and vs them around a track to see which one runs dry first and at which particular position on the track? Loving every new episode you guys upload (including Unicorn Circuit). Pat on the back to you both. I've been watching your videos since you were modding on driveways!
so far Im loving this series, I have people asking me all the time which is better which leads to a discussion about intended use and how the two technologies work. I havent had a chance to drive both though so Im curious to see the real world results. Keep up the Great work guys.
It would make way more sense as a comparison, since it's a totally different style of compression, whereas a centrifugal supercharger is just, as they've already said in one of the episodes, a belt-driven turbo compressor.
I'm not knocking the comparison as it stands. It's definitely good information for people to have if they're deciding between vortech/procharger/whatever centrifugals you have in Australia, and a turbo. Also, it's Mighty Car Mods and I appreciate what y'all do either way ;)
Cheers fellas, this is really nicely done controlling all other variables. It's really difficult to find unbiased comparisons with roots as one of the main mx-5 forums are all fanboys and another all haters. go figure, it's the internet.
Tuning fork said it himself, the supercharged MX5 is better up to 2800rpm. As a daily driver the supercharged MX5 will feel more responsive than the turbocharged. If you're taking it to the drag strip or race track then yeah, turbocharged wins. Conclusion: different turbos for different applications.
Great video. With the rotrex you could fit a smaller pulley and then either fit a inlet restrictor or wastgate to control the boost but with the smaller pulley the power would come on sooner and then the wastegate would hold it say at 10psi but the boost would come on earlier. I know some people have done this although i would assume the IAT would go up and maybe it would be less efficient but may be worth trying so you could see the difference.
My supercharged buick has full boost right away. Mine is a roots type instead of a centrifugal. I think the different types would change the way boost comes on.
FSXgta You are correct. It's a 3.8 liter. I didn't think of that. I love having a S/C. I think they are better than turbos for daily driving, but I want a turbo in a sports car.
^THIS. Centrifugals fit in less space so they're easier to install, but their impeller allows air to leak back through at low RPM. Roots and twin screw blowers produce fairly flat boost from idle to redline. That's why supercharged diesel trucks never run centrifugal blowers; they need low end boost.
Awesome video! You guys should do a series on twin turbo vs. compound twin turbo! And maybe another episode to this series where you try to get as much power out of each by upgrading the superchargers belt and increasing boost on the turbocharger so you can show their capabilities too instead of just their comparisons when they're evenly tuned.
Really wish it would have been a Roots/Screw type supercharger vs turbo. This was belt driven turbo impeller vs turbo, we all know centrifugal superchargers are for people who are A: cheap. B: lazy. C: stupid. And since you guys are neither of those.......
Ryan Rohauer I actually have to explain that? wow. Ok well here goes. A centrifugal "supercharger" uses the very same compressor impeller as a turbocharger. With a turbocharger, as soon as the boost comes on, this extra boost also generates extra exhaust which helps the turbo spin up to insane speeds very rapidly which is what makes it so efficient. So you are now using that same impeller WITHOUT benefiting from that extra exhaust pressure, you are in fact using a belt to drive it at consistent speeds. So what you have is a less efficient turbocharger with the added disadvantage of a supercharger (resistance robs power, you're giving away power to make more power). A roots or screw type supercharger produces a set amount of air per revolution and so the boost comes on immediately when applying throttle all the way from the bottom of the revs to the top. The supercharger suffers from a lot of parasitic loss the greater the speed you spin it at, which is why they NEVER make the amount of power a turbo or centrifugal makes at the top end. Therefore a roots or screw supercharger is for low to mid rpm street usage and a turbo is for high rpm horsepower and torque. You can go for a small turbo to get the boost real early, but only at the cost of top end. A centrifugal supercharger is nothing but a less efficient turbo. The only reasons you would choose a centrifugal is because. A: Easier to install (lazy/cheap) B: cheaper than turbo or REAL supercharger (Cheap) C: Your other Honda buddies have one and you think it's cool (Dumb). Have a look at engine masters roots vs centrifugal and see the difference, The REAL superchargers are much better for an every day driver.
+hectorae86 What if you go centrifugal so you can use a standard front mount intercooler which inherently makes it much harder to heat soak than roots/screw. And the lower intake Temps make more power. You can also have added power with the predictable powerband of a supercharger but the drivability of NA in lower rpms. You can also run a larger compressor and still fit it under the hood without having a tall blower getting in the way. In addition you also have a simpler system since you don't have to plumb and rout oil lines. Also since you don't make any or much boost at lower rpms then it's easier on the motor. Because boost is harder on the engine at lower rpms because your at top dead center for longer.
what about longevity? I've always been concerned with how long will they last, the use of the hot exhaust to run the turbo must be hard on the seals and bearings. I've never had a turbo but I've had a couple supercharged engines with over 150k miles on them. I've often head of burned up turbos, not so much with superchargers. Clearly I don't expect you to put the Miata's on a track and run them 24/7 until something blows. But maybe you have heard of the stats on how often you need to replace one vs the other.
Ya turbos have a very very hard life, we are talking tens of thousands RPM in normal operation and that just goes up and up. Then the heating which can make one side glow red hot, and several management systems that need to stay on point for the turbo to not get overloaded or overheated. All in all far more complicated to keep them running, that is why there is no one ideal solution.
up to 250.000 rpm, or at least this is what garret braggs. and yes, you heard the tuning fork saying it as well, they run rich to keep them cool. the issue with turbo cars is that the turbo is like multiplying the displacement, while keeping the same area to transfer the heat from the cylinders to the coolant of choice. these days the turbo cars get better fuel economy because as seen on the dyno you don't normally get over 3k rpm, speeds at wich the turbo doesn't even engages. and the fuel energy is used both to move you down the road but also to run the engine. the cylinder head uses an important part of that fuel to open and close the valves. that's why a 4/6 cylinder car is more economical than a v8. if you can make that engine even smaller and only downshift and get on boost when you want to overtake you make a more fuel efficient car. but if the engine is too small and you beat on it and you have to dump fuel to cool the turbo, witch although uses less power to be run than the blower it still uses power from the engine you're going to end up using more fuel than with a na engine suited for your style of driving.
Kirk Nelson consider this... auto manufacturers have quite rarely used SC in their cars. However, virtually even carmaker is reducing engine displacement and putting turbos on to be able to meet emission standards while maintaining performance. If superchargers had any benefit above turbos, they'd be used instead. In my experience longevity has so much more to do with how well an owner takes care of his car than it does the equipment being used. If you maintain your turbocharged or supercharged car, either one can last a very long time. My perspective is this, having a supercharger constantly being driven by the engine only adds to the wear-n-tear on your engine. Since a turbocharger uses the waste gases from the exhaust to drive it, you are utilizing airflow (that would typically have simply been dump out of the exhaust) to create more airflow and thereby more power, while letting the engine operate as naturally as possible when being driven in regular day in and day out driving. There's going to be more heat from both forms of forced induction, but the turbo will put less strain on the engine with far less frequency than a supercharger will.
Yan, you can't bring that comparison, auto manufacturers care about one thing, market sales and usually look for a well rounded result, rather than a performance-focused view. If you are a manufacturer, like let's say ariel atom, you are looking to bring f1 experience to real world, quick acceleration, fast response and more stability, your choice would be always sc over turbo (unless you go twin/hybrid solution, which can be ridiculously expensive) for performance, whether straights or tracks, SC wins, for everything else, like a long run, efficiency etc, turbo wins
the cfm comment is a good one. The lesson to me is modern controls proving a cylinders value is the same regardless of rpm. We make it faster for exponential gains by speed. Also in australia was a 1.8 liter subaru in 1986 that peaked at 192hp. Subaru is the grandpa for real.
Why did you mess with the other variables like boost. If a turbo makes more boost that's just another advantage of the turbo (facts before fealings). Also why did you by the most useless style of supercharger not doing us supercharger guys any favorers positive displacement is were it's at.
dangusprime Actually our local builder Golja mechanics did a custom built combocharged 2.0 litre W16 engine, putting out 800HP. I was... "present" in the test run, and I tried to puke, but the acceleration shoved the vomit back down into my stomach!
Incredible detail in explaining everything. In a way everyone is able to understand and enjoy. Very, very insteresting as usual. Not too technical, not too much comedy. Exact proportion if you ask me! Like.. .. Oh! btw, the cars look awesome, though I am always pending to supercharging or all motor, maybe because in Portugal, there are more corners than straigths and so it is better to have the best possible response instead of huge amount/surge of power where we don't need it. But...excelent, both of them.
Belt slip is a well-known problem when going to higher boost pressure on superchargers. You could go to toothed belts. They also make a great sound ^_^. Other solutions include using guidance rollers to have more contact surface on the supercharger pulley.
![Turbocharged Vs Supercharged - Part 4 [Skid Pan Battle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w359Y9c25dc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Turbocharged Vs Supercharged - Part 4 [Skid Pan Battle]](/img/tr.png)
![GT-R Powered 240Z [Dyno Disaster]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/844PvOyhv0g/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Damn, guess ill be sitting on the toilet for 27 mins and 29 seconds now......
Holding that phone, watching MCM!
Bynum Lynch exactly 27:29?
In the bathroom the whole time? You REALLY like this show huh?
Alot of People like this show, i mean their uploads sometimes interfere with sleep, study for tests, work, toilet, and even business meetings(if my boss is reading this im sorry) but yea
same here lol
I haven't watched the whole video yet, but I think the red one has an unfair advantage because it has at least 15 hp worth of stickers on it.
HighFructoseFun its also red so....its like what an extra 40hp at least
Ahahaha these comments
sneaky bastards did anyone check the brake calipers?!?!
Yeah but the other one was BLAAAAACK!!
BLACK CARS MATTER
I like how you had the kW/hp conversion on screen. I don't know kW so it was really helpful.
Not a fair comparison. The red MX5 has more stickers than the black one and everyone knows each sticker on a car gives at least 5bhp.
Those are more jdm’s
Bruh it's not bhp it's kw like get your facts we're Australians we use the best measurement system
@@PatDavis-qg5no
But bhp and kw arent the same thing
@@skyfox585 I f*cking know I'm not a potato, what I'm saying is don't come talking Yankee ponys in an Australian show. Australia has the best measurement system
@@PatDavis-qg5no
I understand horsepower better than I understand kw and I'm aussie. Most of the car culture comes from places that measure in hp so it's just more familiar to people.
But when will we see a twin charged MX-5?
I have a cool idea guys, on the drag strip or street you should accelerate and then let off the gas at the same time, then punch it again. See if the supercharger beats the turbo since the turbo will dump all its boost and supercharger wont. Might beat in a race that way and would be a cool way to show turbo lag in normal day to day driving.
that is a pretty cool idea, i'd like to see that
Yeah they should do pulls at the same speed but right before decelerate
Thats a great idea but for the red mx5 boost turns on at 2800! thats like hardly any lag. Its so easy to get up to 2800 it would still be barely noticeable like they mentioned already.
If you look at a proper setup, the turbo will hold most of that boost pressure for throttle on, so it would be really interesting!
+Jarom Pollister Turbo lag is not about the revs where the turbo kicks in. If you lift off the throttle on 5000 rpm, wait 5 sec, then the turbo will stop spinning. Then once you press the accelerator, the turbo will need some time to build the pressure
tuning fork just seems like the nicest, smartest and best explanation type fella. top bloke
One of the most informational videos you guys have made. No matter how much I know on this topic already, it is very nice to see some "controlled science" and testing. Well done.
Great video!!
The one elephant in the room is the different types of superchargers. The centrifugal supercharger that was used brings boost linearly and slowly. However, the root style superchargers create boost much faster.
I know it is a ridiculous ask, but a comparison of a turbo car vs a twin-screw supercharger would be a much more ideal and educational comparison. I would imagine the twin-screw would be dominant from idle until the turbo hits (about 2500 RPM), they would then be decently matched in the middle of the RPM band, and the turbo would then make the higher numbers as the supercharger would fall off several 1000 RPM before red-line.
Best solution for maximum simultaneous bottom and top end performance is a torque-filled (with an electric motor) turbo engine. How much are McLaren P1s going for nowadays?
Agreed. This was kinda disappointing for the pick. Lobe-type or twin-screws would've been far more interesting.
Nerd
2:10 I love when he appears in your videos.
I've said it before and pretty much everyone agreed (surprising), but Scott is such a smart guy when it comes to tuning cars.
I love when he starts to explain things.
It's fascinating how smart he is.
He can tune a car perfectly from what I hear.
I would like to see a positive displacement supercharger (roots, screw etc) tested too.
all the boost all the time!
Would have made a better comparison, especially on driveability
*Calls boss, yeah il be a bit late for work thismorning*
Mattalot it's 7pm were im at lol
Yall talking bout going to work.... I just got home from work lmao
Just gone midnight in London
Sean Beasant still 7:46 in Ontario
Tickles the gentleman's area.
I feel like centrifugal SC is basically where you take the best features from a roots SC and a turbo and throw it in the trash then are left with everything bad from each one.
cody roland Pretty much. Really the worst of both worlds. The lag of the turbo without the hard hit and high top end.
and you get one thing that none of the others has, reliability.
not sure how you get that a Centri is more reliable then the others, especially a roots or screw. the most dangerous thing about forced induction is going lean, which isn't caused by the unit itself.
because a centrifugal creates much less heat then any of the others, has a simpler design and requires less maintenance than any other option. thats where the reliability comes from.
Pretty much, the one benefit is ease on installation... pretty much bolt, bolt, bolt... done...
This is probably one of the best explanations of what a supercharger and a turbocharger is and what the difference between them is. Cheers guys!
hey Marty and Moog don't forget that you have a centrifugal supercharger. There is also a roots type and a screw type which make boost way earlier than the centrifugal type. I can't wait to see what happens in your next video. Let's see all of the unicorns haha
A roots style supercharger in most cases will make TONS more power at low RPM then a turbo can. Zero lag with roots style supercharger. They used a centrifugal supercharger, which builds boost with RPM..
if it was a twinscrew supercharger it would be on full boost before the turbo, even a rotor supercharger still be quicker. You chose a centrifugal type which is the issue on late boost
Russell Taylor they did that because centrifugal is what the DIY guy with limited ability can do himself because they literally bolt straight on, personally I would rather have a supercharged car if I were to swap a naturally aspirated engine, but factory would prefer a turbo car, at my current skill level at least
Christian Robar so is any positive displacement
Literally just taking off part of the intake and bolting on a supercharger and putting on the throttle body
Admittedly I haven't done it, but something like a sprintex twin screw supercharger doesn't look any more difficult to fit.
No, I suspect they did this because they found a miata that was already supercharged and another NA one and decided to buy both and turbo the other one. there are a large number of DIY bolt-on positive displacement supercharger kits on the market, a belt driven turbo is terrible for low end power which is where what most actual car guys call superchargers (positive displacement blowers) actually beat turbos.
Skwisgar2322 did you watch the previous videos...
back in time... don't buy diff's off of ebay...
We lol'd
Kobe Wild haha good point
Mighty Car Mods
Kobe Wild if you do buy by from local salers their usually a wholesaler
Guys, i realize you are not deep in the weeds car guys like Mechanical Stig and others, but you could have at least mentioned positive displacement superchargers. I don't think you have said this yet, but from what I am seeing I assume you went with that S/C because you found a Miata already equipped with one, fair enough, but if you have it in the budget at all, maybe do a follow up swapping the centrifugal for a roots or twin screw S/C?
Very important point that Tuning Fork made about the tests being done at WOT.
I just fitted a supercharger to my hairdryer -- I'm now bald. :((
Never a dull moment on this show. Keep up the good work boys!
It's 1am where I live, I have to get up to work early tomorrow, but come on, new MCM episode is more important and sleep is for the weak!
The "Hose" box should be called "Different Area Codes". So when someone asks "Where's the hose?", You can say in "Different Area Codes."
Yes
mcmtv2
mcmtv2 hello boys, could you not fit both a turbo and a supercharger to the same car? That would be an episode I'd love to see!
Benjamin Trevis Twincharging is complicated... but epicly maaaaad!
My wife has a twin charged Golf. It is amazing how hard it goes for a 1.4. 240 Nm of torque 1700-5100 rpm! It's also cool to hear the supercharger whine followed by the turbo whistle!
I am so glad you guys did this. I had my mind set on a turbo and I am convinced now that it is worth the extra work for plumbing and heat management. The power output and boost are just a no brainer and the numbers speak for themselves. Beside, I think a turbo can handle more and is tougher than a super charger. Less complicated parts really. And no extra belt for a turbo.
This is awesome. So technical.
I'm not sure if anybody else is wondering about this, but the particular supercharger that was chosen is a centrifugal supercharger. I suspect this is because that is what is available in an easily installed kit form for that particular car. A centrifugal supercharger produces boost that increases as the RPM of the engine increases as we saw so clearly in the graphs at the end of the tests, but a positive displacement supercharger (like an Eaton or a Roots) are more able to get full (or at least mostly full) boost even at lower RPMs. I suspect that would mean that its torque and power curves would more closely parallel the ones produced by the turbocharger. I don't know if there is a supercharger kit of that type available for the MX5s of that vintage, however.
We used what we had available at the time, but we'd definitely be open to trying a different kind of supercharger if one pops up
That's correct a centrifugal supercharger isn't air tight but the Roots style is so it ends up forcing more air into the engine. A fan can only blow so hard before air comes back out of it but screws can turn together and force the air in without coming back out. It's still a linear power curve unlike a turbo but the instant throttle response and huge low rpm torque make it take off really fast and easily burn rubber. www.superchargersonline.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=7
Try get ya hands on one, would be an interesting comparison.
Mighty Car Mods
I support your effort. You did shine a needed light into a poorly lit corner. And kudos to you for that. I am only pointing out that it's important to note that there are a few different kinds of superchargers and their modes of operation and their characteristics differ greatly. Thanks for the great videos (I'm subscribed and love the channel, by the way) and I look forward to seeing how the rest of this series goes. I'm especially interested in seeing how the two MX5s compare in real world driving, both around town and out in the more open roads that I am sure must be lurking out beyond the city limits. I'm sure others are, too. Keep up the good work, fellas. I'll keep watching.
sirgallium It is more accurate to say that the pressure ratio of a centrifugal compressor is a function of how fast it's spinning whereas for a positive displacement compressor the pressure ratio is fixed. If you had a variable speed drive on the centrifugal you could approximately replicate the performance of a roots or screw type blower.
Guys I'd love to see a roots or twin screw supercharger comparison. Just to see how completely different the curve would be. The typical throttle response and low power isn't really associated with centrifugal supercharging. But still great episode
ok now you guys should do a twincharged build :D
Zach Ogdahl
yep. this.
Twincharging is ideal but expensive and with today's turbo technology not really needed. An Borg-Warner EFR 6258 spolls quickly (full boost by about 2800 rpm on 2.0L DI engine) and pushes out enough air for 450hp, assuming you fix the air going in and going out bottle necks. Garrett GTX2867 same thing, almost Disco Potato like spool but again 450 hp vs the GTX2860RS which is the new 400hp version of the disco potato that make 400 hp where the original DP struggled to make much more than 380 hp maxed out. Same spool better design. Great street turbo vs supercharging; on a MX-5 it will run 11's at 400 hp.
1JZ enigne!
twincharged miata
James Snowden
because why not. I've seen builds that benefited. Just the right parts and tuning.
these guys have a great channel, ive been watching for years now and they make me maintain my enthusiasm for cars. meeting these guys is on my bucket list, top 3.
Welcome to MCM, NOT brought to you by Just Car Insurance?
Thank Scotty or whom ever let us see kw/ hp on the dyno!!!
Oh, no, it's totally fine, upload now, I don't have any schoolwork to be focusing on. That stuff isn't important in college anyway, right? (Sarcasm)
David Sawyer I feel you exactly
This >>> My 5 page Film paper due Friday
In aus its morning lol
5 pages? Don't take this the wrong way, but from my perspective, that is not much. Then again, I am not a product of American schooling, plus that was almost 10 years ago.
Neo VeNoM oh no it's super easy but when it's about the study of film it's more difficult, for me at least.
tuning fork is way too big for that car
Don't you like big things? LOL.
THANK YOU for the kw/hp conversion! Because in previous episodes I had to pause, open new tab, and calculate the kw to hp :P
Thanks for the Kilowatt to horsepower conversion! Saved me having to bring out the calculator. Enjoyed the vid! You guys simply hit it out of the park every time.
Guys are gonna have to revisit this with a Roots/screw supercharger now haha
Being a dyno tuner must be one stressful job
ayeee where my USA mates at
ShadowedSoundsRecords titties?
Registering to vote Kappa
Here!
ShadowedSoundsRecords fuck trump
i'm here
On the track circuit, not drag strip, supercharger delivers power that is easier to control mid corner when you need that fine control through power transition. On the drag strip turbos are king. Great vid guys , loved it!
Thank you guys, i learned more from you about the turbocharged & supercharged. Still waiting for the end of this series.
guys. you should get into diesel tuning, I know cringe. You can do a mad staged twin turbo diesel drifter or something.
if anything I want to see turbo yoda and mechanical stig's impression on the project
Meusana
Yeah, a diesel car would be cool. It would be neat to see, because I'd imagine diesel isn't their skillset.
diesel is cancer in anything but a truck lol
Meusana Haha oldschool Volvo 244 diesel with bigass turbo ^^
Already been done. I have a few vids of a twin turbo Powerstroke Skyline & 4BT Cummins Miata
8:07 Tuning Fork is a giant human being 😂😂😂😂😂😂
He doesn't fit an MX 5 thats for sure. lol
"The *absolute* size of Tuning Fork".
I'm amazed how much gains you achieved on those little cars just by slapping a bit of forced induction on them...doubled the wheel power on stock internals, crazy!
Honestly not what I expected but I'm glad to hear it. I love turbo cars.
Mighty car mods, first started my obsession with cars now i am an aspiring youtuber I try to upload regularly
CarlosN3 hey mate its been a year and how much progress have you made
CarlosN3 I'll give ya a sub
1/4 mile drag race coming up?
fuck hes taller then the tallest building in the world
He can wear MX-5s like roller skates!
Moog is pretty short
Great episode guys, you're the best channel on TH-cam. Thanks
i love the feel of a turbocharged car. foot down and wait a sec to hear and feel the spool up. i just like the feel of a turbo car
this why I love MCM, for the goats
Would be nice if you could log the transient response in a few different rpms. That is, drive at for example 5krpm, get off throttle then full throttle. Then measure how long time it takes for the respective engine to give its full power (full boost) at that rpm. That way we can see the real difference between these two. The supercharged will have almost instant full power ( at the rpm), while the turbo will lag (less the higher up the rpms). Your dyno graph doesn´t really show this.
We'll do this with some roll on drag runs
bingoberra18 a good turbo tune can build more boost faster than a supercharger. my truck makes over 30lbs in just a second or two.. from any rpm.
***** A good turbo engine can build boost quickly in higher rpms, but it doesnt make sense that it would be faster than a supercharger that is already spinning at its desired rpm, all you need to do is open the throttle and let it push the boost inside the engine. And a second or two is very bad transient response.
Mighty Car Mods Awesome!
bingoberra18 that's a second or two for 30+ pounds. I make boost almost instantly. Basically, as the vid shows, I can make 30lbs of boost at 2k rpm, where as if any supercharger can do that I'd be amazed. At higher rpm which would be the only benefit to a supercharger, I can make boost much faster.
Why not use a roots blower, instead of a centrifugal? Roots would be a better comparison.
We may still do this, we need to find one (and another Mx5!)
I think there's a company called "fast forward" that makes an NB miata kit with a roots, most of them are centrifugal, though :(
Please do MCM! It's the third and final possible result!!
Then fourth with Roots & Turbo
eaton m series (gm cars) are cheap where im from if your not afraid of used parts. roots charger on 3.8 liter motor
For most people a turbo is great and the feeling of accelerating torque is undeniably awesome, but that low end throttle linearity is really good for other applications that may not apply to regular driving.
Loved the science Scotty tells us in this episode. Really educational, you believe him because he knows whats hes talking.
You could in perhaps increase cfm density by adding a Cold Water injection/ Induction system for both turbo and supercharged cars this would increase water to air ratios for a denser charge of air.
Adding a air to water Induction system for the the supercharged car would definitely Lean the air to fuel mixture then maybe you wouldn't have add more fuel but in that case adding fuel would really benefit the whole combination.
you mean methanol injection not cold water that makes no sense. it lowers combustion chamber Temps in increasing a little power and promoting safe detonation.
aaron monke, water doe's the same thing the 2016 bwm m4 gts i believe uses a Water injection Induction system via heat exchange cold directly into the intake manifold, You make no sense dumbass Water or alcohol your your choice the noth promote safe donation i should know i made a prototype that does the same thing with perk's like trapping incoming debris in to the water therefore school boi dirt to water and i also have to refill my water container just like BMW's and it stays cold, currently seeking a patent.
wish yall would have done a roots vs turbo it was obvious from the 1st video that the turbo would have won....the roots makes up for the parasitic loss where the centrifugal does not
Great comparison and i had a feeling the turbo would come out ontop for total power. Can't wait to see how they actually drive though
I'm an auto sparky by trade so obviously come across many different pedigree's day by day but interesting to see direct comparisons like this!
As said by others, roll on at speed tests on the dyno would paint a completely different graph for your sciencey graphs (to simulate many...lets say, spirited street sessions, which usually happen rolling on at speed, like 50/60kph, even 80+ for those brave fools on the freeways), be interesting to see the graphing of power and torque vs time and road speed, those extra kw's wouldn't mean much if you end up a car length or more behind before your power came through.
Though i do own a BF XR8 with a vortech centrifugal blower on 8psi (No intercooler, should be noted Centri blowers actually don't heat the air nearly as much as turbos or PD blowers, pretty efficient in that regard, so would be interesting bypass the cooler and see what effect that has on power (down cause its a little warmer? up cause of the shorter intake length?, does it lower the kit total price much?) and had many drives in BA/F + FG Turbos and tbh i love the vortech v8 more, daily driving it gets around exactly like it did without the blower (still gets over 500km per tank!), hit the throttle though and all hell breaks loose, but still the power is clean and delivered linearly, making it a predictable (plus the advantage is the soft delivery is easy on the boss engine when compared to shock loads of turbos or PD blowers on what is a N/A engine often ends up shortening the boss's life considerably)
That said, end of the day a centri blower was probably cheaper, easier to install and made *not much* less power without further tweaks, excellent way to grab some extra power without much hassle, really eager to see how it drives, knowing how my centri reacts i'm thinking the differences won't be all that obvious between the 2 cars on the street and dare i say, the blown one might actually be a little friendlier/perkier to drive as its always got that little bit of extra air waiting at the throttle plate for those little (couple seconds) blips/light-half throttle rev ups off the street light line/out of driveways/etc/etc wheres the turbo could feel a little muddy unless you feed it the exhaust and extra throttle it wants!
ps, sorry for the long post lol
the end was great to see them side by side. it would be good to see them on the track now
Supercharge and turbocharge both, run sequential twin turbos in one and successional twin turbos in the other and keep the supercharger at 10 bars and lets see which type of twin turbo is more beneficial for certain projects.
My question from the very 1st SC vs TC video stands; why did they use a screw/roots charger instead of centrifugal?
Just curious, as my understanding is that centrifugal is basically a lagless turbo that doesn't spin as fast.
didn't*
I doesn't have to spin as fast because it moves more air.
The point is the a positive displacement S/C (roots/screw) is the opposite of a centrifugal with respect to turbos, they make boost at lower RPM.
Yea exactly. As far as I understand, centrifugal chargers have all the disadvantages of SC's, with less of the advantages ie low rpm boost
Mostly because of cost and installation time. The centrifugal charger is small enough to be tucked into the cramped engine bay, works as its own pump for a tiny dedicated cooling\lunication system and runs off the serpentine belt just like an air conditioner compressor or other accessories, a roots is less efficient and loads in pulses, so this approach doesn't really work as you get belt slip. For the Roots you'd need more space, to run a dedicated toothed belt, to plumb into the existing oil system (and often coolant system) and requires far more hours of installation in addition to its higher purchase cost and less universal fitment. A screw is the same but with a little more efficiency and reduction of pulses, but at much higher cost again due to tight machining tolerances and fussy temperature range of operation.
So as much as I'd love to see some positive displacement, this is a comparison of what is common\availble as kits and on a dyno or drag race the turbo is going to do better anyway. Only reason I'd recommend a supercharger outside of engine packing and cost is for events where fine power control makes more difference than more power, like tight autocross tracks or downhill torgue.
Hey guys,I have a question for tuning fork.
Could you get a similar power curve on the supercharger if you ran a higher boost pulley, and limited the boost to 10lbs via a wastegate on the intake?
they covered it in the video, you can do it a bit, but if you try to make the super act like a turbo, you'll overrun it and run into all sorts of issues. Of course you could get a bigger super, but then that's not really comparing apples to apples.
With the old JRSC kits (Jackson Racing) Sport Compact Car was able to swap the 45 series blower for a 90 series blower with minor changes and easily got up to 280 hp around the same boost that maxed out the 45. The supercharger on the black car is a Rotex which is sort of like a belt driven turbo. They can't get the multiplication needed to have the supercharger spin faster sooner. That is the specialty of a Roots type system or even better a Screw type, both no longer available for the Miata/MX-5 (Jackson Racing or Kenne-Belle) The Kenne-Bell especially made the MX-5 a rocket, out of the box the kit made 250 hp, but could easily be cranked up to 300+ hp with a pulley change and it was intercooled as well, no extra heat generated.
Anthony Thomas Comments like " hey, look at my dick!" get 200 likes, and masterpieces like this ^ one 2. Not maaad.
JustKyzuuh they sort of explained that in the video. They said running a supercharger at a higher boost pressure with a smaller pulley would start to become inefficient and you're spinning the charger faster creating more heat and it will take more engine power to spin it faster. You could use a larger supercharger and then do that idea limiting it to 10 or so yes
That and the SC12-14 SC`s on 4A-GZE`s being even shittier for this application is why twin charging by putting a T25 or something thereabouts is so popular on 4A-GZE transplants on AE86`s in Japan :)
I'm curious guys. Did you happen to take a fuel mileage reading on each car? eg. supercharged might use less fuel but have have similar power to the turbocharged. And have you considered draining the tank in each car and putting (eg. 5 litres) of petrol in each tank and vs them around a track to see which one runs dry first and at which particular position on the track?
Loving every new episode you guys upload (including Unicorn Circuit). Pat on the back to you both. I've been watching your videos since you were modding on driveways!
so far Im loving this series, I have people asking me all the time which is better which leads to a discussion about intended use and how the two technologies work. I havent had a chance to drive both though so Im curious to see the real world results. Keep up the Great work guys.
This is one of the best comparisons I've ever seen. Great job guys!
Elephant in the room: where is the roots charger for comparison? Would love to see that too.
It would make way more sense as a comparison, since it's a totally different style of compression, whereas a centrifugal supercharger is just, as they've already said in one of the episodes, a belt-driven turbo compressor.
We'll try and do this one day, we worked with that we had.
I'm not knocking the comparison as it stands. It's definitely good information for people to have if they're deciding between vortech/procharger/whatever centrifugals you have in Australia, and a turbo.
Also, it's Mighty Car Mods and I appreciate what y'all do either way ;)
Cheers fellas, this is really nicely done controlling all other variables. It's really difficult to find unbiased comparisons with roots as one of the main mx-5 forums are all fanboys and another all haters. go figure, it's the internet.
Nitrous please
Notification squad... MAAAAAAAD!
Tuning fork said it himself, the supercharged MX5 is better up to 2800rpm. As a daily driver the supercharged MX5 will feel more responsive than the turbocharged. If you're taking it to the drag strip or race track then yeah, turbocharged wins. Conclusion: different turbos for different applications.
By an insignificant amount
Great video.
With the rotrex you could fit a smaller pulley and then either fit a inlet restrictor or wastgate to control the boost but with the smaller pulley the power would come on sooner and then the wastegate would hold it say at 10psi but the boost would come on earlier.
I know some people have done this although i would assume the IAT would go up and maybe it would be less efficient but may be worth trying so you could see the difference.
Really interesting dudes. Love the way Tuning Fork explained it all. 10/10
My supercharged buick has full boost right away. Mine is a roots type instead of a centrifugal. I think the different types would change the way boost comes on.
David S your buick probably has a bigger engine and it helps alot. Superchargers need some power to be driven
FSXgta You are correct. It's a 3.8 liter. I didn't think of that. I love having a S/C. I think they are better than turbos for daily driving, but I want a turbo in a sports car.
Yes screw/roots type superchargers would have been much more competitive against a turbo.
David S Does your Buick have a Series 2 or 3 3800 motor? I have a Series 3 in my Pontiac (L32)
IrishTopher I have the Series 2 L67. It's one of my favorite engines. All that is done is a ZZP 1.0 tune.
Red cars are faster than black ones so your test is biased.
that's not a logical or realistic statement is it
do you have to consciously think about how to breathe?
id buy a super charger all day smoother power and feels better to control
except to get max boost you have to be redlining your engine all day. Not efficient and highly detrimental to engine lifespans
then get a twinscrew or roots type supercharger instead of centrifugal they installed on the red miata
^THIS. Centrifugals fit in less space so they're easier to install, but their impeller allows air to leak back through at low RPM. Roots and twin screw blowers produce fairly flat boost from idle to redline. That's why supercharged diesel trucks never run centrifugal blowers; they need low end boost.
"Max boost." Also known as "Missing the point."
Love this episode! Interesting to see the difference between the two setups. Love the science behind it all. Can't wait for the driving episode. :D
I'm so glad their doing this, I just bought an 1.8L NA Miata. Lucky me.
"Gaytime"?? IS ICE CREAM???
Gaytime is the name of an ice cream in Australia, yep true!
The most FABULOUS ice cream in the world Darling.
made by streets
its a delicacy over here in Australia. so its a flavor of ice cream with chocolate coating with cashew (i think it is) chucks
also has caramel hence the word "Golden"
Is Moog tiny or is Tuning Fork massive?
mk14dr tuning fork is huge.. check Haltech Heroes and the Haltech TH-cam channel..
Notification Squad! : ))))))))
Awesome test. Ive been fortunate enough to own both supercharged and turbo charged and my personal preferance is the turbo charged!
Awesome video! You guys should do a series on twin turbo vs. compound twin turbo! And maybe another episode to this series where you try to get as much power out of each by upgrading the superchargers belt and increasing boost on the turbocharger so you can show their capabilities too instead of just their comparisons when they're evenly tuned.
Really wish it would have been a Roots/Screw type supercharger vs turbo.
This was belt driven turbo impeller vs turbo, we all know centrifugal superchargers are for people who are
A: cheap.
B: lazy.
C: stupid.
And since you guys are neither of those.......
hectorae86 why would having a centrifugal supercharger be cheap and or stupid???? you sound pretty ignorant
Ryan Rohauer I actually have to explain that? wow.
Ok well here goes.
A centrifugal "supercharger" uses the very same compressor impeller as a turbocharger.
With a turbocharger, as soon as the boost comes on, this extra boost also generates extra exhaust which helps the turbo spin up to insane speeds very rapidly which is what makes it so efficient.
So you are now using that same impeller WITHOUT benefiting from that extra exhaust pressure, you are in fact using a belt to drive it at consistent speeds.
So what you have is a less efficient turbocharger with the added disadvantage of a supercharger (resistance robs power, you're giving away power to make more power).
A roots or screw type supercharger produces a set amount of air per revolution and so the boost comes on immediately when applying throttle all the way from the bottom of the revs to the top.
The supercharger suffers from a lot of parasitic loss the greater the speed you spin it at, which is why they NEVER make the amount of power a turbo or centrifugal makes at the top end.
Therefore a roots or screw supercharger is for low to mid rpm street usage and a turbo is for high rpm horsepower and torque.
You can go for a small turbo to get the boost real early, but only at the cost of top end.
A centrifugal supercharger is nothing but a less efficient turbo.
The only reasons you would choose a centrifugal is because.
A: Easier to install (lazy/cheap)
B: cheaper than turbo or REAL supercharger (Cheap)
C: Your other Honda buddies have one and you think it's cool (Dumb).
Have a look at engine masters roots vs centrifugal and see the difference,
The REAL superchargers are much better for an every day driver.
Schooled him
+hectorae86 What if you go centrifugal so you can use a standard front mount intercooler which inherently makes it much harder to heat soak than roots/screw. And the lower intake Temps make more power.
You can also have added power with the predictable powerband of a supercharger but the drivability of NA in lower rpms.
You can also run a larger compressor and still fit it under the hood without having a tall blower getting in the way.
In addition you also have a simpler system since you don't have to plumb and rout oil lines.
Also since you don't make any or much boost at lower rpms then it's easier on the motor. Because boost is harder on the engine at lower rpms because your at top dead center for longer.
Or you could just not waste time with shitty superchargers and go turbo and enjoy ambient intake temps with an air to air intercooler under power.
what about longevity? I've always been concerned with how long will they last, the use of the hot exhaust to run the turbo must be hard on the seals and bearings. I've never had a turbo but I've had a couple supercharged engines with over 150k miles on them. I've often head of burned up turbos, not so much with superchargers. Clearly I don't expect you to put the Miata's on a track and run them 24/7 until something blows. But maybe you have heard of the stats on how often you need to replace one vs the other.
Ya turbos have a very very hard life, we are talking tens of thousands RPM in normal operation and that just goes up and up. Then the heating which can make one side glow red hot, and several management systems that need to stay on point for the turbo to not get overloaded or overheated.
All in all far more complicated to keep them running, that is why there is no one ideal solution.
up to 250.000 rpm, or at least this is what garret braggs. and yes, you heard the tuning fork saying it as well, they run rich to keep them cool. the issue with turbo cars is that the turbo is like multiplying the displacement, while keeping the same area to transfer the heat from the cylinders to the coolant of choice. these days the turbo cars get better fuel economy because as seen on the dyno you don't normally get over 3k rpm, speeds at wich the turbo doesn't even engages. and the fuel energy is used both to move you down the road but also to run the engine. the cylinder head uses an important part of that fuel to open and close the valves. that's why a 4/6 cylinder car is more economical than a v8. if you can make that engine even smaller and only downshift and get on boost when you want to overtake you make a more fuel efficient car. but if the engine is too small and you beat on it and you have to dump fuel to cool the turbo, witch although uses less power to be run than the blower it still uses power from the engine you're going to end up using more fuel than with a na engine suited for your style of driving.
Kirk Nelson consider this... auto manufacturers have quite rarely used SC in their cars. However, virtually even carmaker is reducing engine displacement and putting turbos on to be able to meet emission standards while maintaining performance. If superchargers had any benefit above turbos, they'd be used instead.
In my experience longevity has so much more to do with how well an owner takes care of his car than it does the equipment being used. If you maintain your turbocharged or supercharged car, either one can last a very long time. My perspective is this, having a supercharger constantly being driven by the engine only adds to the wear-n-tear on your engine. Since a turbocharger uses the waste gases from the exhaust to drive it, you are utilizing airflow (that would typically have simply been dump out of the exhaust) to create more airflow and thereby more power, while letting the engine operate as naturally as possible when being driven in regular day in and day out driving. There's going to be more heat from both forms of forced induction, but the turbo will put less strain on the engine with far less frequency than a supercharger will.
Yan Flugberg can confirm. i barely use any boost on daily drive. 2l diesel here.
Yan, you can't bring that comparison, auto manufacturers care about one thing, market sales and usually look for a well rounded result, rather than a performance-focused view.
If you are a manufacturer, like let's say ariel atom, you are looking to bring f1 experience to real world, quick acceleration, fast response and more stability, your choice would be always sc over turbo (unless you go twin/hybrid solution, which can be ridiculously expensive)
for performance, whether straights or tracks, SC wins, for everything else, like a long run, efficiency etc, turbo wins
Now lets do a real supercharger (roots) vs turbo
You guys are very entertaining and at the same time educational keep up the good work
Great info with great results! Awesome job! , this is by far one of my favorite shows today.
the turbo one already won, turn the boost up more than 10lbs pleasee
Matthew Heal tie the waist gate shut and put the correct pullies on the supercharger
You are Aussies. It's not a Miata it's an MX5. You're not Yanks lol.
emokiddy666 I'm just being a troll 😂
Patrick Allison its a miata mate get it right
Patrick Allison im a "YANK" and I call them mx5s.
wilkorojer cw M. X. 5. Only dumb yanks needed it to be called something different to the rest of the world.
Lucky they didn't call it a Eunos Roadster, half the people on here would be wtf :D
Moog can't pronounce "interpreting"
interpolating
hehe!
the cfm comment is a good one. The lesson to me is modern controls proving a cylinders value is the same regardless of rpm. We make it faster for exponential gains by speed. Also in australia was a 1.8 liter subaru in 1986 that peaked at 192hp. Subaru is the grandpa for real.
I think its safe to say we all want a challenge video! Drag race, track day, daily test, auto x!
Ls swap it, instant supercharger.
Ryan Barbolt not every ls is supercharged..
O No, I meant a naturally aspirated ls, 300 ft lbs off idle, 300 hp at the tires, doubles either of these setups.
Breaking news, bigger engine shoehorned into a car makes more power than the smaller one it comes with
Ryan Barbolt Tom's Turbo Garage already done it so kinda pointless
It's also wayyy heavier
Why did you mess with the other variables like boost. If a turbo makes more boost that's just another advantage of the turbo (facts before fealings). Also why did you by the most useless style of supercharger not doing us supercharger guys any favorers positive displacement is were it's at.
Twin-screw S/C kits for MX-5s are a lot harder to get these days than centrifugal.
there's no replacement for displacement
Screw V8, W16 reks all! :P
no one wants your heavy ass quad turbo W16 Buggatti that loses to an R34
dangusprime
Actually our local builder Golja mechanics did a custom built combocharged 2.0 litre W16 engine, putting out 800HP. I was... "present" in the test run, and I tried to puke, but the acceleration shoved the vomit back down into my stomach!
BigBadBeef why the fuck would anyone make a 2.0L w16? That is only .125l/cylinder that is just a waste of space I'm calling bullshit
BigBadBeef I
One of the bes MCM. Love the nerdy bits. Reminds me of a Mythbusters type of episode. Great Job
Thx for posting hp #'s as well as Kw #'s saves me doing the conversion.
Thank you guys for putting the HP on the screen also.
I love that dude from Haltech. Wish he was my teacher back at school. I'd actually pay attention to him . So interesting
Thank you for the consistently great content! Love these long episodes
man, i love tuning fork hes such a source of knowledge
Incredible detail in explaining everything. In a way everyone is able to understand and enjoy. Very, very insteresting as usual. Not too technical, not too much comedy. Exact proportion if you ask me! Like.. .. Oh! btw, the cars look awesome, though I am always pending to supercharging or all motor, maybe because in Portugal, there are more corners than straigths and so it is better to have the best possible response instead of huge amount/surge of power where we don't need it. But...excelent, both of them.
Belt slip is a well-known problem when going to higher boost pressure on superchargers. You could go to toothed belts. They also make a great sound ^_^. Other solutions include using guidance rollers to have more contact surface on the supercharger pulley.