Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
08-31-2005, 04:56 PM
#21
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 365
RE: Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
im going to be runing two of 50 trim Garrett T3 turbochargers. These turbos feature .42 ar compressor housings and .48 turbine housings with internal wastegates and 2.25" swing valve addemblies and should hit full boost at 3000 rpms
08-31-2005, 07:43 PM
#22
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Suwanee, GA
Posts: 2,042
RE: Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
ORIGINAL: link1235jeff
im going to be runing two of 50 trim Garrett T3 turbochargers. These turbos feature .42 ar compressor housings and .48 turbine housings with internal wastegates and 2.25" swing valve addemblies and should hit full boost at 3000 rpms
im going to be runing two of 50 trim Garrett T3 turbochargers. These turbos feature .42 ar compressor housings and .48 turbine housings with internal wastegates and 2.25" swing valve addemblies and should hit full boost at 3000 rpms
08-31-2005, 10:58 PM
#23
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,451
RE: Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
ORIGINAL: matthockey32
should be mean. i favor single turbos, but if done right a twin setup can own all. i want to turbo my car but i can't find the turbo i want, at least not cheap.
should be mean. i favor single turbos, but if done right a twin setup can own all. i want to turbo my car but i can't find the turbo i want, at least not cheap.
09-01-2005, 06:38 AM
#24
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location:
Posts: 17
RE: Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
ORIGINAL: kartracer55
This is true, buta turbo has its fiar share of parisitic loss as well. Turbos run off exhaust gas, and the restriction creates back pressure, and the motor has to work harder to pump the exhuast out of the motor because of the increased ambient pressure, and so your loosing hp there as well.
As far as which is better, it all depends on your aplication... a s/c car will dust a turbod car in a road race because of consistent power, where a turbo may not spool up until 1/2 way out of a turn.
Also, turbos work well for high rpm cars (4, and 6 cylinders) that get up there in the revs, where a s/c will loose efficiency.
Its all about what you are using it for.
Jim
This is true, buta turbo has its fiar share of parisitic loss as well. Turbos run off exhaust gas, and the restriction creates back pressure, and the motor has to work harder to pump the exhuast out of the motor because of the increased ambient pressure, and so your loosing hp there as well.
As far as which is better, it all depends on your aplication... a s/c car will dust a turbod car in a road race because of consistent power, where a turbo may not spool up until 1/2 way out of a turn.
Also, turbos work well for high rpm cars (4, and 6 cylinders) that get up there in the revs, where a s/c will loose efficiency.
Its all about what you are using it for.
Jim
ORIGINAL: Ride Of The Month
right, but the SC has parasitic loss due to being belt driven...so it technically uses some of the power that it makes.
right, but the SC has parasitic loss due to being belt driven...so it technically uses some of the power that it makes.
Don't get me wrong, I love power adders and S/C are a great way to add some HP, but they are not as efficient and powerful as a turbo...it's physics and design. FOXGT- has some great insight on how things work...
09-01-2005, 07:04 AM
#25
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location:
Posts: 17
RE: Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
ORIGINAL: Dan9687
So it sounds then like a S/C would be the better investment if you were going for pure performance correct???
So it sounds then like a S/C would be the better investment if you were going for pure performance correct???
"Run at 11 psi, the turbo kit pumped out 750 hp and 679 lb-ft of torque, bettering all three of the superchargers [Vortech, Kenne Bell and Eaton]....once the tach needle swung past 3,600 rpm, it was all turbo. How does an extra 178 hp and 154 lb-ft. or torque sound? While the turbos were down (to the Eaton) at 2500 rpm, they quickly made up for lost time by eclipsing the Eaton and producing the most impressive post-4,000 rpm power curves of the bunch." - Richard Holdener - MM&FF, December 2004
"Given equivalent vehicles, the turbo would easily motor away from the centrifugal in an acceleration contest......The turbo offered massive midrange torque production, the only system to exceed 600 lb-ft. Need more convincing? At 4,000 rpm, the turbo was more than 100 lb-ft. stronger than either the Roots or centrifugal." - Battle of the Boost, Hotrod Magazine, August 2003
Again...S/C's are great and they do make serious HP, and among their many pro's are ease of install, price, consistent (relatively) performance and all that, but drive a turbo car on the street and i think the FUN factor is unbeatable.
09-05-2005, 05:54 AM
#26
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15
RE: Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
wow alot of not true information has been posted on here. mostly due to what is heard about a turbo because i am sure not too many people know much about them but just from what they hear.
to eliminate lag you correctly map the turbo for the motor,anyone ever see a compressor map?
and when mapping a turbo you want it in its best efficiency and what desired rpms your going for and that will sold the extra heat,a small turbo will create more heat at higher boost levels because it is out of its efficiency. Also sometime lag is a good thing so you don't have full boost of the line spinning the tires the whole way down the track.
wastegates don't make the psshh sound its the bov which was already stated,the wastegate bleeds exhaust gas by the turbine, so the turbine is limited to a certin psi that can be created,theres 2 types internal and external wastegates.
a turbo could prolly outflow a s/c at high rpms.
and for turbos only mainly on 4 and 6 cyclinders is a joke,you can build v8's to run over 7k rpms
theres many methods to reduce charge temps from a turbo,you spary c02 on the intercooler and the air gets cooled big time or there is water/alcohol injection.intercooler piping is not complicated as it sounds. takes some work.
pis vs psi turbo wins
turbo is the way to go imo
not complicated if you actually get into it
theres tons more to cover but i'll stop for tonight
i have two cars that were not turbo and are
a saturn-225whp
a v6 cavalier-300whp
nothing too inpressive
to eliminate lag you correctly map the turbo for the motor,anyone ever see a compressor map?
and when mapping a turbo you want it in its best efficiency and what desired rpms your going for and that will sold the extra heat,a small turbo will create more heat at higher boost levels because it is out of its efficiency. Also sometime lag is a good thing so you don't have full boost of the line spinning the tires the whole way down the track.
wastegates don't make the psshh sound its the bov which was already stated,the wastegate bleeds exhaust gas by the turbine, so the turbine is limited to a certin psi that can be created,theres 2 types internal and external wastegates.
a turbo could prolly outflow a s/c at high rpms.
and for turbos only mainly on 4 and 6 cyclinders is a joke,you can build v8's to run over 7k rpms
theres many methods to reduce charge temps from a turbo,you spary c02 on the intercooler and the air gets cooled big time or there is water/alcohol injection.intercooler piping is not complicated as it sounds. takes some work.
pis vs psi turbo wins
turbo is the way to go imo
not complicated if you actually get into it
theres tons more to cover but i'll stop for tonight
i have two cars that were not turbo and are
a saturn-225whp
a v6 cavalier-300whp
nothing too inpressive
09-05-2005, 02:03 PM
#27
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 3,020
RE: Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
"Run at 11 psi, the turbo kit pumped out 750 hp and 679 lb-ft of torque, bettering all three of the superchargers [Vortech, Kenne Bell and Eaton]....once the tach needle swung past 3,600 rpm, it was all turbo.
09-05-2005, 10:02 PM
#28
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 56
RE: Diffrence between S/C and Turbo?
i'm not trying to take sides but to be fair to turbos, not all the info presented is totally accurate. pros: turbo lag is cut to a minimum with ball bearing turbos. this equals to less lag time for the turbo to spool up. also, 8 psi on a s/c is different from 8 psi on a turbo. it depends on the size of the turbo. turbos also generally put out more hp with less boost. less parasitic loss than a s/c because of the belt.
cons: heat. because turbos are driven by exhaust gases. more complicated install. they require more modification i.e. exhaust system. turbos are more costly than s/c. turbos are better for mid to high rpms. s/c are good for low to mid rpms.
essentially, centrifugal s/c are practically identical to turbos except for the fact that they are belt driven. personally, i'd go with the turbo. there's nothing like seeing a mustang with a fmic or hearing a bov from a v8. head turner. panty wetter.
cons: heat. because turbos are driven by exhaust gases. more complicated install. they require more modification i.e. exhaust system. turbos are more costly than s/c. turbos are better for mid to high rpms. s/c are good for low to mid rpms.
essentially, centrifugal s/c are practically identical to turbos except for the fact that they are belt driven. personally, i'd go with the turbo. there's nothing like seeing a mustang with a fmic or hearing a bov from a v8. head turner. panty wetter.
