Turbocharged, Supercharged or N/A?

What is your preference for engine aspiration?


  • Total voters
    45
Simple question- what do you prefer; Turbo, Supercharger or Normally Aspirated, and if you wish to share your views tell us why!?
 
Turbo, all day, every day.

The sounds, the surge of power as it spins up, the flexibility and control it allows. Such a simple principle but one that can bring unbelievable complexity with it and always keeps me guessing, learning, experimenting.

Most definately my favourite thing is the lag, be it small or large.....learning it's characteristics and how to use them to your maximum benefit. You just cannot beat that sudden, massive punch in the head from a T3/4 going from 0-22psi in 2 seconds of wheel scrabbling, torque steering madness! :D
 

Lynn Larsen

Lynn Larsen
1. NA
2. Turbo
3. Super

I don't see forced induction as cheating, BUT nitrous is bogus. If it isn't there all of the time or whenever I want it, then why bother. Another laughable feature is the push-to-pass in Champ cars; how hokie is that!

Regards,
Lynn
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
Huge/light C/I NA motor. My favorite NA motor is the alum chev's used in the old CANAM cars.

Turbo motors always turn into a engineering problem centered around how much boost it will take. Way too much money involved with 3+ bar 4 banger motors for my taste. Give me a 500 inch NA instead.

I looked hard at a turbo rotary at 400 hp. Cost was at least twice as much as a SBC. The intercooler alone cost as much as the chev's complete intake/carb/fuel system.

Not much real saving in total weight either. All those pipes, turbos, computers and coolers add up.

NA 500hp motor in a 2000 lb car with a lot of grip is always going to be more than I can handle anyway.

By the way I do remember those little 1500 cc 4 banger BMW's that ended the F1 turbo period @ 1500HP+....... Interesting engineering/$$$$$ exercise.

That big ol M8F sounded much better!!! At least to my ears.
 
Last edited:
For a '40' - n/a (although Tony Marsh's twin turbo is very nice too)

For track/fun - forced induction has got to be tried before you dismiss it.

Turbo gives good power and is kinder to transmission.

Supercharged is just loony tunes.... especially the sound - Bjorn's and Nad's Vipers sound downright 'nasty!'......:D
 
Eaton Supercharged. :)

We have a 6th generation supercharger that is referred to as TVS Twin Vortices Series. Read all about it TVS - Eaton.com

This new series gives turbos a serious run for there money up to about 20 psi boost pressures. I would have to disagree with people that call any form of boosting cheating whether it is turbo or Supercharging. It is simply increasing the displacement of your motor. No one says it's cheating when you take a 302 and make a 347, that is also increasing the displacement of your motor.

The nice part about belt driven superchargers over Turbos is the drivability. With turbo cars when you get out of the throttle the boost drops off then when you get back into it takes a second for the boost to come back, then when it comes on it is so radical that you may break the tires loose -VS- belt driven Superchargers you can manage the power better by modulating the throttle since it is crank driven. It is a smoother power which helps to maintain traction.

I'm not too wild about the old GMC type S/C due to it's low Thermal and volumetric efficiency and over all size. Our largest TVS unit the R2300 can support over 1000HP, but is still quite small in size. About the size of the Screw compressor on the Ford GT, but much more effecient!

Bottom line it takes all types to make the world go round.:)
 
I Must say I disagree with forced induction being called 'cheating'.....if thats was the case then any modification designed to get more combustables into the cylinders is cheating such as cams, and thats just absurd.

when you get back into it takes a second for the boost to come back, then when it comes on it is so radical that you may break the tires loose
Exactly ;)

I Guess my idolisation of Turbo's is because my favourite engine is only a miserable 1995cc four pot, without the blower it'd be somewhat boring, although being a speedfreak of sorts I dont think I could own a performance car that didn't feature forced induction....the wasted potential would be unforgivable!
 

Ron Earp

Admin
I'm not too wild about the old GMC type S/C due to it's low Thermal and volumetric efficiency and over all size. Our largest TVS unit the R2300 can support over 1000HP, but is still quite small in size. About the size of the Screw compressor on the Ford GT, but much more effecient!

Bottom line it takes:) all types to make the world go round.
Hey Jim,

What do you have that goes in place of a M112 and is more efficient? my Heaton is doing exactly that at 16psi! Out of sweet spot on the compressor map.

I like positive displacement forced induction. Can't beat it! Something cool about an archaic mechanical compressor driven by a belt.

R

Ron
 
traditionally, you see turbos in road racing and superchargers for drag. The reason was always because superchargers build up heat and lose efficiency. I seem to recall a magazine where they tested a new shelby gt500 in high heat and noticed a loss of power after they were driving for a while. Turbos on the other hand, allow you to fit massive intercoolers and not make this power loss so profound.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
If you are talking GT40 then NA. I dont like turbo lag, which despite what the salesmen tell you still seems to be there.
I have a supercharged Mini Cooper S which is a terrific car and heaps of fun to drive.
For the track, I would always stick with normally aspirated for the sake of simplicity.
 

Randy V

Admin
Lifetime Supporter
I'm not too wild about the old GMC type S/C due to it's low Thermal and volumetric efficiency and over all size.
Yeah - but NOTHING makes a statement better than 1100hp and a big-WHEEZER sticking through the hood! :) rockonsmile rockonsmile rockonsmile :)
 

Sandy

Gulf GT40
Lifetime Supporter
Randy - Except an N/A motor making 1k+ hp :)

N/A that revs
And the song of the Turbo for all the rest including the Diesel

Sandy
 
For me , turbo all the way. They are much more efficient than superchargers as no crank power is needed to drive them and they are also more thermal efficiant and don't heat the compressed air as much.
Much more flexible and your mum can drive one and at a push of a button you have a animal on your hands.
Having said that, they all have their good points, but turbos give you more bang for your buck.
 
Ron,

R1900 would be more than enough to make 840HP, but the R2300 is the bad boy. We (EATON) doesn't sell direct to the general public, you will soon be able to get R1900 and R2300 generic units from our aftermarket
distributors. Not sure exactly how soon. I will keep you posted when they are available.

The old mentality of the typical roots type supercharger as being horribly inefficient will soon be changing. We are working with a number of OEMs with our new TVS supercharger.
You'll see in the next few years quite a few cars world wide with these new TVS units. Take a close look at the compressor maps you will be quite happy with what you see.

Just to comment on the TURBO is free (doesn't use energy) and the belt driven S/C uses HP to make HP.
If a Turbo didn't consume energy to spin it, it would be a potential energy machine:) Nothing is for free. Back pressure causes a loss in power.
 

Randy V

Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Just to comment on the TURBO is free (doesn't use energy) and the belt driven S/C uses HP to make HP.
If a Turbo didn't consume energy to spin it, it would be a potential energy machine:) Nothing is for free. Back pressure causes a loss in power.
B-I-N-G-O ! ! ! !

Also - if Turbochargers were more efficient than superchargers, John Force would have them on his Top-Fuel Funny Car...

There are alot of turbos on drag cars and I remember back in the 80's and early 90s when they experimented with them on Top Fuel cars.. They worked well but at the end of the day it was the Wheezer that won..

Jim - At one point I was thinking of combining something along the line of a CVT with a supercharger to actually vary the percentage of overdrive depending on the signal from the ECU.. Are you guys playing with that yet?
 
Randy,

We do a high internal gear stepup on the VW superturbo, but it is disengaged by a AC clutch as the turbo is coming in at about 3000 RPM I think. When we started this program we didn't have our lastest generation of superchargers developed yet, which would actually take care of the high boost pressures that the turbo is handling.

But we do not have a CVT on any applications.
 
Top