Turbo charging vs. Supercharging [Archive]

View Full Version : Turbo charging vs. Supercharging

GeorgeSSSS

06-15-2005, 05:01 PM

Has anyone owned both a turbo charged H2 and a supercharged one? -- -- or driven one of each? A comparison of the two systems responsiveness and other issues would be worth reading.

George SSSS

GeorgeSSSS

06-15-2005, 05:01 PM

Has anyone owned both a turbo charged H2 and a supercharged one? -- -- or driven one of each? A comparison of the two systems responsiveness and other issues would be worth reading.

George SSSS

Induction Concepts

06-15-2005, 05:53 PM

A comparison between a roots or twin-screw type (Whipple, Kenne Bell, Magnacharger, etc.) supercharger and a turbo version will be very similar in their power and torque curves. They will both make nice torque down low. This type of supercharger will probably make torque just a little bit earlier than the turbo version, but honestly, boost below 2500-3000rpms is not really needed on the street anyway. 2500-3000rpms is about the perfect rpm point for torque to come in.

The main difference will be that these types of superchargers are limited in the maximum amount of power they can make, usually in the 600hp range. We normally deal with the 600-2000hp range, so where they quit, we're just getting started.

That and the fact that all superchargers have parasitic losses, this can range from 75hp to 350+hp depending on how big the supercharger is. What this means is that whether you are in boost or not, you are always burning the gas to turn the supercharger, then, on the other side is the fact that if it wasn't for that parasitic loss, that would be an extra 75 or whatever hp that you could be putting to the ground instead of wasted spinning the supercharger. For instance, on a turbo system that makes 500hp, you will get say 400hp at the tires. On a supercharger system that makes 500hp, you would only put 325 to the tires.

With turbos, you don't have any parasitic losses, so it doesn't cost power to make power, which means better gas mileage as you only burn more gas when you have your foot in it, otherwise it will get the same mileage as stock. Also, all the power the turbos make will go to the tires, none wasted on parasitic losses. There is less strain on the engine with turbos because there is not parasitic losses.

Something else to think about is that superchargers create extra strain on the crankshaft from belt tension. The crankshaft isn't designed for all this extra lateral force from a supercharger belt. Normal accessories (A/C, alternator, power steering, etc.) don't require maximum tension. Supercharger belts have to be very tight to keep from slipping and tossing them off. It also causes pre-mature wear on the front main bearing for this same reason (side loadig the crankshaft snout).

But superchargers are relatively inexpensive and less complex. If you are looking for only a 500hp (or less) solution, then its probably the way to go. If you want more power than that, then turbos are the answer.

Centrifugal superchargers (Paxton, Vortech, ATI/Procharger, etc.) are another animal completely. They don't make maximum power until redline as they are rpm driven, so you have to really push the motor to make power, which is much harder on the engine. They don't make much power down low at all. I wouldn't recommend this type for a street car, a roots or twin-screw is a better choice.

If there was a better way to make power than with turbos, that's what I'd be doing.

Hope this helps.

KenP

06-15-2005, 07:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Induction Concepts:
A comparison between a roots or twin-screw type (Whipple, Kenne Bell, Magnacharger, etc.) supercharger and a turbo version will be very similar in their power and torque curves. They will both make nice torque down low. This type of supercharger will probably make torque just a little bit earlier than the turbo version, but honestly, boost below 2500-3000rpms is not really needed on the street anyway. 2500-3000rpms is about the perfect rpm point for torque to come in.

The main difference will be that these types of superchargers are limited in the maximum amount of power they can make, usually in the 600hp range. We normally deal with the 600-2000hp range, so where they quit, we're just getting started.

That and the fact that all superchargers have parasitic losses, this can range from 75hp to 350+hp depending on how big the supercharger is. What this means is that whether you are in boost or not, you are always burning the gas to turn the supercharger, then, on the other side is the fact that if it wasn't for that parasitic loss, that would be an extra 75 or whatever hp that you could be putting to the ground instead of wasted spinning the supercharger. For instance, on a turbo system that makes 500hp, you will get say 400hp at the tires. On a supercharger system that makes 500hp, you would only put 325 to the tires.

With turbos, you don't have any parasitic losses, so it doesn't cost power to make power, which means better gas mileage as you only burn more gas when you have your foot in it, otherwise it will get the same mileage as stock. Also, all the power the turbos make will go to the tires, none wasted on parasitic losses. There is less strain on the engine with turbos because there is not parasitic losses.

Something else to think about is that superchargers create extra strain on the crankshaft from belt tension. The crankshaft isn't designed for all this extra lateral force from a supercharger belt. Normal accessories (A/C, alternator, power steering, etc.) don't require maximum tension. Supercharger belts have to be very tight to keep from slipping and tossing them off. It also causes pre-mature wear on the front main bearing for this same reason (side loadig the crankshaft snout).

But superchargers are relatively inexpensive and less complex. If you are looking for only a 500hp (or less) solution, then its probably the way to go. If you want more power than that, then turbos are the answer.

Centrifugal superchargers (Paxton, Vortech, ATI/Procharger, etc.) are another animal completely. They don't make maximum power until redline as they are rpm driven, so you have to really push the motor to make power, which is much harder on the engine. They don't make much power down low at all. I wouldn't recommend this type for a street car, a roots or twin-screw is a better choice.

If there was a better way to make power than with turbos, that's what I'd be doing.

Hope this helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think it's clear from a prior thread that I, and others, have issues with Induction Concepts.
http://elcova.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/6706011751/m/802104...741045701#5741045701 (http://elcova.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/6706011751/m/8021045701/r/5741045701#5741045701)

With that said, I also want to point out that his post above is pretty darn accurate. One of these days, when I get a new H2, I will probably go with a TT set up.

George, cost is a big issue. The SC can be purchased, installed and warranted by your dealer for under 6k in many instances. I have not seen any single turbo setup for that price WITH a warranty.

Induction Concepts

06-15-2005, 08:32 PM

What exact issues did you actually have Ken?

I mean besides the fact that I've always been a car guy and built personal cars before I ever started this company?

That thread still amazes me to this day because I had never been flamed online...simply because I have never done anything to be flamed for (still haven't). I asked the owners permission here, before I ever made that post which is a lot more than most will do.

PARAGON

06-15-2005, 09:12 PM

KenP

06-15-2005, 09:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Induction Concepts:
What exact issues did you actually have Ken?

I mean besides the fact that I've always been a car guy and built personal cars before I ever started this company?

That thread still amazes me to this day because I had never been flamed online...simply because I have never done anything to be flamed for (still haven't). I asked the owners permission here, before I ever made that post which is a lot more than most will do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>From your original post dated 2/22/05:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hello, my name is Rad Craig and I own Induction Concepts. If this post is not allwed, I apologize. Let me know and I'll remove it. I'm not selling anything, just looking for some info/feedback.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe you did ask permission. Only Jason would know for sure, but why make the prior statement if you did?

My issues, and other's, are clearly stated in the quoted thread above. Just read it again and I'm sure your memory will come back.

Fastest H-Town Realtor

06-15-2005, 11:22 PM

Ok..I give up...wtf is so important about IC's previous thread? The info given here is accutare and informative. Unlike the two given by you here Ken. I re-read Georges original post and I see nothing about "Anyone have infomation on IC's last post".

FWIW, i would like to add a little to IC's explanation. Whereas the s/c kits are usually a turn key op using a "fixed size" system, a turbo has to be evaluated by the design, efficiency and reguard the turbo placement/size/boost map/intercooler/routing. Although the jury is still out on the rear placed turbo kits, a well designed kit will be more beneficial than the roots/centrifical/lycolm/ supercharger kit.

Either way, avoid at all costs any non-intercooled kit. And in my opinion the boxed tune sent with any kit should be the "Drive to the tuners shop" tune. Have your local hi-po tuner redo the tune on a dyno with a wideband o2 sensor for a/f ratio monitoring and adjustment.

Having worked on and driven both types of induction in like type vehicles (not H2) I believe that a turbo kit is the way to go and where im putting my cash. But, we are not talking about any major difference in performance because the 6.0L engine can only take so much boost/HP before the block becomes a sieve.

***NEWSFLASH** Some one posted 2 Whipples for sale at a kick ass price. This alone could turn the deciding factor to the blower kits.

PARAGON

06-16-2005, 12:37 AM

Fastest H-Town Realtor

06-16-2005, 02:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Read the thread instead of being a dick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read the entire thread...so,again...wtf does it have to do with the info given here and now? The info is accurate and relevant to the questions asked. Is this going to be a pattern for the next however many years?

"Your info is irrelevant because of that post back from 2004".

As far as me being a dick, you can kiss my ass till you grow a dick. Dont like my post? Dont read em..

KenP

06-16-2005, 02:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fastest H-Town Realtor :
Ok..I give up...wtf is so important about IC's previous thread? The info given here is accutare and informative. Unlike the two given by you here Ken. I re-read Georges original post and I see nothing about "Anyone have infomation on IC's last post". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You must not read very well or you have ADD because you didn't get through it. Read the previous thread, numb-nuts, and you'll realize this guy is a "car-guy". Many "car-guys" say they can build, so what. Hell, I'm a "car-guy". Give me some cash and I'll make you go fast. http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Actually, take the time to READ the links I provided in the thread and you'll gleen more info. This "car-guy", engine mod master - no "not a builder because I can't figure out compression", asked elementary questions for a person accepting thousands of dollars to mod an engine. READ the links I provided.

Dude, all you have to do is read the links. I saved you so much research time by providing quotes.

You also questioned my last two posts as not being accurate and informative. Well a$$ hole, you're wrong and need your meds to keep up. I posted the following:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> With that said, I also want to point out that his post above is pretty darn accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that wrong? Because, if so, his statement is false! do you understand that?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> George, cost is a big issue. The SC can be purchased, installed and warranted by your dealer for under 6k in many instances. I have not seen any single turbo setup for that price WITH a warranty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, we all know that's correct. Surely you don't want to try and disprove that. Do you big boy? Well...

On to my second post in this thread I quoted RC as saying:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I asked the owners permission here, before I ever made that post which is a lot more than most will do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then I pointed out he actually said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hello, my name is Rad Craig and I own Induction Concepts. If this post is not allwed, I apologize. Let me know and I'll remove it. I'm not selling anything, just looking for some info/feedback. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not quite the same is it?

By posting the prior link and quickly moving on, even offering a compliment, I tried to save him some embarrassment. You prolonged it. Be proud of yourself. I'm sure he is. Now many of us are going to be watching for his posts and responding with quotes from his elementary questions on the LS1 forums and such.... Good job boy. Good job.

Induction Concepts

06-16-2005, 05:23 AM

Your whole point is based off of some questions I asked years ago. I was trying to learn the strengths and weaknesses of that particular application, something I do for any new application I am considering for prototype development. Its called homework/research. I didn't lie about it. I don't know everything, I have never claimed to. Unfortunately we aren't all born with infinite wisdom, we must learn, which is what I was doing.

Its not like I was a dairy farmer and one day, out of the blue, decided to build turbo systems. I experienced the whole process first hand, as a customer. I have loved hot rods since I could walk, they are truly my favorite thing. I had tried about every other means of hot rodding except turbos and I wanted to try it, so I did my research and saw all the problems that people had trying to get turbo systems for their cars, horrible quality, poor designs, little or no customer service, not returning or answering phone calls, or if you do get them to talk to you on the phone, act like they have better things to do than to piss with you and rush to get you off the phone, instead of taking the time to make sure all of your questions are answered, days or weeks before responding to emails (if at all), getting your parts and finding out that half the parts don't fit, the other half are missing, etc. So I bought a used Incon kit because they made the best kits at the time and I was knew I would be getting a complete system. Incon is the company that actually designed the turbo systems for Lingenfelter. Same cast iron manifolds and downpipes, low mounted, on each side of the oil pan. I saw how it was designed, how difficult it was to install (and do regular maintenance on) and lots of things I would change if I did it myself. I got it installed and started driving it and fell in love. It was the greatest thing in hot rodding I had ever experienced, by far. I knew I'd never want another car or truck without turbos.

It was at this point, after experiencing all of this that I started thinking that I could do a better job. Sure, I'd have to learn a lot, it would be a hot, tough job, definitely not an 'office job', but I knew how my way around a hot rod, I wasn't afraid of hard work, and I knew how to take care of a customer...so the journey began. We all have to start somewhere. I grew up in a small town, where your word and your name actually meant something. I bring that sense of pride and honor to work every day, something that is sorely lacking in the automotive aftermarket as a whole. I have been a customer (and still am), so I know exactly what they are going through when trying to find information about a turbo system. It can seem very complicated, daunting and probably even a little scary for some. But I take the time to answer all of their questions, with detailed explanations like the posts I have made here. I have spent literally hours at a time on the phone with a customer answering questions. I was on the phone for 45 minutes today with a soldier calling from Iraq.

Every engine family is different, some have forged cranks, but crappy powdered metal rods and cast pistons, but you don't know until you research and find out. They all have different compression ratios. I have to find out what that is before I can determine how much boost can be run on pump gas, or if lower compression pistons must be installed first. But with the power levels we make, all of our customers have fully forged engines to start with anyway.

Some engines have great heads and really fight against detonation, which means you can safely run a little more boost on pump gas. Some engine designs are prone to lifting head gaskets (like the GM Gen III (LS) family). So we have to figure out how to prevent those problems or any others we discover. We talk to other hot rodders, engine builders and tuners.

I am not an engine builder. Sure, I've built a few and never lost one, but that's not what I do on a daily basis. I design and fabricate twin turbo systems and a few other items. So I always send our customers elsewhere to get their engines built. For my personal car, if I'm going to run 1500hp in a street car that will actually see real daily driven miles, I would want it done by a pro, someone who does it every day, knows all the tricks and nuances and is the best at it...I want the same thing for my customers. Let each person focus on what they are good at.

Every auto manufacturer has different types of fuel systems with their own strong and weak points, some are returnless, some are return-style. Some have to be scrapped and replaced with a full return-style at a relatively low hp range, others are good with only pump and injector upgrades to 700hp, but you have to know which is which.

Every auto manufacturers engine management system is different. Some are highly advanced and very flexible for tuning (Ford EECs). Some are very rigid and don't have the flexibility to be programmed correctly for aftermarket modifications (Mopar). Sure, you may be able to modify them, but not in a proper fashion that provides stock driveability (no stalling, hunting idle, missing, bogging, flooding, backfires, etc.) with major hp increases. The GM units fall somewhere in between.

These are all things I have to learn and know so I can accurately design our systems and help customers. I research each new application and start with a clean sheet of paper. If I'm asked a question that I don't know, I would never guess at the answer and let a customer risk his engine/car/money. I would just tell them right up front that I didn't know, but I would find out, and I do. No one can know everything. The key is to know where to go to find the information when you need it.

That's what forums like this are supposed to be for, sharing information, learning, making friends, not flaming every new person that comes on, because they are a default leg-humper (I believe that was your term).

I have been on the net a long time, almost 15 years now, and I have never gotten the rash of crap that I have gotten here. It completely floored me and all over what? Trying to learn new applications? Thats a real crime. Have I been building turbo systems for 20 years? No. Have I done other things in life besides hot rods? Sure.

So I got flamed because I was doing research, 3 years ago. Sure it may have seemed like basic information to you, it seems like basic information to me too, now, but at that point I was doing my homework. I'm not some guy with a MIG welder in his garage, hacking crap together. We are a legitimate company with legitimate products. If you do any research on "Induction Concepts", you will find nothing but praise. All you have to do is look at the pictures of our work and you can see the quality and attention to detail. But of course none of that will show up here. Its not as much fun as flaming and wreaking havoc.

We don't throw stuff together, we are EXTREMELY picky and only use the finest parts and materials available, no short cuts, no compromises. We won't just build a system and then toss it out on the public to start making sales $$$$, we will continue to work on it, revise it, redesign it from scratch when needed, until its perfect. I design this stuff like it was for my personal vehicle and I'm picky. If something comes out of my shop, its something I'm truly proud to have my name on. You won't find a higher quality product anywhere. We use stainless steel for everything, not just the hot side, but also all of the charged air and coolant lines, heat shields and even our bracketry is stainless. We don't do this because we have to, in order to keep up with our competitors (like they do us), we do it because we feel it is the minimum quality standard. No one used stainless when we started, now, more and more every day are switching.

I didn't make the original post in this thread, trying to hock my wares, I was trying to help and educate another enthusiast. I even recommended a supercharger for a specific solution. I didn't come on and say that turbos are the greatest, and everything else sucks, because its not true. Each has its own strong points and weak points. When a customer calls me or emails me and they are only looking for a 400-500hp solution, I will refer them to a supercharger dealer/manufacturer or even one of my competitors in the turbo industry because we don't focus on that power range. It's not an economical choice for them to choose our products for what we consider that low of a power level. Of course if they are building a show vehicle or just really want "twin turbos", we will help them, but we put their best interests first, instead of our financial interests. I know we lose sales because of this philosopy, but we don't lose any sleep at night because we know we have done the right thing.

As for having permission to post here, here is the reply from Jason (this sites owner) when I asked him:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Rad,

Thanks for your emails. I do apologize it has taken some time for me to
reply back to you.

I had the chance to check out your site, it looks like very impressive work.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

I operate a couple of the H2 forums:

http://www.elcova.com/h2
and
http://www.h2club.org

I see your point regarding just looking for interest and I am fine with you
posting, assuming you do not abuse it. You will likely have the most
success here:

http://www.elcova.com/groupee/forums

Good luck and let me know if you need anything else.

Regards,
Jason Rosoff
http://www.h2source.com
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was worded that way, the part about 'apologizing if it was not allowed' because I had made another post on another site and cut-n-pasted the text to keep from having to rewrite "War and Peace", which is the norm for my posts. I had tried for a couple of weeks to reach the other sites owner (multiple emails, PMs, etc.) but never could get a response...but I did try. So I went ahead and apologized first, in case it was a problem and would have quickly deleted the post if they wanted. So I forgot to delete that line from the post here. Sorry.

Like I said, I've been on the net a long time, in fact I owned an ISP a little over 10 years ago. I'm a good netizen. I participate, ask questions, answer questions, learn, educate and have fun, not just point fingers or try to stir up trouble. Life is too short to waste time on negative stuff like that.

Anyway, sorry to the original poster that his thread got hijacked, I at least hope you got some good information out of it. I think you did get your questions answered. Superchargers are the most popular because they are cheaper and because there are more applications for them, more kits, mainly because they are a simpler system, less cost to develop, etc.

For the record, a proper turbo system can make boost and power about the same spot that a supercharger will, it all depends on the turbo selection and the design of the system. Sure, you can put turbos on it that will have nearly instant boost, but not any whopping power up top. I just don't believe in building a system like that, there is no need when you can get power down low AND all the way to the top.

What I meant about the 2500-3000rpm range was that a properly spec'd system would be making boost by then, not 'starting' to build boost. From the time you press the throttle down, how long does it take to go from a cruising speed of say 1500-2000rpms, up to 2500rpms? What, a half-second? Its not enough time to be concerned with, really. Turbos are pure torque. Mash the pedal, get the power. Most of the talk about 'turbo lag' is a wives tale or stems from improper system design and turbo selection, at least in this day and age.

Sorry for the long post, but when someone is throwing marshmallows at me, claiming they are oranges, I needed to clarify. If it had been some real issue or some actual wrong-doing, don't you think a person that does that kind of thing would have quietly slinked away at the first accusation, hoping it would quietly blow over...

Fastest H-Town Realtor

06-16-2005, 01:02 PM

Ken-

I fully got reponse you gave. Car guy,truck guy,bench racer, the info that was posted is accurate. I just didn't understand why it was needed to reference the flamefest post. It doesn't change the accuracy of the post here and now.

Yes, your two paragraphs under the link reference are informative. Yes, the questions IC asked previous put his 'experience" into deep questionability with the crew that knows automotive performance...or even some simple engine principles. Yea,yea,yea...I see that. But, my statement went to the asked question/given response. That was all.

As for " tried to save him some embarrassment. You prolonged it" part, I do believe that IC can cover his own. And any clip-n-paste from the linked thread is still not technical information, as asked in the original authors question.Isn't there another forum on this site more suited to the rehashing of previous posts?

And for me, say as you shall. Im here for the tech info and relevant H2 offerings. Nothing more. If it is a flamefest your looking for, I'll move on to another post. Im not interested.

LasVegas

06-18-2005, 10:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GeorgeSSSS:
Has anyone owned both a turbo charged H2 and a supercharged one? -- -- or driven one of each? A comparison of the two systems responsiveness and other issues would be worth reading.

George SSSS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>George...I've not driven a supercharged H2 but I think I'm the only member with a turbocharged H2 (remote mount STS). If I had to guess, and it's a guess, the supercharger probably has little more torque from a dead stop than the turbo. But I can tell you it's only a second or two to from a dead stop when the turbo comes in and then it's a screamer. Anything above 1500 rpm the boost is there and just keeps screaming.

Induction Concepts

06-19-2005, 08:31 AM

OK, I would like to mention a few things. Yea, yea, I know some of you will say I'm a competitor, but I don't consider any remote-mount turbo a competitor with what we do. We focus on a totally different type of customer, and end result, with a totally different (exactly opposite practically) design philosophy. I mean yes, a turbo is involved, but that's where the similarities end. We don't even make a twin turbo system for the H2's. We would if there was enough demand, we just haven't seen it yet, so thats beside the point.

I answered a post on here yesterday or the day before, someone asking about one of those air tornado things on ebay for $20. The guy is looking for a performance improvement, he just didn't know any better. We are all ignorant until we learn, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Anyway, I have seen quite a bit of talk here about remote mount turbos and I think there are many things that the general public doesn't know about this type of design. Unless you have a very thorough knowledge of turbo system design, you have no way of knowing these things. But if you're going to lay down your money for something, especially several thousand dollars, wouldn't you want to have all of the facts? I think that if you read these points, you'll see that they are all common-sense items when you understand whats going on. I'm going to explain all of this in simple layman's terms, so regardless of your technical skill level, you will understand and learn.

LasVegas: I'm not trying to insult or disrespect you in any way, everyone has their own preferences, opinions, and goals. its what makes this country great. In fact I applaud you for taking the turbo plunge. I am just trying to provide some information so that people are well informed and can make an educated, purchasing decision, something that is never a bad thing.

But, for the sake of this turbo vs supercharger comparison, there are some things to note that are different on a remote-mount type of setup than with a conventional turbo system.

First, for those of you who know nothing about a turbo, here are some basics. You know those pinwheels you played with as a kid? They have a fan type wheel on one end of a stick. If you blow on it, it spins. OK, now picture one of those, but instead of the stick coming down, having a shaft attached to the center of that wheel, running out the back, away from the wheel. On the other end, is another pinwheel, facing the opposite direction, so they would both be facing out, away from each other. If you blow on one, it also turns the other one because they are joined by that common shaft. A turbo is a lot like this inside. One side is the exhaust or turbine side. The heat/energy from the exhaust coming out of your engine spins one of these wheels, called the turbine wheel. This in turn spins the wheel on the other end of the shaft, the compressor wheel, which sucks air into the turbo inlet. This air is spun around an increasingly smaller passage inside the compressor cover/housing, which compresses the air making positive boost pressure. That may not sound like it could do much, but turbos typically spin at 60,000-120,000 rpms when in their efficiency range, with 90,000-100,000rpms being common, depending on the size of the turbo. Thats fast. At 100,000rpms, thats almost 1700 revolutions per second. This speed is what makes it all happen. This positive boost pressure crams air into the cylinders, thus the term 'forced' induction. Ok, now you know the basics of how a turbo works, I'll get on with the differences I mentioned.

Exhaust Heat/Energy: A turbo is driven off of exhaust heat and energy, as I just explained, this is just the pure physics of a turbo's design. When the turbo is 15 feet away from the exhaust valve, instead of the normal 12-24", there isn't much heat energy left. I mean from 900 degrees to 200 (or less) is a pretty major decrease in temps and energy. You can actually grap the end of a tailpipe with your hand while the engine is running. It is hot, but not hot like grabbing ahold of your header. There is a formula somewhere that calculates the temperature drop for every inch you move away from the heat source. You want a turbo as close as possible to the exhaust valve for this very reason.

Exhaust Distance/Restriction: The more distance you have between the exhaust valve and the the turbine wheel, the more restriction that adds up. This means slower air velocity, slower turbine wheel speed, less boost and more time required to build boost.

This all means that you have to work the turbo much harder, to make the same amount of boost and power at the engine. For instance to get 5psi of boost at the engine, the turbo is having to make say 10psi, maybe more. This effectively cuts the power of the turbo in half. For instance on a turbo that can make say 30psi max, you may only be able to get 15psi out of it, max. So you are only getting half of the power potential of the turbo you paid full price for.

Charged Air Distance/Restriction: Now, on the flipside, the same is true for the charged air. Charged air is the air that is sucked in by the turbo, through the air filter, then compressed by the compressor wheel and sent to the engine, usually also through a front-mounted intercooler. Charged air is also called the cold side.

You are already having to overwork the turbo on the turbine/exhaust side, to get the same amount of boost at the engine, now you have to also push the charged air an EXTRA 15ft back up to the front of the car, then through the intercooler, then into the engine. This is adding more load to the turbo, after all, the compressor wheel is attached to the turbine wheel by a common shaft, so a restriction or 'drag' on one, affects the other. In effect you have restriction or drag on both of them, compounding the situation. So now its not only slow and under-responsive on the turbine/exhaust side of the turbo, but also having to work harder, on the compressor side, to push this compressed air all the way back to the front of the vehicle to get it into the engine. This extra effort, to spin the compressor wheel, in turn makes it harder for the exhaust to turn the turbine wheel, when the exhaust heat/energy is already crippled to begin with.

You know those pinwheels I mentioned above? Ok, imagine blowing on that while holding your finger out and dragging it against the tips of the blades as they are trying to turn...restriction. Restriction is the enemy of a turbo system.

Here's a real world example to put that into perspective. I had a pair of Dynomax Race Bullet mufflers on a turbo car. They are straight through mufflers, no chambers. I like the way flowmasters sound on a hotrod. I knew that chambered mufflers were not a good choice to run on a turbo car, but I really liked the way they sounded much better than the bullets. I thought there would be a small difference, but nothing major. Besides, it wasn't a race car, it was a daily driver, so we weren't trying to eek every last ounce of power out of it. A small loss would be a worthwhile trade off. The sound of a killer exhaust is almost as big of a part of the whole experience as the power is. The car normally made 12psi on pump gas and made it very quickly. I swapped the bullets for the Flowmasters. And these were 3", 2-chamber flowmasters, so definitely not one of the more restrictive versions. I made no other changes. The power went from 12psi to 8psi, that's a 33% difference! I'd call that a little more than a slight loss of power. And, to top it off, it didn't make boost anywhere near as quickly, the car felt doggy. I promptly took the flowmasters right back off and put the bullets back on. Just the added restriction of those two chambers in the mufflers made that big of a difference.

Charged Air Heat:Turbos have efficiency ranges (efficiency islands) where they operate best. When you move them out of this efficiency range, their performance really falls off and can even go into whats called compressor surge when they can't move enough air. When you compress air, heat is generated, its a law of physics. The more you compress it, the more heat it generates. This is why we use intercoolers, to remove this extra heat we put in from compressing the air. But even the best air/air intercoolers will never reach 100% efficiency, so you can never remove all of the heat that was added, usually 70% is considered an excellent air/air intercooler. Now liquid/air intercoolers can achieve 100% efficiency, sometimes even more, but only when ice water is running through the system. This doesn't work in a street driven car because the ice quickly melts. Its the only way to fly for a racecar though. Well now you are having to generate twice the boost at the turbo (more heat) to make half the boost at the engine, because the turbos are so far away, so you have more heat, which means less dense air, which means less of it can fit in the cylinder. It also means you are more prone to detonation, which is very bad...engine-destroying bad. So its not a matter of just cranking up the boost to offset these problems. At a certain point, you will move the turbo outside of its efficiency range and only generate more heat, not more power. For instance on a 60-1 turbo, it makes its maximum power at 24psi. Sure, you can turn it up to 35psi, but it won't make any more power, it will only generate a lot more heat, in effect making less power (less dense air).

Restriction vs Volume:As I mentioned already, the same distance problem on the hot side also affects the charged air side. The further you have to push this air, the more restriction you have. This equates to less air getting into the engine. Think of a garden hose with water pouring out. When you place your thumb over the end, it starts to spray. That would seem like a good thing, but what it is doing is causing a restriction. Yes, it makes the water spray, but it is reducing the amount, or volume, of air coming out of the hose. In an internal combustion engine, its the volume of air that makes power, not the speed of it.

More Air = More Fuel
More Air + More Fuel = More Power

Yes, increasing the speed of the air will increase the volume to a point, but then the pressure goes up and the volume drops off and you've reached a point of diminishing returns. We face a similar challenge with fuel systems and fuel pressure. We can't only increase the pressure, we must increase the volume.

Boost = Restriction: This may be a little more difficult to understand. Boost is a measure of restriction on the air we are forcing into the cylinders. An engine that is more efficient, free-flowing air cleaner, straight shot of air into the throttle body (or carb), larger intake runners, no sharp corners, ported and polished intake, ported and polished heads, cam(s) optimized for the application, oversized valves, headers with large primary tubes and collector, large diameter exhaust, no cats, no sharp bends, straight-through mufflers, etc., will make more power at less boost than say a stock, or less efficient version of that same engine. Its making more power and moving more air, with less boost (restriction). Its simple, the more air (volume) you can cram into the cylinder, the more more fuel you can add, and therefore more power you can make. Here's an example. Lets say you can make 600hp at the tires with 12psi on a stock engine. Forget about the weak factory internals for a second. Now, take the same engine, with the same displacement, but with the improvements listed above, it might make that same 600hp at the tires at 8psi. As a side effect of less boost, you have less heat and are less prone to detonation, so its safer for the engine.

Pressure: Now, think about pressure for a minute, imagine pressurizing a pipe that is 2" in diameter and 2 ft long. Now, imagine having to pressurize that same 2" pipe, but now its 17 ft long. It takes a lot more air to pressurize it. It also takes more time. Again, on a system that is already hurting on exhaust energy and extra drag. The problems compound.

Vacuum/Boost Reference Signal: If you read the instructions for any quality electronic boost controller, they will stress to mount the solenoid as close as possible to the wastegate. This is to keep the vacuum line that sends the vacuum/boost signals between the boost controller and wastegate as short as possible, because these signals are adversely affected by distance. The general rule is to keep them no longer than 2 ft.

Well, when the turbo and wastegate are mounted by the rearend, you're going to have 15ft of vacuum tubing and usually it takes 2 of these vacuum lines running to the wastegate, one to the bottom side of the wastegate and one to the top. You can't just mount the solenoid back by the turbo either, because it has vacuum/boost signals running to and from it (usually 3 or 4), between the wastegate, the intake manifold, and an inside controller with a display or gauge, so that won't solve the problem.

Factory Exhaust: One of the advertised strong points of the remote mount type of turbo is the fact that it uses the factory exhaust system, one of the reasons why its cheaper, and easier. The factory exhaust system is usually anything but optimal for airflow. Thats one of the first modifications that many do, is chunk the whole factory exhaust system for a set of headers, an h/x-pipe, either ditch the cats or replace them with high-flowing versions and new mufflers. Often a larger size of exhaust pipe is also used. The factory exhaust is usually quite small, just large enough for the stock power level. It usually features compression bends instead of mandrel bends. Now, if you replace your entire exhaust system with a larger version of the upgraded pieces I just mentioned, then you've solved these problems...and added an extra $1500 to the cost.

So, a remote mount turbo system is going to:
- Build boost slower
- Generate more heat and restriction in the charged air system
- Make less boost at the engine, compared to the boost the turbo is actually making
- And because of the above, make less power for that particular boost level. Remember, when you're seeing 5psi at the engine, you're actually running probably twice that amount at the turbo. So if the system makes X hp at Y psi, its kind of misleading because that boost level is measured at the engine instead of at the turbo. Otherwise, it would be much less flattering numbers to measure the boost that the turbo is actually making vs the hp at that boost setting. As an example, lets say it makes 350hp at the tires at 5psi. At first glance, that sounds like a decent number. But when you measure that same boost at the turbo, instead of up front at the engine, the turbo may be generating 10-12psi, and 350hp at 10-12psi is far from flattering. 600hp at the tires @ 8-9psi is flattering.

There are several other things about these types of designs that I could mention, but they are typical design and component selection issues that most turbo companies (not us) also do, so they're not relevant to this post on the differences between a remote mount and a conventional turbo system.

Now, the remote-mount type of turbo systems do have their place. If you've just got to have a turbo, and you're looking for the bare-bones, cheapest way to get a turbo, that is it. I believe I saw a remote mount on a website, a year or two ago. A couple of guys trying to figure out the absolute cheapest and easiest way they could build their own home-made turbo system.

A proper turbo system is very difficult to design correctly and it takes a great deal of effort, time and money. In my opinion, a remote mount design is a poor shortcut. Turbos have been around for well over 100 years, like superchargers. Its never been done that way, before now. Was it because no one ever thought of doing it this way, or couldn't figure out how to do it this way? Is it beyond the mental capacity of people like Gale Banks, Corky Bell or John Lingenfelter? Or could it be because of the issues I just mentioned?

I know that SEMA gave out an award for a remote mount type system. I'll reserve my comments and thoughts on that.

Everybody wants a turbo, they just don't want to pay what it costs for a proper system. Like anything that's done right, with top quality parts and components, its expensive. You guys, of all people, should know that you get what you pay for. You drive H2's, you appreciate the 'finer' things in life, you know that cheapest is rarely, if ever, best. If that was the case, you'd all be driving Scions instead. Thats why it has surprised me to see so much talk on here about them...but like I said, you have no way of knowing what hasn't been told to you.

I hope this at least sheds some light on some issues that haven't been mentioned. I hope I don't have to dawn my fire-suit now, but probably will. As I said, I am not trying to disrespect anyone, just point out some facts so that people can make well informed decisions. Like I said, we don't even make a kit for the H2s, so I have nothing to gain by sharing this information. We're all automotive enthusiasts and we get on these forums to learn, teach and share in something that brings us all a lot of enjoyment. Cars are much more to me than just a job, they are a part of me, my life, my heartbeat, my breath.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 12:35 PM

Turbo = High Maintenance, High risk

Supercharger = Low Maintenance, Low risk

Turbo = More power than your H2 can handle

Supercharger = All the power you will ever need

there, I simplified it for you

BTW if you are building a H2 to go drag racing, go with turbo.. otherwise stick with SC http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 07:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
Turbo = High Maintenance, High risk

Supercharger = Low Maintenance, Low risk

Turbo = More power than your H2 can handle

Supercharger = All the power you will ever need

there, I simplified it for you

BTW if you are building a H2 to go drag racing, go with turbo.. otherwise stick with SC http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly what do you base this on? Experience with one or the other or both or none? If experienced, on an H2 and if not what vehicle? IMO you don't know what you're talking about.

Induction Concepts

06-19-2005, 08:00 PM

Actually, all of this is not quite right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
Turbo = High Maintenance, High risk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly the opposite.

Think of endurance races like the 24 hours of LeMans or Daytona. Those race teams have practically unlimited budgets. They can afford any technology they can dream of, they choose turbos for a reason, because of their dependability and reliability. If superchargers made more power or were more dependable, thats what they'd be running.

Every semi on the road has a turbo. Again, for dependability and reliability. These trucks go hundreds of thousands of miles before a rebuild.

Turbo systems are more complex, simply because they have more tubing, but tubing isn't moving parts, so it doesn't wear out from friction.

Turbos don't require any more maintenance than a supercharger, or a naturally aspirated stock engine for that matter. Regular oil changes with a quality oil and use a quality air filter, things you should do on any car.

With a turbo, it isn't putting extra stress on the front of the crankshaft from belt tension. You also aren't burning extra fuel to spin the supercharger all the time, even when you're not using it (in boost).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Turbo = More power than your H2 can handle </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the push of a button, or the turn of a knob, you can adjust the boost level, and therefore the power of the engine, down to practically zero (above the power level without a turbo). Can't do that with a supercharger. Superchargers require at minimum a pulley change and usually also a different belt. Some superchargers drain all of their oil out of their snout when you pull the pulley off for a pulley change.

On the systems that we build, we don't have a stock engine in mind when we pick the turbos, we select the turbos based on something above 500hp simply because we didn't have any interest in building yet another 400-500hp solution, there are already plenty of those out there already. But, by just swapping turbos (different size) (4 bolts and a couple of clamps per turbo), we can select almost any range of power.

There are companies that select their turbos for power levels on a stock engine though.

Our turbos can be run on a stock engine, with the boost turned down, but why spend all that money for only 400-500hp? Our customers just want more power than that, and 95% of our customers are real street vehicles, not clapped out racecars with tags, but vehicles with all of their emissions and accessories (power steering, power brakes, ac, cruise, etc.). Some people will drop off a brand new car, straight from the dealer, we'll pull the engine, have a stronger version built, reinstall it, then install the turbo system.

Our customers all have built engines. And many are nothing 'wild', just with stronger parts in them than what the factory installed, they have a perfect idle and perfect drivability. You'd never know they had a turbos until you put your foot in it.

The bottom line is that power output is a personal choice, some want more, some want less. At least with turbos you have almost an unlimited range of power to choose from, and the adjustability of changing the boost level with the push of a button.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Supercharger = All the power you will ever need

there, I simplified it for you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, personal choice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW if you are building a H2 to go drag racing, go with turbo.. otherwise stick with SC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said in my very first post, if 400-500hp is all the power you seek, then a supercharger is probably the most economical way to go. But turbos aren't only for drag racing, I know I haven't seen many semi's at the strip, but they all have turbos, and they have them because they are dependable and they make a mountain of torque for pulling and towing.

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 08:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">by indjuction.....Anyway, I have seen quite a bit of talk here about remote mount turbos and I think there are many things that the general public doesn't know about this type of design. Unless you have a very thorough knowledge of turbo system design, you have no way of knowing these things. But if you're going to lay down your money for something, especially several thousand dollars, wouldn't you want to have all of the facts? I think that if you read these points, you'll see that they are all common-sense items when you understand whats going on. I'm going to explain all of this in simple layman's terms, so regardless of your technical skill level, you will understand and learn.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Induction. I think you're over killing here with the technical jargon. Have you tested or have numbers on a remote mounted system? We're not building dragsters here. These are street/off road rigs. I'm a pragmatist. My remote mounted turbo delivers 6.5 pounds boost, is very responsive, and accomplishes what most people would want or expect with a 4-ton rig. Many have expressed "opinions" here but unless they've had hands on experence they should be asking questions or at best giving "qualified" opinions. Everyone seems to have an opinion but unless they have personal experience they're talking out their ass. I don't try to tell anyone what a supercharged H2 drives like because I've never driven one. Others should extend the same courtesy.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 09:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
IMO you don't know what you're talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

woot.. dont jump to conclusion now http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

what part of what I said was not true? please elaborate

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 09:08 PM

I already did. What experience do you have with both supercharges, turbocharger, remote mounted turbocharger and on what vehicle.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 09:15 PM

TO4 on CRX with DOHC 1.8L, 12 PSI

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 09:29 PM

Somehow I think this is going to be a waste of time. You've made some very bold statements here in a very summarized fasion. I suggest you back it up with facts, then someone might listen. As for the experience I'm not sure what that has to do with a 5 or 6 psi turbo or supercharger on an H2.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 09:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Induction Concepts:
Turbo systems are more complex, simply because they have more tubing, but tubing isn't moving parts, so it doesn't wear out from friction.

Turbos don't require any more maintenance than a supercharger </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's alot more than just more tubings, there are wastegate and oil/cooler lines you have to worried about to keep the turbo system running, not to mention the turbo itself. Any of those componenet failure can cause high dollar repairs to your turbo system or even your engine.

I'm not saying supercharger is better but its just more pratical for the common people.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 09:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
Somehow I think this is going to be a waste of time </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will be for you, I'm not here to start an argument.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 09:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
As for the experience I'm not sure what that has to do with a 5 or 6 psi turbo or supercharger on an H2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You asked for it http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 09:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Induction Concepts:
Turbo systems are more complex, simply because they have more tubing, but tubing isn't moving parts, so it doesn't wear out from friction.

Turbos don't require any more maintenance than a supercharger </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's alot more than just more tubings, there are wastegate and oil/cooler lines you have to worried about to keep the turbo system running, not to mention the turbo itself. Any of those componenet failure can cause high dollar repairs to your turbo system or even your engine.

I'm not saying supercharger is better but its just more pratical for the common people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I won't go into my aviation background except to say...

all high performance civil aircraft are turbocharged, not supercharged. Gee, when does reliability count?

When car manufacturers offer high performance options that they have to warranty do they offer turbochargers or superchargers?

What do most race cars use?

There's stock fluid lines all over vehicles. That's rediculous.

Wastegates rarely fail. Period.

Turbochargers have a rated life that's pretty damn long. Typical would be 2000 hours @ 75% continuous power which would equate to driving you car about 180,000 miles at over 90 mph continuously. But if it does fail it's inexpensive and about an hour to change out. Try that when your supercharger fails.

Superchargers have belts, pulleys and many more moving parts than turbochargers. Which would be more inclined to failure?

I'm not knocking superchargers. You're the one making some pretty broad statements about turbochargers and you still haven't backed it up with facts, just an opinion. I'm not looking for an argument either. Just don't like the lack of facts or at least supporting evidence.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 10:06 PM

I dont work on aircraft so correct me if I'm wrong, doesnt aircraft go thru inspection between every flight?

Do you pop the hood everytime you drive your H2 to work and once more on the way home?

I think car manufacture offer both turbo and supercharger.

Most race car use turbo due to race regulation and engine configuration, again I do remember saying turbo is build for racing.

Yes there are stock fluid lines running all over the vehicle but I dont think your engine or trans will get as hot as a turbo.

Wastegate rarely fail, can you back that up with facts?

Yes Turbo can last a long time if you take care it

If a belt snapped, replace with another, no biggie. If your turbine shaft breaks... hmmm $$$$

h2sin

06-19-2005, 10:12 PM

And PLEASE stop with the race car talk..

NASCAR uses carburetor, does that mean fuel injection sucks?

Turbo are used frequently on formula cars because its easier to use a turbo to create more power out of a small cubic inch motor.

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 10:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
I dont work on aircraft so correct me if I'm wrong, doesnt aircraft go thru inspection between every flight? <span class="ev_code_RED">A general preflight inspection by the pilot and certainly not on your turbocharger in particular. An annual maintenance inspection is done once a year for private use, every 100 hours (about 20,000 miles) for commercial use. The preflight is for safety reasons, not maintenance. Doesn't apply to this issue.</span>

Do you pop the hood everytime you drive your H2 to work and once more on the way home? <span class="ev_code_RED">see above</span>

I think car manufacture offer both turbo and supercharger. <span class="ev_code_RED">Who offers supercharger options for standard street vehicles?</span>

Most race car use turbo due to race regulation and engine configuration, again I do remember saying turbo is build for racing.

Yes there are stock fluid lines running all over the vehicle but I dont think your engine or trans will get as hot as a turbo. <span class="ev_code_RED">The oil line on mine is aircraft rated</span>

Wastegate rarely fail, can you back that up with facts? <span class="ev_code_RED">MILLIONS of miles in the air. Never had one fail. Had one turbo fail in that time</span>

Yes Turbo can last a long time if you take care it <span class="ev_code_RED">Just exactly how do you take care of it?? There's absolutely nothing to do.</span>

If a belt snapped, replace with another, no biggie. If your turbine shaft breaks... hmmm $$$$ <span class="ev_code_RED">$800 or less - big bucks???? Every 180,000 miles or so?? oh, and can you continue driving your car with a broken belt? If a turbo fails you can.

And most of the aircraft I flew the turbo not only boosted the engine it also provided about 6 psi to pressurize the entire cabin</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I appreciate your good questions and response but my experience indicates you're incorrect on your opinion about turbochargers. Just a difference in opinion I guess.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 10:34 PM

Land Rover Supercharged, I'm sure you seen the commercials

You can used whatever you want for the oil lines but its the temperature of the oil that I'm worried about

Wastegate can fail just like anything else in your aircrafts or cars, how frequent does it fail.. I dont think anyone can have a real answer to that.

Nothing last forever, everything will need to be replace sooner or later. Turbo system just added that much more to it.

You cant possibly estimate something that you have absolutely no control over, $800 would be the best possible scenario

P.S. If your turbo fails.. I hope you stop driving your car or your aircraft to prevent futher damage

h2sin

06-19-2005, 10:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
The preflight is for safety reasons, not maintenance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 10:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
Land Rover Supercharged, I'm sure you seen the commercials <span class="ev_code_RED">Thanks for that info. It's about the only one.</span>

You can used whatever you want for the oil lines but its the tempersture of the oil that I'm worried about <span class="ev_code_RED">mine stayed the same. No rise whatsoever. H2s have oil coolers standard.</span>

Wastegate can fail just like anything else in your aircrafts or cars, how frequent does it fail.. I dont think anyone can have a real answer to that. <span class="ev_code_RED">Oh yes they do. It's called MTBF (mean time between failure). And it's high. Just don't know the number right now.</span>

Nothing last forever, everything will need to be replace sooner or later. Turbo system just added that much more to it. <span class="ev_code_RED">????????????????</span>

You cant possibly estimate something that you have absolutely no control over, $800 would be the best possible scenario <span class="ev_code_RED">Wrong. I've bought many. $800 is high.</span>

P.S. If your turbo fails.. I hope you stop driving your car to prevent futher damage <span class="ev_code_RED">Huh??? I'm sorry Sin, you really don't understand turbochargers. If a turbo fails, the only thing you lose is boost. Drive it forever. Won't make any difference and won't damage anything. </span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 10:54 PM

h2sin

06-19-2005, 10:57 PM

You stock oil cooler is meant to cool a stock motor during heavy load, not a 1200F turbo.. imagine how hot that oil gets and how that effect the thermo efficiency of your motor.

And where do you get this MTBF on wastegate for the vehicles?

Let's say due to high heat your turbine oil seal is leaking, your losing oil and you are 10000 ft above ground... Are you going to keep flying that aircraft until you feel like landing it?

Question: And a turbine shaft oil seal does consider to be a turbo failure right?

h2sin

06-19-2005, 11:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
Guess you didn't understand. http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif A pilot does a routine preflight inspection before every flight. There's a checklist for every aircraft. He's not inspecting the aircraft for maintenance purposes but to determine that there are no deficiencies and that the aircraft is airworthy. Not to turn the wiggit on top of the turbocharger. And it wouldn't matter whether it was turbocharged, supercharged or BScharged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not going to beat this one to death but an inspection exist for a purpose.. does your H2 require a safety inspection before you drive it to the grocery store

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 11:06 PM

I'm sorry H2Sin. I don't think you understand either the principles or components of a turbocharger system. I've had a great deal of experience with turbochargers. Granted, 95% of that was in aviation. But the principles and components are identical. I just think it's wrong for you to make such broad statements and conclusions with what seems to be limited knowledge about turbos. Let's not waste each others time.

LasVegas

06-19-2005, 11:10 PM

h2sin

06-19-2005, 11:11 PM

Turbo uses oil and coolant, both are consider to be the most vital part of an engine. Now add 1200F to that then you will know why I'm saying what I'm saying.

I'm done. I dont think most ppl on this board care about this subject anyway.

h2sin

06-19-2005, 11:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:I don't think you understand either the principles or components of a turbocharger system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whatever, I'll keep my opinion to myself on that one

h2sin

06-19-2005, 11:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
Let's say due to high heat your turbine oil seal is leaking, your losing oil and you are 10000 ft above ground... Are you going to keep flying that aircraft until you feel like landing it?

Question: And a turbine shaft oil seal does consider to be a turbo failure right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how you avoid that question http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Overall, turbo system is more complex than a typical supercharger, components are prone to failure due to fatigue or whatever the cause is. You can not speak for everyone and say it will never fail just because you never encounter a problem with it, you are making a broad statement just as I was.

And the stuff about losing boost and keep on driving is just plain stupid... sorry to say

LasVegas

06-20-2005, 12:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
Let's say due to high heat your turbine oil seal is leaking, your losing oil and you are 10000 ft above ground... Are you going to keep flying that aircraft until you feel like landing it?

Question: And a turbine shaft oil seal does consider to be a turbo failure right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how you avoid that question http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

here is another one
Turbine fins on your intake side breaks apart, metal particales get caught inside your engine's combustion chamber, scartched up your cylinder wall. $800 to repair? I seriously doubt that...

Not that I think this happens often but there is nothing that seperate betwee the turbine and the intake of your engine, pontential damage is devastating.

Overall, turbo system is more complex than a typical supercharger, components are prone to failure due to fatigue or whatever the cause is. You can not speak for everyone and say it will never fail just because you never encounter a problem with it, you are making a broad statement just as I was.

And the stuff about losing boost and keep on driving is just plain stupid... sorry to say </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not avoiding your question. It's just too stupid to answer. And since when does a turbocharger "use" coolant?? Don't answer. It won't make anymore sense than the rest of your posts. I was only questioning your broad conclusions at the beginning of this exchange. The more you say the more you confirm my reason for even questioning you. Bad part is that someone here might take what you say seriously.

h2sin

06-20-2005, 12:57 AM

Most turbo I have seen have both oil and coolant passage, not everyone think the coolant is necessary, I guess that really depends on what type of application you are running. And you using a stock oil cooler on your H2 with a turbo installed tells me something http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You wont answer because you know the obvious answer and so does everyone with a common sense.

I do hope someone does take my opinion seriously and disregard your statement about its ok to operate your car or aircraft after a turbo failure has occured.

And no matter what has been said here, people are still going to choose SC over turbo http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif why go thru the trouble of installing a turbo when you can get the exact same result using a SC with less hassle http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LasVegas

06-20-2005, 01:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:

You wont answer because you know the obvious answer and so does everyone with a common sense.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay. Obviously you're an aviation authority now.

1. Flying Senator Birch Bayh on campaign in a AeroStar 601B (turbocharged). Lost tubocharger on right engine in flight. Two pilots on board. Completed flight.
2. Ferry a pressurized turbocharged twin from Baton Rouge to Indiana. Known issue before takeoff. Turbocharger failure on one engine. Completed flight.
3. Maybe you should contact the FAA with your estute knowledge.
4. Turbine engines (a turbocharger in part) turn at over 100,000 rpm. Gee, the blades are only about 10 feet from passengers. Better ground them all. One might fail.
5. The air cycle machine (small turbine spun by bleed air off the turbine engine) on a Turbine Commander used to cool the cabin turns at 86,000 rpm and is about 2 feet from the rear passengers heads separated only by very thin skin. Shouldn't we worry about those blades coming apart and decapatating someone??
7. If the internal parts of a supercharger sitting directly on top of the engine fails you're not concerned about engine indestion?

Listen sonny, you're in over your head. I'm not an authority on turbocharger design and haven't professed to be one. I do have thousand of hours operating turbocharged equipment and understand the components and operation. I've worked on countless turbocharged engines, aircraft mostly but some vehicles. I drive a turbcharged H2. You on the other hand keep making statements based on what ?????????? And now you're going to come with statements about aviation or are you an expert there too? Let's stop this exchange before it get's worse.

h2sin

06-20-2005, 01:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
Okay. Obviously you're an aviation authority now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I stated that a supercharger is a more simple and more economical design compare to conventional turbo system. Is that wrong? If so prove me wrong I beg you

You are the one started talking about aircrafts and your extensive experience with them, which I never claim to have any knowlegde of nor do I even care because its way off topic anyway. Get a grip http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Induction Concepts

06-20-2005, 01:56 AM

Breaking a turbine blade will only spit it out the exhaust system because the turbine is the exhaust side and completely separate from the compressed air side that goes into the engine.

Having a compressor blade failure is about as likely as getting struck by lightning, well, probably less likely, I mean if you play golf during a storm, or climb a 200ft metal pole like a cell phone tower, your chances are pretty good. Can it happen, sure, primarily on race cars that don't run air filters and FOD gets sucked in and fractures a compressor blade.

Even then, the particle would have to make it out of the housing itself, down some charged air tubing with bends, a couple of feet minimum usually, then make it through an intercooler, then through more charged air tubing, usually with several more bends, then through the throttle body, through the intake, and past a valve. Have you ever looked at the inside of an intercooler, the air passages are very tiny, most likely the piece would get hung up at this point.

Can it happen, sure. Can a pig fly? Sure, if you've got a big enough sling-shot.

What the whole point is, is how dependable are these systems under normal operating conditions. And for turbos, racing and hundreds of thousands of miles on semis is considered normal operating conditions. The answer is they are extremely dependable and a proper turbo system should out live your engine. It only needs quality oil, regular oil changes and a good air filter. How many daily drivers do you know of that have 300,000 miles on them before an engine rebuild, like over the road semi's? Pulling a very heavy load, through extreme heat, cold and precipitation their entire lives.

If dependability was even the slightest bit in question, they wouldn't use them, period. Maintenance costs on a semi can make or break a trucking company. They must have dependable, reliable vehicles to stay in business.

Same thing for aviation. They are used for their reliability. Aircraft are the most heavily regulated means of transport on the planet, second only to spacecraft. When cars crash, the fatalities are none, or few. When planes crash, it can be hundreds. Every aspect of anything to do with the FAA is heavily regulated, inspected and maintained. I have a shop that does some machine work for us. They are also an FAA certified repair station. They have to keep their scrap separated logged and inventoried for several years, so that if there is ever a problem, they can trace information all the way back to the actual left-over scrap metal that was used, even down to individual lots or batches of the same metal alloy.

A failure can happen to any component, pistons, rods, valvetrain, crankshaft, oil pump, axles, brake calipers, you name it. Turbos are designed and manufactured to much higher tolerances and quality standards than our engines are. They have to be because of the heat and speed that is their daily life. They also use exotic alloys like inconel.

A wastegate failure is practically unheard of also. Again, can it fail, sure. Will it, almost certainly not. You are much less likely to have a turbo or wastegate failure than you are to have an engine or transmission failure. Again, semis and aircraft wouldn't use them if there were any questions about dependability or reliability.

Some turbos do use coolant to aid in cooling. Not all of them do, many OEM turbos don't. All of ours use coolant. We specifically request the water cooled center cartridges. This helps to remove the heat from the center cartride so that the oil doesn't coke on the bearings, after the engine is shut off, ensuring a long happy life. It doesn't add a noticable temp increase to the coolant though. If the cooling system is in good working order, you shouldn't see a noticable difference on the temperature gauge. Same thing for the oil. It will temporarily increase the temp as it passes through the center cartridge, but the heat quickly dissipates. If it didn't, in any stock engine, the oil that is splashed on the valvetrain, underside of the piston, and the cylinder walls, scraped off by the rings, would just continue to build heat until the oil broke down and lead to catastrophic engine failure. It's amazing to TIG weld on a piece of stainless and see it glow red hot, then pass just a little bit of water over it, for just a few seconds, and it is cool to the touch. Liquid has excellent thermal transfer properties.

Also, turbos don't create heat, other than that created from the compression of the charged air, but we're only talking 200-300 degrees normally on that side. They do retain the heat of the exhaust system, which is where their heat comes from. So they aren't any hotter than your headers. Remember, the exhaust is just spinning a turbine wheel. And with the advances in thermal barriers, you can keep a great deal of heat inside the turbine housing and tubing. For instance we use a special 2000 degree thermal barrier coating from Jet-Hot (not the 'sterling') on all of our turbine housings. It provide a 25% drop in surface temperatures with a single application. This same coating can be applied to the inside and outside of the tubing.

LasVegas

06-20-2005, 02:00 AM

I'm going to end this exchange, mostly because I rather keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open my mouth and confirm the fact as you do.

h2sin

06-20-2005, 02:30 AM

I'll keep that in mind if I ever have the desire for a 600HP H2

Fastest H-Town Realtor

06-20-2005, 03:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin: why go thru the trouble of installing a turbo when you can get the exact same result using a SC with less hassle http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One question. Explain "same exact result" on a turbo vs. blower install, both systems making 8 PSI.

Specificly-Blowers use HP from the engine to drive the belt assembly, turbos do not.

As far as the "less hassle" statement, Im going to have to assume that you have never installed either kit. Both kits are 8 hour jobs. Both kits have challenges. The easability nod, for me, goes to the turbo kit due to the lack of pulling the intake manifold and its assorted lines/fittings/fluids.

h2sin

06-20-2005, 03:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fastest H-Town Realtor:
One question. Explain "same exact result" on a turbo vs. blower install, both systems making 8 PSI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because SC is belt driven and turbo isnt, at 8PSI how much horsepower lose are we talking about here? Turbo lag ever heard of that?

KenP

06-20-2005, 03:42 AM

Let's see if I an get this answer for you guys. If the HP at the CRANK is the same for a Turbo and SC application, then they're putting out the same HP. http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

However, in order for the SC engine to reach that same crank HP, it must make more HP up front because of the parasitic loss of HP from the drive belt turning the SC. A turbo doesn't have that problem. It's making free HP using the spent exhaust.

sin, you're wrong in many places as was pointed out above. Speaking from personal experience with street turbo applications, I know something about them. I can also compare them to a SC since I have that now.

My turbo car ran 10.17 @ 135 in 1989 on street tires with a V-6. I never had a problem with the Garrett or the adjustable Deltagate. We did not have an oil cooler. When the car was just in the mid-high 11's it was a daily driver and I saw no adverse effects on the oil. Ever.

In short, I never had any problems with the turbo. There just aren't enough moving parts to break. FYI, I couldn't imagine anything slipping through the intercooler and getting to the engine.

Of course, I love the SC in the H2. It functions great and does it's job to a tee. The price is the best part because as I mentioned before, no one has a single turbo with a warranty for a comparable price.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> H2sin posted:
I'll keep that in mind if I ever have the desire for a 600HP H2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You can do that with a SC. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> H2Sin posted:
I stated that a supercharger is a more simple and more economical design compare to conventional turbo system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You are right because of what I stated above which was:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The price is the best part because as I mentioned before, no one has a single turbo with a warranty for a comparable price </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

h2sin

06-20-2005, 04:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KenP:
The SC can be purchased, installed and warranted by your dealer for under 6k in many instances. I have not seen any single turbo setup for that price WITH a warranty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is that?

Reliability issue maybe?

h2sin

06-20-2005, 04:46 AM

The fact is we're talking about aftermarket bolt-on kits, some company will use lower grade stuff to reduce cost so they can sell at a lower price which increase the chances of failure.

Now if you use the best possible resources and premium componenets like a custome build turbo system, turbo can be very dependable like the OEM turbo cars/trucks but expect to pay high dollars for that and you wont find very much of that in the aftermarket accessories market.

Fastest H-Town Realtor

06-20-2005, 05:44 PM

Ken-

Your right about the crank HP, but:

1-If crank HP is equal, and the s/c is drawing an approx. of 55hp at redline, the power needs to be made up for the parasitic loss. This is usually done thru increased boost. So if we figure 400 crank HP, the s/c drawing 50 of it, so the s/c'ed engine needs 450hp crank, then the 10%'ish increase of power needs to come from 2.5 psi additional boost. (1 psi = 4% hp increase)

2-Not alot of vehicles use crank hp for power reads in the aftermarket. This is usually done thru dyno reads (You knew this). So, the draw of the s/c is related to the rear wheels. same result as above.

Now that this has been blown to way beyond needed replies, (Ken) your knowledge of aircraft/Buick GN systems should make you quite aware of turbos upsides (and down) as you have shown. Your opinions should be noted by the threads author.

H2sin-your "turbo lag" comment makes me aware that your a bench racer with no practicle (Read: Hands on) knowledge of forced induction. Turbo lag has nothing to do with overall output, and is more about system design and turbo sizing, along with vehicle weight and gearing. Once you have actually designed and worked with/on either system, the knowledge gained will help your thought process.

LasVegas

06-20-2005, 06:59 PM

Thanks Ken

I'm not anti-supercharger, pro-turbocharger or anything else. I think they both work just fine. My problem with H2sin is that he made some very broad conclusive statements and I don't think he has a clue what he's talking about. Fact of the matter is that turbochargers and superchargers alike are reliable systems properly designed and installed. I imagine you agree since you've had both.

h2sin

06-20-2005, 09:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fastest H-Town Realtor: Turbo lag has nothing to do with overall output, and is more about system design and turbo sizing, along with vehicle weight and gearing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO you going to run custom spec turbo and gears on your stock H2 running at 8PSI?

h2sin

06-20-2005, 09:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
And since when does a turbocharger "use" coolant?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Induction Concepts:
Some turbos do use coolant to aid in cooling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
I've worked on countless turbocharged engines, aircraft mostly but some vehicles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

KenP

06-20-2005, 09:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KenP:
The SC can be purchased, installed and warranted by your dealer for under 6k in many instances. I have not seen any single turbo setup for that price WITH a warranty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is that?

Reliability issue maybe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, cost. Essentially, installing a supercharger requires removing the intake, installing new built-in intercooler with SC, injectors, coolant lines and programming.

Installing a turbo system requires new exhaust manifolds/headers, intake or plenum, injectors, taping into the engine's oil resevoir, finding a suitable location for and installing an intercooler, extensive plumbing, programming, turbo and wastegate.(I could nit-pick all day on the small parts and such. http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)

As far as reliability goes. I've never experienced a turbo failure. Including many runs with no filter on the car. I treated them badly, even leaving them on the workbench for months on end only to reinstall them later while experimenting.

I have experienced bearing problems on my SC. Which, BTW, Magnussen did NOT cover. http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif LPE took care of it, though. Even saying they had seen similar problems on other vehicles recently with the same SC.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by GeorgeSSSS:
Has anyone owned both a turbo charged H2 and a supercharged one? -- -- or driven one of each? A comparison of the two systems responsiveness and other issues would be worth reading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
GeorgeSSSS, have you gotten what you wanted out of your question? http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW, how many production car models are supercharged versus the number that are turbocharged? Turbos' win it hands down.

Induction Concepts

06-20-2005, 10:06 PM

h2sin

06-20-2005, 10:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Induction Concepts:
Each of these links mentions water-cooled turbos, just search the page for 'water' and you'll see what they say, they are quite common.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GeorgeSSSS

06-21-2005, 12:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally Posted by KenP:
GeorgeSSSS, have you gotten what you wanted out of your question? Wink </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ken:

I honestly thought I'd get one or two responses saying things like, "Turbocharging gives more power, but they come at higher revs which isn't as useful as supercharging's low rev power increase [Don't know if that's true]." But this thread took on a life of its own.

After what I've read, I think I'm going to leave my engine "stock." I'm very happy the way things are.

Best regards,

George SSSS

Boar-Ral

06-28-2005, 04:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Induction Concepts:
On the systems that we build, we don't have a stock engine in mind when we pick the turbos, we select the turbos based on something above 500hp simply because we didn't have any interest in building yet another 400-500hp solution, there are already plenty of those out there already. But, by just swapping turbos (different size) (4 bolts and a couple of clamps per turbo), we can select almost any range of power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do like the idea of being able to lower my boost until I can afford a transmission rebuild, and then increase the boost at that time. Hmm.

Boar-Ral

06-28-2005, 04:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by h2sin:
NASCAR uses carburetor, does that mean fuel injection sucks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought they used carberators because they were simpler and less prone to failure. I do not know much about racing, though.

Boar-Ral

06-28-2005, 04:47 PM

Boar-Ral

06-28-2005, 04:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GeorgeSSSS:
After what I've read, I think I'm going to leave my engine "stock." I'm very happy the way things are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I cannot afford a supercharger or a turbocharger, so it is a moot point for me. But it is definitely a crash course in turbochargers and superchargers reading this thread.

LasVegas

06-28-2005, 05:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Boar-Ral:
I do like the idea of being able to lower my boost until I can afford a transmission rebuild, and then increase the boost at that time. Hmm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Simple. You can regulate the boost with your FOOT http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Boar-Ral

06-28-2005, 05:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LasVegas:
Simple. You can regulate the boost with your FOOT http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunately, I am not very good with restraint. If I can crank it back and leave it at that, I'll be safe. http://www.elcova.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif