<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.