Turbo charging vs. Supercharging

[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


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]

<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

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]

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

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 why go thru the trouble of installing a turbo when you can get the exact same result using a SC with less hassle

[LasVegas]

<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]

<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

[Induction Concepts]

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]

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]

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

[Fastest H-Town Realtor]

<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 </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]

<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]

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.

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]

<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]

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]

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]

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]

<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]

<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>

[KenP]

<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. )

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. 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?

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

[Induction Concepts]

<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:
Some turbos do use coolant to aid in cooling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

Hot Rod Magazine's Guide to Turbos:
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...13_0312_turbo/

Turbonetics FAQ:
http://www.turboneticsinc.com/faq.htm

Wikipedia - General Turbo Info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

[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:
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