Why does the aftermarket love turbos? Why not superchargers?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Calum

wow guys, I was being sarcastic. Sarcastic doesn't always have to be funny. I assumed that by merely writing because race car, it would have been obvious. Sorry, I'll never make another sarcastic comment on the internet again.

BTW, that was sarcastic

I don't think it was the "because racecar" comment but the fact that you felt the need to Google it for us

[Calum]

But he tried to explain the use of superchargers and the differences, before I posted the google search.

[thebear21]

I just enjoy reading these lol
I'm down for what gives me the best daily up. not what peak hp I can get on a dyno but daily have fun drive around and enjoy my car!!! turbo or sc....

[Skyhound]

I'm pretty sure overall cost is the leading reason for Turbo popularity. They improve MPG, are cheaper to manufacture, MOST Car Tuners are not actually skilled drivers to worry about track racing, the BOV sounds cool at shows/meets, and Turbo Lag can easily be fixed by just adding another.

Toyota has never been a brand about straight lines. They make cars to get the best lap times, not 0-60 times.

I feel like Corvette Supercharges because of it's uphill battle of trying to escape Muscle Car status. It wants to be counted among European's great Super Cars which are meant for touring/road racing.

[SpeedR]

Originally Posted by zoomzoomers

Looking at it simplified... an inefficient turbo system will be more efficient than an efficient supercharged system. Of course, there will and are some that break that rule, but by in large that statement holds true.

QFT.

[FRkane]

All any company wants is profit... The RD involved with supercharging systems is much more involved. GM and Ford both refuse to develop their own systems (EATON). Those that do develop their own system are required to invest tons of funds into R&D. Most guys can custom manufacture a turbo kit, where in especially screw charger setups they have to be completely designed and manufactured for that particular engine model. Where turbo's you can mix and match and swap accordingly in your own garage. Where a roots charger has to be cast and made for each car's individual intake. Again means it takes way more funds to develop which makes profit margin less and most desings like Eaton,Magna, Kenne are all patented designs using only their components. Its alot easier to make a turbo kit for 10 cars that uses 50% of the same components where a supercharger will only fit one drive train and share maybe 10% of the same components.

[AJUSA.com]

Pretty much...

Its cost. A tuner can develop a turbo system for less than a blower in most cases.

[AJUSA.com]

Originally Posted by FRkane

All any company wants is profit...

Thats a false blanket statement.

Here is an example of how I look at it. I would rather be the best race car driver then the highest paid. When you are the best, you dont have to worry about profit.

[dori.]

Originally Posted by ahausheer

Ive driven cars that are very peaky in power delivery and cars that are smooth and linear. I guess I just like smooth acceleration and I perceive turbos as being jerky and peaky but I have limited experience with them.
Also, there is something about low down torque that just feels good to me, even in slow cars as it makes them feel faster than they are. I dont like the feeling of not knowing exactly when boost will really kick in.

really depends on the engine and size of the turbo setup (and compressor efficiency). Yeah every turbo's gonna need to spool but a small sized one can give good torque early in the powerband too

[FRkane]

Originally Posted by AJUSA.com

Thats a false blanket statement.

Here is an example of how I look at it. I would rather be the best race car driver then the highest paid. When you are the best, you dont have to worry about profit.

Good point, when one is the best then they are most of time most profitable. Change my statement: "Most" companies main concern is profit. Yet, if I made the worlds greatest mustard yet stuck everything I had into R&D for it. It would bank roll me before it would ever hit the shelf. Valid point though!

[LSxJunkie]

It is not cheaper to buy a well designed, off the shelf turbo kit. For virtually every NA car, bolt-on turbo kits are much more expensive than supercharger kits, either positive displacement or centrifugal. It is cheaper if you buy a crap eBay turbo kit or, on occasion, if you piece together the kit yourself and fab it up in your garage. You get to save the R&D costs in the well designed kit....by doing all the R&D yourself.

Originally Posted by Skyhound

I'm pretty sure overall cost is the leading reason for Turbo popularity. They improve MPG, are cheaper to manufacture, MOST Car Tuners are not actually skilled drivers to worry about track racing, the BOV sounds cool at shows/meets, and Turbo Lag can easily be fixed by just adding another.

Toyota has never been a brand about straight lines. They make cars to get the best lap times, not 0-60 times.

I feel like Corvette Supercharges because of it's uphill battle of trying to escape Muscle Car status. It wants to be counted among European's great Super Cars which are meant for touring/road racing.

It's not "trying to escape muscle car status." Corvettes have always been road race cars first, straight line cars second. Notice that there is a factory backed Corvette ALMS/LeMans team, and there is NOT a factory backed Corvette NHRA effort.









That's 60 years of Corvette road racers.

GM used a blower on the ZR1 because it's the cheapest way to make big, reliable power. None of the exotics that make the hp that the ZR1 does can match it for torque. They do it with stratospheric RPM. That's why you can putter around at 80mph in 6th at 2000rpm getting 24mpg. A PD blower gives you a big, fat, flat torque curve. Could GM have done the same thing that Ferrari and Lamborghini do with their NA motors? Sure. It's not hard to build a high rpm NA motor that makes stratospheric HP and little torque. Bolting a blower to a low compression LS3 is just smart. Same thing as the Ford GT, except they stuck the motor behind the driver's head.

[LSxJunkie]

Originally Posted by Asterisked Accolade

Superchargers tend to put stress on the engine via a pulley-- that is something i don't prefer. (I'm not implying a turbo puts no stress on the engine)Also, superchargers ran on the track heat-soak themselves into HP loss. It has been noticed strongly in SuperCharged Corvettes-- after a few laps, the charger is so hot the HP gain lowers considerably. Also, with little 4 cylinders, Turbo is usually the better way to go. V6s and V8s do very well with SCs. There is a 65' Mustang in the SCCA with a turbo and is a pretty wicked set-up, however.

Those are my main reasons. I would consider a SC if i had a well-ventilated engine bay and/or V6/V8.

Yeah, ZR1s are down on power after a few laps in 90 degree weather. So are Supras. Heat-soak is heat-soak. Bolt a blower to the top of the engine or run exhaust through a turbo, you're still getting a massive amount of heat.

Originally Posted by 86'd

1. SCs are limited to certain HP numbers vs a turbo set up.

Entirely untrue. Both are limited to a specific flow volume. At a certain point in both a turbo and a blower, it doesn't matter how fast you spin it, no more air can physically be pushed through the unit.

2. Most people who want tons of power don't road race, they drag.

Also untrue. C5s are some of the most popular HPDE cars out there now because of the price.

3. Turbos are more easily fabricated. You can't make a roots/eaton/whatever blower yourself. Just grab a snail, bend some pipes (exaggerating) and have at it.

It is no more difficult to fab a mounting bracket for a D1/T-Trim/Novi1500 than it is to fab the hot side of a home build turbo kit.

Most SCs in say a Honda application will "magnify" (for the lack of a better term) the powerband; more low end TQ etc. You'd be lucky to reach 100hp+ max power for a bolt on race kit.

Hondas aren't the be-all end-all of aftermarket FI. I wouldn't put a blower on a Honda either. Too much parasitic loss for gutless motors.

Turbos on the other hand will always achieve more power. Sure the powerband would suck for anything but drag racing (especially if its a big turbo) but you're getting 200+hp for the same money spent vs the SC setup.

A nice SC set up are great for the street, but people are always chasing numbers and turbos just provide more.

SCs do have problems as well. You need to make sure it's oiled, tighten pulleys/check belts on occasion, and monitor your cooling and A/F on a regular basis. Plus most cheap bolt on SC's don't have a cooling aspect, like say an intercooler, so you'd have to be careful about things like heatsoak and all of that.

You're aware that turbos aren't dry, right? And cooling and A/F are important on ALL aftermarket FI applications. Lean out a turbo car and tell me how well that works out for you.


I've never bolted on, worked on, or even seen a blower kit that doesn't have either an intercooler or a heat exchanger. But I've never seen or touched a cheap blower kit.

[86'd]

@LSxJunkie

You seem to be more knowledgeable than me, at least with Vettes.

I should have prefaced that my frame of reference is based off of the Honda world and 15+ years of scouring message boards and going to meets, reading dynos and learning about Hondas.

The (cheap) import world did and does things differently.

Heck the Scion tC's TRD doesn't even have an intercooler. JRSC bolt-on kits for Civics didn't have intercoolers.

All these people do, are drag race and street race, and you're maybe lucky if they autocrossed once or twice.


The S2000 had the first group of (a large number...baring the NSX) owners that cared about the longevity of their engine as well as bigger power numbers. The scene moved from roots blowers over to a centrifugal Vortech kit with a "Power Cooler". That was one of the first (at least in the Honda world) that I can remember that was centrifugal especially with an intercooler.


Again, this is my frame of reference and probably the OP's as well. And is why he asked why turbos are so prevalent; it's because at one time, they were. Aftermarket superchargers on things like Civics are a relatively new; the past15-20 years, whereas Chevy and Ford guys have been doing it for way longer.

[LSxJunkie]

Originally Posted by 86'd

@LSxJunkie

You seem to be more knowledgeable than me, at least with Vettes.

I should have prefaced that my frame of reference is based off of the Honda world and 15+ years of scouring message boards and going to meets, reading dynos and learning about Hondas.

The (cheap) import world did and does things differently.

Heck the Scion tC's TRD doesn't even have an intercooler. JRSC bolt-on kits for Civics didn't have intercoolers.

All these people do, are drag race and street race, and you're maybe lucky if they autocrossed once or twice.


The S2000 had the first group of (a large number...baring the NSX) owners that cared about the longevity of their engine as well as bigger power numbers. The scene moved from roots blowers over to a centrifugal Vortech kit with a "Power Cooler". That was one of the first (at least in the Honda world) that I can remember that was centrifugal especially with an intercooler.


Again, this is my frame of reference and probably the OP's as well. And is why he asked why turbos are so prevalent; it's because at one time, they were. Aftermarket superchargers on things like Civics are a relatively new; the past15-20 years, whereas Chevy and Ford guys have been doing it for way longer.

My experience is Vettes, GTOs, F-bodies, and G35s and 350Zs. Weighing the options for those cars, blowers were always cheaper but made a little less power out of the box. However, you could always pulley down and make comparable power.