why do you guy's like a turbo vs a centrif Supcharger?

-
overboost said:
exactly by pass valve does not control boost only excess boost in the intake tract it "by passes" it away from the turbo and closed throttle plates. a boost controller incrementally increases boost. any wastegate wether on a fi or carb car can be controlled manually


not all calibrations are set exactly at a certain boost level. the one currently in my car is set for low boost of 18(i can run down as low as i want) with spark and fuel tables to 29 turn the knob and away we go BUT i still need to pay attention to the gauges. i am not saying i am making the most power possible either without data logging and adjusting the tables but they are pretty spot on. lane changes with the throttle always scares oncoming traffic hahahahahaha

Norm
Click to expand...

Yeah I knew you can control boost manually with efi or carb, was kinda just using for illustration. This is all really good stuff "information" in this thread.
 
Ok I'll toss in my opinion.... I like turbos better and here is why. I want big power with a modern Hemi in an a body. No one makes a supercharger kit for this application. So I'm stuck with turbos or nitrous. I have done the nitrous thing and want something new. So turbo it is. There you have it my opinion is that a turbo is alot more universal than a blower. I say that because the packaging for a turbo is not limited like a blower that must be belt driven.

Rumblefish come on out to the southwest and see what a sand car can do. It's not our fault you don't live in the best part of the country lol just kidding. But out here running in the sand is huge. Just about everyone does it in some form. (the huge dust storm we had recently had me running in the sand just to get to work in my daily driver civic. Lol) I play in the sand in my ram all the time. It's a blast you should come try it before you knock it.
 
In the words of Postal Management, now there is an oxymoron if there ever was one, can't we all just agree that we will disagree???:violent1:
 
LOL ya sorry Rumble. That sand gets in your blood. Don't help any that Glamis season is coming up soon. I can't wait to get out there with my 80HP quad and set some sand on fire!!!!!!! Dang! See I am doing it again. Just can't help it. LOL

Any way back on to the topic.
 
Mad Dart and Turbo Dart, I'm glad to see gusy like you out there playing in turbo territory, and I'd definitely be interested in seeing some of your project work.

To both your points, and based on my years playing around with roots style blowers, I'd have to agree that it takes an above average person to accept the challenges of dialing in a turbo charged engine. The tuning balance required to assure fast spool; and maintaining the fuel and air across the entire rpm band - without frying some pistons, takes alot of talent and patience.

Also, as someone whose played with positive displacement superchargers, they're hard on parts, generate a lot of heat from rotors beating the air; and their adiabadic efficiency can't come close to the centrifugals. And, yes, turbos deliver FREE horse power.

For anyone that doubts such, please explain to me the parasitic losses of a centrifugal unit. Where is 'power' being absorbed (through the crank, pistons, valve train or) ? With proper sizing of the downpipe you get excellent scavaging, so how many horsepower are lost on turbo engines - and from where do those losses come from ?

Those are serious questions, and I'd really like to hear others perspective.

I also like that twin turbo avitar. Does that belong to you ?

Keep the faith guys. Remember, there's a reason turbos came in vogue back in the 60's and 70's'; only to reappear in the 80's etc. - only to disappear from showrooms just as quickly. Because most people - and especially mechanics didn't understand them.

Such is the legacy of turbo technology today...

Southernman
 
Not to stir the pot........but alot of claims are made here. Anybody got any proof that superchargers take x amount of power? Not what you read on a web site, or an edjuemacated guess, but proof? No real way to tell if a turbo is actually costing hp is there?? Other than theory?? Read in a previous post that a fuel car takes 800-1000 hp to turn the blower. Take into account the air/fuel ratio, which I believe is about 2:1 and that is not at all surprising considering that the vanes will be moving more or less liquid thru them. It was mentioned that NHRA banned turbos a while back in the Pro Stock class at least I think it was mentioned here, any proof?? Not in some Hot Rod magazine, but real proof? Maybe I am way off base here. Hell it does not really matter to me, I will be throttling a big cube EFI HEMI one day hopefully. One thing that might convince the nay sayers of "turbos being free hp/superchargers dragging "x" amount of power" is undeniable proof. Not what you think is real, or what a text book says, but cold hard dyno sheets. It is, after all, very easy to make claims of any sort. If I am way off base here I do apologize.......just the view from my side of the street.
 
Southernman said:
Mad Dart and Turbo Dart, I'm glad to see gusy like you out there playing in turbo territory, and I'd definitely be interested in seeing some of your project work.

To both your points, and based on my years playing around with roots style blowers, I'd have to agree that it takes an above average person to accept the challenges of dialing in a turbo charged engine. The tuning balance required to assure fast spool; and maintaining the fuel and air across the entire rpm band - without frying some pistons, takes alot of talent and patience.

Also, as someone whose played with positive displacement superchargers, they're hard on parts, generate a lot of heat from rotors beating the air; and their adiabadic efficiency can't come close to the centrifugals. And, yes, turbos deliver FREE horse power.

For anyone that doubts such, please explain to me the parasitic losses of a centrifugal unit. Where is 'power' being absorbed (through the crank, pistons, valve train or) ? With proper sizing of the downpipe you get excellent scavaging, so how many horsepower are lost on turbo engines - and from where do those losses come from ?

Those are serious questions, and I'd really like to hear others perspective.

I also like that twin turbo avitar. Does that belong to you ?

Keep the faith guys. Remember, there's a reason turbos came in vogue back in the 60's and 70's'; only to reappear in the 80's etc. - only to disappear from showrooms just as quickly. Because most people - and especially mechanics didn't understand them.

Such is the legacy of turbo technology today...

Southernman
Click to expand...

You can see my build in the link below>>>>>

Twin Turbo 67 Dart Project
http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/...d.php?t=116512
 
tooslow said:
Looks like i got some activity with this post! ITS A GOOD ONE.
I am in the process of posting the old HOT ROD article on the 600 plus HP turbo build for $3000 including the engine under my" $450 chinese turbo thread" I will have it all on there today

Winter is coming and i have a 120K stock 440 with 915 heads It might be fun to mess with a turbo if I get excited enough from these posts?(gettin there)
i picked up a 54 F100 with a Cordaba front clip for $900 and it would fit right in there!!!!
!!!!! LOTS OF FUN truck weighs 3000lbs
Click to expand...
Whatever you decided,You can gain a wealth of information from this link:
http://www.turbomustangs.com/knowledge.php
A lot of mustangs but they have a Mopar section.
Mainly a lot of great informative reads...
TXDart
And thanks for starting this post,I learned some things as well between the pissing matches.I guess I need to visit the Forced Induction Section more often here as well.
 
I have read ALL posts on this thread.

I want everyone to know that this thread is 1 derogatory post away from being closed or removed by me. I am seriously thinking about cleansing this thread of any off topic posts or comments. But, I dont want to and dont plan to unless I feel I have to. I think that everyone has the right to express themselves on the subject.

I am not taking sides. This warning goes for all. This thread has some great info and disscussion so lets keep it on track and on subject.

If anyone has a problem with my comments or actions, please feel free to PM me with your concerns.

Quote:
There is no need for any frictional undercurrent in this thread. Surely we can develop discussions and exchange ideas without giving the impression that we are dismissing someone else's knowledge or experience.
Thank you,
MARTIN
 
OK, Back on topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wooooo!

I'll say this upfront, I have no clue about this stuff. IF I was to go about turbo charging an engine, what company should I deal with in getting a new turbo.
 
OK, Back on topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wooooo!

I'll say this upfront, I have no clue about this stuff. IF I was to go about turbo charging an engine, what company should I deal with in getting a new turbo.[/quote]

Depends on your goals and us of the car. There is a lot of information on the subject here....... theturboforums.com When running a big single turbo guys have a difficult time with the Turbo Exhaust out on an A Body. Usually they have a 5" Dump.

Here is a start with some good information on different types of Installs with an inexpensive turbo that has excellent results.
http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=96046.0

Here is a 4cyl with one of these turbo's. This one is for all the haters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SPzxAxsebE&feature=youtu.be
 
OK, Back on topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wooooo!

I'll say this upfront, I have no clue about this stuff. IF I was to go about turbo charging an engine, what company should I deal with in getting a new turbo.[/quote]

I have a pretty good book on the subject which doesnt get too far in with engineer speak. It's written by Corky Bell and is called Maximum Boost. It would help you to read it before entertaining a shop . That way at least you know what thier talking about.
 
Guys,

I have seem many examples of 'over thinking' over the course of my career, but some of the things being posted here really have raised the bar. I like how many on these forms like to say "prove it (to me?)", versus doing a little research on your own. Come on guys !

For one, there is a huge difference between the driven resistance of a turbo versus a positive displacement supercharger and it's not that hard to comfirm.

Here's a couple things to ponder right off the bat:

1 Reach into any turbo (with your two fingers) and spin the impeller. Now tell me, how much horse power did you just expend to spin that turbo impeller ? And guess what - you just expended more HP? to spin it versus when it's operational because there is NO OIL in the thing to aid it's rotation.

2 Now reach up and grab the snout on any teflon lined supercharger and try to spin it over - with 2 fingers... It will come as no surprise that many of them will take two hands and significant effort to spin it - and you CANNOT spin it fast (freely) - due to internal drag of the stripped rotors.

3 For the rest of you, reflect back on one Austin Coil (that's right, John Forces Crew Chief), who years ago developed a device called a "blower dyno". It was developed because Coil was smart enought to realize that superchargers varied in parasitic drag (mfg and assy), which pulled the HP potential of their engines down - due to internal drag and kenetic energy in the rotors which could vary by weight and pitch.

In fact, HOTROD magazine did an article years ago where Forces team started out using a hotrod 351 Ford Cleveland engine to turn the blowers over just to measure their parasitic losses. They were able to do QC on all new blowers once they started this program and it forced the serious blower manufacturers to include their findings befores shipping to future racers. We know today, the HP required to drive a supercharger because of a device called a "blower dyno". If you didn't know that, it doesn't take long to read up or query the internet. The answers are out there.

To further support my contention here, how many of you understand the concept of kenetic energy ? Well, here's a simplified version:

Take the total mass of a turbo impeller that weighs, what, 2-3 lbs, mount in on a center shaft, and spin it with your fingers. There is almost zero mass to spin, which makes it very easy to spin very fast - with just your finger. Near zero kenetic energy due to very low weight and mass.

Now mount a pair of helix type rotos on a common shaft (the drive snout), add the teflon strips (required to keep it sealed during operation) and try to spin it over with any great effect. Guess what it still takes two hands and a lot of grunt just to move it - and you're never going to see one spin with just two fingers. Very high kenetic energy due to high weight, mass, and internal resistance (teflon strips).

OK, now add the resistance from the roots rotors as the air is squeezed down (compressed) to exit the intake port, and you've got a recipe for massive drag. Albeit, they do make much more than they lose in parasitic losses, but it takes big HP to drive a blower - especially competition blowers.

On NHRA not allowing turbos in pro-stock, just take a look at the class and you quickly see they've never let it happen, nor will they let it happen. I watched Buddy Ingersol and others compete at Rockingham and monitored their efforts to get turbo cars accepted and have personal knowledge of the decisions the exclude them. That was even after the turbo crowd agreed to reduce their engine sizes to 1/2 that of the NA cars, and they were never given a chance. Get over it guys, turbo technology is king - even though most of us still love the positive displacement stuff.

In summary guys, I'm a roots-type supercharger guy myself, but there is no doubt that turbos have much more potential than superchargers ever did. If it weren't so, don't you think the diesel manufacturers would have kept on making their 6, 8-71's to this day ? It's the main reason you're forced to by the "new cases" with new kits, because most of the 'refurbs' have dried up - and nobody makes them for diesels anymore.

The mechanically driven centrifugal supercharger was an attempt to bridge both technologies; high boost levels with a reduction in heat, complimented by a reduction in rotor mass using a larger turbo wheel driven by a belt. It really all comes down to preference, but, again, turbos are king of the "lowest driven requirement per HP output".

OK, now there's my feedback on this topic. Bring on the comments, but please stop aruguing just to argue, and come back and teach the rest of us something once in a while... We'll all be better off for it.

Southernman
 
Well written Southernman! I could not have made it more clear.

I think turbo's are here to stay this time. Thier time is now because the teck is needed. Between direct inj and turbo's a whole new *** wooopin can be laid down.
 
Southernman said:
Guys,

I have seem many examples of 'over thinking' over the course of my career, but some of the things being posted here really have raised the bar. I like how many on these forms like to say "prove it (to me?)", versus doing a little research on your own. Come on guys !

For one, there is a huge difference between the driven resistance of a turbo versus a positive displacement supercharger and it's not that hard to comfirm.

Here's a couple things to ponder right off the bat:

1 Reach into any turbo (with your two fingers) and spin the impeller. Now tell me, how much horse power did you just expend to spin that turbo impeller ? And guess what - you just expended more HP? to spin it versus when it's operational because there is NO OIL in the thing to aid it's rotation.

2 Now reach up and grab the snout on any teflon lined supercharger and try to spin it over - with 2 fingers... It will come as no surprise that many of them will take two hands and significant effort to spin it - and you CANNOT spin it fast (freely) - due to internal drag of the stripped rotors.

3 For the rest of you, reflect back on one Austin Coil (that's right, John Forces Crew Chief), who years ago developed a device called a "blower dyno". It was developed because Coil was smart enought to realize that superchargers varied in parasitic drag (mfg and assy), which pulled the HP potential of their engines down - due to internal drag and kenetic energy in the rotors which could vary by weight and pitch.

In fact, HOTROD magazine did an article years ago where Forces team started out using a hotrod 351 Ford Cleveland engine to turn the blowers over just to measure their parasitic losses. They were able to do QC on all new blowers once they started this program and it forced the serious blower manufacturers to include their findings befores shipping to future racers. We know today, the HP required to drive a supercharger because of a device called a "blower dyno". If you didn't know that, it doesn't take long to read up or query the internet. The answers are out there.

To further support my contention here, how many of you understand the concept of kenetic energy ? Well, here's a simplified version:

Take the total mass of a turbo impeller that weighs, what, 2-3 lbs, mount in on a center shaft, and spin it with your fingers. There is almost zero mass to spin, which makes it very easy to spin very fast - with just your finger. Near zero kenetic energy due to very low weight and mass.

Now mount a pair of helix type rotos on a common shaft (the drive snout), add the teflon strips (required to keep it sealed during operation) and try to spin it over with any great effect. Guess what it still takes two hands and a lot of grunt just to move it - and you're never going to see one spin with just two fingers. Very high kenetic energy due to high weight, mass, and internal resistance (teflon strips).

OK, now add the resistance from the roots rotors as the air is squeezed down (compressed) to exit the intake port, and you've got a recipe for massive drag. Albeit, they do make much more than they lose in parasitic losses, but it takes big HP to drive a blower - especially competition blowers.

On NHRA not allowing turbos in pro-stock, just take a look at the class and you quickly see they've never let it happen, nor will they let it happen. I watched Buddy Ingersol and others compete at Rockingham and monitored their efforts to get turbo cars accepted and have personal knowledge of the decisions the exclude them. That was even after the turbo crowd agreed to reduce their engine sizes to 1/2 that of the NA cars, and they were never given a chance. Get over it guys, turbo technology is king - even though most of us still love the positive displacement stuff.

In summary guys, I'm a roots-type supercharger guy myself, but there is no doubt that turbos have much more potential than superchargers ever did. If it weren't so, don't you think the diesel manufacturers would have kept on making their 6, 8-71's to this day ? It's the main reason you're forced to by the "new cases" with new kits, because most of the 'refurbs' have dried up - and nobody makes them for diesels anymore.

The mechanically driven centrifugal supercharger was an attempt to bridge both technologies; high boost levels with a reduction in heat, complimented by a reduction in rotor mass using a larger turbo wheel driven by a belt. It really all comes down to preference, but, again, turbos are king of the "lowest driven requirement per HP output".

OK, now there's my feedback on this topic. Bring on the comments, but please stop aruguing just to argue, and come back and teach the rest of us something once in a while... We'll all be better off for it.

Southernman
Click to expand...


Very nicely put... I like the part about teach us something once and awhile, Thats why im here in the first place to share info and learn not fight.
 
Thanks for the kind words guys and, as noted, I'm just an old fashioned rodder who prefers the big inch, roots-type blowers that blow fire and shake the ground. I personally think they will continue to dominate the track and street scene for years to come. But, times are changin'.

I'm also street smart enough to know that the huge potential of turbos has yet to be exploited by both manufacturers and the rodding community, but with guys like Mike Moran tearing up the 5 second zone nowadays with a single turbo "small engined" car, it should put the "roots" guys on notice. I think it mostly comes down to fear of a technology that many are not (yet) comfortable with. After all, how much fun is it to sit down and review compressor maps and design a turbo induction system for our hotrods.

Well, thankfully, we don't have to. There are plenty of companies out there that have huge dollars invested in R&D so you can just about bolt a system on an go kick some butt.

I also don't think front wheel drive cars will ever attain respect in the drag racing world. It's not because they aren't fast. It's because they lack the excitement of a thing called wheel stands. Just as the female members of my family complained about how little respect womens basketball receives, until slam dunks become common place, they'll always be in the minority.

With that said, I personally think the turbo crowd is missing a golden opportunity by not setting their cars up with rear drive and going around the country doing exhibition runs with their "tiny" turbo engines that are capable of running 6 second quarter mile times. Now that's something I'd pay good money to see...! It's probably the only way they'll ever be accepted into sanctioned races - even if it meant they'd run in their own divisions. However, when the small engine, big turbo, cars start running faster than everyone else - they'll quickly be outlawed. That's just my opinion.

I also think that politics, and rising fuel prices, will play a big role in the transition down the road, and it will drive many more rodders toward the stealthiness, and fuel efficiency, of turbo chargers, and I hope that rodders like yourselves continue your efforts to, hopefully, induce many of us old timers to follow your lead.

But, at the end of the day, remember, there are huge manufacturing companies heavily invested in todays race cars, and a turbo transition won't be easy - or welcome - mostly for financial reasons. I'll let you figure out what that means.

Don't let the naysayers deter you, and let me know if I can help ! Also, sorry for rambling.

Southernman
 
Southernman said:
Thanks for the kind words guys and, as noted, I'm just an old fashioned rodder who prefers the big inch, roots-type blowers that blow fire and shake the ground. I personally think they will continue to dominate the track and street scene for years to come. But, times are changin'.

Southernman
Click to expand...

You are right at this point in time Buuut,
There are quite a few folk down here in the south finding HUGE power with turbos. Even the shadetree racers are switching!
Here is a site to view some of the sickest cars down here. Alot of good videos here!! 1st vid you will see my old 66 Falcon at 1:24 and the short Ol'man that I got my Cuda from. He is scared to death of it so he has his nephew pilot it that is standing beside him.. LOL!! LOTS of Blown rides too!

http://nitroart.com/

He frequents many of the local tracks around me... Break these vicious rants here and,

Enjoy!!!:blob:
 
And the original question was "Why the Preference to Turbochargers?"

The answer is:
A given Turbocharger is
1. a more effecient air pump than a comparable Supercharger
2. more tuneable to a wider range of Pressure Levels
3. costs less to setup, maintain, and repair

Turbocharging is simple enough to understand....if you understand all the rules.

Rule #1 you can only stuff a certain amount of air through a hole.
Like Water, air has a fluid like qaulity about it under pressure...it drags until its pushed and compressed....so you can only push a certain amount through a certain sized hole...like the Inlet and Exhaust of a Turbo....the bigger the holes, the more air can go through.....sizing is important.
Rule #2 Heat is Bad.....Intake Charge, Fluid Temp, Exhaust Temp
HEAT IS BAD.....200*f is usually the breaking point on the Intake and Fluid...Exhaust anything over 1600F is bad.
Rule 3.....If you ADD AIR....YOU MUST ADD FUEL or your pistons will make the sacrifice for you.
Rule 4. 100% of Air compressed at Turbocharger needs to make it to the Combustion Chamber.....piping leaks, coupling leaks, pressure drop, and poor exhaust sealing will cause tuning and durability issues.
Rule 5. Use quality fuel. Phillips 66 - 86 octane on 10psi is asking for it

Its all logical....but can go crazy real quick if there is a lack of proper fuel ratio at a given Air Pressure.

Turbocharging is supreme in extreme power capabilities.
There is nothing to argue about.
The FACT that a Roots Blower is used on a Top Fuel car is just that. Its a Fact. Turbochargers were not allowed in NHRA after their potential was realized. And supercharger developement went on to become what it is today. Turbochargers are the Best, though. Period.
 
I'm a Turbo guy hands down... But I have driven a couple vehicles with a whipple and they were fun to drive they felt like a much larger engine than they really were, They are pricey and are not available for everything but if you have the dough they are pretty Damn nice and I like them better than a centrifugal blower, The vehicles I drove I only heard the one on a v-10 F350 the other two A 2007 mustang and a tahoe I had to POP the hood because they ran way to good to be N/A motors.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top