Re: [ST] Supercharge vs Turbo

["Chris Harwood" <Chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What about back-pressure in the exhaust?  Particularly when spinning-up.
 Turbos must make it more difficult to clear the cylinder for the next
charge.

Add Jaguar (Ford) to the supercharger camp.

Chris Harwood
00 RS

>>> robertr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 03/02/2006 00:58:04 >>>
This is always a contentious one.

Supercharge:
Almost instant response
Usually heavier then turbo
Usually requires case mods to get a drive to the pulley
Sucks horsepower so the first bit of boost is wasted fighting
mechanical
losses, varies depending if Rootes or vane type
Can put undesirable side load on case bearings not designed for the
extra
pulley hanging off the end.

Turbo,
Very little wasted boost
Exhaust plumbing
Lag
Risk of overboost without a waste gate
Can have problems with shutting down if you don't let it spin down
before
turning off the engine.
Modern turbos minimise the lag problem.

If you look at cars, Saab, Audi and others go with Turbo, Mercedes, GM
others go with Mechanical (though GM have also used turbo), so it comes
down
to the Mfr in-house technical and marketing strategies. Fuel dragsters
use
mechanical, Nissan and Ford used turbo in their group 'c' sedans that
were
almost unbeatable.

Confused?

Cheers
R

<<
_______________________________________________
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com