civicRS

turbocharging or supercharging?... on its maintenance and gas consumption though....
yah and also which one is less expensive?
thnx for your comments..

7thGenerasianCivic

iTrader: (13)

I think the supercharger, dunno about the $ tho.

krayziebonet4l

iTrader: (2)

maintenenace definitely goes to ->supercharging
less expensive -> turbocharging (build your own custom kit-budget boost)
gas consumpition????

Nodnero

iTrader: (8)

I know supercharging has way less maitnence and only a lil better gas milage but u would easily be able to get a turbo for less.

mattskav

Efficiency is such a broad term, and the various types of turbos and superchargers makes this a very difficult question to answer.

If you are talking about Thermodynamic efficiency, turbos are generally more efficient (as much as 10% more) depending on the type of blower you are compairing it to (blowers go from 55-70+% efficient) turbos can easily be 70-80% efficient.

again that is talking about energy in to energy out, and the device must be properly matched to the application to see these efficiencies.

for fuel consumption purposes it depends on the setup - while common sense says that turbos should burn less fuel - they usually don't a lot of the time. I think this is a combination of a few things:
1. on gasoline engines, turbos are usually put on small motors ( 4-5 cylinders) and blowers are usually put on big motors (6-8 cylinders).

In order to drive in every day conditions (where torque is required) heavier throttle aplication is used in turbo cars where as blown cars have lots or torque at low rpm's.

If you compare two similar cars, say two 3100lb compacts with 180 hp 1.8 liter motors, one supercharged, the other turbochrged. the EPA fuel consumption figues are as you would expect - a very slight edge to the turbo car (1 mpg) a good compairison here is a benz C 230 Kompressor vs. a VW jetta 1.8t.

Da2K1

I beg to differ!
If you use the same set- up on a turbo, as well as a supercharger (i.e. the similar intercoolers, BOV etc, where possible, the supercharger will be more efficient)
When you use a turbocharger, there is a lot of heat transfered from the exhaust system to the intake charge, that's why intercoolers are VERY critical to turbochrging applications, it is not as efficient as a supercharger. As a supercharger runs off the crank, via a belt, less heat transferred to the intake charge.

Secondly, a turbo needs to spool up before it can deliver any significant boost (especially if you get a HUGE turbo) w/ a supercharger, it all depends more on the size of the pully that is being driven. It is easy to play w/ this gearing by reducing/ enlargening the supercharger pulley. There is one way to over- come this, though; using an electric motor to spool up the turbo)

Thirdly, a car equipped w/ a supercharger can be as efficient as a N/A car. Mercedes Benz uses a clutch system to engage the supercharger under certain load conditions only. So when you are crusing, it doesn't come into play. This can't be done on a turbo as easily (in fact, i don't belive there is such a system in existence!)
A supercharger is cheaper in the long run to maintain, as well.

Why does comptech make a supercharger for the S2000 & not a turbo?
Vortech & Jackson racing make supercharger systmes for the 6th gen civic SI & they rock!

There are MANY other differences between those cars. It makes sense to compare 2 cars, identical in every respect apart from the forced induction systems.

Like a 1999 VORTECH CIVIC Si ($4000 kit, better warranty )
http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/f...201ht_vortech/
Horsepower: 272 hp @ 7900 rpm (at the wheels on Dynojet dyno)
Torque: 181 lb.-ft. @ 7900 rpm (at the wheels on Dynojet dyno)

And a GREDDY CIVIC Si ($3,149.00 kit)
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0210tur_bolton2/
Dyno tested output @ wheels 244.3 w/intercooler
(this would be a better comparison, though not ideal)

In conclusion, usually superchargers for daily driven cars are much better

mattskav

I don't want to get into a turbo vs. supercharger argument, in the end it is personal preference based largely on how adjustable you want the system to be and how you like your power curve set up.

Personally I'm a blower man, I rather "instant rip your head off acceleration" intead of "waiting several seconds for my head to be ripped off"

Having said that:
Turbochargers are more thermodynamically efficient than superchargers - it's an undeniable fact - a supercharger will NEVER match the efficiency of a turbo. Superchargers incidently allso heat the air both from compression and also from heat transfer from the block (if a roots type or lyshome compressor).

Please read:
Internal Combustion Engines : Applied Thermosciences
by Colin R. Ferguson (Author), Allan T. Kirkpatrick (Author)

It is a good book used to teach many mechanical engineering internal combustion courses that I reccomen the problems are a little FUBAR but the author is going to fix them in the next version.

If left alone as in "set it and forget it" either one should be maintenence free for a long time. The trouble with turbos is people mess with the boost all the time and end up blowing up their damn cars (and they do require you to change the oil more often) no one regualarly swaps pulleys on a blowers and they have their own internal lubrication systems(at least most of them do, some dont).

as for your comment on no bypassing the turbo, it's called a waste-gate, they are commonplace on turbos. In either application the air still must snake its way around the system unlike in NA cars causing head losses - i would agree that the average head loss under bypass in a turbo car is probably greater than the head loss in a supercharged car.

and like I said efficiency is such a broad term, turbo and supercharged cars may be less fuel efficient but they are more volumetrically efficient.

One last point, I said generally turbos are used on smaller engines, there are certainly exceptions, MB, BMW (in Mini ) VW's old Corrardo, comptech, JR etc.. all use blowers on small cars with mutch success. I installed one of the first JR blowers on a '97 civic (i think it was in 1998) and the thing was BULLETPROOF - i would certainly not hesitate to throw another one in a car (although I heard they went to plastic pulleys that destruct all of the time, the kit I installed had a metal pulley) Its tragic that JR didn't step up to the plate on the 7th gen, I initially bought my civic expecting kits to be developed for it....