Hard on for turbochargers?

CoedNaked · 12-05-2007, 10:44 PM

I'm curious if somene in here could tell me why everyone seems to have a big hard on for turbo chargers over superchargers? Yes I understand that turbochargers "apparently" tend to require less drain/pull from the engine to make their boost by using exhaust flow to turn the turbine. But the HP superhcargers use off the pulley to turn their impellers couldn't be *that* much more to offset the advantages that superchargers offer, namely no issues with turob lag, way less installation issues, much easier to install and uninstall, cleaner looking engine bays, etc. Is there something I am missing here?

This ad is not displayed to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Yotatech!

apalmer1 · 12-05-2007, 10:50 PM

Personaly from what ive seen on YT the oppinions are rather split. Turbo's offer less resistance and take less power, and can produce WAY more boost and hp then a SC can, though on the flipside SC's have power on demand and produce much more low end torque. As well SC's are far more durable offroad as long as you are sure to bring spair belts. Though people will argue either way on the durability.

Im sure youve opened up a can of worms with this thread as it will probably just start the whole argument over again...

CoedNaked · 12-05-2007, 11:04 PM

Well I can see the can of worms coming around. But I'd be interested if this can is opened, if there are any other details or points that I may have missed that may help me understand the turbocharger crowd a bit better.

EDIT: Here's a question for you - why don't you ever hear of Supercharged Diesel engines? It appears as though all they ever come out with are Turbo Diesels - why no supercharged diesels?

Jay351 · 12-05-2007, 11:26 PM

Diesles have great low end power, top end is where they drop off, and thats where turbos work best. At least thats what I made of it...

supercharger wine > turbo blow off valve

superjoe83 · 12-06-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoedNaked

EDIT: Here's a question for you - why don't you ever hear of Supercharged Diesel engines?

i have, they were made by Detroit Diesel, most popular models were the 8v-71 and 8v-92 and some other models i cant think of right now, they were 2-stroke diesels but even with the blower they were considered naturally aspirated, the blower was needed just to run, the later models had turbos and blowers but still were NA, at high RPM the turbo had a bypass port to bypass the blower to give the engine extra air

Quote:

At the top of the cylinder are typically two or four exhaust valves that all open at the same time. There is also the diesel fuel injector (shown above in yellow). The piston is elongated, as in a gasoline two-stroke engine, so that it can act as the intake valve. At the bottom of the piston's travel, the piston uncovers the ports for air intake. The intake air is pressurized by a turbocharger or a supercharger (light blue). The crankcase is sealed and contains oil as in a four-stroke engine.

The two-stroke diesel cycle goes like this:

When the piston is at the top of its travel, the cylinder contains a charge of highly compressed air. Diesel fuel is sprayed into the cylinder by the injector and immediately ignites because of the heat and pressure inside the cylinder. This is the same process described in How Diesel Engines Work.

The pressure created by the combustion of the fuel drives the piston downward. This is the power stroke.

As the piston nears the bottom of its stroke, all of the exhaust valves open. Exhaust gases rush out of the cylinder, relieving the pressure.

As the piston bottoms out, it uncovers the air intake ports. Pressurized air fills the cylinder, forcing out the remainder of the exhaust gases.

The exhaust valves close and the piston starts traveling back upward, re-covering the intake ports and compressing the fresh charge of air. This is the compression stroke.

As the piston nears the top of the cylinder, the cycle repeats with step 1.
From this description, you can see the big difference between a diesel two-stroke engine and a gasoline two-stroke engine: In the diesel version, only air fills the cylinder, rather than gas and air mixed together. This means that a diesel two-stroke engine suffers from none of the environmental problems that plague a gasoline two-stroke engine. On the other hand, a diesel two-stroke engine must have a turbocharger or a supercharger, and this means that you will never find a diesel two-stroke on a chain saw -- it would simply be too expensive.

mikes19984x4 · 12-06-2007, 12:06 AM

yeah superchargers are awesome with that classic blower "whine", but IMO, a turbo just can't be beat...i mean, it gives the engine more power from the engines exhaust (so it's not "using" any of the motor's power to make more power), it can be tweaked to make more boost, which = even more power, and i guess b/c i'm such a big diesel fan, the spool-up and blow-off valve sounds are cooler to me, but that's just IMO...

strykersd · 12-06-2007, 12:13 AM

I prefer a turbo charger because it is power when you need it. Say it doesn't spool until 3500RPMs, until then it's like you have a normal naturally aspirated engine. Thus saving gas yet having the power when you need it.

notanymore · 12-06-2007, 12:56 AM

i like superchargers over turbo because of having the power on hand, not having to step on the gas and wait for it

thebusine$$ · 12-06-2007, 12:57 AM

Just curious to know if there are any major manufacturers that make outstanding turbochargers for 3rd Gen. 4Runners?

fastkevman · 12-06-2007, 01:13 AM

With newer turbo designs and proper tuning there is very little lag, you won't notice at all.

Original supercharger designs, "gmc" roots-style blowers used by early drag-racers are actually revamped industrial or diesel blowers.

Also, instant power from a supercharger is a myth as their rated psi is on the top end, therefore just like a turbo the faster it spins the more air it pushes.

You can put together a homemade cheap turbo set-up quite easily with a farm equipment turbo that would make tons of power for less than $1000, the cheapest supercharger, be it roots-style or centrifugal will cost $2500 or more.....ouch!

stormin94 · 12-06-2007, 01:38 AM

For me, It would really depend on what I was using my car for, and what kind of car it is. For example, I'd much rather have a supercharged SUV than a Turbo, esp for low speeds(and low RPM, too). I'd like to have a turbo on a diesel, or a BMW sports car. I'd want a supercharger on a muscle car, or on a large gasoline engine (IE, the 4.3 chevy, the 5.7 chevy, and pretty much anything over 350CI). On a Z06 Corvette, which is fast enough as it is, I'd like a Supercharger. I guess all in all, I like superchargers better. I'm not sure why, but I think the whole ricer scene kind of ruined turbos for me a little bit.

apalmer1 · 12-06-2007, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikes19984x4

yeah superchargers are awesome with that classic blower "whine", but IMO, a turbo just can't be beat...i mean, it gives the engine more power from the engines exhaust (so it's not "using" any of the motor's power to make more power), it can be tweaked to make more boost, which = even more power, and i guess b/c i'm such a big diesel fan, the spool-up and blow-off valve sounds are cooler to me, but that's just IMO...

Its not all about power though, there is also durability and driveability to consider, as well as the most important one, offroadability

Most turbochargers just cant live up to the simplistic, enclosed, bolt on design of an SC, as well as they are not positioned as high up on the block which makes them even more succeptible to water damage. Im not saying that there arent some incredibly durrable and efficient turbo's out there that can be used for offroad, but i am saying that for the price the general consumer is going to get better end results from a supercharger.

Matt16 · 12-06-2007, 02:05 AM

The fuel economy turns me off superchargers. I'd like to put a bi-turbo setup in my 22RE. A little turbo to spool up fast for power on tap and the a bigger turbo for higher revs. In the perfect word, I'd just have a turbo diesel 4Runner.

tc · 12-06-2007, 07:34 AM

First, let's have a little lesson.

A turbocharger IS a supercharger. A supercharger compresses the intake air to provide more oxygen so you can burn more fuel. As simple as that.

The difference in the two is the way the compressor is driven. A turbocharger is a special kind of supercharger that uses the exhaust gas to drive a radial turbine compressor.

What people are talking about above are their experiences in the execution of the idea. There are many poorly executed designs out there. You can make a supercharger that has the high end boost like a turbo and you can make a turbo with NO lag like a supercharger - and there are plenty of both out there.

Since a turbo is ALWAYS remote mounted, it is easier to intercool it to boost that oxygen density even further. As mentioned above, though, that comes at the expense of complex exhaust routing.

Typically, a supercharger is easier to install, but does have some parasitic drag and, for the intake mounted versions especially, they are harder to intercool.

Because of the high compression ratios diesel engines operate at, they have a lot of energy in their exhaust streams which are "ripe pickings" for a turbo. From a factory standpoint, turbos have the advantage of quieting the exhaust and reducing the exhaust temp which helps them meet EPA requirements.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/supercharger.htm

mikes19984x4 · 12-06-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormin94

For me, It would really depend on what I was using my car for, and what kind of car it is. For example, I'd much rather have a supercharged SUV than a Turbo, esp for low speeds(and low RPM, too). I'd like to have a turbo on a diesel, or a BMW sports car. I'd want a supercharger on a muscle car, or on a large gasoline engine (IE, the 4.3 chevy, the 5.7 chevy, and pretty much anything over 350CI). On a Z06 Corvette, which is fast enough as it is, I'd like a Supercharger. I guess all in all, I like superchargers better. I'm not sure why, but I think the whole ricer scene kind of ruined turbos for me a little bit.

http://www.lingenfelter.com/Lingenfe...boCorvette.htm

i bet this kit for a Z06 would make you change your mind about a supercharger...and they even had a corvette for a car & driver test that was making more HP than this kit...1000+ HP!

agusgus3 · 12-06-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastkevman

With newer turbo designs and proper tuning there is very little lag, you won't notice at all.

Of course it comes down to design of the system and what you want out it. Turbo systems designed correctly for your goals, are superior to SC, with the appropriate maintenance.

Again, begging the question i had earlier, T25-42AR turbine, 48AR compressor, 2.7L 3RZ; any takers on full boost before say 2k?

xcmountain80 · 12-06-2007, 04:21 PM

Just dont get your hard on stuck in the turbo.

Aaron

foot0069 · 12-06-2007, 04:55 PM

Tc is on time. Take a look at a top fuel car sometime blowers rule no mater what drives em. They are all usually built to pull after they start to spool up some. Rock crawlers need the low end umph. Turbo's need a lot of engineering to get that. But check this out.

http://www.nelsonracingengines.com/video_drive.html

Ya gotta like that
Jim

stormin94 · 12-06-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikes19984x4

http://www.lingenfelter.com/Lingenfe...boCorvette.htm

i bet this kit for a Z06 would make you change your mind about a supercharger...and they even had a corvette for a car & driver test that was making more HP than this kit...1000+ HP!

I like the twin turbo escalade that they did with 800 horsepower!!!

KZN185W · 12-07-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tc

First, let's have a little lesson.

A turbocharger IS a supercharger....

there are 2 types of forced induction systems: one type is the turbocharger (powered by engine exhaust) and the other is the supercharger (powered by the engine pulley).

although both have the same function (to increase engine performance), the two are still different and a turbocharger is not a supercharger.

88Yota4runner · 12-07-2007, 04:56 PM

lets all just get along and build a 4runner with a turbocharger AND supercharger nwgaaagaha *imhigh*

b.miller123 · 12-07-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KZN185W

there are 2 types of forced induction systems: one type is the turbocharger (powered by engine exhaust) and the other is the supercharger (powered by the engine pulley).

although both have the same function (to increase engine performance), the two are still different and a turbocharger is not a supercharger.

umm....................................

tc was right, and as much as I hate to start arguements, you are wrong, a "turbocharger" is just another version of a supercharger, that happens to be turned be a turbine that sits in the exhaust system, instead of a belt

The closest design of a supercharger that is widely known is the centrifugal superchargers that vortec is making, basically it is the "back-half" (or intake-half) of a "turbocharger" and instead of being driven by exhaust, it's driven by a belt

and as much as I hate to quote wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger

it's in the very first paragraph

or,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

it's in the very first sentence

tc · 12-07-2007, 06:29 PM

It's also in the howstuffworks link I posted...

b.miller123 · 12-07-2007, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tc

It's also in the howstuffworks link I posted...

yeah, i didn't see that part, I guess that he didn't either

KZN185W · 12-08-2007, 02:21 AM

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

this one was made by a different author...i guess they also have differing opinions like we do here...

12-05-2007, 10:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
apalmer1 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Bend, OR. Posts: 664	Personaly from what ive seen on YT the oppinions are rather split. Turbo's offer less resistance and take less power, and can produce WAY more boost and hp then a SC can, though on the flipside SC's have power on demand and produce much more low end torque. As well SC's are far more durable offroad as long as you are sure to bring spair belts. Though people will argue either way on the durability. Im sure youve opened up a can of worms with this thread as it will probably just start the whole argument over again... __________________ 04 taco, 3.4 5spd. loads of goodies, FZJ80 axle SAS in progress. 85 pickup, 327sbc, truggy, in progress. 86 mazda b2000 street queen haha. 92 mazda B2600i 4x4 absolutely mobs. 81 ford bronco drinks gas 90 mazda mx-5 all original. when in doubt, tach it out.

12-05-2007, 11:04 PM	#3 (permalink)
CoedNaked Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 1,473	Well I can see the can of worms coming around. But I'd be interested if this can is opened, if there are any other details or points that I may have missed that may help me understand the turbocharger crowd a bit better. EDIT: Here's a question for you - why don't you ever hear of Supercharged Diesel engines? It appears as though all they ever come out with are Turbo Diesels - why no supercharged diesels? __________________ 1993 Xtra Cab Pickup \| 4x4 \| 3.0 - V6 \| R150F \| Silver-Grey \| Amsoil 10w30 synthetic oil \| Amsoil Synthetic Drivetrain fluids\| Borla Cat-back Exhaust \| OME HD Leaf Springs \| Bilstein HD Shocks \| Downey Idler Arm Brace \| Grey Husky Liners \| SR5 Bucket Seat Swap \| Color matched Canopy \| Yakima racks \| Line-X OTR \| Michelin LTX A/T 31 x 10.5 x 15 \| 323,600 KM's (202,250 miles) \| Made in Japan - Vin starts with "J"\| Fish on Last edited by CoedNaked; 12-05-2007 at 11:07 PM.

12-05-2007, 11:26 PM	#4 (permalink)
Jay351 Contributing Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: maple ridge, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 8,630	Diesles have great low end power, top end is where they drop off, and thats where turbos work best. At least thats what I made of it... supercharger wine > turbo blow off valve __________________ 91 Pickup - xcab - 5sp - 3.0 - SR5 - 4x4 - 250k \|2.25" catback w/ magnaflow cat + glasspack \| Weasy2k cams \| Aisin manual hubs \| Diff breather mod\| Marlin HD clutch \|3" BL \| es3000's \|2" AAL \|1.5" bj spacers \| ISR \| Alpine headunit \| 4" Infinity fronts/5" rears \| 4.88's \|Rear lockright \| 33x12.50" BFG M/T on 15x8" steelies \|Hella 500's \|4" reverse lights\| Grant GT \|idler arm brace\|hella E-codes\| Marlin armor \|SS IFS brace \| %100 Amsoil synthetic http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2572486

12-06-2007, 12:06 AM	#6 (permalink)
mikes19984x4 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tuscaloosa, AL Posts: 703	yeah superchargers are awesome with that classic blower "whine", but IMO, a turbo just can't be beat...i mean, it gives the engine more power from the engines exhaust (so it's not "using" any of the motor's power to make more power), it can be tweaked to make more boost, which = even more power, and i guess b/c i'm such a big diesel fan, the spool-up and blow-off valve sounds are cooler to me, but that's just IMO... __________________ 1998 4Runner SR5 4x4 3.4 w/5-speed & E-Locker Deckplate & ISR mod w/K&N, 2.5-inch Exhaust w/40-Series Flowmaster Centerforce Clutch Bilstien Shocks, 265/75/16 Buckshot Mudders Sylvania Silverstars, Hella 500s on front bumper (no longer), Orange Gauge Lights, JVC Arsenal Head Unit, Pioneer REV-Series Speakers More mods to come...

12-06-2007, 12:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
strykersd Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 325	I prefer a turbo charger because it is power when you need it. Say it doesn't spool until 3500RPMs, until then it's like you have a normal naturally aspirated engine. Thus saving gas yet having the power when you need it. __________________ Patrick 86 Toyota 4runner - Toy 97 Honda Civic - Daily Driver 89 Honda CRX SI - SOLD 97 Ford F-150 - Fixer-Upper

12-06-2007, 12:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
notanymore Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Wenatchee WA Posts: 969	i like superchargers over turbo because of having the power on hand, not having to step on the gas and wait for it __________________ my truck: 1987 pickup xtra cab sr5 22re 5 speed 4wd, 31x10.5's eb 261c cam, lce header, 2.25 exhaust 120amp Mr. Alternator rear lockrite, optima yellow top xrc8 winch & AOR bumper coming soon my bikes: 1980 Honda CX500-1997 honda cbr F3

12-06-2007, 12:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
thebusine$$ Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Los Angeles, Ca Posts: 137	Just curious to know if there are any major manufacturers that make outstanding turbochargers for 3rd Gen. 4Runners?

12-06-2007, 01:13 AM	#10 (permalink)
fastkevman Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 708	With newer turbo designs and proper tuning there is very little lag, you won't notice at all. Original supercharger designs, "gmc" roots-style blowers used by early drag-racers are actually revamped industrial or diesel blowers. Also, instant power from a supercharger is a myth as their rated psi is on the top end, therefore just like a turbo the faster it spins the more air it pushes. You can put together a homemade cheap turbo set-up quite easily with a farm equipment turbo that would make tons of power for less than $1000, the cheapest supercharger, be it roots-style or centrifugal will cost $2500 or more.....ouch!

12-06-2007, 01:38 AM	#11 (permalink)
stormin94 Contributing Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Lake County, CA/Sacramento Posts: 3,520	For me, It would really depend on what I was using my car for, and what kind of car it is. For example, I'd much rather have a supercharged SUV than a Turbo, esp for low speeds(and low RPM, too). I'd like to have a turbo on a diesel, or a BMW sports car. I'd want a supercharger on a muscle car, or on a large gasoline engine (IE, the 4.3 chevy, the 5.7 chevy, and pretty much anything over 350CI). On a Z06 Corvette, which is fast enough as it is, I'd like a Supercharger. I guess all in all, I like superchargers better. I'm not sure why, but I think the whole ricer scene kind of ruined turbos for me a little bit. __________________ 1994 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4X4 213,000 miles and counting 3.0 V6, 5 speed 10/15 MPG city/hwy(with 33's) Current Mods Headers, 2.5" Flowmaster custom exhaust, K&N FIPK KC Daylighter 100 Watt lights Ranchos x4, 2" Lift Downey coils 33-12.50 M/T's, 1" t-bar lift, 1" body lift Tow pkg w/ lighthookups Silverstar Headlights, Pioneer Deck w/XM Brushguard 250Watt JLAudio 8" W3 Sub Future Mods 12V Aux outlet-400/800peak inverter roof basket/lights Air locker 4.88 gears H.O. Alternator

12-06-2007, 07:34 AM	#14 (permalink)
tc Contributing Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 8,368	First, let's have a little lesson. A turbocharger IS a supercharger. A supercharger compresses the intake air to provide more oxygen so you can burn more fuel. As simple as that. The difference in the two is the way the compressor is driven. A turbocharger is a special kind of supercharger that uses the exhaust gas to drive a radial turbine compressor. What people are talking about above are their experiences in the execution of the idea. There are many poorly executed designs out there. You can make a supercharger that has the high end boost like a turbo and you can make a turbo with NO lag like a supercharger - and there are plenty of both out there. Since a turbo is ALWAYS remote mounted, it is easier to intercool it to boost that oxygen density even further. As mentioned above, though, that comes at the expense of complex exhaust routing. Typically, a supercharger is easier to install, but does have some parasitic drag and, for the intake mounted versions especially, they are harder to intercool. Because of the high compression ratios diesel engines operate at, they have a lot of energy in their exhaust streams which are "ripe pickings" for a turbo. From a factory standpoint, turbos have the advantage of quieting the exhaust and reducing the exhaust temp which helps them meet EPA requirements. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/supercharger.htm __________________ Check out www.coTTORA.org to hook up with great Toyota 'wheelin' folks! Current - 93 4Runner: 3VZ 33"x10.50" no lift ARB F/R 96 Impala SS: My own personal cop car Previous - 89 2WD Pickup 22R, Fabtech "Ivan Dan" lift, 31x10.50, IASCA World Finals 4th Place Stop with the mods and get on the trail! Pix at www.4wheelingoh.shutterfly.com/action

12-06-2007, 04:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
xcmountain80 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 1,876	Just dont get your hard on stuck in the turbo. Aaron

12-06-2007, 04:55 PM	#18 (permalink)
foot0069 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Petersburg va. Posts: 329	Tc is on time. Take a look at a top fuel car sometime blowers rule no mater what drives em. They are all usually built to pull after they start to spool up some. Rock crawlers need the low end umph. Turbo's need a lot of engineering to get that. But check this out. http://www.nelsonracingengines.com/video_drive.html Ya gotta like that Jim

12-07-2007, 04:56 PM	#21 (permalink)
88Yota4runner Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Yakima, Wa Posts: 124	lets all just get along and build a 4runner with a turbocharger AND supercharger nwgaaagaha imhigh __________________ * 3 inch Body Lift * * Homemade Snorkel * * 34" 10.50 Super Swampers * * FlowMaster Exhaust * * 4 point harnesses *

12-07-2007, 06:29 PM	#23 (permalink)
tc Contributing Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Longmont, CO Posts: 8,368	It's also in the howstuffworks link I posted... __________________ Check out www.coTTORA.org to hook up with great Toyota 'wheelin' folks! Current - 93 4Runner: 3VZ 33"x10.50" no lift ARB F/R 96 Impala SS: My own personal cop car Previous - 89 2WD Pickup 22R, Fabtech "Ivan Dan" lift, 31x10.50, IASCA World Finals 4th Place Stop with the mods and get on the trail! Pix at www.4wheelingoh.shutterfly.com/action

12-08-2007, 02:21 AM	#25 (permalink)
KZN185W Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 692	http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm this one was made by a different author...i guess they also have differing opinions like we do here... __________________ 1996 Pearl White Hilux Surf KZN185W SSR-G l 3.0L TDI l Dual Battery l LT285/75R16 l Recaro Seats Drive Your Dreams

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How hard would it be to...	Island_Yota	Pre 84 Trucks	9	09-03-2007 04:53 PM
This shouldn't be so hard!!!	old4runner	86-95 Trucks & 4Runners	13	03-20-2007 11:05 AM
Is it really this hard?	oly884	Off Topic Talk	21	01-30-2007 11:26 PM
How hard.....	93toyotasr5	95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners	8	02-23-2005 05:05 PM
How hard???	Stump1883	Offroad Tech	6	02-14-2004 09:39 AM