Hard on for turbochargers?
12-07-2007, 04:28 PM
#22
Registered User
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.
although both have the same function (to increase engine performance), the two are still different and a turbocharger is not a supercharger.
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
12-08-2007, 02:49 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its incredibly stupid to argue the exact definitions of "turbocharger" and "supercharger" in this thread!
The debate should really be centered around, what it takes to put either system together and the advantages/disadvantages of either one......last time I checked definitions didn't add one damn horsepower to my engine.....I don't care if these guys call them "thingamabobs" and "doohickeys", I know what they mean!
Some of you guys can really ruin a good thread......you suck!
The debate should really be centered around, what it takes to put either system together and the advantages/disadvantages of either one......last time I checked definitions didn't add one damn horsepower to my engine.....I don't care if these guys call them "thingamabobs" and "doohickeys", I know what they mean!
Some of you guys can really ruin a good thread......you suck!
12-08-2007, 04:04 AM
#27
Contributing Member
why do you think TOYOTA put Turbos in the 22R-TE and in the 3.4L and totally skipped the 3.0? they must have just focased on their diesel turbos then eh???
12-08-2007, 05:44 AM
#28
Contributing Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Littleton,CO
Posts: 10,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo chargers also aren't effected by altitude as much and will still hit preset boost setting even at a mile high while the SC being dependant on the engine speed will be directly affected since the engine can't breathe in as much air it won't make the same boost at higher altitudes.
Turbochargers on a typical street car lose only about a half second from their sea level times while an SC car will lose about the full second the same way an NA car does.
Turbochargers aren't limited by engine speed which makes a big diff on highend horsepower.
Turbochargers on a typical street car lose only about a half second from their sea level times while an SC car will lose about the full second the same way an NA car does.
Turbochargers aren't limited by engine speed which makes a big diff on highend horsepower.
12-08-2007, 07:05 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Denver, Co
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, seriously...
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.
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.Look at Dakar and just about any Rally Series. Almost ALL turbo charged. That requires WAY more durability then anything most of us need. They hit water and snow like crazy! No belts or tensioner to fail, better intercooling ability and less stress on motor because of no draw from the belt driven compressor.
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
http://www.nelsonracingengines.com/video_drive.html
Ya gotta like that
Jim
Turbo's also don't need any extra engineering to do that, they just need to be properly sized. Yes, a lot of honda kids go out and buy turbos that "support" 600hp and put them on their 1.8 litre motor and they don't see any boost until 6000rpm. However its really not that hard to find a turbo that will be sized correctly for your motor so that you receive benefit from your turbo at very low RPM's, under load - when you need it. The engineering has been done, it just requires a little research. How many factory supercharged vehicles are there? How many factory turbo charged vehicles are there? That should tell you something...
Here's something else, Turbocharged motors will produce less stress on drive train. A lot of what kills drive train is shock load, i.e. when the slack is taken up in the drive train from dropping the clutch fast. With turbocharged motors the power 'builds' as the turbo spools which doesn't put as hard of an immediate load on the drive train. It's the same logic as why an ARB will help save your CV joints.
I suggest you try both for yourself and decide what you prefer..
Last edited by Turbo4Runner; 12-08-2007 at 08:21 AM.
12-08-2007, 03:59 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Santa Monica, Ca
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres a link to my buddies 350hp custom turbo setup on the 3.4.
http://www.samsonfab.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=34
This should answer all your questions regarding stupidchargers vs turbochargers.
Heres a direct bolt on for tacoma turbos - remote mounted.
http://www.ststurbo.com/toyota_tacoma
http://www.samsonfab.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=34
This should answer all your questions regarding stupidchargers vs turbochargers.
Heres a direct bolt on for tacoma turbos - remote mounted.
http://www.ststurbo.com/toyota_tacoma
12-08-2007, 06:59 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Elbert, CO
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four cylinder cars are generally easier to turbo rather than supercharge, as they typically don't make all that much power to begin with and so can't spare very much to lose turning the blower. V6 and V8 engines can, so they're more frequently used for supercharged applications. Don't get me wrong, though, turbos on 6 and 8 (and greater) cylinder motors make huge power as well. My buddy's '86 Saleen made 425rwhp/450rwtq on a non-intercooled T44 at 8 psi.
Personally I've got a total hardon for turbos. I have a turbo Mustang and would love a turbo setup on the 4Runner. I much prefer turbo whistle and BOV hiss over blower whine, and the way turbos work just makes more sense and seems tougher to me. No, those are not scientific opinions, but that's how I feel.
Personally I've got a total hardon for turbos. I have a turbo Mustang and would love a turbo setup on the 4Runner. I much prefer turbo whistle and BOV hiss over blower whine, and the way turbos work just makes more sense and seems tougher to me. No, those are not scientific opinions, but that's how I feel.
12-08-2007, 07:59 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Santa Monica, Ca
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four cylinder cars are generally easier to turbo rather than supercharge, as they typically don't make all that much power to begin with and so can't spare very much to lose turning the blower. V6 and V8 engines can, so they're more frequently used for supercharged applications. Don't get me wrong, though, turbos on 6 and 8 (and greater) cylinder motors make huge power as well. My buddy's '86 Saleen made 425rwhp/450rwtq on a non-intercooled T44 at 8 psi.
Personally I've got a total hardon for turbos. I have a turbo Mustang and would love a turbo setup on the 4Runner. I much prefer turbo whistle and BOV hiss over blower whine, and the way turbos work just makes more sense and seems tougher to me. No, those are not scientific opinions, but that's how I feel.
Personally I've got a total hardon for turbos. I have a turbo Mustang and would love a turbo setup on the 4Runner. I much prefer turbo whistle and BOV hiss over blower whine, and the way turbos work just makes more sense and seems tougher to me. No, those are not scientific opinions, but that's how I feel.
12-08-2007, 08:06 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Santa Monica, Ca
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes you say that?
Look at Dakar and just about any Rally Series. Almost ALL turbo charged. That requires WAY more durability then anything most of us need. They hit water and snow like crazy! No belts or tensioner to fail, better intercooling ability and less stress on motor because of no draw from the belt driven compressor.
That's why we regear. What rock crawler doesn't gear WAY down anyway? With dual cases you could run a rotary motor in a rock crawler and do fine. Hey, that would be kinda cool.... Turbo's also don't need any extra engineering to do that, they just need to be properly sized. Yes, a lot of honda kids go out and buy turbos that "support" 600hp and put them on their 1.8 litre motor and they don't see any boost until 6000rpm. However its really not that hard to find a turbo that will be sized correctly for your motor so that you receive benefit from your turbo at very low RPM's, under load - when you need it. The engineering has been done, it just requires a little research.
How many factory supercharged vehicles are there? How many factory turbo charged vehicles are there? That should tell you something...
Here's something else, Turbocharged motors will produce less stress on drive train. A lot of what kills drive train is shock load, i.e. when the slack is taken up in the drive train from dropping the clutch fast. With turbocharged motors the power 'builds' as the turbo spools which doesn't put as hard of an immediate load on the drive train. It's the same logic as why an ARB will help save your CV joints.
I suggest you try both for yourself and decide what you prefer..
Look at Dakar and just about any Rally Series. Almost ALL turbo charged. That requires WAY more durability then anything most of us need. They hit water and snow like crazy! No belts or tensioner to fail, better intercooling ability and less stress on motor because of no draw from the belt driven compressor.
That's why we regear. What rock crawler doesn't gear WAY down anyway? With dual cases you could run a rotary motor in a rock crawler and do fine. Hey, that would be kinda cool....
Turbo's also don't need any extra engineering to do that, they just need to be properly sized. Yes, a lot of honda kids go out and buy turbos that "support" 600hp and put them on their 1.8 litre motor and they don't see any boost until 6000rpm. However its really not that hard to find a turbo that will be sized correctly for your motor so that you receive benefit from your turbo at very low RPM's, under load - when you need it. The engineering has been done, it just requires a little research. How many factory supercharged vehicles are there? How many factory turbo charged vehicles are there? That should tell you something...
Here's something else, Turbocharged motors will produce less stress on drive train. A lot of what kills drive train is shock load, i.e. when the slack is taken up in the drive train from dropping the clutch fast. With turbocharged motors the power 'builds' as the turbo spools which doesn't put as hard of an immediate load on the drive train. It's the same logic as why an ARB will help save your CV joints.
I suggest you try both for yourself and decide what you prefer..
12-09-2007, 06:32 AM
#34
Contributing Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Littleton,CO
Posts: 10,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a lot of sub 9 second racing classes turboes are handicapped over the Nitroused or SC'd cars since they make so much power to the weight of the car.
12-09-2007, 10:09 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Denver, Co
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megasquirt is great. Much better than any piggy back stuff. Don't get me wrong, it takes a bit more time, but I think the end result is worth it. I'm running it as a speed density system so I don't have a MAF too. I really like it.
12-09-2007, 09:13 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bend, OR.
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes you say that?
Look at Dakar and just about any Rally Series. Almost ALL turbo charged. That requires WAY more durability then anything most of us need. They hit water and snow like crazy! No belts or tensioner to fail, better intercooling ability and less stress on motor because of no draw from the belt driven compressor.
Look at Dakar and just about any Rally Series. Almost ALL turbo charged. That requires WAY more durability then anything most of us need. They hit water and snow like crazy! No belts or tensioner to fail, better intercooling ability and less stress on motor because of no draw from the belt driven compressor.
Im not saying that you cant have a very successful turbo on an offroad vehicle. But you have to think about how many people are really going to have the technical knowledge to create a powerful, fast spooling, and durable turbo setup, compared to the majority of people who can still get power from a supercharger, not have to worry about the complicated stuff, and bolt it on themselves in their garage.
12-10-2007, 07:06 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Santa Monica, Ca
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Not to mention the vacume lines associated with turbochargers can also sustain damage, or become brittle and crack."
Dude, do you know how a turbocharged vehicle is built? I suggtest you look at some turbocharged engines and youll see that all the "the vacuum lines" are in the engine bay like a stock motor - why would they become brittle and crack?
"Im not saying that you cant have a very successful turbo on an offroad vehicle. But you have to think about how many people are really going to have the technical knowledge to create a powerful, fast spooling, and durable turbo setup, compared to the majority of people who can still get power from a supercharger, not have to worry about the complicated stuff, and bolt it on themselves in their garage."
Well if you want to just "bolt on the supercharger" and run, your going to have motor damage wether you like it or not eventually. Any time you have forced induction on a stock motor (more air), you have to compensate by adding more fuel which requires a piggyback computer or the like. And to get it to run right after doing that is not just your simple "bolt on" addition. It requires a lot of tuning, and requires cutting in to your vehicles wiring harness which most people are scared to do.
So to reply to your statement that a supercharger is easier to bolt on and go compared to a turbo system, id say that anyone who is desires to get more power out of their vehicle should know how both systems work and choose the system that outperforms the other one for power and efficency, because its power that your after, right? If it's the design and construction of a turbo system thats too complicated for home fabrication, you can buy a kit from STS Turbo Systems thats a few hundred dollars more than a blower for tacomas, slightly modify it for 4runners, as well a universal kit for any car that can be tweeked for individual needs.
Dude, do you know how a turbocharged vehicle is built? I suggtest you look at some turbocharged engines and youll see that all the "the vacuum lines" are in the engine bay like a stock motor - why would they become brittle and crack?
"Im not saying that you cant have a very successful turbo on an offroad vehicle. But you have to think about how many people are really going to have the technical knowledge to create a powerful, fast spooling, and durable turbo setup, compared to the majority of people who can still get power from a supercharger, not have to worry about the complicated stuff, and bolt it on themselves in their garage."
Well if you want to just "bolt on the supercharger" and run, your going to have motor damage wether you like it or not eventually. Any time you have forced induction on a stock motor (more air), you have to compensate by adding more fuel which requires a piggyback computer or the like. And to get it to run right after doing that is not just your simple "bolt on" addition. It requires a lot of tuning, and requires cutting in to your vehicles wiring harness which most people are scared to do.
So to reply to your statement that a supercharger is easier to bolt on and go compared to a turbo system, id say that anyone who is desires to get more power out of their vehicle should know how both systems work and choose the system that outperforms the other one for power and efficency, because its power that your after, right? If it's the design and construction of a turbo system thats too complicated for home fabrication, you can buy a kit from STS Turbo Systems thats a few hundred dollars more than a blower for tacomas, slightly modify it for 4runners, as well a universal kit for any car that can be tweeked for individual needs.
12-10-2007, 07:45 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Duluth MN
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it comes down to price. I bought the turbo on my car for $150...basically, the cheapest belt driven superchargers are $1000-2000. If I spent that much on a turbo, I would basically have as amazing, top of the line unit.
