J33PERkid51
New member
I have seen people say we should have this thread, so here it is. feel free to express your opinions about both and which one you rather have.
Supercharger vs. Turbocharger
- Thread starter J33PERkid51
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jeep supercharger turbocharger
Bounty__Hunter
Super Moderator
Good idea, but might be better suited here: Jeep Performance - Jeepz.com
Collin the Hen
New member
Turbos look like snails.
Wrangl3r93
New member
Turbogus
New member
I'm not one with any experience with Superchargers save for what I've read over the years, but I do have some practical experience with Turbochargers, although not on my CJ.
My bike is a '78 Kawasaki Z1R-Turbo one of 200 with it's style of paint. It's equipped with a Rayjay F40 turbo. I've seen this same unit on 350 Chevys, in order not to overpressurize the cylinders there a pressure release valve called a 'wastegate'. Several years ago I split a house with a brother ex Marine whom had the same year, make and model of my Z but normally aspirated. One sunny (unusual for Oregon) day we did a roll on side by side, to remember Jared's remark, "Gus you hit third gear a puff of black smoke came out of yer exhaust and you were gone". I don't ride this rocket at 10/10ths anymore but it's nice to know when I was young and insane it took me to a 10.89 @138, not bad for a stock streetbike.
As for differences between Super and Turbo one element is with Supercharging you're using energy to make energy, while save for a tiny amount of back pressure early in pressurization, turbo is free.
...food for thought.
My bike is a '78 Kawasaki Z1R-Turbo one of 200 with it's style of paint. It's equipped with a Rayjay F40 turbo. I've seen this same unit on 350 Chevys, in order not to overpressurize the cylinders there a pressure release valve called a 'wastegate'. Several years ago I split a house with a brother ex Marine whom had the same year, make and model of my Z but normally aspirated. One sunny (unusual for Oregon) day we did a roll on side by side, to remember Jared's remark, "Gus you hit third gear a puff of black smoke came out of yer exhaust and you were gone". I don't ride this rocket at 10/10ths anymore but it's nice to know when I was young and insane it took me to a 10.89 @138, not bad for a stock streetbike.
As for differences between Super and Turbo one element is with Supercharging you're using energy to make energy, while save for a tiny amount of back pressure early in pressurization, turbo is free.
...food for thought.
jfrabat
New member
3 comments on the subject; first, each form of forced induction has its possitives and negatives, so it is difficult to compare which one is "better". The right question is, which is better fo XXXX (fill in th blank of what you intend to achieve with the forced induction here).
The other is that forced induction is not the only way to get what you want; there are other ways o raise compression and displacement, which can result in different answers to the question of how to better do XXXX.
My last point is that forced induction (be it super or turbo charging) is not without its own set of woes; some people see either option as the solution to all their problems, but you need to consider that these "solutions" will bring their own set of problems with them that you will need to address if you want a reliable machine that can be driven by anyone. For example, if you have a tired old engine, adding forced induction in and of itself will not be an answer, but rather will result in all the problems the engine already had compound into a bigger problem that you will need to fix...
Having said that, from my own research (and yes, I did look into BOTH options about a year or two ago, and did tons of research and bough some books on the subjects), superchargers seem to be the better choice for Jeeps, where you need the power at the lower spectrum the the rpm range. Now, I know the turbo is "free" power because it comes from the exhaust and not a belt attached to the engine, but turbos tend to get maximized for higher RPM's (as in Horsepower), where our Jeeps need the power down low (as in Torque), and the supercharger seems to be better at this than the turbo. Also, the supercharger is lineal, which means it ads the same percentage of power throught the RPM range, where as the turbo is exponential, meaning that it will "kick-in" at certain RPM and grow fast from there; it also has the issue of turbo lag, which is difficult to get used to when you are climbing rocks and such, but the supercharger has no such problems.
Anyway, this was my own view of the pro's and con's, and each person needs to evaluate what they need and how each solution applies to their problems. The thing that is not avoidable is the research, so dont try to skimp on that one BEFORE you start even planning to install!
Felipe
The other is that forced induction is not the only way to get what you want; there are other ways o raise compression and displacement, which can result in different answers to the question of how to better do XXXX.
My last point is that forced induction (be it super or turbo charging) is not without its own set of woes; some people see either option as the solution to all their problems, but you need to consider that these "solutions" will bring their own set of problems with them that you will need to address if you want a reliable machine that can be driven by anyone. For example, if you have a tired old engine, adding forced induction in and of itself will not be an answer, but rather will result in all the problems the engine already had compound into a bigger problem that you will need to fix...
Having said that, from my own research (and yes, I did look into BOTH options about a year or two ago, and did tons of research and bough some books on the subjects), superchargers seem to be the better choice for Jeeps, where you need the power at the lower spectrum the the rpm range. Now, I know the turbo is "free" power because it comes from the exhaust and not a belt attached to the engine, but turbos tend to get maximized for higher RPM's (as in Horsepower), where our Jeeps need the power down low (as in Torque), and the supercharger seems to be better at this than the turbo. Also, the supercharger is lineal, which means it ads the same percentage of power throught the RPM range, where as the turbo is exponential, meaning that it will "kick-in" at certain RPM and grow fast from there; it also has the issue of turbo lag, which is difficult to get used to when you are climbing rocks and such, but the supercharger has no such problems.
Anyway, this was my own view of the pro's and con's, and each person needs to evaluate what they need and how each solution applies to their problems. The thing that is not avoidable is the research, so dont try to skimp on that one BEFORE you start even planning to install!
Felipe
Turbogus
New member
Not to refute your opinions, rather agreeing with them. Indeed automotive turbos would not be of help in the lowest RPM range. Insofar as the proverbial 'turbo lag' this is minimalized by using the shortest length of headpipe, which is how my Kawi is configured.
Depending upon the use of one's Jeep (I'm in the low speed crawling camp myself) there are those whom go for 'street Jeeps' for drags and high speed. I'm not saying that this is the intended use of Jeeps by the manufacturer, but there are 'motor heads' out there that can and do alter their Jeeps in this fashion. JP magazine occasionally profiles these 'non purist' Jeeps in their features but as for me, I have no interest.
Depending upon the use of one's Jeep (I'm in the low speed crawling camp myself) there are those whom go for 'street Jeeps' for drags and high speed. I'm not saying that this is the intended use of Jeeps by the manufacturer, but there are 'motor heads' out there that can and do alter their Jeeps in this fashion. JP magazine occasionally profiles these 'non purist' Jeeps in their features but as for me, I have no interest.
jfrabat
New member
I agree with you; this is why I keep telling everyone not to ask which is better, but rather ask which is better to do XXXX? That way, you can answer for a particular application, and the answer is more realistic this way...
For off road I'd say a supercharger is the way to go for it's increase in torque and no lag or 'boost' effect.
But a properly setup turbo might be able to be 'off' when crawling and 'on' on the hiway where you need more oomph.
But in both cases you usually lower static compression and that hurts low end torque.
Now if you're running a diesel then perhaps a turbo would work well.
But a properly setup turbo might be able to be 'off' when crawling and 'on' on the hiway where you need more oomph.
But in both cases you usually lower static compression and that hurts low end torque.
Now if you're running a diesel then perhaps a turbo would work well.
jfrabat
New member
This is a good point; a turbo is "optimized" for a certain RPM range; set it to low (say to increase power at low RPM for torque) and you will end up chocking the engine at higher RPM (like when driving down the highway). Set it too high, and it will do absolutly nothing at low RPM's. What you want is to set it where it will do the best where you will spend most of your time in without chocking the hig end RPM (which you will need to pass on the highway, for example). This ussually ends up being about 3.5K~4K RPM's for a Jeep.
In the case of a diesel, because RPM's are ussually lower, you have a greater range with a turbo, so it makes more sense... The turbo sweet spot will be at around 2.5K~3K RPM's, so you get more effect say at 1,500 RPM's than you would on a gas engine. Also, the diesels will have a lot of torque even without the tubo, so not having the turbo would not be a great issue down low...
Wrangl3r93
New member
According to the world wide web diesel motors take to turbos better than gas motors due to the fact a diesel motor is pumping 100% air all the time and a gas motor is only pumping 100% air at wot. This mixed with the low rpm's spool the turbo quick and gives you on big sweet spot.
