Isn't it true that with a forced induction there is a natural tendency to battle for gains due to the consumption of energy required to run the unit? If so, then which is more efficient--supercharging or turbo? I would guess that the turbo would run hotter but the SC would eat up more horsepower to keep it running. Does displacement factor into it? Porsche and the smaller Mercedes use turbos for 6 cyls. and Ford and Mercedes use SCs on their V8s. But, MBenz uses turbos on its V12s, as does Bentley. I know SSR is on to the turbo for our cars and was curious as to why there is not a supercharging option being investigated by anyone.

 

Efficiency is measured as a ratio of output over input.

The turbo is driven by exhaust gases which cost nothing and it produces power. The SC requires some power from the crank to make its power, hence the turbo is more efficient.

resistance is futile
SHIFT_woosh

 

turbo kits are kind of like that trend recently... hence you see more companies making turbo kits than SC... IMO

also what woosh said, the turbo is more efficient because it requires exhaust gases to spool the turbine. Whereas the SC you need speed/revs to build boost

 

A manufacturers choice of turbo vs. super can also be influenced by engine configuration. On a v6 or v8 it is best to use two turbochargers so each can be near it's own bank of exhaust ports. It's either that or really ugly plumbing. A supercharger on the other hand is comfortable nesting between the cylinder heads of a V engine. They could use TWO turbochargers, but it may be more cost effective to use ONE supercharger.

 

Hence the Audi Bi-Turbo on the S4.

 

I can't imagine the turbo doesn't draw ANY power from the engine, even theoretically... since the exhaust gases push the turbo, that implies the turbo pushes back, adding backpressure, thus making it a little harder for the pistons to push the exhaust gas out, correct?

 

i think on a insignificant level

once the turbos spool up, they are pretty efficient at what they do.

 

S/C is better straight off the line but in the long run a turbo will be more efficient?

 

actually the turbo is more efficient at utilizing the energy given out by the engine than a SC, IMO

a SC builds boost as the revs go up, hitting max boost at redline in direct correlation with the size of the pulley being used

a turbo hits the peak predetermined boost once the right amount of exhaust pressure is obtained and holds that energy until redline

 

That's cool... either way, the turbo does theoretically require power, it's just a hell of a lot more efficient. That works for me.

 

turbos tend to create more heat internally- so a SC works for me-

SSR Engineering- just make both kits there will be buyers for both-
Just wondering if you have any affiliation or are associates with any shops
in the NJ/NY are that would be able to install this kit- if so I can donor my car
for the SC and take part in the expenses- as a result you'll have "many"
buyers of your kit and referral to the shop that installs it here in the NE- being that a large majority of Max owners reside here...food for thought