they are not quite similar are they? and which one spool harder..one of my friend told me the super charge spool much harder..he said a V8 car with a super charge is just like a V12 car..wat the phuck!!!??? dats bullshiet

Super charger works on belt drivin power, it takes power to make power with a super charger, plus side to them are they are imediate power. Turbo Charger, uses exhaust gasses to turn the turbine to make power, takes NO power to make power with a turbo, down side is some of the larger older aplications have lag, and take time to reach full potential. As for the 300ZX you are quite safe with a twin turbo set up, it works great to moderately small turbos set up to make great boost at decent RPMs. Its all a mater of preferance really.

Niether will pull harder than the other, Turbos have a greater potential to make more power than a Supercharger but they cant make the power at the lower RPMs as there is not enough exhaust gas flow to spool them fast enough.

lol dude... wow...

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=283043
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=201348

it's amazing what you can learn from reading...

if you have a 300zxTT, superchargers should be the last thing on your mind.

I am surprised he doesnt know the difference..... Mad Max used a supercharger........... loads o' fun on Big Blocks..... no good on little engines, less than 450Ci.

yeah...unless you have both. :evillol: i posted a link to a car that nissan produced in japan. it was a little hatchback that was 900cc's if memory serves me right. it was supercharged and turbocharged. pulled 0-60 times in a little over 7 seconds i believe. NOT BAD for a bike motor in a 2500lbs car. :lol:

just another reason why nissan rule's all!!!

EDIT: here we go i found it again. http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_2216/article.html

this topic has been done to death. we have had a huge debate on this already. the only thing that came out of it was that it all depends on what you like, turbochargers and superchargers have their own highs and lows, and it all equals out in the end.

-Jared

i want that super-turbo... i wonder if they're old enough to import yet

I want turbine power....... Pratt& Whitney power..... JET POWER!!!! The ultimate turbo. :P

speaking of pratt & whitney, when i walked into work the other day, there was two brand spanking new pratt & whitney jet engines sitting on the floor. i would like to know what people pay for shipping for one of those.

-Jared

If you're serious about more power from turbos and fear the lag, you could always use apply nitrous and have it shut down when the turbos do reach it's high potential.

good point neo.. once you hook that up it would be hard not to soil yourself every time you hit wot

Here we go again.
Hodo, sorry good buddy but both take take power to run, granted the turbo uses less, and low RPM's with turbo's has nothing to do with lack of power.
All of Pratt & Whitney piston engines had superchargers. There jet engines have axiel flow compressors.

K3 I'm ashamed of you. What do you think I run on my cars? JK, bud.

DeleriousZ I'm proud of you. Point'em in the right direction.

Freak your right, it's been beat to death and it appears a few haven't learned yet. As for those jet engines, little ones cost from $40,000 up, and the big mother's can cost in the millions.

OK school's open.
First of all a engine makes it's power with compression ratio. No compression no power, like burning gas on open ground, nothing but fire. The higher the compression ratio the more power the engine makes. The compression ratio is the multiplication factor of pressure on top of the piston, which makes power. I'm going to give 3 examples, only examples.

Engine #1 14.5:1 compression ratio
Engine #2 8:1 compression ratio with 12lbs boost
Engine #3 10:1 compression ratio with 7lbs boost

Which one of these engines well make the most power? And what's the difference in compression ratio of these engines?

http://www.goodvibesracing.com/Compression%20Ratio.htm

There is no difference except for the turbo engine, as follows.
Engines with low compression ratio's have very low bottom and mid range power, and no top end power. Thats where the turbo comes in.
Car mfg. engineers who build turbo cars find it easer to build production car engines that are turbo'ed easer to control with 8:1 pistons than with higher compression pistons. So the so called turbo lag is bull shit. The turbo just isn't making enough boost to raise the compression ratio enough to make power yet, but when it does make enough boost, bang, lots of power. That's why it's so easy to make so much power with our cars. The engineer's have detuned our car's so far, almost anything well improve it's performance.
Now a supercharger on the other hand is a positive displacement compressor and makes boost when ever the engine is running, so it's boosting the compression right off the start.
Now we can mask the so called turbo lag by installing smaller turbo's and lose top end, or inject nitrous in the low to mid range to over come the lack of compression ratio, or we can start with a higher compression ratio and a lower boost and have the same compression ratio the entire RPM range without the so called turbo lag.
With proper engine management (ECU) and good fuel it isnt a problem.
Because years ago fuel was the shits and so only engines with low compression pistons could handle turbo's (superchargers). Now with our technology it isn't true anymore.

K3 I'm ashamed of you. What do you think I run on my cars? JK, bud.



awww....come on. what did i say now??? :lol: all i said was that if you TT and you dont plan on doing no ridiculous 1/4 mle times or anything. superchargers should be the last thing on your mind. :D

awww....come on. what did i say now??? :lol: all i said was that if you TT and you dont plan on doing no ridiculous 1/4 mle times or anything. superchargers should be the last thing on your mind. :D

OK, you get all you atta boys back, I'm sorry

By the way. Did I explain it clear enough this time?

I think you did Zgringo, good job.

The engineer's have detuned our car's so far, almost anything well improve it's performance.

A-fuckin-men. Really, when you can pick up 40hp with just some exhaust and intake changes, thats pretty freakin sad...but...production costs and regulations...whatever...

yeah...i think you did a good job explaining but we all know the debate s gonna pop up again and again. so yeah....whatever...

Zgringo needs to dumb it down a bit... he used too many big words. Like..."the" and "."


Internetians have been online so long, they've lost any use of proper sentence structure... dumb it down man... then you'll have their ears.


:)

Hey gringo I was just keeping it simple, not going all out like you..... I was tired and half-assed a answer.

Your right to an extent, on most street aps. unfortantly turbo lag still exists, it is minor but it is still there, and a Supercharger depending on the type (centrifigual, screw, or roots) will have different effeciancy responces. I personally am a fan of the old Roots style just becuase I like to see them sticking out of the hood of the old 32 coups and old school 50s-60s muscle cars. And Mad Max had a classic set up. Other than that Not all turbine engines use superchargers, or turbochargers. Pratt & Whittney has several engine types and some of their turbines dont have chargers, in the since like we have on some cars.

Anyway I perfer NA engines, more work to build up and keep up, less stuff that can go wrong.

Hey gringo I was just keeping it simple, not going all out like you..... I was tired and half-assed a answer.

Your right to an extent, on most street aps. unfortantly turbo lag still exists, it is minor but it is still there, and a Supercharger depending on the type (centrifigual, screw, or roots) will have different effeciancy responces. I personally am a fan of the old Roots style just becuase I like to see them sticking out of the hood of the old 32 coups and old school 50s-60s muscle cars. And Mad Max had a classic set up. Other than that Not all turbine engines use superchargers, or turbochargers. Pratt & Whittney has several engine types and some of their turbines dont have chargers, in the since like we have on some cars.

Anyway I perfer NA engines, more work to build up and keep up, less stuff that can go wrong.

I'm not right to some extent, I'm totally right. The phrase "Turbo Lag" is used from lack of knowledge. It should be, "Spool-up or Spool-time", as thats whats happening. The engine is operating at 8:1 compression and at about 3,000RPM the turbo's "Spool-up" and you have 12:1+ compression and power.
There isn't one turbine engine in the world that uses a supercharger. All use a axeal flow compressor, not even the same thing.
As for P & W's piston engine's the R-3350 used on the B29's was the only engine they made with turbochargers, all the others were engine driven centrifical superchargers, as was the V1710 and 1650 used in the F-51 mustangs.
Your right about the old style GMC superchargers. They do look cool and were the root or beginning to what we have today.
This little toy had a 6-71 GMC supercharger with 2 850 dubble pumper's on top. Damn thing never would hook up.



http://img7.exs.cx/img7/2007/t227Purple.jpg

I see you and I werent talking about the same engines, you were talking about one type of engine I was talking about another type of engine. I was talking about a Jet turbine. Not a P51D engine, which were Merlins. The american engine in the Mustang (P51B) was a trash heap of a plane it was relegated to second line work and close air support becuase of its lack of altitude performance and slower speed than other engines in the air. (The Tuskegee Airmen flew 51Bs in North Africa after their tour in th P40s ended.)
The designation F51 was given to the plane after the Airforce was created in 49, this was to designate it as a Fighter, but it was replaced in this roll in Korea, the last war it served in with the US armed forces, by the F84 and the F86. The F51 became a attack plane or close air support craft (again) and was going to be redesignated the A-51, but was retired and replaced in that roll too, by the F84E.

And Turbo lag is a more commonly used term not a uneducated viewers term. And technicaly while the engines running on its 8:1 compression its not making full power correct? If that takes untill 3000+RPM to happen then its considered to be lagging, correct? Hince the term turbo lag, therefore it is a correct term to use in most situations, including this one.

The problem with that little toy was it was too ass light. Most T-Bucket type cars have that problem. I have seen people get around that by putting dead weight in the back of the car by welding lead bars on the back of the frame. But even then it doesnt help much.

I have seen people get around that by putting dead weight in the back of the car by welding lead bars on the back of the frame. But even then it doesnt help much.

dud u ned teh uber wing maed from CF yo! ndz som 22 intch blingazz rims heelp hooc teh weelz up DUED TEN GIT NOS!

Anyway...

funny Broke, almost didnt know what you were talking about.

funny Broke, almost didnt know what you were talking about.

Mission Accomplished.

ANY-FREAKIN-WAY...

they are not quite similar are they? and which one spool harder..one of my friend told me the super charge spool much harder..he said a V8 car with a super charge is just like a V12 car..wat the phuck!!!??? dats bullshiet

Superchargers don't spool at all because they use direct drive methods to power them. But that has been answered. As for what is best for what, well thats application specific. Define a goal and build towards that.

Superchargers don't spool at all because they use direct drive methods to power them.


Now that doesn't sound right. But frankly its midnight and I don't care. :D

Hodo I'm well aware of the P or F-51, I flew them in Korea for a year then spent the next 2 years in F86 Saberjets.
The P-51 had two engines, the Packard-RollsRoyce and Merlins. There piston engines. The first production jet engine was a J33 used in the P-80 ShootingStar later changed to the F-80 and the trainer a T-33.
From the very first jet turbine engine, they used a axeial flow compressor. The J47 was the first to use a multi stage compressor with 11 stages of compression. Never has any manufacture made a jet engine with a supercharger. Even today the modern jets use whats called a fan jet but it's still the same type as used in the earlier days. The name Turbo jet has nothing to do with turbochargers or superchargers whatsoever.
Trust me on this one. I've stated on other posts I'm a pilot. I have over 33,000 hours and I have a ATP in fixed wing & rotorcraft helicoptor, type rated in 35 different aircraft, an A&P plus a IA rating. When I wasn't racing I was a test pilot for McDonald Douglas in St Louis. I retired from flying when PanAm went tits up as a Captain. I have a Masters in Aero. Engineering and a minor in Metallurgy Engineering. But my greatest love was cars and racing and thats where I spent a good share of my life.
Now if you want to talk about J79's or R4360, R-3350, Alison 250, J-47, name what ever you desire.
I'm very limited in my world knowledge except when it comes to planes and cars. I spent many years in R&D in the aircraft and automobile field. I was called on by different mfg. to help with problems. My motto is, " The difficult I do now, the impossable takes alittle longer". It might sound cold but I deal in facts and facts only. I've seen bad things happen trying without testing theory's.
I'm not pickin on you, It's just when anyone says something that isn't correct, I'll help them, and when I say something I'll do everything in my power to add some facts to back up what I say. When I don't know I'll tell you so. I got on one of the guys shit with a cracked wheel, because I didn't want to see him get hurt or worse. Anyone, including me, giving wrong or bad info. could cost someone their life.

Hodo, Now I want you and all the rest of the Zss holes out there to have a Happy Thankgiving. Lov ya'll

Albert

I flew them in Korea for a year then spent the next 2 years in F86 Saberjets.

I've stated on other posts I'm a pilot. I have over 33,000 hours and I have a ATP in fixed wing & rotorcraft helicoptor, type rated in 35 different aircraft, an A&P plus a IA rating.

When I wasn't racing I was a test pilot for McDonald Douglas in St Louis. I retired from flying when PanAm went tits up as a Captain.

I have a Masters in Aero. Engineering and a minor in Metallurgy Engineering.

But my greatest love was cars and racing and thats where I spent a good share of my life.

I spent many years in R&D in the aircraft and automobile field. I was called on by different mfg. to help with problems.

Umm...I can change oil...and I usually remember to put the drain plug back in.

*sighs and goes back to playing with marbles*


:D Should think about writing a book Al.

Umm...I can change oil...and I usually remember to put the drain plug back in.



whoaaaaa, DUUUUDE. i hda ddi dat shieeet oncccee & myi motor wen KABLOOOEEEEEE!!!!! DAT SUK CUZ I COont drizive my WHIP n 22" spinnas. dat car was mADDD TITE YO!!!

err...sorry. anyways. i know nothing about airplanes. (i think that is what you guys were discussing). :lol:

Umm...I can change oil...and I usually remember to put the drain plug back in.

*sighs and goes back to playing with marbles*


:D Should think about writing a book Al.

I try...but the last time didn't go so well. phone rang...went back to change...put in 3 qts. ..checked it...added 1 more...checked it again...nothing on the stick...something wrong here...looked under the car...big puddle of oil....nice move Albert, forgot the drain plug.

*sighs...can I play marbles with you*

*sighs...can I play marbles with you*

I would let you.

But I can't play marbles anymore.

I lost them all.

Damn it.

http://www.landofmarbles.com/sitepics/mega001=SS=lg.jpg
http://www.landofmarbles.com/sitepics/mega002=SS=lg.jpg
http://www.landofmarbles.com/sitepics/mega003=SS=lg.jpg
Marbles for everybody!!

:lol2: i love this forum...

sorry Z didnt know you were a historic monument. lol. Sorry I dislike most US planes during that time frame. I am huge fan of the planes that were considered inferiour during the time. Like the Mig-15Bis. good plane bad habbits, horrible ammo load, GREAT guns. Nimble, fast, powerful, lightly armored what else could you ask for, besides a cup holder. And i strongly dislike the Runstang, GREAT plane dont get me wrong, but didnt suit my fling style, I am a turn and burn person, not a boom and zoom. I have no real flight experiance with either plane but I have read up on and flown a bit, dont laugh online in 1%er flightsims. I am quite skilled in a mig nowadays, and damn leathel in a Ki-61KAI. I have spent hours talking to real WWII and Korean war vets, from both sides of the coin. I have talked to 3 ex-Luftwaffa pilots (109E4-109G6 shot down in 44 over Northern France, another who was a 190A4 pilot on the east front, and 1 who was a Ju88 pilot, flew from begining to end of the war.) I have talked to 3 Tuskegee Airmen, 2 8th airforce pilots (B17, and B24), 1 IJA pilot, (Ki-61, and Ki-84). 1 Russian Pilot who flew during the Korean war, and 1 North Korean Pilot who flew Yaks. A few South Korean infantry guys. I go all out for history when I get a chance to. History is my second love. Flying is my first, and cars are my 3rd. Never could fly though eyesight got to bad as a kid, so I was grounded, waiting till the USAF gets despret and recruits like the Saudi, and Isreali AFs do. Anyone who CAN fly will fly. Although they are some of the best airforces in the world currently, behind ours.

Oh and I wasnt taking offence to you, I realized you have the same problem I do, NO TACT! :P

anyway! turbo is better rite?

anyway! turbo is better rite?

If that is what you want and like, yes turbo is better. The truth of the matter both have good and bad points. Neather is better or worse. It all depends on what you want for final results

:D lol

I am surprised he doesnt know the difference..... Mad Max used a supercharger........... loads o' fun on Big Blocks..... no good on little engines, less than 450Ci.
Mad Max had a lil hollywood magic with his supercharger as well........Notice he flips a switch to activate it. Superchargers are not activated by the flip of a switch. Just a big air pump. Rule of thumb.....The more air you can get in and out of a motor.......The more motor you will have. And I dont agree with the point that they are not good on small engines....Ez way to make up for fewer Cubic Inches. I ran a B&M 144 supercharger on a 302 motor and it was a night and day difference. Not too mention the it looked and sounded fantastic.

Mad Max had a lil hollywood magic with his supercharger as well........Notice he flips a switch to activate it. Superchargers are not activated by the flip of a switch. Just a big air pump. Rule of thumb.....The more air you can get in and out of a motor.......The more motor you will have. And I dont agree with the point that they are not good on small engines....Ez way to make up for fewer Cubic Inches. I ran a B&M 144 supercharger on a 302 motor and it was a night and day difference. Not too mention the it looked and sounded fantastic.

I have to agree with you. They work fine on small engines. I have one one my engine. Also they have a clutch like on the A/C for superchargers and when your not on load not losing any power.