It all depends on what the computer is programmed to call a lean condition, whether the motor can run under the lean condition, and when the knock sensors start detecting the knock...
A lot of oem cars out there come with superchargers, but most are displacement. I'm sure there is a happy medium, this motor isn't exactly a gas guzzler...
different strokes for different folks. *literally makes the difference*
@Aint1S Well... Try to lean the misture isn't best way for any "car maker". On a lean misture, NOx are the problems. Yes... We can ride a 1,1 lambda (or leaner) engine on light loads, but the emissions will grow. Use of an agressive spark advance too. Every time that you make a high temperature combustion, nitrogen reacts with oxygen and we rise the NO2 and NO3 (NOx) emissions... :(
@Aint1S Another inconvenient are the catalytic converters. They work better on a very narrow band around lambda 1. If I'm not wrong, this should be around lambda 0,98 and 1,02. All of this it's because the "eco-friendly" guys. :/ It's a nightmare to tune an engine who attends the emission laws... :( Without all this "green stuffs", certainly we could tune properly an engine (lambda around 0,82 for power and leaned until it "jiggles" for economy).
Wow u guys are dumb with the Turbo supercharged bull shit. Have you not realized we are in 2011 now. The supercharger on the Cobalt m61 I believe it is from Eaton uses 1/3 HP at cruising speeds. That's what umm nothing. And I know for a fact that my 06 cobalt got better mileage then the turbos. Also thy are different applications. Turbos for high revs and supercharges for lower. But either wway there is parasitic loss. No such thing as free power. Physics 101. Each have pros and cons.
@wsimpson86 To spool up the turbo shaft you will need some "friction". Where this come from? ;) The tecnology can reduce the losses, but not "remove the losses".... But turbochargers are still (and will forever be!) more efficient then any other way of boost an engine.
@wsimpson86 wrong supercharges take 50 hp while a procharger is like a supercharger and turbo compined together with low psi (under 10) while turbos can go up to 40 psi? and superchargers maybe 20 psi? and prochargers are maybe the weakiest about 6 psi? turbos and superchargers use up the most fuel on a vehicle so imagine a 8 mpg vehicle with a supercharger? youd barely get anything for it am I right?
@Philscbx It's true... But who cares about the fuel consumption for a funny car? @ the track this is bullshit, don't you agree? ;) But on the streets this is not so true, specially on a "mass production" vehicle. That's the basic difference between SC'ed and Turbo'ed street engines, like this SC'ed ECO. ;)
@platinumisgr8 It's phisics... Turbochargers are much more efficient then any supercharger. Turbos are around 70~80% eff. SC/Blowers are only around 40~55% eff. At cruising speeds it requires much more then 1/3 hp. Just the belt system requires this (or a bit more power) to rev it around 2k~3k rpm. ;) But CERTAINLY both turbos and SC have pros and cons... ;)
@XJohnRage A swivle joint and a long extention will get it, just gotta take the intercooler fill neck loose. You dont even have to get under the car. I did pay for a couple of those hundred dollar oil changes before i tryed it. I have a lot of miles on my ion r/l not a problem yet except keeping tires on it.
@XJohnRage A swivel joint and a long extension will get it, just gotta take the intercooler fill neck loose. You don’t even have to get under the car. I did pay for a couple of those hundred dollar oil changes before I tried it. I have a lot of miles on my ion r/l not a problem yet except keeping tires on it.
Volkswagen got these Root and a normal turbo in their 1.4 TSI engine with 160hp and 240Nm. It runs very good for a 1.4 and maybe you can go to ABT the tuner for VW and make 210hp, as strong as a GTI :)
supercharging a car is already forced induction it will only pull as high as your RPM's are reved if you "twin charge" the turbo will spoll and keep spolling till you let out which is going to force more air on the supercharger and cause its to cancel out so its pretty much point less to have a twin charge set up
Only piddly little superchargers are used on car engines, they were developed as scavenge blowers for gigantic 2 stroke diesel engines wherin the amount of power delivered to the supercharger is such that a belt is quite impractical and also if the engine in a car has only got to last for 100,000 or so miles then the belt is CHEAP, if the engine has to run for thousands and thousands of hours without stopping (EG ship), belts arent reliable enough
@dongerdid Chromatix is correct, supercharging referrs to forced induction and it does not matter where the energy comes from, in the case of a turbosupercharger the energy is from a small turbine, its still a centrifugal supercharger no matter how much of an idiot you make yourself sound by saying'buuuuuuull' and also only a tiny percentge of superchargers are belt driven, if the drive is by means other than an exhaust turbine they are driven by gears or driveshafts in most applications
@Chromatix I was being sarcastic, actually. Honda has more than a few 2 liter (and a couple 1.8 liters) engines that make 200 hp or more, without forced induction.
Hasn't British Leyland been defunct since the 80s?
@Chromatix I was being sarcastic, actually. Honda has more than a few 2 liter (and a couple 1.8 liter) engines that make 200 hp or more, without forced induction.
Hasn't British Leyland been defunct since the 80s?
@idontcare80 i dont see whats so impressive? it makes 100hp per liter. Its taken GM this long to do that?. there have been a number of company's doing that for a long time. the best 4 cylinder power plant GM had was the 2.3L i4 it was a great engine i just wish when they built it they didn't cheep out.. and look at Saab that was a part of GM they had engines in the 80's with a 100 hp per liter too. and after all the 2.0L ecotec is a Saab engine after all
@idontcare80 well who do u think runs GM.... over intelligent monkeys. I hate GM since the closer of Oldsmobile and Pontiac 2 brands that made good cars and where not bad cars either. Ill buy a Ford or a Dodge at least there made in in Europe or Canada/USA and have a build quality to them that wont fall apart when u slam the hood or shut a door. GM hasn't been good since 1970 1980 when shit was made of cast iron and steel ... and before DEX-Cool. Ill never buy another General Mistake!
a supercharger will give you sharper throttle response because of it's design. A turbocharger by design will lag depending on the size of the tubo and the torque figures of the motor itself, but it is well known and well demonstrated that a turbo is better for high power applications
your fucking gay, look at your name boostedcamry? u kidding me? any car out there is cooler then a p.o.s ugly camry, and this is a Cobalt SS engine not cavalier you stupid fuck
ffs thyere 2 diffrent things, a turbo works of an exaust helping it push more air volume at top end revs where a Supercharger works of the crank pully pushing more threw on low to mid revs, there simmiler where they force air in but both totaly diffrent, so stop the bikkering a turbo is not a supercharger they both opperate at difrent reves look diffrent & work diffrent try telling a Top Full racer hes running a turbo & youl be laughed at
a turbo is said to be more efficient since it is driven by the exhaust which is wasted energy from the engine. the supercharger is said to be less efficient since its ran by a pulley tied into the belt system the motor must actually work to spin the supercharger. both force air in to the cylinders and both typically run 6-8 psi. two different things same basic concept each just accomplishes it a little differently and the superchargers are usually more expensive.
the piston already faces back pressure by catalytic converters and/or highly restrictive exhaust. what makes the pressure caused from driving the turbo any different if a cam/and exhaust are coupled with a turbocharger which in most cases they are ?
the resistance is not siginficant because it is like 3 seconds before the turbo starts to spin, because after the turbo starts it also ''draws'' the air also, it's not resistance anymore...the energy to push out the gasses is given by the bigger explosion that is going on due to the compression caused by the turbo...
@jarrus464 its a lot of how you drive. Realistically with the stock tune as long as your not boosting either one should be efficient. Maybe, to some, turbo cars are easier to drive without boosting.
@jarrus464 Roots superchargers tend to get worse mpg because of higher parasitic loss. That is, there is more inertial losses from the rotors and friction against internal bearings, gears, and the air itself, than a turbo. This can be helped with an internal bypass valve that dumps pressure (bypasses the rotors) at cruising speeds. Also, roots have a lower adiabatic efficiency, they add more heat to the air they compress.
@Warblade118 Yes, I've seen this system with a bypass valve of some kind,
Is this the case on the screw type charger? I've heard it isn't but I'm not sure, that why I'm asking,
But that said it really depends upon application, I drive a turbo diesel car at the moment and I wouldn't replace the turbo with a supercharger (adding one as well as the turbo would be cool but just mad :S) but if I had a big v8 then it has to be the SC everyday all day :) but that's just from a performance POV
@jarrus464 I’ve seen only a few equipped with the bypass. Some were the traditional roots most were on magnachargers. It truth, any roots supercharger could be fitted with the valve for added efficiency when boost is not necessary. The reason turbos are prevalent on smaller engines is, as well as diesels, is smaller engines don’t have the horsepower to spare like a larger gas V8. You could compound supercharge your diesel, but I’d be concerned about breaking parts.
@jarrus464 Compound supercharging is simply directing the outlet of one supercharger into the inlet of another. The advantage of this is one type of supercharger usually compensates for the weakness of another. For example, roots tend to produce instant boost, were turbos take time to spool up. However, roots become less efficient than turbos at higher boost.
@jarrus464 This gives us a couple of options, we can either use the instant boost of the roots at low engine speeds and then switch over to the turbo when the roots starts to drop off. Or we can continue to us both and have the advantage of instant boost, and efficient boost at high speeds. The downside to this whole system is obviously cost and complexity, but it has been used with success.
@Warblade118 I've seen this before, thought about doing that, but problem is where to put the s/c though, my car had the option of being equipped with air con, but mine doesn't have it so I could root the aux belt as if it had air con, but instead it has an sc , hahahahaha.....
@Warblade118 The key is to shut the compressor down when you aren't using it, like Toyota did. They used a clutch like a air cond compressor and rerouted the intake air when it was shut down. When you stomped it the supercharger would kick in, otherwise it wasn't absorbing power and doing nothing when no boost was called for.
i mostly agree with u but superchargers are not usually more expensive when u consider their value. I am a turbo head thru and thru, if u want to make power u have to go turbo, cuz u can get more boost out of them, but on the short run, especially with the vq series engines from nissan, a supercharger is an inexpensive way to make power when compared to a turbo making the same power, but above 400whp in the vq series (for example) u are better off with turbo.
thats why i said they usually are more expensive but in some cases they aren't. i mean i was just basically answering the guys question about the difference you know. both are actullay very affordable if you shop arround on forums for the right price there is always somebody selling a used one
true, but no one can deny that turbo's, in the long run, are better, especially when u really want to make power, i mean they increase fuel efficiency when u aren't flooring it, while superchargers decrease, TURBOS FOR LIFE!
thats what i was trying to explain to Ineedtolivelonger that superchargers are considered parasitic to an engine in the sense that while adding power to the engine they also rob the engine of power. and then he sends me a PM saying that i shouldnt be driving a v8 bcuz they have starving people in the world and then tells me to visit this website ineedtolivelonger . com lol
you have it backwards, both chargers make the milage worst underboost, and when crusing the turbo is not forcing any air in at all so the motor acts like it is n/a, wail the sc puts in a small amount of extra air making it more effeicent, so supercharges give you better milage(2005 monte carlo w/o sc 25-28 with 27-30mpg
the truth is that if you got a turbo and a supercharger same sizes, the turbo gives you more power for the money because it takes no power to drive himself like a supercharger does...also when u are cruising the turbo is more efficient because it doesn't force air to burn more fuel unlike a supercharger...
getting a better mileage with a supercharger on is a LIE...petrol engines won't be efficient in a million years with a turbo or a supercharger that's a FACT...if you are cruising your supercharger actually delivers less power that your engine would without a supercharger because it forces more air and it is not the optimum air/fuel mix, there is more air than is needed and the explosion in the cylinder is not that powerful...a turbo doesn't do that so again it is more efficient...
Your reasoning is incorrect. The air-fuel ratio is always maintained near stoichiometric. If the supercharger forces more air in, more fuel will be added, the driver will then let off the throttle closing the valve. This will make the vehicle less efficient because a wide open throttle has less throttling losses and is therefore more efficient. Also fuel burns it does not explode.
@dzntms144 detroit 6.2L on a 80's chevy blazer was non turbo and made over 300ftlbs of tq... superchargers kill fuel efficiency because they are attached to the crankshaft and have a parasitic effect on the engine while turbos run off of exhaust pressure
@dzntms144 how can it take away torque... you are supposed adjust the valves, and timing and have a blowoff valve/wastegate to reduce backpressure to a minimum, if you have backpressure from a turbo you have problems, read any automotive comparison, they will tell you about no parasitic effect from a turbo, but they cause massive heat because they can compress much more air, the supercharger is connected to the crankshaft via belt that is were the parasitic effect comes from,
@dzntms144 have you heard of somthing called so smart their stupid... you are thinking too hard on this... your talking about fractions for hp/tq... while a super charger is roughly 50-100hp parasitic effect, depending on how big it is...
@Inv4derxXx who cares on the hp draw they take. they give it right back to you. with a supercharger you look for about a 40% increases from stock hp so it's not really taking any thing. turbo's just add back pressure which some may argue is just as bad!!!
@Inv4derxXx not necessarily, A supercharger, or any turbo, changes the air to be more efficient and when not under heavy load, you increase your gas millage. but MOST people use superchargers, turbo's, for power gains and don't care!!!
agree superchargers are cheaper($1500 or so)vs turbo kits (~3000 for same car), but superchagers can put out just as much psi and a turbo, and are better in the responsiveness part, and you can get beter power in most cases, nhra top fuel dragstes use superchargers for that reason. but don't get me wrong turbos are cool, like on diesel pick ups, and thiers nothing wrong with them and is it breaks they are cheaper to fix
thats part of the reason(no lag), they are also more efficient, where as turbos average about 50%-75% efficient, where as screw type superchargers(kenne bell's) and some roots type superchargers(TVS) are 85% efficient though out RPM range! and the turbo also takes power from the motor, in the form of restricting the exhaust gasses, and their for is less efficient the its centrifugal counter part!
comparing a turbocharger and a supercharger is like comparing petrol with diesel...both have their purposes...it depends on what are u tryin' to achieve...of course both of them are parasitic, but the supercharger sucks more power from the engine, unlike the turbo who's need of power from the engine is almost INsignificant...
but a supercharger uses some of the motors hp, any where from like 1 or 10 hp, where as the turbo take hp from the motor because it restrictes the exhaust until it produces boost, it can take up two 20 hp until boost.
u're right man...the turbo takes more,but the power sucking done by the turbo it's for a short period of time...like maximum 10 secs or so...unlike the turbo the supercharger takes the power all the time even when u're cruising (the turbo doesn't)...there are too many arguments against a supercharger for me to go for one that's why I'm going to buy the turbo...but again that is my opinion...do as u wish man...if you like the supercharger buy a supercharger and enjoy...it's that easy...
true its ur choice, but i don't like it when people make a choice and don't have all the info about it. and a turbo take power when you are just crusing as well cause the exhaust is still being restricted thru the turbo the whole time its running, the incoming air is restricted with a turbo when you are just crusing as well cause it is not making boost so it has to suck air throught the intercooler system by its self, where as a super is giving small amounts of boost the whole time its running.
I have all the facts man...I choosed the turbo because I don't want boost all the time...I want it turned on only at certain revs...
and actually the turbo spins at lower rpm's when you're cruising only it doesn't spin fast enough to affect the power, making it suck the air through the intercooler easy,like a normally aspirated engine...
that is completly wrong. the turbocharger is much more efficient because it runs out of the exaust gases, whereas the supercharger is driven of a belt from the crank. the exaust restriction is very minimal compared to the the energy it takes to spin a supercharger. thats why turbochargers can produce more power because they dont really have a strain on the engine to produce boost like superchargers do.
@allbikes9 not true turbos at high rpms are only 50% efficient because they are external compressor, superchargers are internal compressors so they are more efficient, most run 65%-85%! that coupled with lag equals not as efficient! and the load on the motor from the belt is minimal also!
you seem very dumb. it doesnt matter where the charger is on the engine. It being external or internal wont really have an impact. the strain on the motor from a supercharger is huge, around 30 hp worth. A turbo can produce much more horsepower. The strain on a turbo is barely anything.
@allbikes9: you call me dumb and dont understand that effect that being a external compressor has on efficiency??? external compressors have a far less efficient rating like i said eariler!where as centrifugal and twin screws have a 85% average,some roots types have 50% after 18psi,but the average drain is 10-20 at most, some are less, the old school blowers are around the 30 mark. and the strian on the motor from the turbo is also 10-30hp, depending on the set up,because of the restriction.
ya i know you said earlier that external compressors have far less efficiency, but i am asking why it matters where the compressor is located. who cares if it mounted directly to the engine. And bye the way i am talking about when a turbo and supercharger are actually creating boost, but maybe your not. Once the turbo is actually producing boost, it has almost no back pressure. But under normal driving conditions, it does create exaust pressure.
under boost a turbo still had a high back pressure because it is an external compressor, where as most supechagers(except some roots types) are internal, so no back pressure, and even under boost, power is lost because of exhaust restriction.
yeah the turbine dose add more back pressure when you dont crack the throttle. and i dont know much about all the types of superchargers, but i know the roots style runs off a pully. thats an extra job the the engine to do.
but i'd say a supercharger would be good for a daily driver, that you only race once in a wile and then drive to work because theres no added pressure at low rpms, the charger runs all the time. a turbo would be great for racing. and thats like it. cause you have to be at higher rpms to keep it kicked in.
all superchagers run off of the pulley, unless it is electric, but the lost on the motor is the same hp loss as the turbo, exhaust restriction thur the one inch or less turbine housing, about 5-10 hp loss.
turbos suck less power from an engine than a supercharger due to the fact that it isn't power by the engine itself, having said that turbos find it had to boost across the whole rev range, for's and against for both really neither is better than the other
@jarrus464 my point was that both have some neg effect on the engine, whether it be from use of a pully or a exhaust restriction, but as far as efficency is conserned a supercahrger is better then a single turbo...
@jarrus464 compared with the price of putting a turbo on a car vs super, the super is cheaper, and chevy used a a sc and before the srt-4 came out the concept srt4 was supercharged and had more hp then the turbo one, so ya... not to mention that the first chevy concept coblat had 251 hp but they settled with 205
@98montecarloz34 I think this is an argument that we can't settle really, dude to the fact that we live of different sides of the pond and we do things differently, but something I can say about is Saab as we both have those, they have been using turbos to increase the efficiency of petrol engines for years, why didn't they use superchargers if they are supposed to be cheaper and better for the job?
to get that 30hp strain on Engine you must put a big ass supercharger with the size of the motor it's self. You are talking about this big superchargers that they put on V8 that make 1000hp. We are talking about normal size superchargers that will take away 10hp if, and make 150 additional.
Thats a super charger not a turbo charger. A super charger uses direct power from the engine to compress air. A turbo charger uses a turbine using the pressure from the exhaust to turn it.
supercharging refers to the act of forcing air above atmospheric pressure into the intake of an internal combustion engine, a turbocharger is also a supercharger, turbo is a shortened version of turbocharger, which is short for turbosupercharger, which is short for exhaust turbine driven centrifugal supercharger.
its a common misconception when people think a turbo isnt a supercharger, this vid is of a positive displacment belt driven supercharger. these were originally called 'blowers'
Thats as maybe, but the process of forcing air above atmospheric pressure into an internal combustion engine is Supercharging therefore any item that does this job is a supercharger.. not all mechanically driven superchargers are volumetric compressors, some variants are centrifugal not positive displacment making them NOT volumetric compressors.
lol. who cares what the technical name is. I know what you're saying, as I knew this before hand as well, but to most of the world, a supercharger is a belt driven compressor and a turbocharger is an exhaust driven compressor
I think you might have been a little misinformed somewhere along the line...a turbo is NOT supercharger and a supercharger is NOT a turbo. they both are "tools" for forced induction but work completely different.
nope, you are miss-informed, a turbo is a supercharger, anything that brings the inlet manifold of an internal combustion engine over atmospheric pressure is a supercharger, there are many different types, turbo is short for 'Turbosupercharger' and the normal positive displacement pump as seen in the above video is a 'volumetric compressor' which is why mercedes call their superchargers 'kompressor's.
search the patent office for 'turbocharger supercharged internal combustion engine'
I cant understand how can they use the name of "ecotec" in other parts of the world.. Only Opel engines are called ecotec, whitch means 16V engines.. Ecotec=Opel 16V engines, and nothing more..
its ok, that they share technology within the concern, but also the names? Opel uses modified Fiat multijet diesel engines.. but in opels they are called CDTI.. so this is a good example of using techniqe, but not its name..
i mean the big american car company General Motors buy the german car company Opel so Gm use the technologies of Opel to make Gm car better and it why you have ecotec engines in Gm Cars that it!!!you unserstand now? it written in many auto guides :P
could be i dunno but in my car guides it said it made by opel so... i was thinking was true cuz they are proffesionnal anyway it a european technologie buyed by american the only thing they could do is our fucking push rod engines:PLOL thanx for your info
you have NO idea. Most of teh inventions an patents came from opel. I remember times in that every german, french, italian, japanese shaked his head when he saw the quality of american carbodies. Its better since some german munfactures came in! Sometimes i could think you americans have realy no idea about the rest of the world. And when i hear GM i could shit on it. GM bought opel and killed it nearly. I'm so happy gm doesn't own opel anymore.
I own a Pontiac G5 with a 2.2l Ecotec engine and that engine is sick! I got 150 hp stock and i'm planning to put a supercharger (More powerful than the one on the cobalt SS). The Engine block is so strong. It's true that i can take up to 1000hp. The NHRA drag championship are using the 2.2l in the Stock series. That means the engine block is STOCK but is heavily modified by Supercharger and racing parts. I got 150 hp and 160 f/lbs of torque. I accelerate faster than a Honda Civic SIR! Go G5!
you think you can beat an SiR???? um... yeah.... good luck with that buddy... hate to break it to you .. but i could beat you in my 2000 eclipse gs....
I've Changed my car. Got a 2006 white Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart :) . I got to say that i really love my MIVEC 2.4L . I got 162hp with 162 f/lbs of torque , but it's going like i got 200 ! This summer i'm installing a OEM Cold Air intake and an EVO IX Spoiler , And maybe a Magnaflow Cat from Road Race motorsport :) . Forget what i said about the ecotec the MIVEC is way better :) And sounds great to! By the way i beated a Civic Si 2008 (197 hp) with my Lancer and i even let the guy go first!
bull shit. well nm he has a g5 "ls" (not really an ls but is in terms of power) so u with the g5 if u want to race me come on. I have a 2008 cobalt ss turbo. with an gm performance exhaust and even a gm performance turbo kit added to the stock turbo system. i will take u on any day of the week!
It all depends on what the computer is programmed to call a lean condition, whether the motor can run under the lean condition, and when the knock sensors start detecting the knock...
A lot of oem cars out there come with superchargers, but most are displacement. I'm sure there is a happy medium, this motor isn't exactly a gas guzzler...
different strokes for different folks. *literally makes the difference*
Aint1S 3 weeks ago
@Aint1S Well... Try to lean the misture isn't best way for any "car maker". On a lean misture, NOx are the problems. Yes... We can ride a 1,1 lambda (or leaner) engine on light loads, but the emissions will grow. Use of an agressive spark advance too. Every time that you make a high temperature combustion, nitrogen reacts with oxygen and we rise the NO2 and NO3 (NOx) emissions... :(
Chiavaloni 4 days ago
@Aint1S Another inconvenient are the catalytic converters. They work better on a very narrow band around lambda 1. If I'm not wrong, this should be around lambda 0,98 and 1,02. All of this it's because the "eco-friendly" guys. :/ It's a nightmare to tune an engine who attends the emission laws... :( Without all this "green stuffs", certainly we could tune properly an engine (lambda around 0,82 for power and leaned until it "jiggles" for economy).
Chiavaloni 4 days ago
Damn it i wish i understood this stuff
Neverwashere680 2 months ago
Wheeres soundd
rukhon786 4 months ago
takes power to make power
andrewCNC905 6 months ago
what a detailed and stylish animation!
U2oobfan 8 months ago
thats weird
ok then i just typed somthing random and this is what i get
bucksnducks100 8 months ago
Heyy what software did you use?? :)
bigrandom77777 9 months ago
Wow u guys are dumb with the Turbo supercharged bull shit. Have you not realized we are in 2011 now. The supercharger on the Cobalt m61 I believe it is from Eaton uses 1/3 HP at cruising speeds. That's what umm nothing. And I know for a fact that my 06 cobalt got better mileage then the turbos. Also thy are different applications. Turbos for high revs and supercharges for lower. But either wway there is parasitic loss. No such thing as free power. Physics 101. Each have pros and cons.
platinumisgr8 10 months ago
@platinumisgr8 Actually turbos don't cause parasitic loss.
wsimpson86 7 months ago
@wsimpson86 To spool up the turbo shaft you will need some "friction". Where this come from? ;) The tecnology can reduce the losses, but not "remove the losses".... But turbochargers are still (and will forever be!) more efficient then any other way of boost an engine.
Chiavaloni 7 months ago
@Chiavaloni Superchargers are not efficient. A procharger at 6k rpms takes 100 hp to turn.
wsimpson86 7 months ago
@wsimpson86 wrong supercharges take 50 hp while a procharger is like a supercharger and turbo compined together with low psi (under 10) while turbos can go up to 40 psi? and superchargers maybe 20 psi? and prochargers are maybe the weakiest about 6 psi? turbos and superchargers use up the most fuel on a vehicle so imagine a 8 mpg vehicle with a supercharger? youd barely get anything for it am I right?
Typhlosion100 6 months ago
@wsimpson86
100? WTF, more like 10-15.
Philscbx 4 days ago
@Chiavaloni
Well, that's Odd.
Not one Funny Car uses Turbo.
Philscbx 4 days ago
@Philscbx It's true... But who cares about the fuel consumption for a funny car? @ the track this is bullshit, don't you agree? ;) But on the streets this is not so true, specially on a "mass production" vehicle. That's the basic difference between SC'ed and Turbo'ed street engines, like this SC'ed ECO. ;)
Chiavaloni 4 days ago
@Chiavaloni
True,
The Turbo Diesel is a good example, but it's not much as boost pressure is maybe within 5 psi, which is huge compared to negative pressure.
The best part of Superchargers is its right now, no delay BS
Cheers
Philscbx 4 days ago
@platinumisgr8 It's phisics... Turbochargers are much more efficient then any supercharger. Turbos are around 70~80% eff. SC/Blowers are only around 40~55% eff. At cruising speeds it requires much more then 1/3 hp. Just the belt system requires this (or a bit more power) to rev it around 2k~3k rpm. ;) But CERTAINLY both turbos and SC have pros and cons... ;)
Chiavaloni 7 months ago
How do you get the oil filter out with it there do you really need to remove the dam thing just to change the oil
XJohnRageX 11 months ago
@XJohnRage A swivle joint and a long extention will get it, just gotta take the intercooler fill neck loose. You dont even have to get under the car. I did pay for a couple of those hundred dollar oil changes before i tryed it. I have a lot of miles on my ion r/l not a problem yet except keeping tires on it.
cherington01 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XJohnRage A swivel joint and a long extension will get it, just gotta take the intercooler fill neck loose. You don’t even have to get under the car. I did pay for a couple of those hundred dollar oil changes before I tried it. I have a lot of miles on my ion r/l not a problem yet except keeping tires on it.
cherington01 9 months ago
What about if the car has an external blower, is the system the same?
songwriter464 11 months ago
Volkswagen got these Root and a normal turbo in their 1.4 TSI engine with 160hp and 240Nm. It runs very good for a 1.4 and maybe you can go to ABT the tuner for VW and make 210hp, as strong as a GTI :)
Batner112 1 year ago
supercharging a car is already forced induction it will only pull as high as your RPM's are reved if you "twin charge" the turbo will spoll and keep spolling till you let out which is going to force more air on the supercharger and cause its to cancel out so its pretty much point less to have a twin charge set up
pressleypage2 1 year ago
Sexy engine :P
EpicFlyer889 1 year ago
Un exelente video y aquiero uno
dfggf34 1 year ago
That oil filter is a bitch to change on this supercharged Ecotec. I used to always get stuck doing them at the dealer.
mrstrictlygm 1 year ago
Put more videos like that....
Chrisjaldin 1 year ago 4
(this post should be read after my first one)
Only piddly little superchargers are used on car engines, they were developed as scavenge blowers for gigantic 2 stroke diesel engines wherin the amount of power delivered to the supercharger is such that a belt is quite impractical and also if the engine in a car has only got to last for 100,000 or so miles then the belt is CHEAP, if the engine has to run for thousands and thousands of hours without stopping (EG ship), belts arent reliable enough
Ceiliguliminix 1 year ago
@dongerdid Chromatix is correct, supercharging referrs to forced induction and it does not matter where the energy comes from, in the case of a turbosupercharger the energy is from a small turbine, its still a centrifugal supercharger no matter how much of an idiot you make yourself sound by saying'buuuuuuull' and also only a tiny percentge of superchargers are belt driven, if the drive is by means other than an exhaust turbine they are driven by gears or driveshafts in most applications
Ceiliguliminix 1 year ago
@dongerdid Congratulations at your complete and utter lack of knowledge on this subject
Chromatix 1 year ago 7
WOOOO HOOOOOOO!!!!!! 200 hp from a supercharged 2.0 liter engine!! GO GM!!!
idontcare80 1 year ago
@idontcare80 Hey, don’t bash the ecotec too hard, they did make 1000HP out of one with as many stock parts as sanity would allow.
Warblade118 1 year ago
@idontcare80 heh, british layland had a reliable 200bhp 2 liter turbocharged stock engine in 1990
Chromatix 1 year ago
@Chromatix I was being sarcastic, actually. Honda has more than a few 2 liter (and a couple 1.8 liters) engines that make 200 hp or more, without forced induction.
Hasn't British Leyland been defunct since the 80s?
idontcare80 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chromatix I was being sarcastic, actually. Honda has more than a few 2 liter (and a couple 1.8 liter) engines that make 200 hp or more, without forced induction.
Hasn't British Leyland been defunct since the 80s?
idontcare80 1 year ago
@idontcare80 i dont see whats so impressive? it makes 100hp per liter. Its taken GM this long to do that?. there have been a number of company's doing that for a long time. the best 4 cylinder power plant GM had was the 2.3L i4 it was a great engine i just wish when they built it they didn't cheep out.. and look at Saab that was a part of GM they had engines in the 80's with a 100 hp per liter too. and after all the 2.0L ecotec is a Saab engine after all
osvst 1 year ago
Comment removed
idontcare80 1 year ago
@idontcare80 well who do u think runs GM.... over intelligent monkeys. I hate GM since the closer of Oldsmobile and Pontiac 2 brands that made good cars and where not bad cars either. Ill buy a Ford or a Dodge at least there made in in Europe or Canada/USA and have a build quality to them that wont fall apart when u slam the hood or shut a door. GM hasn't been good since 1970 1980 when shit was made of cast iron and steel ... and before DEX-Cool. Ill never buy another General Mistake!
osvst 1 year ago
a supercharger will give you sharper throttle response because of it's design. A turbocharger by design will lag depending on the size of the tubo and the torque figures of the motor itself, but it is well known and well demonstrated that a turbo is better for high power applications
BorisBeefcake 2 years ago
wow how many hp ?
elmermt 2 years ago
Comment removed
motorwolrdpl 2 years ago
thx goof off
dmpolli 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck you
markkerckaert 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i fucked your cunt of a mother you fucking piece of shit dirty cock sucker!
lowlux1 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
good one, shit head. too bad you're a low life white trash piece of shit. DIAF
markkerckaert 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when i got done with your mother last night she looked like a fucking milk truck hit her!
lowlux1 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuckin GAY cavalier dweebs
boostedcamry 2 years ago
your fucking gay, look at your name boostedcamry? u kidding me? any car out there is cooler then a p.o.s ugly camry, and this is a Cobalt SS engine not cavalier you stupid fuck
StevoElsupremo 2 years ago
Cavalier?? your fucking dumb right? look at the bottom right corner of the screen dude
LynxOGrady 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
tur·bo·su·per·charg·er (tûrb-spr-chärjr)
n.
A supercharger that uses an exhaust-driven turbine to maintain air-intake pressure especially in high-altitude aircraft. Also called turbocharger.
GMisurdaddy 2 years ago
ffs thyere 2 diffrent things, a turbo works of an exaust helping it push more air volume at top end revs where a Supercharger works of the crank pully pushing more threw on low to mid revs, there simmiler where they force air in but both totaly diffrent, so stop the bikkering a turbo is not a supercharger they both opperate at difrent reves look diffrent & work diffrent try telling a Top Full racer hes running a turbo & youl be laughed at
TheAussiNut 2 years ago
a turbo is said to be more efficient since it is driven by the exhaust which is wasted energy from the engine. the supercharger is said to be less efficient since its ran by a pulley tied into the belt system the motor must actually work to spin the supercharger. both force air in to the cylinders and both typically run 6-8 psi. two different things same basic concept each just accomplishes it a little differently and the superchargers are usually more expensive.
yfzfofitty06 2 years ago
no, piston needs more energy to push gases out of cylinder, to exhausts are not free energy
INeedToLiveLonger 2 years ago
lol piston needs more energy to remove gases from the cylinder due to the turbo?
yfzfofitty06 2 years ago
yes
INeedToLiveLonger 2 years ago
this is caused by??
yfzfofitty06 2 years ago
turbo is resistance for gases = it creates bigger preassure of out gases = preassure push on piston and it needs more energy to remove gases
in every primary shoocl in 4th level is physics and 2nd lesson is law of keeping energy
turbo have energy, but it is not free, it is taken from piston
turbo efficiency=78%
supercharger efficiency =95% but only at one constant rpm
from 900-7000 rpm efficency of supercharges is from 20% to 100% and drops again to 20% at really high rpm
INeedToLiveLonger 2 years ago
the piston already faces back pressure by catalytic converters and/or highly restrictive exhaust. what makes the pressure caused from driving the turbo any different if a cam/and exhaust are coupled with a turbocharger which in most cases they are ?
yfzfofitty06 2 years ago
holset-how a turbocharger works
check out that video
yfzfofitty06 2 years ago
wikipedia: A turbocharger is a small radial fan pump driven by the energy of the exhaust gases of an engine.
Nothing is free, energy is not created from nothing.
INeedToLiveLonger 2 years ago
the resistance is not siginficant because it is like 3 seconds before the turbo starts to spin, because after the turbo starts it also ''draws'' the air also, it's not resistance anymore...the energy to push out the gasses is given by the bigger explosion that is going on due to the compression caused by the turbo...
c00smeen 2 years ago
energy to push out gases = resistance
bigger explosion = more fuel
additional fuel is used against resistance and friction
INeedToLiveLonger 2 years ago
energy to push out gases = resistance??
maybe the first 4 or 6 or 8 rpm's...then is about inertia and the resistance is again INsignificant...
that's why not all pistons fire at once...
c00smeen 2 years ago
@INeedToLiveLonger Quick question then, why do turbocharged engines have better fuel economy than supercharged engines?, (like for like)
jarrus464 1 year ago
@jarrus464 its a lot of how you drive. Realistically with the stock tune as long as your not boosting either one should be efficient. Maybe, to some, turbo cars are easier to drive without boosting.
FiredUpZ28 1 year ago
@jarrus464 Roots superchargers tend to get worse mpg because of higher parasitic loss. That is, there is more inertial losses from the rotors and friction against internal bearings, gears, and the air itself, than a turbo. This can be helped with an internal bypass valve that dumps pressure (bypasses the rotors) at cruising speeds. Also, roots have a lower adiabatic efficiency, they add more heat to the air they compress.
Warblade118 1 year ago
@Warblade118 Yes, I've seen this system with a bypass valve of some kind,
Is this the case on the screw type charger? I've heard it isn't but I'm not sure, that why I'm asking,
But that said it really depends upon application, I drive a turbo diesel car at the moment and I wouldn't replace the turbo with a supercharger (adding one as well as the turbo would be cool but just mad :S) but if I had a big v8 then it has to be the SC everyday all day :) but that's just from a performance POV
jarrus464 1 year ago
@jarrus464 I’ve seen only a few equipped with the bypass. Some were the traditional roots most were on magnachargers. It truth, any roots supercharger could be fitted with the valve for added efficiency when boost is not necessary. The reason turbos are prevalent on smaller engines is, as well as diesels, is smaller engines don’t have the horsepower to spare like a larger gas V8. You could compound supercharge your diesel, but I’d be concerned about breaking parts.
Warblade118 1 year ago
@Warblade118 true enough indeed,
when you say compound supercharger what do you mean by that?
I tend to find as well that more modern superchargers have less mechanical drag on an engine,
jarrus464 1 year ago
@jarrus464 Compound supercharging is simply directing the outlet of one supercharger into the inlet of another. The advantage of this is one type of supercharger usually compensates for the weakness of another. For example, roots tend to produce instant boost, were turbos take time to spool up. However, roots become less efficient than turbos at higher boost.
Warblade118 1 year ago
@jarrus464 This gives us a couple of options, we can either use the instant boost of the roots at low engine speeds and then switch over to the turbo when the roots starts to drop off. Or we can continue to us both and have the advantage of instant boost, and efficient boost at high speeds. The downside to this whole system is obviously cost and complexity, but it has been used with success.
Warblade118 1 year ago
@Warblade118 I've seen this before, thought about doing that, but problem is where to put the s/c though, my car had the option of being equipped with air con, but mine doesn't have it so I could root the aux belt as if it had air con, but instead it has an sc , hahahahaha.....
but i've also been looking into VNT's as well,
jarrus464 1 year ago
@Warblade118 The key is to shut the compressor down when you aren't using it, like Toyota did. They used a clutch like a air cond compressor and rerouted the intake air when it was shut down. When you stomped it the supercharger would kick in, otherwise it wasn't absorbing power and doing nothing when no boost was called for.
505197 1 year ago
@505197 Magna charger has a simpler approach yet, an internal bypass valve.
Warblade118 1 year ago
i mostly agree with u but superchargers are not usually more expensive when u consider their value. I am a turbo head thru and thru, if u want to make power u have to go turbo, cuz u can get more boost out of them, but on the short run, especially with the vq series engines from nissan, a supercharger is an inexpensive way to make power when compared to a turbo making the same power, but above 400whp in the vq series (for example) u are better off with turbo.
fat10head 2 years ago
thats why i said they usually are more expensive but in some cases they aren't. i mean i was just basically answering the guys question about the difference you know. both are actullay very affordable if you shop arround on forums for the right price there is always somebody selling a used one
yfzfofitty06 2 years ago
true, but no one can deny that turbo's, in the long run, are better, especially when u really want to make power, i mean they increase fuel efficiency when u aren't flooring it, while superchargers decrease, TURBOS FOR LIFE!
fat10head 2 years ago
thats what i was trying to explain to Ineedtolivelonger that superchargers are considered parasitic to an engine in the sense that while adding power to the engine they also rob the engine of power. and then he sends me a PM saying that i shouldnt be driving a v8 bcuz they have starving people in the world and then tells me to visit this website ineedtolivelonger . com lol
yfzfofitty06 2 years ago
lol, some ppl don't know shit about cars my friend, it is always good to meet someone who does
fat10head 2 years ago
like wise lol
yfzfofitty06 2 years ago
you have it backwards, both chargers make the milage worst underboost, and when crusing the turbo is not forcing any air in at all so the motor acts like it is n/a, wail the sc puts in a small amount of extra air making it more effeicent, so supercharges give you better milage(2005 monte carlo w/o sc 25-28 with 27-30mpg
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
the truth is that if you got a turbo and a supercharger same sizes, the turbo gives you more power for the money because it takes no power to drive himself like a supercharger does...also when u are cruising the turbo is more efficient because it doesn't force air to burn more fuel unlike a supercharger...
c00smeen 2 years ago
getting a better mileage with a supercharger on is a LIE...petrol engines won't be efficient in a million years with a turbo or a supercharger that's a FACT...if you are cruising your supercharger actually delivers less power that your engine would without a supercharger because it forces more air and it is not the optimum air/fuel mix, there is more air than is needed and the explosion in the cylinder is not that powerful...a turbo doesn't do that so again it is more efficient...
c00smeen 2 years ago
Your reasoning is incorrect. The air-fuel ratio is always maintained near stoichiometric. If the supercharger forces more air in, more fuel will be added, the driver will then let off the throttle closing the valve. This will make the vehicle less efficient because a wide open throttle has less throttling losses and is therefore more efficient. Also fuel burns it does not explode.
wolfpack4128 2 years ago
i don't think people care about fuel efficiency when they are supercharging a engine
Inv4derxXx 2 years ago 34
@Inv4derxXx
The higher the intake pressure, the more efficient is the combustion.
Super/Turbo charger --> more efficiency + more power
Show me a new Diesel engine without a turbo... tzzz
dzntms144 1 year ago
@dzntms144 detroit 6.2L on a 80's chevy blazer was non turbo and made over 300ftlbs of tq... superchargers kill fuel efficiency because they are attached to the crankshaft and have a parasitic effect on the engine while turbos run off of exhaust pressure
Inv4derxXx 1 year ago
@Inv4derxXx please, show me the math. Turbos are also taking torque from the crankshaft. They must! During exhaust stroke the piston
is using torque from the crankshaft to push out the exhaust gas.
A turbine creats a bigger resistance in the exhaust system.
Therefore more pressure(--> more torque) is needed.
So both super and turbo charger use crankshaft torque.
Both provide more efficiency(--> more power) due to higher combustion pressure.
I know my thermodynamics and physical chemistry ;)
dzntms144 1 year ago
@dzntms144 how can it take away torque... you are supposed adjust the valves, and timing and have a blowoff valve/wastegate to reduce backpressure to a minimum, if you have backpressure from a turbo you have problems, read any automotive comparison, they will tell you about no parasitic effect from a turbo, but they cause massive heat because they can compress much more air, the supercharger is connected to the crankshaft via belt that is were the parasitic effect comes from,
Inv4derxXx 1 year ago
@dzntms144 have you heard of somthing called so smart their stupid... you are thinking too hard on this... your talking about fractions for hp/tq... while a super charger is roughly 50-100hp parasitic effect, depending on how big it is...
Inv4derxXx 1 year ago
@Inv4derxXx who cares on the hp draw they take. they give it right back to you. with a supercharger you look for about a 40% increases from stock hp so it's not really taking any thing. turbo's just add back pressure which some may argue is just as bad!!!
coderocks73087 1 year ago
@Inv4derxXx not necessarily, A supercharger, or any turbo, changes the air to be more efficient and when not under heavy load, you increase your gas millage. but MOST people use superchargers, turbo's, for power gains and don't care!!!
coderocks73087 1 year ago
@Inv4derxXx if the supercharger is mounted by the manufacturer is for downsizing, but if people do it just to add power you're probably right
monsi23 11 months ago
agree superchargers are cheaper($1500 or so)vs turbo kits (~3000 for same car), but superchagers can put out just as much psi and a turbo, and are better in the responsiveness part, and you can get beter power in most cases, nhra top fuel dragstes use superchargers for that reason. but don't get me wrong turbos are cool, like on diesel pick ups, and thiers nothing wrong with them and is it breaks they are cheaper to fix
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
dragsters use superchargers cuz they have no lag, turbos have lag...but that can be corrected with nitrous oxide...
c00smeen 2 years ago
thats part of the reason(no lag), they are also more efficient, where as turbos average about 50%-75% efficient, where as screw type superchargers(kenne bell's) and some roots type superchargers(TVS) are 85% efficient though out RPM range! and the turbo also takes power from the motor, in the form of restricting the exhaust gasses, and their for is less efficient the its centrifugal counter part!
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
comparing a turbocharger and a supercharger is like comparing petrol with diesel...both have their purposes...it depends on what are u tryin' to achieve...of course both of them are parasitic, but the supercharger sucks more power from the engine, unlike the turbo who's need of power from the engine is almost INsignificant...
c00smeen 2 years ago
but a supercharger uses some of the motors hp, any where from like 1 or 10 hp, where as the turbo take hp from the motor because it restrictes the exhaust until it produces boost, it can take up two 20 hp until boost.
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
u're right man...the turbo takes more,but the power sucking done by the turbo it's for a short period of time...like maximum 10 secs or so...unlike the turbo the supercharger takes the power all the time even when u're cruising (the turbo doesn't)...there are too many arguments against a supercharger for me to go for one that's why I'm going to buy the turbo...but again that is my opinion...do as u wish man...if you like the supercharger buy a supercharger and enjoy...it's that easy...
c00smeen 2 years ago
true its ur choice, but i don't like it when people make a choice and don't have all the info about it. and a turbo take power when you are just crusing as well cause the exhaust is still being restricted thru the turbo the whole time its running, the incoming air is restricted with a turbo when you are just crusing as well cause it is not making boost so it has to suck air throught the intercooler system by its self, where as a super is giving small amounts of boost the whole time its running.
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
I have all the facts man...I choosed the turbo because I don't want boost all the time...I want it turned on only at certain revs...
and actually the turbo spins at lower rpm's when you're cruising only it doesn't spin fast enough to affect the power, making it suck the air through the intercooler easy,like a normally aspirated engine...
c00smeen 2 years ago
but with a super you are not boosting al the time as far as psi, and the lower rpm spining doen't acount for anything...
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
that is completly wrong. the turbocharger is much more efficient because it runs out of the exaust gases, whereas the supercharger is driven of a belt from the crank. the exaust restriction is very minimal compared to the the energy it takes to spin a supercharger. thats why turbochargers can produce more power because they dont really have a strain on the engine to produce boost like superchargers do.
allbikes9 2 years ago
@allbikes9 not true turbos at high rpms are only 50% efficient because they are external compressor, superchargers are internal compressors so they are more efficient, most run 65%-85%! that coupled with lag equals not as efficient! and the load on the motor from the belt is minimal also!
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
you seem very dumb. it doesnt matter where the charger is on the engine. It being external or internal wont really have an impact. the strain on the motor from a supercharger is huge, around 30 hp worth. A turbo can produce much more horsepower. The strain on a turbo is barely anything.
allbikes9 2 years ago
@allbikes9: you call me dumb and dont understand that effect that being a external compressor has on efficiency??? external compressors have a far less efficient rating like i said eariler!where as centrifugal and twin screws have a 85% average,some roots types have 50% after 18psi,but the average drain is 10-20 at most, some are less, the old school blowers are around the 30 mark. and the strian on the motor from the turbo is also 10-30hp, depending on the set up,because of the restriction.
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
ya i know you said earlier that external compressors have far less efficiency, but i am asking why it matters where the compressor is located. who cares if it mounted directly to the engine. And bye the way i am talking about when a turbo and supercharger are actually creating boost, but maybe your not. Once the turbo is actually producing boost, it has almost no back pressure. But under normal driving conditions, it does create exaust pressure.
allbikes9 2 years ago
under boost a turbo still had a high back pressure because it is an external compressor, where as most supechagers(except some roots types) are internal, so no back pressure, and even under boost, power is lost because of exhaust restriction.
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
yeah the turbine dose add more back pressure when you dont crack the throttle. and i dont know much about all the types of superchargers, but i know the roots style runs off a pully. thats an extra job the the engine to do.
hartattack940 2 years ago
but i'd say a supercharger would be good for a daily driver, that you only race once in a wile and then drive to work because theres no added pressure at low rpms, the charger runs all the time. a turbo would be great for racing. and thats like it. cause you have to be at higher rpms to keep it kicked in.
hartattack940 2 years ago
@hartattack940 turbocharged cars are more fuel efficient though,
for's and against for both really
jarrus464 1 year ago
all superchagers run off of the pulley, unless it is electric, but the lost on the motor is the same hp loss as the turbo, exhaust restriction thur the one inch or less turbine housing, about 5-10 hp loss.
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
@98montecarloz34
turbos suck less power from an engine than a supercharger due to the fact that it isn't power by the engine itself, having said that turbos find it had to boost across the whole rev range, for's and against for both really neither is better than the other
jarrus464 1 year ago
@jarrus464 my point was that both have some neg effect on the engine, whether it be from use of a pully or a exhaust restriction, but as far as efficency is conserned a supercahrger is better then a single turbo...
98montecarloz34 1 year ago
@98montecarloz34 i'll still have to disagree there chap,
on this type of engine then the turbo will be more efficient, but if only one turbo was used on a v8 then I guess the efficiency decreases,
Why do manufactures use smaller turbo engines rather than small supercharged engines to replace bigger engines?
jarrus464 1 year ago
@jarrus464 compared with the price of putting a turbo on a car vs super, the super is cheaper, and chevy used a a sc and before the srt-4 came out the concept srt4 was supercharged and had more hp then the turbo one, so ya... not to mention that the first chevy concept coblat had 251 hp but they settled with 205
98montecarloz34 1 year ago
@98montecarloz34 I think this is an argument that we can't settle really, dude to the fact that we live of different sides of the pond and we do things differently, but something I can say about is Saab as we both have those, they have been using turbos to increase the efficiency of petrol engines for years, why didn't they use superchargers if they are supposed to be cheaper and better for the job?
jarrus464 1 year ago
@jarrus464 because they want you to spend money and not riding out for free. they go hand in hand with oil companies. cabish
bykashka75 1 year ago
I don't follow, yes they do want your money but I don't get what you are saying
jarrus464 1 year ago
to get that 30hp strain on Engine you must put a big ass supercharger with the size of the motor it's self. You are talking about this big superchargers that they put on V8 that make 1000hp. We are talking about normal size superchargers that will take away 10hp if, and make 150 additional.
aleksankazakov 2 years ago
your right i was talking about big superchargers. but still a turbocharger is more efficient regardless.
allbikes9 2 years ago
you are 100% wrong, and everything you say is opposite. it is all FACT. so just accept it becasue you are wrong
allbikes9 2 years ago
um good luck with that! if you can't prove your statements telling me that iam wrong is not going to get you anywere!
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
ok whatever i dont give a shit anymore. you didnt prove your point either so beleive what you want
allbikes9 2 years ago
how did i not, as far as efficency goes turbos got nothing on super's!
98montecarloz34 2 years ago
Thats a super charger not a turbo charger. A super charger uses direct power from the engine to compress air. A turbo charger uses a turbine using the pressure from the exhaust to turn it.
jimbooboo 3 years ago 7
supercharging refers to the act of forcing air above atmospheric pressure into the intake of an internal combustion engine, a turbocharger is also a supercharger, turbo is a shortened version of turbocharger, which is short for turbosupercharger, which is short for exhaust turbine driven centrifugal supercharger.
its a common misconception when people think a turbo isnt a supercharger, this vid is of a positive displacment belt driven supercharger. these were originally called 'blowers'
Chromatix 3 years ago
fyi the real name of supercharger it called volumetric compressor
GrUnGe567 3 years ago
Thats as maybe, but the process of forcing air above atmospheric pressure into an internal combustion engine is Supercharging therefore any item that does this job is a supercharger.. not all mechanically driven superchargers are volumetric compressors, some variants are centrifugal not positive displacment making them NOT volumetric compressors.
Chromatix 3 years ago
lol. who cares what the technical name is. I know what you're saying, as I knew this before hand as well, but to most of the world, a supercharger is a belt driven compressor and a turbocharger is an exhaust driven compressor
HunterKiller89 3 years ago
That's actually a big NOS bottle strapped to the engine. Its a common misconception.
sidewalk4004 2 years ago 2
I think you might have been a little misinformed somewhere along the line...a turbo is NOT supercharger and a supercharger is NOT a turbo. they both are "tools" for forced induction but work completely different.
nicedreams666 2 years ago
nope, you are miss-informed, a turbo is a supercharger, anything that brings the inlet manifold of an internal combustion engine over atmospheric pressure is a supercharger, there are many different types, turbo is short for 'Turbosupercharger' and the normal positive displacement pump as seen in the above video is a 'volumetric compressor' which is why mercedes call their superchargers 'kompressor's.
search the patent office for 'turbocharger supercharged internal combustion engine'
Chromatix 2 years ago 7
@Chromatix buuuuullll shit a supercharger has to be belt driven that a bunch of shit
dongerdid 1 year ago
tur·bo·su·per·charg·er (tûrb-spr-chärjr)
n.
A supercharger that uses an exhaust-driven turbine to maintain air-intake pressure especially in high-altitude aircraft. Also called turbocharger.
GMisurdaddy 2 years ago
@jimbooboo superchargers are considered to be a type of turbo. Just a belt driven one.
coderocks73087 1 year ago
a supercharger is basically a belt driven Air compressor designed to force larger amounts of air into the combustion chamber
deviljamez 3 years ago
lancers are waaaaaaaay to heavy. id get a ralliart
banshee107 3 years ago
I cant understand how can they use the name of "ecotec" in other parts of the world.. Only Opel engines are called ecotec, whitch means 16V engines.. Ecotec=Opel 16V engines, and nothing more..
Sanyey 3 years ago
because gm buy opel and they use opel technology
GrUnGe567 3 years ago
its ok, that they share technology within the concern, but also the names? Opel uses modified Fiat multijet diesel engines.. but in opels they are called CDTI.. so this is a good example of using techniqe, but not its name..
Sanyey 3 years ago
i mean the big american car company General Motors buy the german car company Opel so Gm use the technologies of Opel to make Gm car better and it why you have ecotec engines in Gm Cars that it!!!you unserstand now? it written in many auto guides :P
GrUnGe567 3 years ago 2
just fyi, Opel did not design the ecotec. Lotus played a major role in developing the ecotec, along with a bunch of others.
HunterKiller89 3 years ago
could be i dunno but in my car guides it said it made by opel so... i was thinking was true cuz they are proffesionnal anyway it a european technologie buyed by american the only thing they could do is our fucking push rod engines:PLOL thanx for your info
GrUnGe567 3 years ago
opel did........
dustycavalier 2 years ago
You do realize that Opel used to be owned by GM when this engine was originally debuted, right? That's an American company by the way.
PinkyDemon3050 2 years ago
typical american...
you have NO idea. Most of teh inventions an patents came from opel. I remember times in that every german, french, italian, japanese shaked his head when he saw the quality of american carbodies. Its better since some german munfactures came in! Sometimes i could think you americans have realy no idea about the rest of the world. And when i hear GM i could shit on it. GM bought opel and killed it nearly. I'm so happy gm doesn't own opel anymore.
QuertrGTRR 2 years ago
how did you create this animation? Its amazing and detailed nice job
driftinak47 3 years ago
NO SOUNDS??
grove005 3 years ago 2
I own a Pontiac G5 with a 2.2l Ecotec engine and that engine is sick! I got 150 hp stock and i'm planning to put a supercharger (More powerful than the one on the cobalt SS). The Engine block is so strong. It's true that i can take up to 1000hp. The NHRA drag championship are using the 2.2l in the Stock series. That means the engine block is STOCK but is heavily modified by Supercharger and racing parts. I got 150 hp and 160 f/lbs of torque. I accelerate faster than a Honda Civic SIR! Go G5!
VadNukem 3 years ago
are u joking???? 150 hp is sad
chickenhunter2005 3 years ago
its actually 148 hp and 152 ft-lb or torque.i got an ls cobalt.
wellshii 3 years ago
actually the 1,400 hp ecotecs are turbo charged not supercharged.
GMisurdaddy 3 years ago
you think you can beat an SiR???? um... yeah.... good luck with that buddy... hate to break it to you .. but i could beat you in my 2000 eclipse gs....
clarity18 3 years ago
I've Changed my car. Got a 2006 white Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart :) . I got to say that i really love my MIVEC 2.4L . I got 162hp with 162 f/lbs of torque , but it's going like i got 200 ! This summer i'm installing a OEM Cold Air intake and an EVO IX Spoiler , And maybe a Magnaflow Cat from Road Race motorsport :) . Forget what i said about the ecotec the MIVEC is way better :) And sounds great to! By the way i beated a Civic Si 2008 (197 hp) with my Lancer and i even let the guy go first!
VadNukem 3 years ago
civics are garbage, i have a 96 maxima thats 190hp stock, i dont kno what its at now but its probly pushin mid 200s
jbrodya 3 years ago
thats cuz the lancer is extremely light compared to most other cars
baseballstarjc12 3 years ago
bull shit. well nm he has a g5 "ls" (not really an ls but is in terms of power) so u with the g5 if u want to race me come on. I have a 2008 cobalt ss turbo. with an gm performance exhaust and even a gm performance turbo kit added to the stock turbo system. i will take u on any day of the week!
spikebandit9 3 years ago
I'm sorry but isn't the cobalt ss a supercharged, you said it was a turbo and I didnt think they made a turbo
gtpmann 3 years ago
Cobalt and HHR SS are now turbo charged.
Usoandso 3 years ago
Ecotec just kicked in, yo.
v8gmc 4 years ago
cool, i like how they show exactly how the supercharger works.
hangguy209 4 years ago
Over here in the UK the 2 litre ecotec has a turbo on it instead... still a sweet motor, especially in the Astra GSi/VXR!
But nice video anyway... love the whine of a supercharger, sounds meaner than a turbo, in my opinion anyway!
AndyQ8506708 4 years ago
its comming here. The LNF i believe its called. 260 hp and 260 ft lbs?
black96fire 4 years ago
I believe the LNF is already here. its the engine in the Saturn Sky Redlines and the Pontiac Solstice GXP.
hvillecobalt 4 years ago