Why are turbos favored over superchargers by car manufacturers? Having owned both turbo assisted cars and those with superchargers I much preferred the supercharged cars for their instant power verses the turbo's lag in power coming on.

Turbocharging elimantes the parasitic hp losses associated with a supercharger and its belt drive. Also, turbo technology has really advanced in the past three or four years to where turbo lag is non-existent. Go drive a twin turbo I-6 BMW 335i, the power delivery is buttery smooth with NO turbo lag.

...............maybe not all parasitic power loss: that exhaust gas generates quite a bit of backpressure as it spins the turbine, so you do have exhaust flow restriction at any gas flow at which the turbine presents resistance due to intake air compression work. It ain't all free power............:rolleyes:

It's all a matter of application - Properly tuned, there is no reason for either system to have a clear power/economy advantage.

Go drive a twin turbo I-6 BMW 335i, the power delivery is buttery smooth with NO turbo lag.

:yup: Peak torque comes at 1400 RPM, and it's so smooth you can't even tell there are two turbos under the hood.

A turbo spooling up is also much quieter than the whine of a supercharger which could be a reason manufacturers prefer them. Additionally, regulating boost on a turbo system is much easier than swapping pulleys on a supercharger if you want more power. With a simple plug-in software tune you can easily squeeze another 98hp/130 lb/ft from the 335i.

Apples & Oranges basically. They are both good at increasing horsepower. Didn't Audi just come out with a supercharged engine to replace the turbo model? I think my TGP is one of the last GM turbos but I think they are mainly supercharged now.

Turbocharging elimantes the parasitic hp losses associated with a supercharger and its belt drive. Also, turbo technology has really advanced in the past three or four years to where turbo lag is non-existent. Go drive a twin turbo I-6 BMW 335i, the power delivery is buttery smooth with NO turbo lag.


Yeah I miss my BMW 335 and 535 loaners when i had my 745i. Lag did exist believe that but it was very little and boost came on like a rocket.

Before turbocharging became as refined as it did now, supercharging was preferred because the power was "right now" and you never had to second guess it. Nowadays, boost is so manageable so it's much easier to live with on a day to day basis. Also, most stock superchargers, mine included, seem to die off at high RPM. I'm not sure if they're tuned that way or what, but it's something I've noticed.

It's also much easier to tune turbo chargers and I'd assume that they're much easier to add into an application that did not come with them from the factory. They also don't take any power from the engine to run and they don't hurt mileage, unless you're always "into the boost". Lastly, they're much more compact.

I'm happy with my Supercharger, but I'd like to try a turbocharged car out sometime. I drove a Volvo C30 a while back and that was turbocharged and it offered lots of power at all RPM's....don't recall much lag there either.

It's also much easier to tune turbo chargers and I'd assume that they're much easier to add into an application that did not come with them from the factory. They also don't take any power from the engine to run and they don't hurt mileage, unless you're always "into the boost". Lastly, they're much more compact.



Easier to tune, but the installation itself is harder right? I thought that if you're driving easy, you'll actually get better mileage with a turbo.

Just like a supercharger, turbos do indeed take power from the engine to run. As Sub said, energy isnt free. The way in which they extract that energy tends to be more efficient that a supercharger.

Also, the edges of the rotors on a roots-type supercharger wear off due to such tight tolerances between them and they lose efficiency over time. Kind of like the way compression goes down as piston rings wear. One plus is that superchargers arent subjected to the extreme temperatures that a turbo has to take. They dont need to be built with expensive composites and exotic ceramic materials. The list of pros and cons go on and on...

Turbo-lag is the brief split fraction of a second when you think you're winning.
Naw, just kidding, and this is not a fast street car, but it's not a slouch either. It ran 12.7 / 108 in the 1/4 on 91 octane & methanol injection on those tires, and those are not good drag tires. But my tuner tells me that this would be a high 11 flat 12 car with 100 octane, a different chip, & slicks. And as much as I love my new cad, I would never get rid of this car for the Cad, but on the other hand, I would never get rid of the cad for this car either. This 25K mile car has just a few bolt ons, stock blocked car. , No cam, no head work.

http://www.scandc.com/images/New%20pics%2087%20turbo-t%20after%20SC&C%20install%20001.jpg

Beautiful car man

I'd take that thing over a cad any day.:hide: Love the wheels!

Hopefully, the OP is somewhat forgiving of me posting this in his thread. I was going to start a new thread, but this garage prostitute will get some attention in this thread, and maybe explain why some of us love turbo bricks, as they are affectionately called.
These pics and this article was penned about 5 years ago, when the car had about 10K-12K miles on it, but just got published in hemming's in May of '09.
Hope that you enjoy. I get to take the Caddy out for a cruise tomorrow morning, but I had this out last Sat to the same cruise.

http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2009/05/01/hmn_feature6.html

So how much did you pay for the car Gary?

Thanks for letting us see your great Buick!

:hijacked: :D

The Grand National.....the greatest Buick of all time!!

a Proper turbo setup (on a street vehicle) will not have much noticeable lag, if any...

I also have had and still do have both cars and I prefer the turbo. My supercharged car is a highly modified ThunderBird SuperCoupe and my turbo car is a 1990 RX7 with a 5.0HO/turbo swap. As for lag, I have none. I find it much easier ot simply turn the knob on my boost controler and have instant added horsepower rather than having to take a couple hours to change pulleys on the supercharger. plus, you gotta love the sound of a vented BOV!!

So how much did you pay for the car Gary?
I bought it in about Aug or Sept of '03 from the original owner with all paperwork with 8100 miles on the clock, garaged and covered it's entire life. It was 18K, which was about the top of the game for that car and that time frame. It currently has about 25.5K miles on it now.

Beautiful car man
Thanks for the props. And I know that there are some very beautiful and fast turbo Buicks up in Canada. More than a few members of TurboBuick.com are up in Canada.

Thanks for letting us see your great Buick!
Pleasure's mine, thanks for looking and thanks for the interest.

:hijacked: :D
Sorry, dude, not my fault, car told me that it needed attention. It's got it's nose out of joint over sharing space & attention with the new Cad CTS-V. Love hurts.

The Grand National.....the greatest Buick of all time!!
Thanks, I feel the same way, except that I actually prefer the t-types over the Gn's even though they are worth less. They are not stolen as much, and I love the sleeper 'tude.

a Proper turbo setup (on a street vehicle) will not have much noticeable lag, if any...

I also have had and still do have both cars and I prefer the turbo. My supercharged car is a highly modified ThunderBird SuperCoupe and my turbo car is a 1990 RX7 with a 5.0HO/turbo swap. As for lag, I have none. I find it much easier ot simply turn the knob on my boost controler and have instant added horsepower rather than having to take a couple hours to change pulleys on the supercharger. plus, you gotta love the sound of a vented BOV!!
I have very little or no turbo lag. Run about 20 lbs. boost on the street with 91 octane and methanol injection. Last dyno was 320 RWHP & 330 or so RWTQ at 21 lbs. boost. Turbo lag is generally caused by headers on a street car that does not develop enough HP to warrant headers, large exhaust housing, too big cam, & so forth.

Why does the turbo Buick get so many props? I mean yeah it was quick in a straight line but that's about it? The 1989 Turbo trans Am no that's a car that deserves props!!!

Thanks for the props. And I know that there are some very beautiful and fast turbo Buicks up in Canada. More than a few members of TurboBuick.com are up in Canada.

Yeah, I finally saw my first GN about a month ago in the city. Sadly he was going the other way so I didn't get too long a look. I've been looking to get one myself, but I want to find a reasonably priced one. I'd prefer a GN for the cool interior, but I guess its not THAT big a deal.

Why does the turbo Buick get so many props? I mean yeah it was quick in a straight line but that's about it? The 1989 Turbo trans Am no that's a car that deserves props!!!
Well, yes, no, & maybe.
IMHO: The Turbo Trans Am is not as well recognized because the GN was 1st.
Just as in the 1st lay, it may not have been the best, but it was the 1st. And it will always hold the record for being the 1st, even if it was the worst.
For a fact, in '87 one of the magazines, maybe Car and Driver, maybe Road & track, I don't remember, gave the Grand National (GN) heads-up for the un-official title of "America's fastest Production Car" thus taking the time honored un-official title from the Corvette, America's only remaining sports car. Occasionally, you will still see a license plate frame on the back of a turbo brick "We brake for Corvettes". That is what it means. This was a 1 year thing only and forgotten in '88, although nobody knows why.
The '89 Pontiac Turbo Trans Am was a 1 year only production and was considered to be somewhat of a red-headed stepchild. "Buick heart, Pontiac soul". Only 1555 Pontiac Trans Ams were built, less 5 that were not available for sale to the public. The option for a turbo package was a not so kool at the time of about $30k or slightly over. A lot of pocket personality in those days. Only about 55 were hardtops, balance were t-tops.
Only available in white exterior & buckskin interior, most leather but some in cloth, exceptional handling car, 4 wheel disc brakes, a tad quicker than a GN or t-type, but slightly slower than A GNX, they are a beautiful car.
I never considered the interior attractrive, too much "Buck Rogers spaceship look" interior, As in turbo bricks, available in automatic only. This is why they don't get the props that they deserve. Sorry for the long post and possible thread Bogart (threadjack), but I thought that the query deserved an answer. A great car, but unfortunately, they were either 2 years too late or 3 years too early. I believe that they were governed to a top speed of about 180 or so, but rode like a proverbial buckboard.

Why are turbos favored over superchargers by car manufacturers? Having owned both turbo assisted cars and those with superchargers I much preferred the supercharged cars for their instant power verses the turbo's lag in power coming on.

Well, for one, turbocharging allows you to get more power out of the engine without increasing weight or reducing under hood space too much. As mentioned before, a belt driven supercharger uses power to make power, and while a turbo does create back pressure, the power loss is not as much as a supercharger. And modern turbo's nearly eliminate lag, so turbocharging nowadays makes a lot of sense. Especially considering that a turbo can also be tuned to help increase engine fuel economy instead of just making tons of power.

I can't wait for the day that I can turbo my Deville (plans are complete on paper, I just need the cash to buy parts.), and I also can't wait to see the look on people's faces when they hear grandpa's car spooling up next to them. :D

Well, yes, no, & maybe.
IMHO: The Turbo Trans Am is not as well recognized because the GN was 1st.
Just as in the 1st lay, it may not have been the best, but it was the 1st. And it will always hold the record for being the 1st, even if it was the worst.
For a fact, in '87 one of the magazines, maybe Car and Driver, maybe Road & track, I don't remember, gave the Grand National (GN) heads-up for the un-official title of "America's fastest Production Car" thus taking the time honored un-official title from the Corvette, America's only remaining sports car. Occasionally, you will still see a license plate frame on the back of a turbo brick "We brake for Corvettes". That is what it means. This was a 1 year thing only and forgotten in '88, although nobody knows why.
The '89 Pontiac Turbo Trans Am was a 1 year only production and was considered to be somewhat of a red-headed stepchild. "Buick heart, Pontiac soul". Only 1555 Pontiac Trans Ams were built, less 5 that were not available for sale to the public. The option for a turbo package was a not so kool at the time of about $30k or slightly over. A lot of pocket personality in those days. Only about 55 were hardtops, balance were t-tops.
Only available in white exterior & buckskin interior, most leather but some in cloth, exceptional handling car, 4 wheel disc brakes, a tad quicker than a GN or t-type, but slightly slower than A GNX, they are a beautiful car.
I never considered the interior attractrive, too much "Buck Rogers spaceship look" interior, As in turbo bricks, available in automatic only. This is why they don't get the props that they deserve. Sorry for the long post and possible thread Bogart (threadjack), but I thought that the query deserved an answer. A great car, but unfortunately, they were either 2 years too late or 3 years too early.


Thanks for the reply. Not that I am bashing on your car its look awesome I was just curious that all. I saw a grand national recently with a digital dash and I thought that must be a rare option for that car.

Why does the turbo Buick get so many props? I mean yeah it was quick in a straight line but that's about it? The 1989 Turbo trans Am no that's a car that deserves props!!!

I agree with Gary, the TTA was an impressive car, but it had Buick's engine in it...kinda like how the late '70s Trans Ams had used the Oldsmobile 403. The turbo Buicks were the first and the benchmark. They started messin' with turbos in 1978...they were the pioneers, the trailblazers. They did something that nobody else wanted to do and succeeded.

With that being said, the 1987-92, especially the 1991 and 1992, Trans Am GTA is my favorite F-Body of all time.

Thanks, I feel the same way, except that I actually prefer the t-types over the Gn's even though they are worth less. They are not stolen as much, and I love the sleeper 'tude.

Oh wow, I didn't even notice that you had a T-Type and not a GN. My bad! The GN and GNX was only available in black right? The T-Type was available in all other colors?

Oh wow, I didn't even notice that you had a T-Type and not a GN. My bad! The GN and GNX was only available in black right?

Yes, as for the T-Type I'd assume so.

Thanks for the reply. Not that I am bashing on your car its look awesome I was just curious that all. I saw a grand national recently with a digital dash and I thought that must be a rare option for that car.
Digital dashes were available for '86 & '87, I believe, but most common on '86's, and they are also not very well liked by the turbo brick crowd as they do not have enough to occupy your mind when looking at the dash, they could break, and often did, and requires someone with the knowhow to fix them. I had one in a grey '86 t-type. Loved the car, hated the dash.

Yeah, I finally saw my first GN about a month ago in the city. Sadly he was going the other way so I didn't get too long a look. I've been looking to get one myself, but I want to find a reasonably priced one. I'd prefer a GN for the cool interior, but I guess its not THAT big a deal.
Not a slam nor a slight, but there's no such thing as a reasonably priced one, especially up where you're at (Canada). If you find what appears to be one, check it out very carefully. Basically, the more that you learn before buying your 1st turbo brick, the less that you will get stung.
I hope that it is legit to post the name of other sites, but you might want to check out >TURBOBUICK.COM<. It is the best of the turbo Buick sites, with a membership of about 26K. It's free to read, need an E-mail addy to be a member, join, & post.

I agree with Gary, the TTA was an impressive car, but it had Buick's engine in it...kinda like how the late '70s Trans Ams had used the Oldsmobile 403. The turbo Buicks were the first and the benchmark. They started messin' with turbos in 1978...they were the pioneers, the trailblazers. They did something that nobody else wanted to do and succeeded.

With that being said, the 1987-92, especially the 1991 and 1992, Trans Am GTA is my favorite F-Body of all time.



Oh wow, I didn't even notice that you had a T-Type and not a GN. My bad! The GN and GNX was only available in black right? The T-Type was available in all other colors?

The GN's and the 547 GNX's were only available in black exterior. Bucket seats, sport mirrors, grey seats with black trim were standard on both models, (GN's & GNX's)

T-types & Turbo-T's were available with different seating arrangements, different exterior & interior colors, & different roof options.

Not a slam nor a slight, but there's no such thing as a reasonably priced one, especially up where you're at (Canada). If you find what appears to be one, check it out very carefully. .

Yeah, I figured. I saw one about 6 months back with 84k for $15k. Haven't seen one on sale since. I've seen a few on e-bay for 8-12k, although they are not original, but that isn't a huge deal to me.

Hello

Originally Posted by orconn
Why are turbos favored over superchargers by car manufacturers? Having owned both turbo assisted cars and those with superchargers I much preferred the supercharged cars for their instant power verses the turbo's lag in power coming on.

In the beginning, in "normal" cars the turbo was a very inexpensive way to make more money and therefore have been developed more than compressors have been in lately times.
For many a compressor is the same as a big Roots compressor witch as stated erlier in a post, is a very precise made thing, now there is the screws kompressors that are also precise done but don't wear as quick as the Roots.
Now there is also the same compressor used in turbos that can be belt driven and it has been more popular both as orginal and aftermarket.
The best compressor I belive is the screwcompressor, but it is a very expensive compared with a turbo and the rest of the parts cost about the same so that means that a compressor set up, is more expensive than a turbo set up.

Yeah, I figured. I saw one about 6 months back with 84k for $15k. Haven't seen one on sale since. I've seen a few on e-bay for 8-12k, although they are not original, but that isn't a huge deal to me.

FWIW, the more original that you buy, the better off that you are. As a general rule of thumb, though.

Some reading that you might think about:

http://www.gnttype.org/resources.html

Lots of good info there, and although rather dated, still considered by many to be the turbo Buick "bible".

Awesome, thanks for the info.

Thanks for the interest. I've been into the turbo bricks for about 15 years, have owned 5, consecutively, owning 3 of them at one time, the one that I have now is # 5, I will never sell it, and next to the Cad CTS-V, the turbo bricks are killer cars, but not on the same level or plane as the '09 CTS-V.

TBH, I'm starting to like your car better than the black ones :) Why are they called bricks, because they're solid cars?

Aerodynamically, the difference between a brick and a turbo Buick is the turbo Buick has 4 wheels. Another famous nickname for them is "Bufords" although I don't know where that one came from.
One of my turbo Buicks was a GN, I had it for 1 year, great car, but cosmetically and aesthetically black might be the most beautiful color when freshly detailed, they show the dirt, dust, & swirl marks quicker than any other color. I flatly do not believe in any black cars for me, I'm just too old & tired to properly keep one clean, detailed, and cared for. White was my favorite when looking for a '09 CTS-V, but finding one that had a good paint job didn't pan out. Every one that I looked at showed the base coat through the white on the passenger side at the passenger door & rear passenger side. 3 of my turbo bricks have been white. 2 GTX's in my younger years were white. 1 of 2 vettes was white. .....

I have never heard the term brick used as far as buicks are concerned. Actually its a popular term for the older volvos of yore.

http://www.swedishbricks.net/

http://home.blarg.net/~volvo242gt/volvo.html

There are a few different types of superchargers. What are they?

Positive displacement and dynamic are the two categories that I know. A quick Wiki search seems to show that there are many types in each of those categories as well.

PD:
Roots
Lysholm screw
Sliding vane
Scroll-type supercharger, also known as the G-Lader
Piston as in Bourke engine
Wankel engine

Dynamic:
Centrifugal
Multi-stage axial-flow
Pressure wave supercharger

It seems that the differences would probably just be the way they receive power

Belt (V-belt, Synchronous belt, Flat belt)
Direct drive
Gear drive
Chain drive

I have never heard the term brick used as far as buicks are concerned. Actually its a popular term for the older volvos of yore.

http://www.swedishbricks.net/

http://home.blarg.net/~volvo242gt/volvo.html

And I have never heard the term "brick" used as far as older Volvos are concerned, but I suspect that the reason is that I have never been around enough older Volvos or their owners & collectors.
There again, the term "Turbo Brick" might be something that has only become popular amongst turbo Buick forums & such and / or the turbo Buick clan.

There's arguably more potential with a turbo. A Crossfire with a turbo is putting out about 500hp.

Too bad 500hp doesn't make the crossfire any less ugly!!! :lildevil: :banana:

Too bad 500hp doesn't make the crossfire any less ugly!!! :lildevil: :banana:

Tonight the music seems so loud
I wish that we could lose this crowd
Maybe its better this way
We hurt each other with the things we want to say

We could have been so good together
We could have lived this dance forever
But no one's gonna dance with me
Please stay

:jesda:

I suppose turbocharging would be easier on the aftermarket front as well. Supercharger systems are fairly complicated (pulleys, new belts, space requirements, etc), but anyone who understands basic plumbing could install a turbo. Also turbocharger kits are a lot cheaper then supercharger kits.

Yeah, I've always thought turbos looks harder to, but in actuality they really aren't. Maybe that's why any idiot driving a Civic can install one :lildevil:

Too bad 500hp doesn't make the crossfire any less ugly!!! :lildevil: :banana:


yeah the rear is ugly but i love the front styling.

yeah the rear is ugly but i love the front styling.

I second that one

Yeah, I've always thought turbos looks harder to, but in actuality they really aren't. Maybe that's why any idiot driving a Civic can install one :lildevil:
That's another advantage of a turbo. You can turbocharge pretty much anything that will spool the turbo. Superchargers have to be application specific.

For the most part you are eventually going to run out of boost with a supercharger before a turbo. If you look at some of the really fast 03, 04 Cobras, Supercharged GTPs, Regals, Montes they have been converted to Turbos.
Now from my experince with the turbo cars and supercharged cars is stock for stock, you don't get the lag with a supercharged car and don't get the heat in the engine compartment from a supercharged car like a turbo car. Now all of my turbo cars have had a oil and water bearing, meaing the bearing was oiled (of course) but also had a water jacket to keep it cool with engine coolant plumbed through it, so they did last longer then a turbo car without a watercooled turbo.

For aftermarket, the turbo is just eaiser to manipulate. Boost bleeds, more fuel = equal extra boost cheap! Even a computer swap can do that. The supercharger for the most part is just harder to manipulate and get the big power numbers.

I suppose turbocharging would be easier on the aftermarket front as well. Supercharger systems are fairly complicated (pulleys, new belts, space requirements, etc), but anyone who understands basic plumbing could install a turbo. Also turbocharger kits are a lot cheaper then supercharger kits.

It all depends on the application as to which one is easier to install/less complex. A turbo 4 cylinder is pretty simple since you have one exhaust manifold. Turbo V6 and V8's are a bit trickier because you have to route the exhaust from one side of the engine to the other to spool a single turbo. Or you can do a twin turbo setup, one for each bank of cylinders. Then you have the intercooler and all its associated plumbing running to the front of the car.

Some cars, like a 4th gen fbody, have an engine compartment that is so tight that rear mounted turbo kits are offered. They move the turbo all the way to where the muffler is housed in the rear of the car.

http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_rear_mounted_turbo/index.html