To be clear I have wanted to have been saying that JC is wrong when he used his opinion as facts as they never stand. And that in the world of turbos and superchargers they each offer great results… to use a blanket statement to say over all one is better then the other is not only false but completely absent of the understanding of each. And again while the compressor maps don’t tell the entire story they do tell one that says there’s not room to say anything in a blanket statement.
And while I understand this is the beginning of the end for JC and his argument. Remember I’m only addressing his mistakes and using his opinion as fact. The compressor helps to start to tell that story.
Tangential question: did we ever come up with a reason for why a 1.3L blower is the sweet spot on the 3.0TFSI? Clearly APR’s run at a 1.7L blower was at best even and at worst a regression.
Luther 1.3 has a CFM output beyond what Audi wanted so they bleed off the boost. Using a bigger unit would lead to even more bleed off.
Rumors all around APR and why they scrapped the 1.7. The 1.7 is a monster and it destroyed several rs4 motors when APR tried to push it. Getting over 128 plus mph showed it had leg room for the S4. But if the 1.7 was destroying rs4 motors I would have to guess it was doing the same to the s4 motor.
What if you rebuilt the S4 engine with forged pistons, built heads, and stronger value springs with titanium valves? Eurocode builds motors like this. Any idea what they cost?
APR could go full Apple Edition and charge $25k for it, like Dinan does. It sounds like a better business than selling software to fifty 2.0T owners for the same revenue.
Just because I refuse to go in circles here doesn’t equal bowing out. I challenge you to continue the debate in a forum where an audience educated on the matter being discussed can weigh in on who is right and who is wrong.
Otherwise we can just go “you’re wrong!” “no, YOU’RE wrong” for ages which I am sure we can both agree is not a particularly entertaining way to pass time.
So what do you say?
I didn’t avoid it. A fully electric turbo or a fully electric (centrifugal) supercharger would be exactly the same device. :
And it makes little sense as they only work until you’ve used up the stored power reserve. A bit like the BMW i8 which performs very well until you drive it around a racetrack and lose all electric power after a little while.
Actually I was going for the overall picture, but I can’t really think of a situation where a supercharged engine would be more efficient than a turbocharged one. Making more power at low rpm or less delay in power delivery is not efficiency.
You basically have a centrifugal compressor being spun by either the crankshaft or the exhaust gases via a belt or turbine. The turbine is more efficient because it uses energy which was already on its way out the exhaust. The pumping losses from backpressure are relatively small compared to the direct mechanical losses that come with driving a supercharger. So for efficiency, turbos will always have SC covered.
I can’t believe I’m quoting Wikipedia but this sums it up fairly well: " a turbocharger does not place a direct mechanical load on the engine, although turbochargers place exhaust back pressure on engines, increasing pumping losses.[14] This is more efficient, because while the increased back pressure taxes the piston exhaust stroke, much of the energy driving the turbine is provided by the still-expanding exhaust gas that would otherwise be wasted as heat through the tailpipe. In contrast to supercharging, the primary disadvantage of turbocharging is what is referred to as “lag” or “spool time”."
All this VE, VX, SX wtvr the hell all this names and stuff means it’s all very entertaining. But I’m a wedding photographer man and All this “very intelligent men” conversation just Eco in the back of my head and disappear smudged by the name of the last bride I photographed.
Yes the argument is which one is better and which one isn’t. Well, from a engineering point of view (aka very German talk - boring) u get all that VE and VNot stuff.
But we are not driving our rs4 or 2.0t or 6.2L SC for the sake of engineering. We drive it coz of how it makes you feel!!
I’m not that bright, so I have to assume that both JC and Justin have valid points to their arguments, but in the end, it all comes down to the smile on your face.
We are all grown ups here, we all don’t wanna be called child’s and we all have are dues in life. But in the end, we are all here in this Audi or any other car community because of the child inside of us. So, like someone posted before, “massive turbos that glue you to the seat is kid stuff - we grown out of it that’s y we got supercharges” is a bit like saying: hey man I’m a grown up, I don’t do that and later show up with a rs4 supercharged tuned, with exhaust and flaring wheels.
Just relax people!
Now go ahead and tell me the VE and compressor map of my smile when I press the throttle is more CFM capable on a turbo then a SC
I couldn’t disagree more with that Jalopnik article. I hate, absolutely hate turbo lag.
I was racing a WRX STI with a big turbo or whatever (wasn’t my car so don’t know what the exact specs were) but man, I had to punch the gas right after the apexes to get the level of power I wanted by the time I got to the turn’s exit point.
I was in an underground garage in a turbo diesel rental once and I couldn’t make it up the exit ramp because the engine, without the turbo, was so useless it couldn’t overcome the weight of the car on a simple 30 degree ramp. I ended up having to back the car up as much as I could (tight euro underground garage so it wasn’t much), drop the clutch and gun it as fast as I could to get a little boost just to make it up the damn ramp.
I want power now, not in a second or two. And I want the delivery to be as linear as possible, not exponential.
If they can make good linear feeling power with turbos, then great, I don’t ultimately care what the forced induction technology is to be honest. All that matters to me is how the car drives and how the power is delivered.
But then again, the majority of Jalopnik readers are little kids who eat those kinds of articles up for breakfast.
That’s my whole point axel. So are we little kids. Doesn’t matter how it is delivered like you said. All that matters is how it makes you feel.
Yes turbo lag is bad and both apps have their drawbacks but in the end of the day we are all kids trying to have a good time with our cars. Being tracking or daily driving it.
And if we are not kids trying to have fun with our cars, just trying to get from A to B. Let’s all sell ours supercharged turbocharged cars and by Toyota camrys hybrid and call it the day.
My point for my post was just for: who cares which one is best or not. All that matters is how you like driving it and how it makes you feel. Unless anyone here is getting paid to go faster or is a formula wtvr driver who needs any millisecond out of their timed practice laps, all this is irrelevant.
Agreed. And you’re right. If someone really enjoys turbo lag and feeling that subsequent surge, then all the power to them. Ultimately, it is exactly how you describe it. Buy/install the setup that brings you the biggest smiles.
Most of us are here to have fun and enjoy conversation, but some just want to be right all of the time. This isn’t a website when you can say whatever you want and go unchallenged, so be prepared to back up your statements or personal opinions. (Not directed at you, but it’s a general statement)
Talking about performance advantages of certain parts IS NOT a waste, unless saving your money is pointless. The members on this site will protect people from wasting money, maybe lots of money, maybe just a little. None of us are professional racers, but most of us are interested in modifying our cars intelligently and getting our money’s worth from the products we install.
Superchargers are expensive but more compact and therefore more versatile for a retrofit
Turbochargers are slightly cheaper, but more cumbersome
Both have their strong and weak points
The rest is arguing opinion (both guys) so it’s tough to really listen to any of it.
To me the fact that a turbo charger destroys engine / exhaust sound is a HUGE negative. Everyone loves performance, but Maserati doesn’t sell a bunch of cars every year based on the fact that they’re more expensive, uglier, less reliable and slower than their competition. They do so because they evoke an emotional response. A huge part of the emotional response to a car is the sound that comes out of it, and frankly turbos hit the mute button on that sound/response, so I’m not a fan. Same goes for V6/I6/flat6 engines…to me they just don’t make a cool sound so I tend to not even want to consider these cars. Was driving beside a new M4 the other day, and the guy revved his engine. I could only think that he has the BMW soundaktor on the inside, because if he heard how shit his car sounds on the outside, he’d have given that some thought before doing it.
I understand that part Euroswagr. It’s the main reason I spend more time reading here then any other forum. Am I am always grateful for the info acquired from everyone here. I didn’t mean it in a disrespect that the points being made were irrelevant and more to the at this point on the conversation it’s becoming repetitive and no longer productive.
This whole thread started at the rs4 twin turbo post if I am correct where JC was being tested to prove a twin turbo would be better than the SC for the rs4. There, where it started it made total sense since the time and money involved would be a waste for turbos instead of doing a proper SC and probably get the same if not better results.
With that said, the topic veered off to a general broad approach to it, which in the end, broadly speaking. It really comes down to what you like.
I’m no expert man, I’m here for the info and friendship this forum offers, I just was trying to put some ice on a what not heated conversation that felt like it was hitting a wall.
My bad if I crossed someone the bad way. It was not the intent on my original reply.
Some comments on turbo lag… my personal experience racing a turbo’d car…
In one of my car’s iterations, I set up my STi to be competitive in BSP-class autocross. The end result was a car that had no discernible lag, and ultimately needed to have the onset of boost DETUNED to smooth out the power curve.
What? ???
The turbo would spool so quickly, and the power onset was so non-linear, that the car was VERY difficult to drive. I could actually light up all 4 275 width Hoosier R-comps completely by accident. Boost was a literally like a light switch.
I ended up having to re-tune part-throttle boost control (wastegate actuation) to limit the turbo spooling, to REDUCE the power, and smooth out the power curve.
HERE BELOW IN THE QUOTE BOX ARE OPINIONS BUT THEY WERE POSTED AS FACTS.
The challenge here is that I wasn’t ever saying anything then look at the compressor map. When you read the comments above and then you read my responses they all said the same thing. Here is my quote that has been in one variation or another in all of my responses.
They all said the same thing. I never said one was dominate over the other. I just have said. JC is speaking thoughts as facts. And for someone that is constantly wrong JC decided to start using his thoughts and opinions as facts. When they are not facts. Again go read what I wrote in all responses.
The fact of the matter is a compressor map helps show lots of his opinions as facts are wrong. When that part became clear he switched gears to how turbos are more efficient. Ok…well I don’t agree fully with that but I never was addressing that part fully but a section of the comment that can be proven.
I mearly have been saying lots of his opinions are just that. They are not facts.
Im smart enough to know not to have a true turbo Vs supercharger debate. Why because this is one of those debates that can’t be won. You can make a mountain of points each way. The turbo Vs supercharger debate is like the manual Vs automatic debate or the Gas vs electric debate. When you see that coming you just have to sit back and say “to use a blanket statement to say over all one is better then the other is not only false but completely absent of the understanding of each. “ The debate was turning into a mechanical drive Vs a exhaust powered drive. Same as the above. There is no free lunch for either.
I mean if we were to have a conversation about what one is better its easy. I can make all kinds of points that will dominate on the side of the supercharger.
Turbos are not the king of power. Not to say superchargers are but tell a 18,000hp top fuel car yes again that’s 18,000hp… that his supercharger isn’t the king of making power.
If someone really wants to understand how each works look into it. Why did I keep saying that the compressor map has a good start for ending the debate. Look at the compressor map.
Why did JC avoid the compressor map comment. That’s easy when you actually look at the maps
Well they both compress air so read the map. If you read the Supercharger map I posted you will see that the efficiency island has a 78% efficiency from 300cfm all the way to 1300CFM that means you can run that supercharger in the sweetspot for over 1000CFM that same blower will go on to make over 1500 CFM.
The GT3582R shet JC posted dosen’t even make 1000CFM at any point. So the supercharger compressor map has a better sweetspot then the entire map for the GT3582R and it can make almost double the CFM. JC posted a turbo by the way that would be so laggy you would loose half your rpm range to get it moving. Also if your keeping track the turbo JC posted only has a sweet spot of about 100CFM then it drops efficiency kinda quickly
Also in the compressor map you will see the needed wheel speed. Notice on the supercharger that the shaft speed is ½ that of the turbo. The supercharger is able to push more CFM at lower wheel speeds over a longer range of efficiency…
This isn’t meant to be the end all be all but when you look at his opinions you will see that from a CFM map efficiency and compressor wheel speed. All his opinions were taken down. So lets not deviate from that. The debate of drive is different. And remember the opinion of JC that said better in every measurable way and better at making power…not so true.
We can debate all day long on how each expends power to make power. Again they each have there bright spots and according to Eaton the maker of the supercharger for the S4 there supercharger is more efficient then comparable turbos.
I actually agree with JC on several points but his opinions on facts were something I pointed out.
