^^ That is categorically false, west. Your negative member rating is the collective result of how the forum has viewed your reputation. You can always make amends, and I hope you do. But it is emphatically not the case that one member “unilaterally” karma’d you down to your present state.
Be careful what you say.
In addition, he’s actually at -34 now lol (although I can’t take credit for that, it was already there when I got here)
I guess this is why the thread is going in circles 
It’s all in my original post which was moved into this separate topic:
[quote=myself]Ultimately turbos will always be better than turbochargers in most measurable ways. They are inherently more efficient and scalable. HOWEVER they are very rarely a good option on cars that weren’t turbocharged from the factory because whilst you can quantify the gains on paper the reality is that it’s way too much extra work and inevitably corners are cut in some places due to financial or practical constraints. In this case there isn’t really enough room for a perfect turbo setup.
Superchargers are just so much easier. With properly sized turbos you could, theoretically, tune an RS4 to be more powerful yet equally drivable than the supercharger alternative. It’s just that it’s not a job I would remotely want to take on. Turbocharged cars making torque mountains and slamming you in the back when they spool is just poor tuning. It’s both because of a lack of skill and the fact that it makes the car “feel” faster so you sell more tunes. When actual manufacturers build a turbo car the behavior is a LOT better. I very briefly tested a Merc-AMG GT S and you could pretty well fool most customers that it’s not actually turbocharged. It feels even bigger than the old 6.2 displacement wise. It is possible. But some bloke in a shed probably won’t manage it.
SC’d cars do sound better because the exhaust doesn’t pass through a turbine on the way out.
[/quote]
If you read that carefully it turns out I actually started off agreeing by almost everyone here. Until Justin found it necessary to start the argument that turbos are not always more efficient. I personally stand by my statement that they ARE “inherently more efficient and scalable” and am confident I can defend that in a forum of experts.
But I was really just trying to contrast theoretical turbo advantages with the reality of car tuning which has considerable constraints that can nullify those advantages.
Maybe I’m just not good at making a point in a clear and obvious manner in this language.
I stand by everything here, but please look at my FIRST post as well which I again quoted above. Just to clear up any confusion.
[Quote]to use a blanket statement to say over all one is better then the other
[/quote]
Where did I say that? Please provide a quote because it certainly isn’t in what you’ve quoted so far.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Compressor maps are as irrelevant as they always were in this. Because the compressor is identical technology. The difference between a turbo and SC is the turbine or drive system. Both (in this example) use centrifugal compressors. There’s nothing stopping you from using the same compressor wheel on a turbo and a supercharger.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Power multiplication factor is the issue here. A top fuel car’s engine is making a lot of power to begin with. The supercharger isn’t increasing output by 400 percent. I believe the rule of thumb is that a supercharger can more or less double the original power output of an engine as a best case scenario. Because it takes a lot of power to drive them you need a certain size engine to be able to run a certain size charger.
You can triple or quadruple power output with a turbo. Yes it will be insanely laggy at that point, but it can. That was the point about turbos being able to make more power out of a given engine (displacement)
Again, I already said that there is a large difference between what is theoretically more efficient at making power and what works best in the real world with actual design constraints.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
You never got back to my question what engine you’d need to do that. And the pressure ratios required. The compressor wheel you posted has a very horizontal efficiency map. That’s a just design choice of the compressor wheel. The issue is trying to get the engine to ingest those CFMs at the pressure ratios they can run at. You’d need a pretty big engine.
Compressor efficiency is a moot point, anyway. Even if I would accept the hypothetical reality that a compressor from a supercharger can be a few percent more efficient thermally, you lose the extra power the engine makes from parasitic losses and then some. The complete engine + SC package will still be less efficient and you can’t tell that from a compressor map, ever.
[quote]JC posted a turbo by the way that would be so laggy you would loose half your rpm range to get it moving.
[/quote]
It was a pretty random example but even so it would not be laggy if you had one of these on a 4.2 engine. Sure it would lag as hell on a 2 litre 4 banger. On an 8-cylinder 4.2 it would spool very low down.
[quote]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…
[/quote]
The lower wheel speeds are a design choice. Turbos operate at higher RPM and the compressor design is slightly different as a result. There is nothing inherently better about lower or higher shaft speed. These are two devices which are designed to work at different RPMs because their drive modes are significantly different.
Should I take your lack of comment on my suggestion to move the argument to a forum with more experts as a refusal?
Since JC mentioned above that turbo and SC are 2 devices designed to work at different RPM ranges (true, as long as we are talking from the factory applications - as in designed by their respective manufacturers without any gearing or valve manipulation)
Isn’t the new twinchargers (http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a10058/volvo-turbocharger-supercharger/) going to eliminate all this shenanigans?
What’s your thoughts on it? All of you.
that’s entirely untrue. I can only do +1 or -1 every 24 hrs, just like everyone. You can PM the site owner and ask him about this. I’m sure he’ll tell you how many different users have negative rated you over the last 3 months. I’m also sure it’s a big number.
case in point…I just made you -35…and then clicked it again and got this
An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can’t repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.
Ya I dinged west yesterday after that comment, putting him at -33. Then a few minutes later, it went to -34. I tried another ding this morning and got the same error sak reported above.
Rest assured, west, your negatives are widely diffused among the members.
It’s kind of absurd. I go on the B8 S4 section and post about my car, then someone who doesn’t own that car and has no business trolling over there decides I’m not a reliable witness to my own experiences and downvotes me. When I got my suspension lifted I posed a link to a YouTube video from the track and someone threw a downvote. Maybe each one should have a reason? And “I disagree with west but the content of what he said was not defamatory or spam” would not be a valid reason.
Totally unabsurd. The members police the forum. That’s how we roll.
the first line of your first post maybe?
"Ultimately turbos will always be better than turbochargers in most measurable ways. "
Using words like ‘always’ and ‘ultimately’ are pretty tough to back up in substantiating an argument. Clinging to ‘most’ won’t do it.
no, you won’t get downvoted for disagreeing. I’m the best example of that…I’d be negative a million if everytime someone disagreed with me they gave me a negative mark. I’m pretty opinionated in case you haven’t noticed.
you can present your argument and substantiate it and if that contradicts someone else, you may end up in a debate. But that’s it for the most part. If you act like an idiot, trash talk people, trash talk the site, make shit up, act obtuse deliberately to avoid reality, you will see -rating points hit you. It’s pretty straightforward.
Damn…same message here
[quote]An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can’t repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.
[/quote]
Stuff like this just continues to prove my point. And while my point is that JC posts his opinions as facts and still lacks the basic understanding of a compressor map. If one of them was so much better then the other why would you use them both.
Exactly. This is just the start of his issues. Trying to back out of it now. It all could have been stopped in the first few posts.
In the end here you can’t have a conversation with someone that keeps posting thoughts as facts. Here is more of it. One line contradicts the other.
In one statement you say you can put the one compressor on the other. But then mention you can’t do that because one has higher speeds as a requirement. It’s more of your I think or your opinions.
You said in every measurable way. And that they are both compressors. And use similar compressors
Ok then the compressor map I posted can make 100% more CFM then your turbo at 50% less wheel speed and all this can be done at a higher map efficiency. Right there you just got an explanation on how 1 measurable aspect of a supercharger is better. Sure there is more parts to the equation like. That’s why you agree
[quote] Compressor efficiency is a moot point, anyway. Even if I would accept the hypothetical reality that a compressor from a supercharger can be a few percent more efficient thermally
[/quote]
remember your quote
[quote] "Ultimately turbos will always be better than turbochargers in most measurable ways. "
[/quote]
I know your rules of thumb and opinions drive your posting your thoughts as facts and that you hope to get out of this argument as your point keeps getting destroyed.
The turbo is more efficient but it’s not efficient because it will be insanely laggy.
Saying that a turbo can multiplication more then Superchargers and in your own world of rule of thumb superchargers can only more or less only double the hp…hmm… That’s odd tell that to the guys who are using the supercharger that uses the compressor map I posted that made 300 hp stock and are now making over 1200 hp… now my math might be off but that’s 4 X the hp stock. And no lag
And maybe for the last time as JC seems to be on a plunge member rating wise.
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
lol that twin-charged system looks familiar… ;D
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...k/IMG_9688.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...k/IMG_7298.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...k/IMG_6281.jpg
I’m here for the negbang…I mean conversation with westwest
Links are dead for me?
That actually sounds like standard troll business to hang out in a forum they have no immediate connection to
http://forums.780tuners.com/printthread.php?t=107129&pp=40 Weird they only seem to work from the original page.