Moparts

Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine?

Posted By: hudsonhornet7x

Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 12:13 AM

For forced induction application, is one easier on internal engine parts than another? Or is boost just boost no matter how you get it?

For this instance lets say you have a 750 horsepower goal, so nothing extraordinary.
Posted By: GTS340

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 01:28 AM

Turbo is easiest on engine
Posted By: slammedR/T

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 02:00 AM

subscribed
Posted By: dizuster

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 02:56 AM

Supercharger takes power to drive. So whatever that load is, the crank sees fwhp+blower drive power in reality.

Turbo cars are notoriously hard on exhaust valves.

Roots/Whipple can make wicked low end torque like a turbo which is harder on parts then the centrifugal blowers do because they don't make peak boost until peak RPM.

Both can be hard on pistons and headgaskets if you miss the tuneup.

Both are much more forgiving on the motor then NA or nitrous of the same power because they have lower peak cylinder pressures. They just hold the pressure longer and further away from TDC which is easy on parts.
Posted By: 72Swinger

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 03:02 AM

Turbos are easier on tires and drivetrain.
Posted By: dizuster

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 03:14 AM

I beg to differ on the drivetrain!

Mine has killed the front planet, rolled a sprag (with a LBA valve body), and sheared the yoke right off a 8 3/4"...now this.

https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbt...tml#Post2121136
Posted By: quickd100

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 04:01 AM

Miss the tuneup and the blower or turbo can really mess up your day. My 'mild' 318 has so far eaten 4 pistons. In both cases it was real fun for a couple seconds. Note to self, you've got to do a turbo 440.
Posted By: hudsonhornet7x

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 04:03 AM

I was thinking turbo with a self learning efi like fitech. Any objections?
Posted By: Cab_Burge

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 04:45 AM

If it is for street use make sure and use a intercooler and monitor the intake manifold inlet temps thumbs twocents
Posted By: polyspheric

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 02:42 PM

750 hp can use a turbo as small as 64mm if it's a modern design like the Precision CEA Gen-2.
Choosing that microwave-size 100mm for highest peak power is generally a mistake, you can't make boost for launch without really buzzing the engine against the rev limiter. I have small turbos with only about 500 hp, with boost as low as 2,000 rpm.
Once you pick a compressor size, next is to see what someone with a similar engine uses for A/R: the general idea is small engine, small A/R. IDK of any math that will work here; Precision will give you a good choice if you buy from them.
For many apps there is an OEM iron manifold choice that will produce 95% of "tuned" (= $$$) header results for 10% of the price. Many LSX with iron manifolds: 1,000 hp.
What transmission?
Posted By: jcc

Re: Supercharger vs, Turbocharger Is one harder on an engine? - 08/05/16 05:57 PM

Originally Posted By GTS340
Turbo is easiest on engine


the reason being was I always thought, the piston, rod, crank on the up stroke/exhaust are always working against exhaust pressure.
© 2024 Moparts Forums