Truth about S/C vs T/C..
01-16-2005, 01:37 PM
#21
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by TeamMightyMiniz
Lag
This is perhaps the biggest advantage that the supercharger enjoys over the tubo. Because a turbocharger is driven by exhaust gasses, the turbocharger's turbine must first spool up before it even begins to turn the compressor's impeller. This results in lag time which is the time needed for the turbine to reach its full throttle from an intermediate rotational speed state. During this lag time, the turbocharger is creating little to no boost, which means little to no power gains during this time. RPMs. Superchargers are easier to install but tend to be more expensive.
This is perhaps the biggest advantage that the supercharger enjoys over the tubo. Because a turbocharger is driven by exhaust gasses, the turbocharger's turbine must first spool up before it even begins to turn the compressor's impeller. This results in lag time which is the time needed for the turbine to reach its full throttle from an intermediate rotational speed state. During this lag time, the turbocharger is creating little to no boost, which means little to no power gains during this time. RPMs. Superchargers are easier to install but tend to be more expensive.
Both t/c and s/c are dependent on RPMs, t/c cause at higher rpms there are more exhaust gases hence more power to the turbine, s/c cause it is being moved by the crankshaft which is rotating faster at higher rpms i.e. more power to the fan...
Good turbo applications (small turbos, bi-turbos, sequential turbos) suffer very little from lag since they efficiently operate even at 1.5-2k rpms... Also, the entire SCCA rally world runs on turbos and when you are in the 90% turn sliding there is no way you could afford any lag when you need all the power to the wheels you can get...
Turbo is both science and art, like any advanced tuning of the engine, therefore only few automakers in the world attempt turbos on a passenger car, only few SAAB, AUDI, VOLVO, MITSU are really succesfull...
Keep that in mind...
01-22-2005, 05:55 PM
#25
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by DelayedTurbo
Lets not forget the most important fact. The SC won't void the warranty (well an SC from TRD). A TC will unless TRD decides to release one (cough, not a chance, cough)
And that's what exactly sells me on s/c vs t/c.
I do not want to get an aftermarket unit that will blow my engine and leave me with $$$$ for engine overhaul or replacement. If TRD came out with a t/c. Why not?
Otherwise, forget it. We all know how costly engine repairs are...
01-22-2005, 06:15 PM
#26
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 5
sc vs. tc
I thought sc's were better for low rpm horsepower gain (really good for off the line acceleration) and tc's were good for high rpm horsepower gain (really good at higher speeds. When did the rules change?
01-22-2005, 06:27 PM
#27
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 119
Re: sc vs. tc
Originally Posted by StAthAttAN kID05
I thought sc's were better for low rpm horsepower gain (really good for off the line acceleration) and tc's were good for high rpm horsepower gain (really good at higher speeds. When did the rules change?
From the racing perspective (SCCA rally) TURBO is the king. (heard of SUPRA?)
low pressure S/C seems to be a charging systems of choice for car makers, possibly because of it's simpler design. SC is actually half of the turbo, fan with no turbine.
Because USUALLY low-pressure by design s/c setups USUALLY lack costly intercoolers etc etc.... They are cheaper and less complex so naturally more attractive for car makers trying to make a quick buck....
01-31-2005, 12:48 PM
#29
Senior Member
SL Member
Team ScioNRG
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fortress of ScioNRG
Posts: 5,274
Re: sc vs. tc
[quote="Stefan TC
SC is actually half of the turbo, fan with no turbine.
Because USUALLY low-pressure by design s/c setups USUALLY lack costly intercoolers etc etc.... They are cheaper and less complex so naturally more attractive for car makers trying to make a quick buck....[/quote]
a little expansion... there are different types of superchargers. the one that you described above is a centrifugal style and indeed uses a compressor half much like a turbos.
but there are other style superchargers. the Roots style and Vane style...
the roots style is what TRD uses. you can not see any resemblance to a turbo with that set up...
SC is actually half of the turbo, fan with no turbine.
Because USUALLY low-pressure by design s/c setups USUALLY lack costly intercoolers etc etc.... They are cheaper and less complex so naturally more attractive for car makers trying to make a quick buck....[/quote]
a little expansion... there are different types of superchargers. the one that you described above is a centrifugal style and indeed uses a compressor half much like a turbos.
but there are other style superchargers. the Roots style and Vane style...
the roots style is what TRD uses. you can not see any resemblance to a turbo with that set up...
02-02-2005, 03:25 PM
#30
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 119
Re: sc vs. tc
[quote=dgHotLava]
a little expansion... there are different types of superchargers. the one that you described above is a centrifugal style and indeed uses a compressor half much like a turbos.
but there are other style superchargers. the Roots style and Vane style...
the roots style is what TRD uses. you can not see any resemblance to a turbo with that set up...
Functionaly, you are still talking about a compressor compressing intake air. The difference between s/c and t/c is the source of energy to compress intake air. With a S/c this energy comes from the engine's output which makes it "half the turbo" - no turbine. Also, for a variety of reason you do not see that many s/c cars on the rally circuit (where HP and torque REALLY counts), only t/c...
Originally Posted by "Stefan TC
SC is actually half of the turbo, fan with no turbine.
Because USUALLY low-pressure by design s/c setups USUALLY lack costly intercoolers etc etc.... They are cheaper and less complex so naturally more attractive for car makers trying to make a quick buck....[/quote
SC is actually half of the turbo, fan with no turbine.
Because USUALLY low-pressure by design s/c setups USUALLY lack costly intercoolers etc etc.... They are cheaper and less complex so naturally more attractive for car makers trying to make a quick buck....[/quote
a little expansion... there are different types of superchargers. the one that you described above is a centrifugal style and indeed uses a compressor half much like a turbos.
but there are other style superchargers. the Roots style and Vane style...
the roots style is what TRD uses. you can not see any resemblance to a turbo with that set up...
02-03-2005, 04:46 AM
#32
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by dgHotLava
but i've never seen a turbo'ed top fuel (funny) car either....
turbos can't make that kind of power...
turbos can't make that kind of power...
The fun is making a 90 degress turn on a gravel doing 100mph, this is the adrenaline rush I am talking about...... SCCA, rally racing, this is where you can see turbocharged four-cylinder cars pulling 700HP... And no s/c there....
02-05-2005, 10:54 PM
#33
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 29
Question
-Do we know yet what type of S/C it will be, Positive Displacement or Centrifugal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't TRD gone w/ Positive Displacement S/C in the past?
Quick Facts
-S/C
Advantages: Instant power, no lag because it is directly attached to your crankshaft.
Disadvantages: Parasitic power loss to system (less peak power) - again because it is using power to make power (attached to your crankshaft
Applications: Recommended for low RPM, high torque applications (V8s).
-T/C
Advantages: Greater peak power (at a noticable RPM, no one drives at 8,000 RPMs)
Disadvantages: Lag in power delivery (uses wasted energy, or heat off of your exhaust rather than being attached to you crank therefore heat has to build before you will feel noticable power), long-term durability & cold-start emissions.
Applications: Recommended for high RPM applications (i.e. I4s)
Generally speaking, the problem we are seeing here is the thata the tC does not fall into the usual 4 banger, 2dr sports coupe catagory. Civics, GTI's etc usually offer a lower displacement engine (1.6L,1.8L) etc. where as our tC is at a nice 2.4L. Because of this we have more low end torgue, a civic no torque to speak of but some nice high end HP. Hence the lower (1.6L,1.8L) being 'peaky'. The tC has some nicer low end torgue thanks to the 2.4L - this along w/ engine durability is why TRD has probably chosen to go the T/C route. Lets hope the TRD engineers can push more air and give some better HP results for our money.
Just my 2 cents!
-Do we know yet what type of S/C it will be, Positive Displacement or Centrifugal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't TRD gone w/ Positive Displacement S/C in the past?
Quick Facts
-S/C
Advantages: Instant power, no lag because it is directly attached to your crankshaft.
Disadvantages: Parasitic power loss to system (less peak power) - again because it is using power to make power (attached to your crankshaft
Applications: Recommended for low RPM, high torque applications (V8s).
-T/C
Advantages: Greater peak power (at a noticable RPM, no one drives at 8,000 RPMs)
Disadvantages: Lag in power delivery (uses wasted energy, or heat off of your exhaust rather than being attached to you crank therefore heat has to build before you will feel noticable power), long-term durability & cold-start emissions.
Applications: Recommended for high RPM applications (i.e. I4s)
Generally speaking, the problem we are seeing here is the thata the tC does not fall into the usual 4 banger, 2dr sports coupe catagory. Civics, GTI's etc usually offer a lower displacement engine (1.6L,1.8L) etc. where as our tC is at a nice 2.4L. Because of this we have more low end torgue, a civic no torque to speak of but some nice high end HP. Hence the lower (1.6L,1.8L) being 'peaky'. The tC has some nicer low end torgue thanks to the 2.4L - this along w/ engine durability is why TRD has probably chosen to go the T/C route. Lets hope the TRD engineers can push more air and give some better HP results for our money.
Just my 2 cents!
02-06-2005, 05:17 PM
#34
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by SdClassicBlack
Question
-Do we know yet what type of S/C it will be, Positive Displacement or Centrifugal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't TRD gone w/ Positive Displacement S/C in the past?
Quick Facts
-S/C
Advantages: Instant power, no lag because it is directly attached to your crankshaft.
Disadvantages: Parasitic power loss to system (less peak power) - again because it is using power to make power (attached to your crankshaft
Applications: Recommended for low RPM, high torque applications (V8s).
-T/C
Advantages: Greater peak power (at a noticable RPM, no one drives at 8,000 RPMs)
Disadvantages: Lag in power delivery (uses wasted energy, or heat off of your exhaust rather than being attached to you crank therefore heat has to build before you will feel noticable power), long-term durability & cold-start emissions.
Applications: Recommended for high RPM applications (i.e. I4s)
-Do we know yet what type of S/C it will be, Positive Displacement or Centrifugal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't TRD gone w/ Positive Displacement S/C in the past?
Quick Facts
-S/C
Advantages: Instant power, no lag because it is directly attached to your crankshaft.
Disadvantages: Parasitic power loss to system (less peak power) - again because it is using power to make power (attached to your crankshaft
Applications: Recommended for low RPM, high torque applications (V8s).
-T/C
Advantages: Greater peak power (at a noticable RPM, no one drives at 8,000 RPMs)
Disadvantages: Lag in power delivery (uses wasted energy, or heat off of your exhaust rather than being attached to you crank therefore heat has to build before you will feel noticable power), long-term durability & cold-start emissions.
Applications: Recommended for high RPM applications (i.e. I4s)
1) t/c lives of exhaust gas pressure, not heat. Exhaust gasses could be extremely cold and turbo would still functon.....
2) Contemporary turbo designes have very little or no lag as turbos produce boost at as little 1500 rpms...almost at engine idle, so continuosly....
Originally Posted by SdClassicBlack
Generally speaking, the problem we are seeing here is the thata the tC does not fall into the usual 4 banger, 2dr sports coupe catagory. Civics, GTI's etc usually offer a lower displacement engine (1.6L,1.8L) etc. where as our tC is at a nice 2.4L. Because of this we have more low end torgue, a civic no torque to speak of but some nice high end HP. Hence the lower (1.6L,1.8L) being 'peaky'. The tC has some nicer low end torgue thanks to the 2.4L - this along w/ engine durability is why TRD has probably chosen to go the T/C route. Lets hope the TRD engineers can push more air and give some better HP results for our money.
Just my 2 cents!
Just my 2 cents!
02-06-2005, 05:28 PM
#35
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In your Network
Posts: 868
T/C's that boost at low RPM have shorter lifespans
T/C's are good for rally and similar about it.
S/C's are great for street and road course racing.
S/C's are great for daily drivers
S/C's are more efficient and easier on the wallet.
Hmm I think an S/C is a better option for a tC.
Turbos will be seen because no one is educated on the S/C enough. Turbos are "cool"... well, the BOV is "cool"
We've raced turbo'd cars, had turbo'd cars and found the Superchargers prevailed. S/C beat a T/C in some of our events and "tests".
And again ... a supercharger will last LOOOONGER than a Turbo system.
T/C's are good for rally and similar about it.
S/C's are great for street and road course racing.
S/C's are great for daily drivers
S/C's are more efficient and easier on the wallet.
Hmm I think an S/C is a better option for a tC.
Turbos will be seen because no one is educated on the S/C enough. Turbos are "cool"... well, the BOV is "cool"
We've raced turbo'd cars, had turbo'd cars and found the Superchargers prevailed. S/C beat a T/C in some of our events and "tests".
And again ... a supercharger will last LOOOONGER than a Turbo system.
02-06-2005, 10:40 PM
#37
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by TeamMightyMiniz
T/C's that boost at low RPM have shorter lifespans
T/C's are good for rally and similar about it.
S/C's are great for street and road course racing.
S/C's are great for daily drivers
S/C's are more efficient and easier on the wallet.
T/C's are good for rally and similar about it.
S/C's are great for street and road course racing.
S/C's are great for daily drivers
S/C's are more efficient and easier on the wallet.
My turbo on SAAB 9000 AERO (made by Mitsu) lasted over 200K miles. I ma not aware of any longevity problems of tubos. Chekc with Garrett and Mitsu (largest turbo makers in the world) maybe they heard about it?
TURBO beat Supechargers becaause they are MORE efficient. SUpechargers canibalize the engine's output. TURBO is THE most efficient way of increasing engine's output. Both in automobiles, trucks, marine and aviation.
Originaly this technology was designed for aviation where angine's weight was a critical factor.........
Originally Posted by TeamMightyMiniz
Hmm I think an S/C is a better option for a tC.
Turbos will be seen because no one is educated on the S/C enough. Turbos are "cool"... well, the BOV is "cool"
We've raced turbo'd cars, had turbo'd cars and found the Superchargers prevailed. S/C beat a T/C in some of our events and "tests".
And again ... a supercharger will last LOOOONGER than a Turbo system.
Turbos will be seen because no one is educated on the S/C enough. Turbos are "cool"... well, the BOV is "cool"
We've raced turbo'd cars, had turbo'd cars and found the Superchargers prevailed. S/C beat a T/C in some of our events and "tests".
And again ... a supercharger will last LOOOONGER than a Turbo system.
And what exactly did you race? Audi S4 (turbo), BMW Alpina (turbo) Mitsu EVO (turbo)???
There are NO sport cars equipped with superchargers... AMG S55 would not stand a chance in a rally. So wouldn't any Bentley....
The whole SCCA scene in the US and Europe has been dominated by turbocharged cars for years... What street racing? Can you supercharged car beat race-ready Mitsu EVO? How about those Mitsus that are being used in SCCA and have over 700HP of output? What are you talking about??????
02-06-2005, 11:44 PM
#38
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In your Network
Posts: 868
again you have input your own brand of info. 
I said, turbo's are great for rally.
We've taken vehicles that had no turbo ... added Turbo and put them against their own brand with a S/C S/C prevailed.
We're talking about ADDING a turbo or sc.
It's best to Ignore all your factory installed turbo'd mentions. They are MOOT in this discussion.
Add a turbo or sc to a tc
The S/C is a better option for an informed consumer.
Your comment regarding a Bentley in a Rally is beyond humorous. Thanks for that laugh.
And remember, the tC is not a sports car
I said, turbo's are great for rally.
We've taken vehicles that had no turbo ... added Turbo and put them against their own brand with a S/C S/C prevailed.
We're talking about ADDING a turbo or sc.
It's best to Ignore all your factory installed turbo'd mentions. They are MOOT in this discussion.
Add a turbo or sc to a tc
The S/C is a better option for an informed consumer.
Your comment regarding a Bentley in a Rally is beyond humorous. Thanks for that laugh.
And remember, the tC is not a sports car
02-07-2005, 01:42 AM
#39
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by TeamMightyMiniz
again you have input your own brand of info.
I said, turbo's are great for rally.
I said, turbo's are great for rally.
Originally Posted by TeamMightyMiniz
We've taken vehicles that had no turbo ... added Turbo and put them against their own brand with a S/C S/C prevailed.
I am yet to see a supercharger that gives a 2.3L engine 700HP...
I have seen turbos that do that..........
Originally Posted by TeamMightyMiniz
We're talking about ADDING a turbo or sc.
It's best to Ignore all your factory installed turbo'd mentions. They are MOOT in this discussion.
It's best to Ignore all your factory installed turbo'd mentions. They are MOOT in this discussion.
Do not make general statements like "turbos are better for rally and s/c for street racing" cause they are simply NOT true. Race Mitsu Evo against any of your supercharged cars.... and let me know the result....
Originally Posted by TeamMightyMiniz
Add a turbo or sc to a tc
The S/C is a better option for an informed consumer.
The S/C is a better option for an informed consumer.
Originally Posted by TeamMightyMiniz
Your comment regarding a Bentley in a Rally is beyond humorous. Thanks for that laugh.
I laughed when I read yours about "turbos being good for rallies and superchargers for street" Talk to any S4 and Evo owner: they will laugh at you too....
Or better yet watch any SCCA rally and tell me that 500HP will not work on the street
))
02-07-2005, 06:49 AM
#40
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In your Network
Posts: 868
S4 hahah we killed one with a S/C through angeles crest.
Also killed it with a NA
Both MINI COOPERS
Poor audi had no chance.
500hp is useless on the street in a vehicle like a tC
Why is it such a battle for you to understand the realistic application?
Why do you continue?
A SC, twin screw or roots, is more pratical for cars such as the Scion .
Truth be had... best performance mod you could ever do to a vehicle such as the tC is suspension work.
It's got adequate power for it's class
It just needs suspension tuning.
More than 300hp on a tC is silly.
Anything over would be fine for 1/4 mile sprints.
And get off the Mitsu, that's invalid in this discussion.
Also killed it with a NA
Both MINI COOPERS
Poor audi had no chance.
500hp is useless on the street in a vehicle like a tC
Why is it such a battle for you to understand the realistic application?
Why do you continue?
A SC, twin screw or roots, is more pratical for cars such as the Scion .
Truth be had... best performance mod you could ever do to a vehicle such as the tC is suspension work.
It's got adequate power for it's class
It just needs suspension tuning.
More than 300hp on a tC is silly.
Anything over would be fine for 1/4 mile sprints.
And get off the Mitsu, that's invalid in this discussion.