In a message dated 97-10-17 22:15:35 EDT, curry@wolfenet.com writes:
Joe:
We are basically in agreement.
> That said, as a rule several things can be stated:
> 1. Turbos are more fuel efficient than superchargers.
As a rule of thumb, I would not dispute that, but it is not neccessarily
true, if the installation is planned well, and based on the actuall
application.
> 2. Superchargers are probably more reliable than toubos (due to the heat)
I think so.
> 3. Because of the number of units built, turbos are less expensive than
SC's
A few years ago, there was no question that was true. Today, not so much, and
I think in the future, the tables will be turned. As just one example, there
have been tens of thousands of SCs sold for Ford Mustangs, and the prices are
not at all bad. Anyway, the cost of the actuall units is only a small part of
the total cost. The biggest cost is the engineering and installation, unless
you have the ability to do it all yourself. Most of us have the ability to
install a kit, but few of us could do the engineering and manufacturing of
either type.
> 4. Because of how they are attached, Turbos are easier to install than
SC's
I'm not so sure about this. Comparing the installation of Nick Formica's
supercharger to the T-Bird 4 cyclinder Turbo installation at the 6-Pack
trials (both in TR6s), the SC was by far the cleaner, although both were
superbly done. That would definitley be something to consider.
> 5. Because of the nature of the installation, Clearance is usually less of
a
> problem than with SC's.
Again, I am not so sure. A lot would depend on the type of SC being used. The
centrifical type would be much harder to install, from a space standpoint,
than the axial type as used by Nick. The centrifical would be very similar to
a turbo installation.
> 6. Superchargers do not have to be insullated from critical parts the
> way turbos do.
To me, this is one of the most severe drawbacks of a turbo unit - The need to
insulate, and the tremendous heat associated with the exhaust portion of the
plumbing. These things can get hot to the point of glowing cherry red in
operation. That, and the critical need for oiling during the coast down
time, a time when oiling is hard to come by.
> In Short, one must analyze what it is he wants to accomplish and see which
> option with its own set of pros and cons fits the application.
Exactly! For an F1 racer, there is no doubt that a turbocharger is the way to
go. For a Mustang, the same is true of the supercharger. For a TR2, 3, 4, or
6, I personally believe a supercharger is the way to go. I think the
installation of Nick's will set the standard for a while. Particularly as the
availabilty of suitable units continues to improve, as it has been.
Which brings me to my favorite position - there is no substitute for cubic
inches. From a reliabilty, durability, cost effectiviness, and a
maintainability standpoint, displacement is hard to beat! Plus, the power is
there across the entire RPM range. V8s RULE!!!!
Dan Masters,
Alcoa, TN
'71 TR6---------3000mile/year driver, fully restored
'71 TR6---------undergoing full restoration and Ford 5.0 V8 insertion - see:
http://www.sky.net/~boballen/mg/Masters/
'74 MGBGT---3000mile/year driver, original condition
'68 MGBGT---organ donor for the '74
|