In a message dated 97-10-17 21:03:37 EDT, curry@wolfenet.com writes:
> It seems to me that Superchargers would not be as good choice as a
> turbocharger on small engines, since they are spun by the power of
> the engine thus giving up a little HP in order to boost HP.
>
> Whereas, turbochargers are independent of the mechanics of the engine
> and spun entirely by the exhaust. Main difference is the lag on the low
> end while the turbo is spinning up.
Joe:
For reasons too involved to go into here (I don't want to get into another
long, involved, discussion - I took enough heat for the last few I was in),
what you said is not quite true. A turbocharger does not spin on free energy.
It takes power to spin it, just as it does to spin the supercharger, and this
power comes from the engine. There are relative advantages and disadvantages
to both, lag on the low end is a disadvantage for a turbocharger, for
example, but free energy is not one of its advantages.
IMHO, for the applications we are talking about here, a supercharger is by
far the best way to go - barring a V8, of course :)
A few years ago, turbochargers were the rage - how many cars come from the
factory with them today, compared to then? When they were the hot ticket,
superchargers were rare, but now there are several makes available in the
aftermarket.
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
|