Hyundai Coupe Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok this is not the old argument which is best :cry:

This is just a fun interesting thread ;)

If you where going down the forced induction route what would you choose and why ?
You may have already done it, if so why did you choose one over the other ?
Even if you never thought of it what would you choose ?
Think of your budget.
As I said it's only fun.

Ok I'll start.
I am at the "moment" driving a naturally aspirated Gen 3 2.7 v6 but in the past I have owned cars with both.
With the type of driving I do and the running costs I would fit a Supercharger.
I know they have a slight parasitic effect on the engine but I don't like Turbo lag and I like low end boost.
Because I drive long distances for work I need the reliability so they appeal to me.
Also because I would fit a centrifugal Supercharger , they may produce the lowest boost but I would not have to worry about engine component up grades and would not need to fit an intercooler.
That means I don't have to worry about space under the engine bay as well.
Ok it will cost me more in fuel but the reliability and cost is what I like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Nice write up!

I've never worked on forced induction but what I would choose is the supercharger.
Reason is because it requires less work, less modifing and it has that awesome sound on a tiburon.
This is the noise I'm talking about:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Id have both. One like the Vag engine. Supercharger for low end and turbo charger for peak. or have both but in a BiTurbo setup. Can get great MPG with great BHP figures. For a motorway cruiser id have a supercharger though like a Merc c200k and for a smoother ride and doesnt need a big exhaust as a turbo would need. But i love the sound of a turbo engine i cannot lie. a Small glanza turbo on full chat is the sex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
let's look at the science...
from a purely "on paper" view, the turbo charger is the most efficient in terms of bhp per CC of engine size, then Supercharger and then finally NA. HOWEVER, in terms of drive-ability, it does really depend on how "tuned" the engine is. A highly tuned Turbo car would presumably be more of a handful than a supercharged car, and definitely more than NA, due to the way that the torque and power curve rapidly increase with engine speed. Both superchargers and turbos (to a lesser degree) take a lot of engine power to work efficiently, but the gains are more than the cost.
On a standard road car, NA should be the most reliable, as both turbos and superchargers have massively high speed spinning parts, and subject the engine to higher temperatures and pressures, but as we know, in the real world, this means nothing.
In terms of fuel consumption, for the same power, NA wins, followed by turbo and finally supercharger. Superchargers REALLY do drink a lot of fuel, so aren't that efficient fuel wise on the road.
In terms of practically fitting a system, turbochargers tend to be more complicated, due to the change to both intake and exhaust manifolds. That said, a supercharged system is by no means a simple beast either. Obviously, if you're going for serious power, a turbo or two is probably the cheaper option, as superchargers don't tend to give as much power (without going for some huge thing that takes the equivalent of a Ford Fiesta ST engine to get turning!) My favourite stat was about a Jaguar XJ that had a supercharger fitted that took over 250bhp just to run it!
Me? I would love to have a supercharger in my next race car; there is something about the whine of a centrifugal supercharger, coupled with the low lag-rates that make it appealing. I've had both turbo charged and NA cars, both of which developed around 200bhp. Every time, I would take the NA car over the turbo, both in terms of fuel consumption, and low-end torque. Unless you start pumping some serious money into NA though, you soon hit the limit of returns in term of power/£, but I think ignoring the initial costs of a turbo over NA, you could get more bang-for-buck, as it were. For racing, we are limited in power, so a Supercharger makes more sense, as you can REALLY tune engines with them in for torque, which is what you want on the circuit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,607 Posts
molovin said:
Id have both. One like the Vag engine. Supercharger for low end and turbo charger for peak. or have both but in a BiTurbo setup.
Spot on, best of both worlds, though can't see how bunging the weight of both and all the pipework over the front end of a fwd car can help cornering much, expecially in the Audi's, where they already have an system to massively increase understeer, known as quattro!
Twin charged for definate in a rwd car, NA on a fwd car. Seen to many ST's and VXR's get owned on track by NA Clios/Civics/Pug Gtis with 100bhp less, as they have better weight balance, and better traction. I prefer the all round performance package to just straightline speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
There is no replacement for displacement ;)

For a v6 a supercharger would be the "easier" option of the two. Low boost options would provided some extra low down to mid range power.

Turbo application on a v6 would be more complicated and not cheap. Plus you have to consider the drastic changes from on and off boost. You would be looking at a full rebuild just for a safety aspect. People go on about turbo lag but its mainly a side effect to set up and turbo choice. Bi turbo is pointless personally.

I bet it would be more cost effective to drop in another engine! Sure this will be moaned at but known of many turbo conversions being more hassle than they are worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,607 Posts
Sarah1410 said:
There is no replacement for displacement ;)

For a v6 a supercharger would be the "easier" option of the two. Low boost options would provided some extra low down to mid range power.
Depends on which type of supercharger, there's 2 types. one that offers all of it's power, all the time, and the other where the power gained goes up with the rpm of the car.
And on a coupe, a forced induction conversions not harder or easier than an engine swap, mainly due to no-one churning them out in numbers to make kits worthwile selling. Vauxhall Corsa's for example have have so many red-top conversions, many companies can do them, using off the shelf conversion kits, relatively cheaply and quickly.
if it was for a coupe though, personnally I'd not add the weight of either, I'd use twin cam profile trickery, MIVEC over vtec or toyota dual vvti though. lacks low and mid range gains of forced induction, but gives similar peak power, with no added front end weight. that lack or low down torque can be an advantage for traction, easier to get on the power early out of a corner, whilst controling acceleration without wheelspin or understeer. Aside from the Megane 225, all the great handling FWD cars are inline 4 NA engines.
Leave the V engines and forced induction to the RWD cars thats can handle them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
Fitting the turbo is one thing,nodding about with it every other day for the rest of the cars life is the issue, you just have to ask yourself if dealing with a bespoke turbo is really the route you want to go down ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
That depends. I am thinking about sound modification for some time already. Few extra BHP would be nice as well. What would you say about removing resonator and changing air filter to conical?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top