I would like to know what everyone thinks which is better, in there opinion.

a Supercharger or Turbo. ?

My opinion....Turbo, faster spooling, better (less) wear and tear on a motor, more practicle for a daily driver, and more cost effective

Supercharger....Less cost effective, more wear and tear on the motor, take too much of the inital power of the motor to reach full boost...

anyone else, maybe I can be wrong..

 

To turbocharge you 545i you'd need new headers .
It is not necessary, instead, with the supercharger .

The supercharger is better and better, but it needs more gas to go .
The only problem is the consumption, otherwise is better than the turbocharger, on any aspect .

 

Well I would not say its any "better" rather just different. Basically both shove air into the engine-one does this via spinning a turbo at 1000s of rpms by using exhaust gases which accounts for the lag needed to build up enough gases each time you mash a pedal. The other one uses belts and pulleys to create the force to shove air into the engine-as far as reliability there is not difference if you were using the same boost-the extra wear on the engine comes from how much boost or air you are shoving in there requiring your engine to consume and more importantly the heat and energy it produces from the extra consumption-same boost equals same wear-turbo or supercharger.

Choosing one or the other has more to do with room in the engine bay, what type of performance you are looking for as far as how you want your torque curve to look-ie. turbos can have a much flatter curve over larger rpms where as superchargers tend to build up power for shorter bursts over a narrower rpm range-which both can be good depending on the situation.

ie my supercharger is nice because no real power comes from it until you hit 3 plus rpms so makes for smooth driving under normal conditions-in fact you cannot even notice its there-but mash the gas past 3k rpms and it takes off. Compared to the new twin turbo in the 535-comes on very early like 1.5-2k rpms since its tiny and doesnt take much to get it going-and is relatively a nice long flat torque curve due to the nature of how turbos work-

Depends on what your looking for-fact of the matter is if you mash the gas with the same amount of boost in each one-both make huge hp and damage reliability generally speaking

 

Manual tranny- Turbo
Auto tranny- Supercharger
IMO

 

ya I mean thats kinda true but either way if you apply any charger to a N/A car you prob wanna have a Manual tranny..


As far as Alex's comments, I personally don't aggree but his aren't nessasarily wrong. To turbo charge you would need to build the motor to a turbo spec motor if its N/A (Normally Asperated) however if you supercharge you really should change the headers as well I mean there are more things you can get away with, with a superchrger then a turbo charger, however those things like headers and what not you should change them anyway because usually the stock components aren't ment to handel the added power but with some things you won't need to change.

Generally people apply turbos to cars with 6 cylinders or less and apply superchgers to motors with v8's or more no obviously once again thats not always the case as most of you know the AMG Bi=Turbos are v8's however those are made from the factory, usually when you have a car thats built N/A it will follow the guidlines I just stated.

To say which is better you can really have a on sided answer, not jsut due to those who prefer one over the other but, generally speaking some cars preforme better with one then the other so in once case a super charger might be better where a turbo might not but in another a turbo might be the better route. So honestly depending on the application theres no way to say which is better becuase though some might have had chargers installed on their cars and one applicaton was obviously better, other cars obviously won't have the same result. Anyone who says one is better then the other is stating their opinion based upon which car they've done the application. Unless somone has applied both applications to every single car out there, theres no way to say which is out right better then the other but you can tell which application goes better with its corisponding car.

It is really overlooked and very misunderstood that , it is not how much fuel we can get into the engine to create more power rather, what creates more power is air. Its actully kinda funny that something so simple as air yet in the case of motor applications very complex, is the key to generating power. How much air flow you can get into a motor is how much more power it can generate. Fuel is used to greate the combustion (explosion) from the pistons which is why when people say who much fuel you can get in there is how much more power you can get is not entirely right but, its the added fuels resulting combusiton that they overlook. Because with the added combustion which was then generated by the added fuel (which they say is the key to more power) is really generating more airflow which is the source of getting more power. However theres 2 key locations in a car where airflow is extremly important, the first induction and then the exhaust system. Both need to be balanced where having all this air entering the motor, it also then needs a place to leave the motor. Thats why usually speaking turbod or supercharged cars don't need back presured exhaust systems where N/A cars need it for the presure to be balanced, this is because Force inducted cars (turbos and s/c) are pushing the added air flow into the motor and then this air needs a place to escape. if the exhaust system on a turbo car is one similar to that of a N/A car the air then is getting trapped and not flowing out properly, where as a N/A doesn't have that added air coming threw the motor then without having the back presure coming from the exhaust it losses power as it then unbalances the presure.
g

 

I wrote to www.esstuning.com regarding availablity of a compressor for the E60 V8, the response :

Hello We do have plans for the V8, but it is a year in time from now. Regards, Hans Petter Kirkerod
Phone: 004741558555
Fax: 004769198556


it's gonna be the new twin screw version compressor...no turbo for the v8.

this ONE is for the E39.

 

My opinion ...

A supercharger compresses air that is introduced for combustion. The effect being the same as a higher compression rqatio.

A turbocharger, a type of supercharger, uses exhaust gas to drive a turbine that in turn drives the compressor that compresses the air.

Some superchargers are mechanically driven such as a Roots blower. A Roots blower is a positive displacement compressor.

This does not answer which is better. I think it depends on the application.

 

ESS answered to me "Hopefully mid to late 2008" !

Hurry up ESS, can't wait! I'm planning a trip in Norway to come back with +170 HP

Would you like to come with me Andy ?

 

The supercharger is smoother . Almost like an asperated .
I have a supercharged car, as you can see from the signature . And I would like to have another one .

 

well i have a turbo charged car.. actually twin turbos hehe and i love it to death so like i stated some love s/c some love t/c its what u like and whatever the application calls for