NA vs Turbo vs Supercharger

[sar593]

I know that a NA engine loses 10% of it's power every 1000m above sea level, but what about Turbocharged and Supercharged engines. Is the same?
I ask because I live at 2600m and I want to know wich is better.
Thanks

 

[Tornado]

Here you go. Ignore the first half of the thread and look towards the end.

 

[1X83Z]

A naturally-aspirated engine loses only three percent of its power for every thousand feet above sea level. A supercharged engine does the same. A turbocharged engine, however, loses no power until you begin to get up to the really thin air - 10,000 feet and above.

That's why driving a turbocharged car in Denver (elev. 5280ft) rocks!

 

[Tornado]

Supercharged cars do lose power, but they lose less than NA cars.

 

[1X83Z]

Now close this thread before any off-topic discussion is permitted! (like the last one)

 

[Jay]

sar593 was saying 10% loss for every 1000m (note m = metre), M5 says 3% loss every 1000 feet, so without a calculator and exact conversion ratio it seems to be about the same.



As for Superchargers losing power compared to turbocharging, a lot if it depends on the type of Supercharging the engine has, the less efficient roots type (blower), the much more efficient linear twin screw or Eaton type or the centrifugal type which is constructed like a belt driven turbocharger and behaves in a similar way too.

 

[1X83Z]

sar593 was saying 10% loss for every 1000m (note m = metre), M5 says 3% loss every 1000 feet, so without a calculator and exact conversion ratio it seems to be about the same.

Oh my bad - you're dead on - I wasn't paying attention.