Turbo Upgrade causes power LOSS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BKViper
  • 38 comments
  • 8,118 views
Just to add more fuel to the fire, you guys should check out what happens to the torque rating for the various stage turbos. For most vehicles a stage 2 turbo will out put less HP than a stage 3, but the stage 2 will typicaly have more torque.

For example the Viper GTS-R race car stage 3 833 HP 660 ft-lb
...................................................stage 2 753 HP 691 fl-lb

Another thing to consider is how it drives with each stage of turbo. Sometimes a bit of lag (stage 3) can help with traction, and sometimes the responsiveness of a stage 2 is better. My point being that the size of the turbo can have a big effect on performance aside from HP and torque differences.


I think KyleR means he's been buying these in sequence, buy stage 1 then you can buy stage2, ect.
This isn't necessary, just go for the one you want, no need to buy in sequence.
 
Last edited:
If anyone is interested in learning more about the supercharger vs. turbo power loss that the guys above me were talking about, the concept is called "Parasitic Loss".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_loss

Yep, that the stuff, which is why I wanted to debunk that outragous 40% number right off the bat. If an engine were to lose 40% of it's available hp just to spin up a turbo, I would imagine after all was said and done it would be no better off than if it had none to begin with. Honestly, I wouldn't even agree with 4% hp to drive a turbo. They spin very very easily and are purposly designed to do so in order to rob the least amount of hp and give back the biggest boost.
 
This is fascinating, yet still incredibly confusing. Just when I thought I knew enough you guys throw me something new to look into.

Think of it as being two halves of the same unit. One half is mounted in the exhaust pipes after the manifolds so the exhaust can drive it. The other half contains the compressor, which is piped to the incoming air that feeds the engine. There's also the wastegate, but I won't bother as you already seem a bit baffled(major pun and e-cookie to whoever get's it).:sly:
 
My take is that 4% is probably reasonable. There must be some resistance as the compressed intake air not freely going into all cyclinders all the time. There will be some resistance (which in turn will slightly restrict the exhaust) because only one inlet valve will be open at a time.

I am not a mechanic, but that sounds logical to me.
 
A supercharger takes more power to operate than a turbo. It's also harder to get as much boost out of one as you can from a turbo. These 2 reasons are why turbos are preferred.

Both do rob power, but the turbo robs FAR less of it.

Superchargers have certain inherent advantages [lower specific fuel consumption, more linear power band, easier to install and tune, just to name a few], but, when it comes to raw power output, and both types are allowed/available, tubos will always be chosen.

superchargers consume more fuel thru daily driving at normal rpm range..turbos only rob fuel when in spool....superchargers are pulling more fuel because they are belt driven by the crank...
 
From Wikipedia

Supercharging versus turbocharging

Positive-displacement superchargers may absorb as much as a third of the total crankshaft power of the engine, and, in many applications, are less efficient than turbochargers. In applications for which engine response and power are more important than any other consideration, such as top-fuel dragsters and vehicles used in tractor pulling competitions, positive-displacement superchargers are very common.

There are three main categories of superchargers for automotive use:

* Centrifugal turbochargers – driven from exhaust gases.
* Centrifugal superchargers – driven directly by the engine via a belt-drive.
* Positive displacement pumps – such as the Roots, Twin Screw(Lysholm), and TVS(Eaton) blowers.

The thermal efficiency, or fraction of the fuel/air energy that is converted to output power, is less with a mechanically-driven supercharger than with a turbocharger, because turbochargers are using energy from the exhaust gases that would normally be wasted. For this reason, both the economy and the power of a turbocharged engine are usually better than with superchargers. The main advantage of an engine with a mechanically-driven supercharger is better throttle response, as well as the ability to reach full-boost pressure instantaneously. With the latest turbocharging technology, throttle response on turbocharged cars is nearly as good as with mechanically-powered superchargers, but the existing lag time is still considered a major drawback, especially considering that the vast majority of mechanically-driven superchargers are now driven off clutched pulleys, much like an air compressor.

Turbochargers suffer (to a greater or lesser extent) from so-called turbo-spool (turbo lag; more correctly, boost lag), in which initial acceleration from low RPM is limited by the lack of sufficient exhaust gas mass flow (pressure). Once engine RPM is sufficient to start the turbine spinning, there is a rapid increase in power, as higher turbo boost causes more exhaust gas production, which spins the turbo yet faster, leading to a belated "surge" of acceleration. This makes the maintenance of smoothly-increasing RPM far harder with turbochargers than with engine-driven superchargers, which apply boost in direct proportion to the engine RPM.

Roots blowers tend to be 40–50% efficient at high boost levels. Centrifugal superchargers are 70–85% efficient. Lysholm-style blowers can be nearly as efficient as their centrifugal counterparts over a narrow range of load/speed/boost, for which the system must be specifically designed.

Keeping the air that enters the engine cool is an important part of the design of both superchargers and turbochargers. Compressing air increases its temperature, so it is common to use a small radiator called an intercooler between the pump and the engine to reduce the temperature of the air.

In the 1985 and 1986 World Rally Championships, Lancia ran the Delta S4 which incorporated both a belt driven supercharger and exhaust driven turbocharger. The design used a complex series of bypass valves in the induction and exhaust systems, and an electromagnetic clutch so that at low engine speeds boost was derived from the supercharger, in the middle of the rev range boost was derived from both systems, whilst at the highest revs the system disconnected drive from the supercharger and isolated the associated ducting.[7] This was done in an attempt to exploit the advantages of each of the charging systems whilst removing the disadvantages. In turn this approach brought greater complexity and impacted on the cars reliability in WRC events, whilst also increasing the weight of engine anciliaries in the finished design.
 
In the 1985 and 1986 World Rally Championships, Lancia ran the Delta S4 which incorporated both a belt driven supercharger and exhaust driven turbocharger. The design used a complex series of bypass valves in the induction and exhaust systems, and an electromagnetic clutch so that at low engine speeds boost was derived from the supercharger, in the middle of the rev range boost was derived from both systems, whilst at the highest revs the system disconnected drive from the supercharger and isolated the associated ducting.[7] This was done in an attempt to exploit the advantages of each of the charging systems whilst removing the disadvantages. In turn this approach brought greater complexity and impacted on the cars reliability in WRC events, whilst also increasing the weight of engine anciliaries in the finished design.

Just to add a few more cars with both Turbo's and chargers (I'f someone want to read more about it)

The Nissan 1989 March Superturbo (EK10GFR/GAR) and the Golf GT (Mk
5) (Petrol version)

I'm sure there are others as well :)
 
Back