Supercharger Vs Turbo!

tornado_ally · Post by **tornado_ally** » Sun May 02, 2004 12:32 pm

The ideal Polo would be a nice light mrk 4 6n with a 1.8T-supercharged with a phat dump valve!!

The compound charger system will give the Polo touring car status and respec' on the streets

@ Karl and Speedy- you should do that to your cars and see how well you do at Santa Pod. That will be the one to watch

KarlM · Post by **KarlM** » Sun May 02, 2004 11:24 pm

one day. one day.

I WILL own a 20vT Polo. (just not right now cause i'm skint!)

daffy · Post by **daffy** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:56 pm

Seems i've seen this thread a little late.....but then again i'm new here so that's ok.

Just to point out that superchargers are less efficient than turbos and that's why it's usually larger engines that use them. Take for instance mercedes. They only use them on 2ltr engines and over. Take the U.S. Over there superchargers are really really popular. It's the forced induction method of choice over there. Why? Well because all their cars have a capacity of like 188,4ltrs. So in large capacity engines, superchargers are usually the way to go. In smaller capacity engines, turbos are definitely better because they don't rob the engine.

Back in the days of turbo engines in formula one, the engines were 1,5 ltr tuned to an output of over 1,100hp!!!

Karl_CLCoupe · Post by **Karl_CLCoupe** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:41 pm

dub envy wrote:Why not use both?? Supercharger for the low down boost, then the turbo will kick in higher up the revs to give secondary boost too!!

This method of using both was tried by Lancia on their Group B rally Delta. It was pretty successful, but the Quattro just owned.

daffy · Post by **daffy** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:30 am

yeah quattro pretty much ruled, but it's a pity group B was abandoned before the ford had the time to be evolved. i reckon that would have eventually killed the audi.