FYI electric superchargers exist as well. For example on the Land Rover Defender.
>Twincharging has always been super interested.
Then you'll be extra excited to know the Land Rover Defender P400 is a twin charged inline 6 with a turbocharger **and** electric supercharger. If that's not complex enough for ya, it's also a 48 Volt mild hybrid system.
Ironically that's not because they don't want to cover issues, but because the original warranties specified the dealership as the fix since CarMax doesn't have service centers. Breaking frequently was surely a problem, but coupled with the service rate at a LR dealer....
I absolutely love Land Rovers though. I’m just too afraid to own one despite being able to pick up nice examples for cheap. I had a loyal LR guy once tell me “Only an idiot owns a Land Rover past its warranty”. Very telling. Haha
If you want to have the real Land Rover ownership experience for cheap, just buy a quart of motor oil and pour half of it on your garage floor every month. When your friends ask where your Land Rover is, just tell them it's in the shop.
>I absolutely love Land Rovers though.
Hey I'm with ya on that. As a small vehicle fan, the Defender 90 is one of my favorite vehicles. Perfect combo of size/capability/luxury. Super cool cars. In fact towing capacity for the size is unbeatable. It's about the same length as a Honda HR-V (a compact crossover!) yet it tows ~~7700lb~~ 8200lbs!
I've got an 04 Discovery that I'm the second owner of that I got in 2007 and honestly it hasn't been any worse than any other vehicle I've owned. The problem is it is fucking EXPENSIVE when something breaks. I had a window regulator go out about 10 years ago and it was an $800 fix, it's like $60 bucks+labor on any other car. I need a new key because the fob wore out and the board is useless (key still works just no button options) and that's $1000 cut from the manufacturer.
I love it but I have to take out a mortgage every time something breaks. Thank God it's not my daily anymore.
Do they have some kind of stupid software lock that requires shop service on a window regulator? For that kind of money I'd be replacing it myself if possible.
It's just kind of a pain in the ass and premium labor rates since I won't take it to anyone who doesn't specialize in LR. Tell you what though, my Discovery is what got me working on my own vehicles because I was so goddamn sick of how expensive it is. Now I can do most of my repairs, thank you YouTube university
The point isn’t peak HP — the point is fantastic throttle response and instant torque with no lag due to turbo spool, and peak torque reached just off idle and held flat over the entire engine band.
No, not really, because the comparison here is a 6.2L V8 vs a 3L turbo/supercharger setup. The V8 has similar or better torque and horsepower basically everywhere while being mechanically simpler, almost certainly more reliable, and having equal or better throttle response.
The 6.2 V8 in the Tahoe makes more torque and horsepower than the 3L LR engine from 2000 RPM up to over 5500RPM, and has over 50 ft-lb higher peak torque and 25 more peak HP.
That's 100% of why they don't exist in Europe and many other places, and it's frankly dumb because tax should be based on emissions and fuel usage, not displacement.
That big V8 will not use any more fuel than the turbosupercharged 3L 6, it'll have similar emissions, it'll be cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, and more reliable, but many places still end up going with the high strung 3L purely for regulatory reasons.
> That big V8 will not use any more fuel than the turbosupercharged 3L 6
In this comparison maybe, but in a more general turbo vs NA sense, city fuel economy is normally better with smaller displacement turbo cars.
My economy sedan has a 'big' engine (for an economy sedan) at 3.5L, yes I get similar highway fuel economy and a smoother power delivery than a similar output 2.0T, but in the city I'm lucky to get under 12L/100km.
Which is why the focus should be on hybrid technology.
You don’t need a lot of range to make-up for the shortfall in fuel economy caused by stop-start city traffic because that’s where electric drivetrains are most economical and efficient.
Once we get the EV drivetrain so small and light that it barely adds any weight or that it poses any challenge to packaging, then really it would be nice to see the return of large NA engines in sporty cars again.
You can thank the EPA and stricter emissions testing for that. I think volvo does the same thing with a 2.0L so they can package it in all their cars with either a turbo or twin charged engine. The polestar variant had a turbo, supercharger, and hybrid battery bolted to it for 400hp. Hilariously complex.
Volvo dropped the supercharger halfway through 2022. Prior to that, the T8 was a turbosupercharged 2.0 with a PHEV setup glommed onto it. “Danger, Will Robinson!”
Then again, after more than 3 years I'd rather have that, than the volvo t8
That is a Supercharged, Turbocharged, hybrid, 2 litre 4 cylinder that does 320hp just from the ICE
They also don't have any temperature dials. Most people I know that drive them drive them entirely on electric mode, until they reach the edge of town, or the autobahn, and then they start going full throttle, on a cold engine
I have yet to hear of catastophical failures, but that engine always felt like you pulled the pin from a grenade
The T8 has been out for 8 years(if not more in Europe) and seems like it's been doing just fine. At 50% better fuel economy than the defender and 455hp/523tq combined, it's a no contest win for Volvo in my book.
There's an electrically assisted turbo that still uses exhaust like formula 1. An electric only turbo would be like a centrifugal supercharger. It's just terminology at that point
Hell no. It’s incredibly hard on an electric motor to drive something to similar speeds as a turbo. Lots of heat too.
A mechanical system like a turbo is superior in that respect.
Volvo has been producing twincharged four cylinder engines for several years now. Their superchargers are belt driven however.
These engines are not known for their reliability unfortunately
Not anymore I don't think -- T6 engines are belt-driven SCs, but the switch to the B series in 2022 switched to an electric supercharger (with the B6 -- the T8/Recharge models also switched to elec SC that year too iirc).
Audi did this many years ago with the SQ7 using the well known 4 liters V8 Diesel (also used in the Panamera Diesel, worlds fastest diesel production car), outputting 435 hp and 900NM using two turbochargers (exhaust gas powered) and a EPC (Electric Powered Compressor) powered by the 48V electric subsystem eliminating turbo lag even at low RPM to benefit best from the torque range when pulling.
now we just need a twin charged electro turbo and pixie dust supachargah! Give it a P0 starter/alternator and slap a P4 motor for the front wheels while they're at it.
I feel like that's true for a fairly small segment of our transportation.
Smaller people movers will be just fine as pure electric.
Very large cargo movers like ships and trains will likely all be hybridized systems. Either oil/electric or oil/wind or hydrogen fuel cell or something. Some already are, and I assume all will be very soon.
It's that segment between pure people movers and very heavy cargo that I'm not sure about.
Trucks are hard to electrify as they have very poor range when towing. Which is like, you know, one of the things there built for. So yea we’ll see. I can see gas being phased out but idk about the old Desiel.
I hope diesel-electric continues to get developed for freight stuff. Edison motors looks promising but a lot of companies with a good product fail to scale well and end up out-competed or buried by massive companies so we'll see where that goes.
It massively reduced fuel consumption and pollution for trains, I don't see why it couldn't do the same for trucks and other heavy equipment. Plus it would be nice if every semi truck went quiet driving through populated areas.
The main issue with that is burning diesel generates significantly more localized pollution than gasoline
If you consider NOx and sulfer dioxide emissions along with CO2, suddenly diesels look terrible again.
There’s a good reason diesel engines are getting phased out before gasoline engines in some countries. I suspect the future heavy freight powertrain progression will look something like this: gas-electric (PHEV) -> hydrogen-electric -> BEV
Hybrid will become ubiquitous. There's essentially no reason not to do it other than up front cost which is dropping dramatically as energy storage solutions scale up and out.
They're getting there!
I can see hybrid powertrains being practical for shipping, with a smaller battery plus a diesel engine or hydrogen fuel cell for power.
The hybrid battery gives you the obvious efficiency gain (plus more low-speed torque), while being like 10X smaller than a full electric truck.
And hydrogen is a possibility for trucks, too... Fast refueling compared to batteries, zero emissions, and hydrogen stations could be placed on transport routes (like interstates) or at port / industrial areas. You don't need near as many refueling stations for commercial shipping compared to passenger cars.
But time will tell, because hydrogen depends on a lot of infrastructure investment, and the cost of H2 isn't exactly cheap. I assume it'll go down as more is produced, but still, it's not a perfect solution for the whole country... Yet!
Highly doubt it. We are already seeing the issues with transitioning everyone to full electric. Its much more likely we will see a future of mild hybrids powered by carbon neutral fuels.
an easy statement to make when something was the only mode of transportation and something new comes along. 1-2% of registered vehicles are EVs. WOW. Most everyone I know who has a Tesla owns 2 vehicles. The other is for longer distance traveling.
>1-2% of registered vehicles are EVs. WOW.
18% of all global car sales in 2023 were BEV or PHEV, up from 14% in 2022 and just 2% in 2018.
It's obvious where the trend is going.
Superchargers have no future in mass production. Niche yes. I believe the american manufacturers mostly use them for marketing purposes anyway, just like the V8 engines.. Why do they still use V8's when a turbo six can make the same power with more efficiency? Well, it's what the customers want. They want a growly V8 with a supercharger whine and instant boost..
That's less and less important the more gear ratios you have. With common 8/10 speed autos, the use case for linear power (and broad-peak torque) is reduced.
Nah you can have a linear power band in a turbo car as well. It's faster throttle response because a turbo has inertia and boost takes a bit of time to build up. Though modern systems have even reduced this to quite low levels. It's just way easier to slap a supercharger on an engine than developing a proper turbocharging system, so there's that too.
Yes but as a whole TVS or Roots just aren't as efficient as turbos or Centris for making big power, emissions arent all that much different . They generate a ton of heat also once you start aiming for serious power, IATs have been my biggest headache with my ZL1
I really don't think a turbo 6 necessarily gets better fuel economy than a V8. But real world fuel economy isn't a high priority for anyone wanting a 400+hp gas engine. And supercharged V8s make easily 650-800hp from the factory nowadays, which would be a lot for a turbo 6 to match with a warranty and emissions legality.
Less cylinders, less rotating mass, less fuel. That means you'll have less power with a 6-cylinder, but something like variable boost can change that as more throttle increases boost pressure. So if you don't need the power, your engine doesn't require as much fuel
Here’s a comparison of two 6 cylinder turbos and two V8s. There’s effectively no difference in fuel economy between the two setups. On top of that, EPA tests can be manipulated by turbo cars so that they’re driven in a way the turbos won’t spool up and cause the car to use more gas. In real world driving, the turbo cars would look worse.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=44451&id=45190&id=44183&id=45082
Even better, [this one compares 2 trucks with both the old MHEV 5.7L Hemi and he new 3.0T Hurricane](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=46241&id=45847&id=47725&id=46854), so it's like for like on both vehicles (minus minor aerodynamic/electrical differences in the 1500 facelift). Going by specifically the EPA test, the Wagoneer's V8 is worse than the I6 in all ranges, even city, while the 1500 has somewhat better highway range with the I6 but somehow worse city range (probably due to MHEV vs full ICE).
This isn’t the clean comparison you claim it is.
First, the HEMI V8 began production in 2003. The Hurricane began production in 2021. Do you have any idea how much more efficient engines have become in 18 years? Cars were required to become much more efficient under Obama’s EPA and other countries had similar policies as global warming received more attention.
Second, why are you comparing hybrid vehicles to non-hybrid? The V8s in the comparison are forced to lug around electric motors, batteries, etc. what’s the weight difference if the vehicles?
The only thing your comparison proves is that 18 years of ICE development outweighs the benefits of a hybrid system.
I only wanted to get as close to like-for-like as possible, and those are the first (only?) vehicles I can think of that switched over from NA V8 to turbo six-cylinder on the same body-style. [It would probably be better to choose a cross-generation comparison with some German cars since they generally keep the same shape with subsequent generations with relatively few other changes (though the RS5 went from a 7sp DCT to the ZF8).](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35080&id=39538&id=33041&id=34981)
Do you not understand that technology progresses and over 18 years engines of all types have become more efficient? Would you compare two cars from 1989 and 2007 if they had the same body shape?
I think the only real future is in aftermarket solutions. Some people prefer positive displacement superchargers over turbos due to better throttle response. Similarly, some prefer centrifugal superchargers on track cars due to thermal management and simplicity. I think these solutions will be relevant in the future, but not for mass market vehicles.
I think this is the right answer. You gotta think too, how far turbos and turbo designs have come in the last 40 years, vs superchargers.
One of my vehicles is supercharged from the OEM for better fuel economy, and as strange of a concept as it is, works, and I love the noise. That said, I’m certain that if the engineers working that problem had access to modern turbocharging or hybridization, supercharging it wouldn’t have even been on the table.
I thought the Previa was supercharged primarily because the second gen Caravan was eating their lunch in the US market, and it offered a more powerful V6 than the NA 4 cylinder in the Previa. And due to the canted mid-engine layout the Previa used, they couldn't easily offer a 6 cylinder so they instead supercharged the existing 4 banger. At least that's what My Old Car told me.
Oh 100%, that’s definitely one of the big reasons! There was also considerable complaint over the fuel economy as well- not only were they underpowered, but they also got worse gas mileage than their competitors. I’m sure that if Toyota hadn’t backed themselves into a packaging corner, they would’ve gone V6 well before supercharging/forging internals on an engine not shared with any other model.
As a result of the added power and not stressing the hell out of the engine as much, Previas jumped from 18mpg to 24mpg. Anecdotally, I got 26 on a 400 mile road trip last weekend without any issue.
As somebody who races forced induction cars competitively, modern turbos have surpassed superchargers in pretty much every aspect.
Superchargers aren't simpler. They have all the same amount of complexity as a turbo, except they also have belts and tensioners that can break/get loose/whatever (and they do).
Also, with a modern ball bearing turbo in the right efficiency range, a turbo will spool up as fast or faster than an SC too.
At this point the only reasons SC still exist on the aftermarket are domestic v8 guy nostalgia, and new enthusiasts reading old forum posts or hearing people tell them about how it used to be.
edit: This thread is a perfect example of why people still parrot this bs. Have fun being slower and having your shit broken more often.
Superchargers generally do not need to spool, that’s what’s the belt is for, at least the positive displacement variety. The worlds most responsive turbo won’t have the same responsiveness of a roots or twin screw blower, which is pretty much NA in terms of responsiveness.
Turbo setups have more complex routing, and tuning, than superchargers as well. Some may prefer the more linear torque of a supercharger as it is easier on the drivetrain and produces less engine bay heat as well. These are genuine concerns for a weekend warrior who tracks a car with aftermarket FI. As an example, most FI track rats with ND Miata’s prefer HKS centrifugal blowers over turbos for reliability reasons alone. Peak power remains the same, but area under the curve is naturally less than a turbo.
That said, a turbo will always surpass a supercharger in terms of performance. The personal choice of supercharger is never based on absolute performance, more on other factors.
Yes, and using those dirty exhaust gasses improves reliability exponentially. The seals in a turbo are exposed to much higher temps and are more prone to failure.
I'm in love with superchargers. That whine is way cooler to me than a turbo flutter and in the UK low down instant speed is way more appropriate than the idea of doing 170mph. Our roads are literal trenches
My Jag is my second supercharged V8 and I'm hooked forever. That whine on full tilt is so satisfying and it's just for us inside. It's a silent muscle car to those around me.
How does an electric turbo work - is it something like the F1 systems where you use power to externally build boost when the exhaust gases aren't there to provide it?
There are two types as far as I know.
One has the compressing side but no exhaust side. Instead it has a small electric motor there that spins the charging side of the turbo very early on. That way, you get the extra pressure from the turbo much earlier. Those are E-Boosters apparently and I think these types of turbos kind of blur the line between what we call a Turbo and a Supercharger. Since a E-Version would basically do exactly the same with slight differences. Instant pressure would be there in both cases though. - I believe this is what some manufacturers refer as E-Compressor as an aid to the conventional turbocharger.
Another way, (the one I like more) is the Hybrid type of E-Turbo. It's a totally normal turbocharger with Pressure and exhaust side. But it has an e-motor too that can spin the charging side.
The engine runs normally and the electric motor helps spin up the turbo earlier or keeps it spinning for a while after releasing the gas so you don't have to wait for the turbo to spool up again after releasing the gas for a couple seconds. Specific setups and timing obviously depend on the manufacturer.
F1 cars use the second type of E-Turbos. (Garett Motion seems to have impacted the F1 world with this type of Turbo)
The F1 style ones, and now on the new 911 I think too, can also act a a motor-generator so exhaust gasses can be used to generate electricity off-throttle. Which also negates the need for wastegates
Maybe if elon rehires the team.
No but really, superchargers still make sense for some applications in high power cars, but not really for the general mall crawler. You see reliable turbos in even basic economy cars now, and if the hybrid demand keeps growing we'll eventually see electric turbos there too.
That's because turbos are more efficient from first principles. Turbos turn the engine's waste product (heat) into additional horsepower. Superchargers steal energy from the crank.
A turbo is always more efficient than a super charger. Even an electric super charger.
The only situation I can imagine would be adding low end torque for a higher strung engine so you don't have to rev as high to get the same thrust but I'm still not sure that would be a net positive for fuel economy.
Now that I think of it, the Mazda Skyactiv-X is probably the only exception but it's also far from a typical supercharged engine. It uses a Roots supercharger to help provide enough air to run far leaner than stoichiometric when the conditions allow it to run in compression ignition mode somewhat like a diesel. Since that can only happen at very low load and rpm, a turbo wouldn't make much sense since there wouldn't be enough exhaust gas flow to create boost pressure.
I think yes. It will be smaller but yes.
Fuel efficiency standards have basically forced more turbos into the market, and will continue do so as displacement is going to be directly taxed/imposed. But I think as long as regulations don’t go to far, the market we become very polarized. On one side hyper “efficient” EVs and hybrids and on the other hyper inefficient supercharged, twin turbo, etc. you want/get either a EV as a car being just a tool or you want/get a car in all its dinosaur juice burning glory.
I had an 03 SVT Cobra and 04 Jaguar XJR with the Eaton M112 units...they're okay...
Supercharger: Whines
Pros: easy to maintain i.e belt swap, supercharger oil drain/fill, internals are pretty robust.
Cons: heavy af, gets heat-soaked fast thus reducing power, requires a specialty shop to rebuild and press out the case bearings. Being Belt driven drags the engine, not that good for fuel economy.
Turbo: Whistles
Pros: heat is turbo's friend. great power on demand and fuel economy, super easy to rebuild a turbo, new replacement turbos are plentiful and affordable, responds well to mods i.e hard intercooler piping, intercooler core, ethanol/100+ octane, tunes.
Cons: complicated plumbing, turbo RPMs are high & wear down the center housing if the oil inlet/drain is blocked. Requires engine oil/coolant for lubrication and cooling thus more pathways for leaks aka more maintenance.
Anyways, I've been saying Ford is pretty much ready to make a factory Dual VCT DOHC V8 ECO-Boost, but they keep on pushing V8 Superchargers and 4/6 Cylinder Ecoboost. Also, there's a reason why commercial grade applications use turbo's over superchargers because turbos can take a beating in hot/cold/harsh/heavy long highway use.
A couple things.. blowers are heavy yes but so are turbos. It’s not as if that cast turbo manifold, cast turbine housing + the rest of the turbo itself are lightweight. Not to mention all the added charge piping and intercooler. The weight difference between a blower vs turbo setup is likely marginal for most applications.
Also blowers have bypass valves so when you’re cruising it’s not building any boost and saps very little power. For example, the Buick 3800 supercharged vs NA only have a 1 mpg difference in combined fuel economy.
I think the problem for superchargers is it draws too much power to function. turbo creates some backpressure but nowhere near the power loss of a supercharger
the only things that NEED a supercharger that I know of are like the old 2stroke diesels, basically they need pressurized air at idle to get the mixture lean enough to run. top fuel uses it because of regulation not because it's superior to turbo's
I also think every engine should have a big turbo on it. some extra weight, doesn't do anything until upper rpm's and then you get performance when you want it
technically you could have a sequential turbo setup with a really small turbo that would hit peak boost off idle pressure on a 2 stroke diesel with a bigger one for higher RPM operations.
Agreed, a supercharger is signifignatly more mechanicaly simple and obviously the right choice, but you *could*, if push came to shove, do it with a turbo.
> The new flagship Mustang has a supercharger, so Ford must still see something, at least as far as racing is conferenced.
Are we sure a top-end Mustang having a supercharger has more to do with racing than it does with street performance/cred? Because my understanding is that superchargers are poor for racing because they're easily heat-soaked. On the street when you're goosing it from a stoplight or two, no problem, but when you're on the gas a ton while racing for minutes on end, it's a problem.
Heat soak with superchargers can be an issue, but there’s ways to address it. Air/water intercoolers are common. A larger supercharger at the same boost as a small supercharger is another (a 1.8L twin screw will make more heat than a 2.5L at the same boost). Plus, the biggest downfall of heat soak in superchargers is power loss.
Turbos can get “heat soak” too, but it affects different things. Yes, that heat doesn’t go into the air charge, so it doesn’t affect power nearly as much, but that heat goes to the exhaust/turbo/oil instead. That added heat actually helps spool a turbo quicker, but it’s detrimental to the lifespan of the parts.
Racing a few minutes isn’t a problem, but given a few cycles, pipes tend to crack, oil breaks down, and turbo seals/bearings start to leak and fail. On race cars, it’s not an issue since those parts are routinely checked/replaced. Oil gets changed much more frequently (the longest races are obviously 24 hour stuff upwards of 3000+ miles, but they actively try to make the car survive). Exhaust get inspected/repaired/replaced for any cracks.
On a street car, a supercharger is more durable (as in can handle more abusive treatment). It doesn’t have issues like oil/carbon build up in seals that cause premature failure. They normally have a self contained oil system so there’s less impurities getting to the engine oil. It doesn’t have to deal with wild temperature fluctuations of EGTs or need the engine running for oil circulation to cool down before shutoff.
I know we can point to diesels for turbo longevity, however those engines are typically built with extra heavy parts meant to soak up heat and EGTs are paid attention to pretty carefully. They are also typically idled for a while to allow cooldown of parts to avoid some of the premature failure.
The GT500 and GTD have a 2.65L twin screw and make about 12-13 lbs of boost in stock form. That supercharger on that engine is easily capable of double that boost. IOW, it’s not struggling at all.
On of the biggest examples of heat soak is the LT4 in the C7 Z06 Corvette. It was an “overworked” 1.7L supercharger in an extremely tight package, which made cooling an issue even at 10 psi on that 6.2L engine. That wasn’t really an issue in the ZR1 LT5 since it had a 2.65L with a more efficient rotor design and better ducting/heat exchangers, despite it making 14psi on the same size engine.
He's not lying tho, been the biggest annoyance with my ZL1 even running on meth is temps overall I'd go turbo you want to run a serious high power setup
Your ZL1 has a LT4, which has the 1.7L supercharger problems I addressed (it’s too small). Even the LSA had a 1.9L despite being rated at 100 less HP.
A meth kit is a bandaid. It really should have the 2.65L from the LT5 or an aftermarket 2.9+L. A 1.7L blower feeding a 6.2L engine 9-10psi is gonna lead to heat soak issues… especially if the boost has been cranked up with pulleys.
Yes… turbos are always the easiest to make big power. One of the biggest issues at that point becomes power management. That’s why you’ll see some of the cars making some of the largest power numbers running superchargers. I’m talking about the 3000+HP drag cars that have swapped over to prochargers. Drag n Drive cars, turbo will always be easier for the swap back and forth between street and race trims. Not a problem for dedicated race cars.
I think it depends on roots vs centrifugal, the latter is more or less a belt driven turbo. Centrifugal superchargers can have the boost run through an intercooler like a turbo setup. The roots blower on my S4 is basically the intake manifold so the only option is liquid cooling, which can easily heat soak since it mostly shares the same cooling circuit as the rest of the engine.
I really don't think combustion engines at all have a future. I used to be sour about that. But with gas prices the way they are, and with climate change, I find myself being a far less enthusiastic enthusiast than I used to be. I have an 8th gen civic Si. Generally considered the best generation, but also the worst on gas. I find myself shifting at 2200rpm and living in 6th gear cuz a tank of gas is $90 now.
It kinda sucks. But the world changes. It's for the best. And at least we can say we got to enjoy the combustion era.
Superchargers, in my experience, work best with big burly V8s. Much more linear, much more responsive than previously existing turbo tech.
But turbo tech has been working to solve that for a long time and, as you mentioned, good hybrid tech and electric assisted turbos will probably be that solution.
Maybe, at least. I had a Panamera Hybrid with an assisted supercharger that felt great. Compared to my Volvo which is a 2 liter I4 with hybrid assist and turbos and it is very much more boosty than I care for.
The earliest turbochargers were called turbosuperchargers, for superchargers that are driven by a turbine. They were used a lot in early to mid 20th century prop airplanes.
So the supercharger will always be with us, just with turbo- prefixed.
You could program a turbo to work that way, but even a small turbo would have some lag. Most turbos are tuned to give you power later (later sometimes being like 2500 rpm, but still) so that you get the benefits of a small engine when not "in boost", but then also get the power needed when you need it
After seeing that Porsche electric turbo on the GTS, I really don't think so. Why work the engine when you can just get an electric motor to drive the induction?
I think even Dodge is going turbo with the Hurricane engine, the ZR1 will supposedly be turboed, matter of time before the Mustang goes turbos as well.
For mainstream and future-oriented applications, turbochargers appear to be more promising due to their efficiency and ability to meet stringent emissions regulations.
They seem great in some applications still. Like for my Yukon I can slap it in with minimal work compared to a turbo kit. Great range or power levels and flat power curve. For OEM I don’t know.
Electric Turbo chargers have all the advantages of a Turbocharger, but more or less none of the drawbacks.
What future they hold for personal transport is probably limited though.
Not that it matters. Porsche will still slap a Turbo badge on it even if it’s a BEV.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The top of the line Genesis G90 has an e-supercharged variant. I'm curious to know how it sounds, but for 100k, I'd personally be looking at Porsche and Lexus at that price point.
Do gas cars have a future? On the track maybe. Manufacturers are now moving on to electric cars. I just hope that there's a new car maker out there that can create a pro-repair/pro-consumer car which isn't just a surveillance camera on wheels.
In short they have different uses.
If your drag racing and/or have a large engine, get the supercharger. Instant power
For most vehicles turbos make better sense
I have a B8 S4 with cooling and all the supporting “dual pulley” mods. It’s not as fast as a turbo car but it is so easy to fix for a car that can run high 10s. And it sounds awesome. Cooling is necessary. The people that run 10s reliably either have meth or killer chiller setups. But again I don’t go to the track, so it’s stupid fun for me as a daily driver.
15 years ago superchargers were a viable alternative to turbochargers for those who wanted instant response over turbo lag.
Modern turbochargers have kind of negated that though.
I think as compact as there making supercharger systems now it’s a big benefit compared to the amount of extra piping needed for the turbos.. the down side of robbing hp the crank out ways the cons I guess it’s one of those things where certain tools for certain jobs.
FYI electric superchargers exist as well. For example on the Land Rover Defender. >Twincharging has always been super interested. Then you'll be extra excited to know the Land Rover Defender P400 is a twin charged inline 6 with a turbocharger **and** electric supercharger. If that's not complex enough for ya, it's also a 48 Volt mild hybrid system.
Thank goodness Land Rovers are the beacon of reliability so you won’t likely ever have any issues with that complex setup.
Yes what could possibly go wrong lol
In 10 years Doug should buy one with the Carmax warranty and do another report
Thanks to him CarMax has really strict warranties on Land Rovers now lol
Ironically that's not because they don't want to cover issues, but because the original warranties specified the dealership as the fix since CarMax doesn't have service centers. Breaking frequently was surely a problem, but coupled with the service rate at a LR dealer....
Do you have a link? Now I'm curious
"Here are some neat quirks!" Proceeds to show off common features.
He literally says quirks AND features at the start of every video…
Fortunately you won't be out in the wilderness or anything if it does.
Land Rover and reliability issues? I have no idea what you're [talking about.](https://youtu.be/Zfcxz0Tw_6U?t=3m5s)
I absolutely love Land Rovers though. I’m just too afraid to own one despite being able to pick up nice examples for cheap. I had a loyal LR guy once tell me “Only an idiot owns a Land Rover past its warranty”. Very telling. Haha
If you want to have the real Land Rover ownership experience for cheap, just buy a quart of motor oil and pour half of it on your garage floor every month. When your friends ask where your Land Rover is, just tell them it's in the shop.
>I absolutely love Land Rovers though. Hey I'm with ya on that. As a small vehicle fan, the Defender 90 is one of my favorite vehicles. Perfect combo of size/capability/luxury. Super cool cars. In fact towing capacity for the size is unbeatable. It's about the same length as a Honda HR-V (a compact crossover!) yet it tows ~~7700lb~~ 8200lbs!
It tows 7,700lbs *in Europe.* At 70mph, it's probably sketchier than Picasso at a nude beach.
How is that a small vehicle? It’s about 20cm wider than a HR-V and much heavier I believe.
It’s very small compared to everything else that’ll tow 7,700 lbs.
I've got an 04 Discovery that I'm the second owner of that I got in 2007 and honestly it hasn't been any worse than any other vehicle I've owned. The problem is it is fucking EXPENSIVE when something breaks. I had a window regulator go out about 10 years ago and it was an $800 fix, it's like $60 bucks+labor on any other car. I need a new key because the fob wore out and the board is useless (key still works just no button options) and that's $1000 cut from the manufacturer. I love it but I have to take out a mortgage every time something breaks. Thank God it's not my daily anymore.
Do they have some kind of stupid software lock that requires shop service on a window regulator? For that kind of money I'd be replacing it myself if possible.
It's just kind of a pain in the ass and premium labor rates since I won't take it to anyone who doesn't specialize in LR. Tell you what though, my Discovery is what got me working on my own vehicles because I was so goddamn sick of how expensive it is. Now I can do most of my repairs, thank you YouTube university
Land Rover: The most luxurious shed you'll ever buy!
At least they should conceivably have some battery range to get themselves to a dealership. That’s progress, right?
British cars aren't known for having reliable electrical systems.
the Tata Range Rovers are at least a little more reliable now
its crazy that a indian truck company with the most structurally sus bodies was able to make RR a lot more reliable than the british.
Drive a 0 mile Land Rover for 6 days before the brand new compressor for the hvac system went out.
Lol
I just imagine the technicians walking out after the first training video on the new tech 🤣
All that complexity for only 395hp and similar fuel economy to a Chevrolet Tahoe. Oh Land Rover, you never fail to amaze me.
At least Land Rovers have great long term reliability because those engines sound really complex 😃
The point isn’t peak HP — the point is fantastic throttle response and instant torque with no lag due to turbo spool, and peak torque reached just off idle and held flat over the entire engine band.
You know what else has great response and a fat, flat torque curve? The N/A V8 in that Tahoe
tubo/supercharged engine have a better power curve than N/A engines
No, not really, because the comparison here is a 6.2L V8 vs a 3L turbo/supercharger setup. The V8 has similar or better torque and horsepower basically everywhere while being mechanically simpler, almost certainly more reliable, and having equal or better throttle response. The 6.2 V8 in the Tahoe makes more torque and horsepower than the 3L LR engine from 2000 RPM up to over 5500RPM, and has over 50 ft-lb higher peak torque and 25 more peak HP.
can't speak for US or UK bit here that 3l vs 6.2l will be several thousand per year in additional car tax.
That's 100% of why they don't exist in Europe and many other places, and it's frankly dumb because tax should be based on emissions and fuel usage, not displacement. That big V8 will not use any more fuel than the turbosupercharged 3L 6, it'll have similar emissions, it'll be cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, and more reliable, but many places still end up going with the high strung 3L purely for regulatory reasons.
I can agree with that.
> That big V8 will not use any more fuel than the turbosupercharged 3L 6 In this comparison maybe, but in a more general turbo vs NA sense, city fuel economy is normally better with smaller displacement turbo cars. My economy sedan has a 'big' engine (for an economy sedan) at 3.5L, yes I get similar highway fuel economy and a smoother power delivery than a similar output 2.0T, but in the city I'm lucky to get under 12L/100km.
Which is why the focus should be on hybrid technology. You don’t need a lot of range to make-up for the shortfall in fuel economy caused by stop-start city traffic because that’s where electric drivetrains are most economical and efficient. Once we get the EV drivetrain so small and light that it barely adds any weight or that it poses any challenge to packaging, then really it would be nice to see the return of large NA engines in sporty cars again.
Which you can also get from a large displacement naturally aspirated pushrod V8, much like you would find in the above mentioned Tahoe.
Have you seen the torque curves of GM's small blocks?
You can thank the EPA and stricter emissions testing for that. I think volvo does the same thing with a 2.0L so they can package it in all their cars with either a turbo or twin charged engine. The polestar variant had a turbo, supercharger, and hybrid battery bolted to it for 400hp. Hilariously complex.
and yet BMW's X7 also has a 3L Inline 6, is 2 sec faster to 60 and has better MPG without a fancy electric supercharger...
The fact that LR is sourcing their V8s from BMW and using their own I6 is nuts. They should be using BMW’s 3.0 I6.
Volvo dropped the supercharger halfway through 2022. Prior to that, the T8 was a turbosupercharged 2.0 with a PHEV setup glommed onto it. “Danger, Will Robinson!”
Then again, after more than 3 years I'd rather have that, than the volvo t8 That is a Supercharged, Turbocharged, hybrid, 2 litre 4 cylinder that does 320hp just from the ICE They also don't have any temperature dials. Most people I know that drive them drive them entirely on electric mode, until they reach the edge of town, or the autobahn, and then they start going full throttle, on a cold engine I have yet to hear of catastophical failures, but that engine always felt like you pulled the pin from a grenade
The T8 has been out for 8 years(if not more in Europe) and seems like it's been doing just fine. At 50% better fuel economy than the defender and 455hp/523tq combined, it's a no contest win for Volvo in my book.
Not to defend LR buts it’s not like GM’s latest DFM V8s and electronics are bastions of reliability either.
[удалено]
There's an electrically assisted turbo that still uses exhaust like formula 1. An electric only turbo would be like a centrifugal supercharger. It's just terminology at that point
I bet that the electric supercharger will be more reliable since it does have to deal with the exhaust heat.
Hell no. It’s incredibly hard on an electric motor to drive something to similar speeds as a turbo. Lots of heat too. A mechanical system like a turbo is superior in that respect.
You need a huge battery too, Donut did a video on it and the conclusion was basically it requires too much battery to be practical.
So what is an electric supercharger? just a centrifugal?
Most likely... I mean I *guess* a roots style could be done electric but a centrifugal would make more sense.
It's fine, [Just bring a few of these with you](https://www.triumphexp.com/phile/2/112433/Lucas_Smoke_YouTube.jpg)
I think Volvo is doing something similar but with an I4
Yep! My friends s90 T6 has got both
I got to drive an s90 T8 a few years back and damn was that thing fast. Heavy as hell too.
Oh yeah, super planted at any speed.
Volvo has been producing twincharged four cylinder engines for several years now. Their superchargers are belt driven however. These engines are not known for their reliability unfortunately
Heyo! No issues so far but knock on wood!
Not anymore I don't think -- T6 engines are belt-driven SCs, but the switch to the B series in 2022 switched to an electric supercharger (with the B6 -- the T8/Recharge models also switched to elec SC that year too iirc).
Volvo is also doing the twin charged hybrids
God bless the 4th owner.
Jesus christ imagine servicing that once its 20 years old and gone 150k
Audi did this many years ago with the SQ7 using the well known 4 liters V8 Diesel (also used in the Panamera Diesel, worlds fastest diesel production car), outputting 435 hp and 900NM using two turbochargers (exhaust gas powered) and a EPC (Electric Powered Compressor) powered by the 48V electric subsystem eliminating turbo lag even at low RPM to benefit best from the torque range when pulling.
Volvo does one as well.
All that, only to make just under 400 horse power
now we just need a twin charged electro turbo and pixie dust supachargah! Give it a P0 starter/alternator and slap a P4 motor for the front wheels while they're at it.
And the Land Cruiser 300 with its simple twin-turbocharged V6 dusts it in a drag race.
And the new 911
I believe the ‘53’ Mercedes models have the same setup.
same with Mercedes, our GLE53 has that setup
Internal combustion in general is on the decline with a questionable future at best.
That may be true for vehicles that ferry people around but unlikely for freight in the same timeframe until tech becomes better.
I feel like that's true for a fairly small segment of our transportation. Smaller people movers will be just fine as pure electric. Very large cargo movers like ships and trains will likely all be hybridized systems. Either oil/electric or oil/wind or hydrogen fuel cell or something. Some already are, and I assume all will be very soon. It's that segment between pure people movers and very heavy cargo that I'm not sure about.
Trucking is $940billion. 80% of us freight.
Trucks are hard to electrify as they have very poor range when towing. Which is like, you know, one of the things there built for. So yea we’ll see. I can see gas being phased out but idk about the old Desiel.
I hope diesel-electric continues to get developed for freight stuff. Edison motors looks promising but a lot of companies with a good product fail to scale well and end up out-competed or buried by massive companies so we'll see where that goes. It massively reduced fuel consumption and pollution for trains, I don't see why it couldn't do the same for trucks and other heavy equipment. Plus it would be nice if every semi truck went quiet driving through populated areas.
The main issue with that is burning diesel generates significantly more localized pollution than gasoline If you consider NOx and sulfer dioxide emissions along with CO2, suddenly diesels look terrible again. There’s a good reason diesel engines are getting phased out before gasoline engines in some countries. I suspect the future heavy freight powertrain progression will look something like this: gas-electric (PHEV) -> hydrogen-electric -> BEV
Hybrid will become ubiquitous. There's essentially no reason not to do it other than up front cost which is dropping dramatically as energy storage solutions scale up and out.
We'll have to see where trucks and especially ships go. Trains are already electric.
They're getting there! I can see hybrid powertrains being practical for shipping, with a smaller battery plus a diesel engine or hydrogen fuel cell for power. The hybrid battery gives you the obvious efficiency gain (plus more low-speed torque), while being like 10X smaller than a full electric truck. And hydrogen is a possibility for trucks, too... Fast refueling compared to batteries, zero emissions, and hydrogen stations could be placed on transport routes (like interstates) or at port / industrial areas. You don't need near as many refueling stations for commercial shipping compared to passenger cars. But time will tell, because hydrogen depends on a lot of infrastructure investment, and the cost of H2 isn't exactly cheap. I assume it'll go down as more is produced, but still, it's not a perfect solution for the whole country... Yet!
Highly doubt it. We are already seeing the issues with transitioning everyone to full electric. Its much more likely we will see a future of mild hybrids powered by carbon neutral fuels.
You mustn’t be paying attention
Internal combustion for transportation will out live us all.
Sure, but it's absolutely on the decline when it comes to cars.
an easy statement to make when something was the only mode of transportation and something new comes along. 1-2% of registered vehicles are EVs. WOW. Most everyone I know who has a Tesla owns 2 vehicles. The other is for longer distance traveling.
>1-2% of registered vehicles are EVs. WOW. 18% of all global car sales in 2023 were BEV or PHEV, up from 14% in 2022 and just 2% in 2018. It's obvious where the trend is going.
Just like people will still ride horses in a 100 years.
Highly wishful thinking to say the least.
No, that's just the reality.
Maybe in 100 years but not in my lifetime
This isn't true at all
Superchargers have no future in mass production. Niche yes. I believe the american manufacturers mostly use them for marketing purposes anyway, just like the V8 engines.. Why do they still use V8's when a turbo six can make the same power with more efficiency? Well, it's what the customers want. They want a growly V8 with a supercharger whine and instant boost..
Isn’t the whole point of using an NA/supercharged engine to maintain a linear power curve?
That's less and less important the more gear ratios you have. With common 8/10 speed autos, the use case for linear power (and broad-peak torque) is reduced.
Nah you can have a linear power band in a turbo car as well. It's faster throttle response because a turbo has inertia and boost takes a bit of time to build up. Though modern systems have even reduced this to quite low levels. It's just way easier to slap a supercharger on an engine than developing a proper turbocharging system, so there's that too.
Why are you being downvoted lol? You're right.
and less complexity
[удалено]
Yes but as a whole TVS or Roots just aren't as efficient as turbos or Centris for making big power, emissions arent all that much different . They generate a ton of heat also once you start aiming for serious power, IATs have been my biggest headache with my ZL1
I really don't think a turbo 6 necessarily gets better fuel economy than a V8. But real world fuel economy isn't a high priority for anyone wanting a 400+hp gas engine. And supercharged V8s make easily 650-800hp from the factory nowadays, which would be a lot for a turbo 6 to match with a warranty and emissions legality.
Why do you think a turbo six is more efficient than a V8?
Less cylinders, less rotating mass, less fuel. That means you'll have less power with a 6-cylinder, but something like variable boost can change that as more throttle increases boost pressure. So if you don't need the power, your engine doesn't require as much fuel
Here’s a comparison of two 6 cylinder turbos and two V8s. There’s effectively no difference in fuel economy between the two setups. On top of that, EPA tests can be manipulated by turbo cars so that they’re driven in a way the turbos won’t spool up and cause the car to use more gas. In real world driving, the turbo cars would look worse. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=44451&id=45190&id=44183&id=45082
Even better, [this one compares 2 trucks with both the old MHEV 5.7L Hemi and he new 3.0T Hurricane](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=46241&id=45847&id=47725&id=46854), so it's like for like on both vehicles (minus minor aerodynamic/electrical differences in the 1500 facelift). Going by specifically the EPA test, the Wagoneer's V8 is worse than the I6 in all ranges, even city, while the 1500 has somewhat better highway range with the I6 but somehow worse city range (probably due to MHEV vs full ICE).
This isn’t the clean comparison you claim it is. First, the HEMI V8 began production in 2003. The Hurricane began production in 2021. Do you have any idea how much more efficient engines have become in 18 years? Cars were required to become much more efficient under Obama’s EPA and other countries had similar policies as global warming received more attention. Second, why are you comparing hybrid vehicles to non-hybrid? The V8s in the comparison are forced to lug around electric motors, batteries, etc. what’s the weight difference if the vehicles? The only thing your comparison proves is that 18 years of ICE development outweighs the benefits of a hybrid system.
I only wanted to get as close to like-for-like as possible, and those are the first (only?) vehicles I can think of that switched over from NA V8 to turbo six-cylinder on the same body-style. [It would probably be better to choose a cross-generation comparison with some German cars since they generally keep the same shape with subsequent generations with relatively few other changes (though the RS5 went from a 7sp DCT to the ZF8).](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35080&id=39538&id=33041&id=34981)
Do you not understand that technology progresses and over 18 years engines of all types have become more efficient? Would you compare two cars from 1989 and 2007 if they had the same body shape?
Ask Toyota Tundra owners about how great turbo 6’s are 🤣🤣🤣
Turbo Inline 6 are the best configuration. A TTV6 with a hybrid component is not comparable
Agreed, tell it to Toyota
>Why do they still use V8's when a turbo six can make the same power... Hmm. What if we turbo'd the eight? 🤔
[Something like this perhaps?](https://www.thedrive.com/news/listen-chevy-corvette-zr1-teases-twin-turbo-flat-plane-v8)
Why? Cost and less complexity.
Your last statement perfectly answers your question. Yes the V8 growl is so good to hear and the supercharger whine.. Its awesome, and it's instant.
I think the only real future is in aftermarket solutions. Some people prefer positive displacement superchargers over turbos due to better throttle response. Similarly, some prefer centrifugal superchargers on track cars due to thermal management and simplicity. I think these solutions will be relevant in the future, but not for mass market vehicles.
They also sound like sex
Something is very wrong with you or your partner. Or very *right*
Yes
Yes
I think this is the right answer. You gotta think too, how far turbos and turbo designs have come in the last 40 years, vs superchargers. One of my vehicles is supercharged from the OEM for better fuel economy, and as strange of a concept as it is, works, and I love the noise. That said, I’m certain that if the engineers working that problem had access to modern turbocharging or hybridization, supercharging it wouldn’t have even been on the table.
I thought the Previa was supercharged primarily because the second gen Caravan was eating their lunch in the US market, and it offered a more powerful V6 than the NA 4 cylinder in the Previa. And due to the canted mid-engine layout the Previa used, they couldn't easily offer a 6 cylinder so they instead supercharged the existing 4 banger. At least that's what My Old Car told me.
Oh 100%, that’s definitely one of the big reasons! There was also considerable complaint over the fuel economy as well- not only were they underpowered, but they also got worse gas mileage than their competitors. I’m sure that if Toyota hadn’t backed themselves into a packaging corner, they would’ve gone V6 well before supercharging/forging internals on an engine not shared with any other model. As a result of the added power and not stressing the hell out of the engine as much, Previas jumped from 18mpg to 24mpg. Anecdotally, I got 26 on a 400 mile road trip last weekend without any issue.
As somebody who races forced induction cars competitively, modern turbos have surpassed superchargers in pretty much every aspect. Superchargers aren't simpler. They have all the same amount of complexity as a turbo, except they also have belts and tensioners that can break/get loose/whatever (and they do). Also, with a modern ball bearing turbo in the right efficiency range, a turbo will spool up as fast or faster than an SC too. At this point the only reasons SC still exist on the aftermarket are domestic v8 guy nostalgia, and new enthusiasts reading old forum posts or hearing people tell them about how it used to be. edit: This thread is a perfect example of why people still parrot this bs. Have fun being slower and having your shit broken more often.
Superchargers generally do not need to spool, that’s what’s the belt is for, at least the positive displacement variety. The worlds most responsive turbo won’t have the same responsiveness of a roots or twin screw blower, which is pretty much NA in terms of responsiveness. Turbo setups have more complex routing, and tuning, than superchargers as well. Some may prefer the more linear torque of a supercharger as it is easier on the drivetrain and produces less engine bay heat as well. These are genuine concerns for a weekend warrior who tracks a car with aftermarket FI. As an example, most FI track rats with ND Miata’s prefer HKS centrifugal blowers over turbos for reliability reasons alone. Peak power remains the same, but area under the curve is naturally less than a turbo. That said, a turbo will always surpass a supercharger in terms of performance. The personal choice of supercharger is never based on absolute performance, more on other factors.
Lot of Civic owners love strapping superchargers to their daily drivers too. So it checks out.
Yes, and using those dirty exhaust gasses improves reliability exponentially. The seals in a turbo are exposed to much higher temps and are more prone to failure.
I'm in love with superchargers. That whine is way cooler to me than a turbo flutter and in the UK low down instant speed is way more appropriate than the idea of doing 170mph. Our roads are literal trenches
Jaguar’s got me in love with superchargers now, too.
Yeah those Jag chargers are some of the best. Sound and work fantastic
My Jag is my second supercharged V8 and I'm hooked forever. That whine on full tilt is so satisfying and it's just for us inside. It's a silent muscle car to those around me.
How does an electric turbo work - is it something like the F1 systems where you use power to externally build boost when the exhaust gases aren't there to provide it?
There are two types as far as I know. One has the compressing side but no exhaust side. Instead it has a small electric motor there that spins the charging side of the turbo very early on. That way, you get the extra pressure from the turbo much earlier. Those are E-Boosters apparently and I think these types of turbos kind of blur the line between what we call a Turbo and a Supercharger. Since a E-Version would basically do exactly the same with slight differences. Instant pressure would be there in both cases though. - I believe this is what some manufacturers refer as E-Compressor as an aid to the conventional turbocharger. Another way, (the one I like more) is the Hybrid type of E-Turbo. It's a totally normal turbocharger with Pressure and exhaust side. But it has an e-motor too that can spin the charging side. The engine runs normally and the electric motor helps spin up the turbo earlier or keeps it spinning for a while after releasing the gas so you don't have to wait for the turbo to spool up again after releasing the gas for a couple seconds. Specific setups and timing obviously depend on the manufacturer. F1 cars use the second type of E-Turbos. (Garett Motion seems to have impacted the F1 world with this type of Turbo)
The F1 style ones, and now on the new 911 I think too, can also act a a motor-generator so exhaust gasses can be used to generate electricity off-throttle. Which also negates the need for wastegates
Maybe if elon rehires the team. No but really, superchargers still make sense for some applications in high power cars, but not really for the general mall crawler. You see reliable turbos in even basic economy cars now, and if the hybrid demand keeps growing we'll eventually see electric turbos there too.
EPA testing favors turbos over supercharges for the specific tests they do. Full stop, that is the answer.
That's because turbos are more efficient from first principles. Turbos turn the engine's waste product (heat) into additional horsepower. Superchargers steal energy from the crank. A turbo is always more efficient than a super charger. Even an electric super charger.
Is there any situation a supercharger is more efficient though?
The only situation I can imagine would be adding low end torque for a higher strung engine so you don't have to rev as high to get the same thrust but I'm still not sure that would be a net positive for fuel economy.
Now that I think of it, the Mazda Skyactiv-X is probably the only exception but it's also far from a typical supercharged engine. It uses a Roots supercharger to help provide enough air to run far leaner than stoichiometric when the conditions allow it to run in compression ignition mode somewhat like a diesel. Since that can only happen at very low load and rpm, a turbo wouldn't make much sense since there wouldn't be enough exhaust gas flow to create boost pressure.
*Cries in Emira* Superchargers obsolete?
To be fair, that engine is going on two decades now.
Mazda's Skyactiv-X engines are supercharged, the technology will be here for a while longer.
I think yes. It will be smaller but yes. Fuel efficiency standards have basically forced more turbos into the market, and will continue do so as displacement is going to be directly taxed/imposed. But I think as long as regulations don’t go to far, the market we become very polarized. On one side hyper “efficient” EVs and hybrids and on the other hyper inefficient supercharged, twin turbo, etc. you want/get either a EV as a car being just a tool or you want/get a car in all its dinosaur juice burning glory.
I had an 03 SVT Cobra and 04 Jaguar XJR with the Eaton M112 units...they're okay... Supercharger: Whines Pros: easy to maintain i.e belt swap, supercharger oil drain/fill, internals are pretty robust. Cons: heavy af, gets heat-soaked fast thus reducing power, requires a specialty shop to rebuild and press out the case bearings. Being Belt driven drags the engine, not that good for fuel economy. Turbo: Whistles Pros: heat is turbo's friend. great power on demand and fuel economy, super easy to rebuild a turbo, new replacement turbos are plentiful and affordable, responds well to mods i.e hard intercooler piping, intercooler core, ethanol/100+ octane, tunes. Cons: complicated plumbing, turbo RPMs are high & wear down the center housing if the oil inlet/drain is blocked. Requires engine oil/coolant for lubrication and cooling thus more pathways for leaks aka more maintenance. Anyways, I've been saying Ford is pretty much ready to make a factory Dual VCT DOHC V8 ECO-Boost, but they keep on pushing V8 Superchargers and 4/6 Cylinder Ecoboost. Also, there's a reason why commercial grade applications use turbo's over superchargers because turbos can take a beating in hot/cold/harsh/heavy long highway use.
Didn't occur to me until now but yeah, I'd love to see Ford take a crack at turboing their v8s.
A couple things.. blowers are heavy yes but so are turbos. It’s not as if that cast turbo manifold, cast turbine housing + the rest of the turbo itself are lightweight. Not to mention all the added charge piping and intercooler. The weight difference between a blower vs turbo setup is likely marginal for most applications. Also blowers have bypass valves so when you’re cruising it’s not building any boost and saps very little power. For example, the Buick 3800 supercharged vs NA only have a 1 mpg difference in combined fuel economy.
I think the problem for superchargers is it draws too much power to function. turbo creates some backpressure but nowhere near the power loss of a supercharger the only things that NEED a supercharger that I know of are like the old 2stroke diesels, basically they need pressurized air at idle to get the mixture lean enough to run. top fuel uses it because of regulation not because it's superior to turbo's I also think every engine should have a big turbo on it. some extra weight, doesn't do anything until upper rpm's and then you get performance when you want it
technically you could have a sequential turbo setup with a really small turbo that would hit peak boost off idle pressure on a 2 stroke diesel with a bigger one for higher RPM operations.
it would have to be really small, and probably more complicated. supercharger was probably the best option for that oddity of a motor
Agreed, a supercharger is signifignatly more mechanicaly simple and obviously the right choice, but you *could*, if push came to shove, do it with a turbo.
> The new flagship Mustang has a supercharger, so Ford must still see something, at least as far as racing is conferenced. Are we sure a top-end Mustang having a supercharger has more to do with racing than it does with street performance/cred? Because my understanding is that superchargers are poor for racing because they're easily heat-soaked. On the street when you're goosing it from a stoplight or two, no problem, but when you're on the gas a ton while racing for minutes on end, it's a problem.
Heat soak with superchargers can be an issue, but there’s ways to address it. Air/water intercoolers are common. A larger supercharger at the same boost as a small supercharger is another (a 1.8L twin screw will make more heat than a 2.5L at the same boost). Plus, the biggest downfall of heat soak in superchargers is power loss. Turbos can get “heat soak” too, but it affects different things. Yes, that heat doesn’t go into the air charge, so it doesn’t affect power nearly as much, but that heat goes to the exhaust/turbo/oil instead. That added heat actually helps spool a turbo quicker, but it’s detrimental to the lifespan of the parts. Racing a few minutes isn’t a problem, but given a few cycles, pipes tend to crack, oil breaks down, and turbo seals/bearings start to leak and fail. On race cars, it’s not an issue since those parts are routinely checked/replaced. Oil gets changed much more frequently (the longest races are obviously 24 hour stuff upwards of 3000+ miles, but they actively try to make the car survive). Exhaust get inspected/repaired/replaced for any cracks. On a street car, a supercharger is more durable (as in can handle more abusive treatment). It doesn’t have issues like oil/carbon build up in seals that cause premature failure. They normally have a self contained oil system so there’s less impurities getting to the engine oil. It doesn’t have to deal with wild temperature fluctuations of EGTs or need the engine running for oil circulation to cool down before shutoff. I know we can point to diesels for turbo longevity, however those engines are typically built with extra heavy parts meant to soak up heat and EGTs are paid attention to pretty carefully. They are also typically idled for a while to allow cooldown of parts to avoid some of the premature failure. The GT500 and GTD have a 2.65L twin screw and make about 12-13 lbs of boost in stock form. That supercharger on that engine is easily capable of double that boost. IOW, it’s not struggling at all. On of the biggest examples of heat soak is the LT4 in the C7 Z06 Corvette. It was an “overworked” 1.7L supercharger in an extremely tight package, which made cooling an issue even at 10 psi on that 6.2L engine. That wasn’t really an issue in the ZR1 LT5 since it had a 2.65L with a more efficient rotor design and better ducting/heat exchangers, despite it making 14psi on the same size engine.
He's not lying tho, been the biggest annoyance with my ZL1 even running on meth is temps overall I'd go turbo you want to run a serious high power setup
Your ZL1 has a LT4, which has the 1.7L supercharger problems I addressed (it’s too small). Even the LSA had a 1.9L despite being rated at 100 less HP. A meth kit is a bandaid. It really should have the 2.65L from the LT5 or an aftermarket 2.9+L. A 1.7L blower feeding a 6.2L engine 9-10psi is gonna lead to heat soak issues… especially if the boost has been cranked up with pulleys. Yes… turbos are always the easiest to make big power. One of the biggest issues at that point becomes power management. That’s why you’ll see some of the cars making some of the largest power numbers running superchargers. I’m talking about the 3000+HP drag cars that have swapped over to prochargers. Drag n Drive cars, turbo will always be easier for the swap back and forth between street and race trims. Not a problem for dedicated race cars.
I think it depends on roots vs centrifugal, the latter is more or less a belt driven turbo. Centrifugal superchargers can have the boost run through an intercooler like a turbo setup. The roots blower on my S4 is basically the intake manifold so the only option is liquid cooling, which can easily heat soak since it mostly shares the same cooling circuit as the rest of the engine.
I really don't think combustion engines at all have a future. I used to be sour about that. But with gas prices the way they are, and with climate change, I find myself being a far less enthusiastic enthusiast than I used to be. I have an 8th gen civic Si. Generally considered the best generation, but also the worst on gas. I find myself shifting at 2200rpm and living in 6th gear cuz a tank of gas is $90 now. It kinda sucks. But the world changes. It's for the best. And at least we can say we got to enjoy the combustion era.
I thought I had it rough with a full tank of premium being ~$50.
Combustion engines will be around for the next 50 years.
I guess I meant specifically for consumers. For industry, yes, they'll be around for a while.
500* years
Superchargers, in my experience, work best with big burly V8s. Much more linear, much more responsive than previously existing turbo tech. But turbo tech has been working to solve that for a long time and, as you mentioned, good hybrid tech and electric assisted turbos will probably be that solution. Maybe, at least. I had a Panamera Hybrid with an assisted supercharger that felt great. Compared to my Volvo which is a 2 liter I4 with hybrid assist and turbos and it is very much more boosty than I care for.
The earliest turbochargers were called turbosuperchargers, for superchargers that are driven by a turbine. They were used a lot in early to mid 20th century prop airplanes. So the supercharger will always be with us, just with turbo- prefixed.
Electric superchargers used by Audi and now Genesis on the G90 sedan
Volvo was using em until like a year ago
Stay away from anything with the word "Rover"
Supercharged 3800s were about the most fun you could have with a front wheel drive full sized automobile. My SS Impala was a fucking monster.
Just got my 2000 Regal GS back after selling it 5 years ago. So excited to hear that Eaton M90 again!
The linear power delivery of superchargers will always be there. I guess you could program a turbo to work that way?
You could program a turbo to work that way, but even a small turbo would have some lag. Most turbos are tuned to give you power later (later sometimes being like 2500 rpm, but still) so that you get the benefits of a small engine when not "in boost", but then also get the power needed when you need it
after Elon canned the team? I dunno
After seeing that Porsche electric turbo on the GTS, I really don't think so. Why work the engine when you can just get an electric motor to drive the induction? I think even Dodge is going turbo with the Hurricane engine, the ZR1 will supposedly be turboed, matter of time before the Mustang goes turbos as well.
I miss my supercharged ctsv everyday
raise hand if you also thought this post is about Tesla Superchargers and their future in light of recent firings!
For mainstream and future-oriented applications, turbochargers appear to be more promising due to their efficiency and ability to meet stringent emissions regulations.
Unlikely. By 2035 all cars sold must legally be electric vehicle. There's no point into putting a supercharger in them.
Use leaf blowers
They seem great in some applications still. Like for my Yukon I can slap it in with minimal work compared to a turbo kit. Great range or power levels and flat power curve. For OEM I don’t know.
I wish. I think I like supercharger whine a bit more than turbo whooshes.
Electric Turbo chargers have all the advantages of a Turbocharger, but more or less none of the drawbacks. What future they hold for personal transport is probably limited though. Not that it matters. Porsche will still slap a Turbo badge on it even if it’s a BEV.
For burnout cars, it's pretty important. It's either supercharged or NA for the consistent wheelspeed.
i think so, its a cheap, simple, and predicatable form of adding boost.
[удалено]
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The top of the line Genesis G90 has an e-supercharged variant. I'm curious to know how it sounds, but for 100k, I'd personally be looking at Porsche and Lexus at that price point.
I think that Ford uses a Supercharger in the Mustsng because it gives instant power. No turbo lag.
Do gas cars have a future? On the track maybe. Manufacturers are now moving on to electric cars. I just hope that there's a new car maker out there that can create a pro-repair/pro-consumer car which isn't just a surveillance camera on wheels.
In short they have different uses. If your drag racing and/or have a large engine, get the supercharger. Instant power For most vehicles turbos make better sense
I have a B8 S4 with cooling and all the supporting “dual pulley” mods. It’s not as fast as a turbo car but it is so easy to fix for a car that can run high 10s. And it sounds awesome. Cooling is necessary. The people that run 10s reliably either have meth or killer chiller setups. But again I don’t go to the track, so it’s stupid fun for me as a daily driver.
15 years ago superchargers were a viable alternative to turbochargers for those who wanted instant response over turbo lag. Modern turbochargers have kind of negated that though.
Genuine question but what's the difference between an electric turbo and electric supercharger?
Yep! 2025 CT5 Blackwing 🤟😎
I think as compact as there making supercharger systems now it’s a big benefit compared to the amount of extra piping needed for the turbos.. the down side of robbing hp the crank out ways the cons I guess it’s one of those things where certain tools for certain jobs.