Go Back   Team-BHP > Under the Hood > Technical Stuff


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25th September 2005, 19:19   #16
Senior - BHPian
 
v1p3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: BLR - chasing cars...
Posts: 4,836
Thanked: 26 Times
Default

Was under the impression the the Indigo unit was an IHI. Sorry...
v1p3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2005, 22:23   #17
Senior - BHPian
 
BUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bombay
Posts: 5,130
Thanked: 10 Times
Default

Hey,

which is more fuel efficient Turbo or Super!

WHere do you get a supercharger! How do you make one!

Like turbos are T25Garrets what is supercharger!
BUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2005, 11:30   #18
BHPian
 
turbo_v12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thane
Posts: 457
Thanked: Once
Default

The KKK, T25 Garrett and IHI turbocharges used in India are not in comparison with the ones used outside...am I correct? I also presume that Indian cars' chassis will not be able to take much of real supercharger or turbocharger pressure...they need the soft ones, that produce something like 8-9 psi to the max...Am I correct?
turbo_v12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2005, 17:57   #19
DRC
BHPian
 
DRC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cockpit
Posts: 907
Thanked: 42 Times
Default

certainly the turbos must use some power to produce some.. Can you elighten how much of a power does a turbo use..

I was actually planning to put in an electrical turbo fan just to experiment.. So I can have more control.

(did some one tried this on a Gipsy if I am not wrong)
DRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2005, 19:49   #20
Senior - BHPian
 
veyron1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 1,426
Thanked: 37 Times
Default

Quote:
which is more fuel efficient Turbo or Super!
that would have to be the turbo, since it uses waste energy (exhaust) to produce more power... but in terms of engine efficiency, the supercharger is much better- the turbo produces a increase in output in the region of 40 % (variable) whereas a superchager can boost the power by more than 50%...therefore, a supercharged engine will produce more power, but will have lesser fuel efficiency; whereas a turbo will give you the best of both worlds....

p.s- a turbocharger is a type or variant of supercharger....
veyron1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2005, 21:22   #21
Senior - BHPian
 
ananthkamath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,194
Thanked: 46 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veyron1
therefore, a supercharged engine will produce more power, but will have lesser fuel efficiency; whereas a turbo will give you the best of both worlds....
Not necessarily....You may be right about the fuel efficiency part but turbos can equal or exceed the net power increase from a supercharger.

It is a fact that the superchargers used on Top Fuel dragsters consume more power than can be produced by a stock version of the same V8 engine (i.e. about 350 bhp). But then, the power that they make (>7000 bhp) is as much a function of the fuel they use as the engine itself.

So, the upper limit on power increase in a supercharger is dictated by the power consumption of the charger itself. Whereas in a turbo the upper limit is dictated by max. attainable gas flow at a given velocity.
ananthkamath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2005, 19:49   #22
Senior - BHPian
 
veyron1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 1,426
Thanked: 37 Times
Default

Quote:
Not necessarily....You may be right about the fuel efficiency part but turbos can equal or exceed the net power increase from a supercharger.
i did say that the power enhancement was variable; but you see, the net efficacy of the turbo for road cars are lesser than superchargers, since turbos provide maximum boost at peak throttle (wherein the turbines are spinning at around 250,000 r.p.m+); at low revs, gassing the engine causes turbo-lag and wastage of fuel. superchargers provide their boost as per the engine speed, as they run on the crank pulley, hence eliminating the lag- thereby being more efficient under normal use....

but yes, for maximum top-end power, turbos provide more thrust as compared to superchargers...which means for more torque, mid-range and bottom-end power, superchargers are great- but if horsepower is the need of the moment, then it's the turbo- that is because under max. revs, the engine doesn't have to exert as much force to produce maximum boost in a turbo, unlike a supercharger, where higher revs would mean stronger torque required to rotate the blades....

Last edited by veyron1 : 30th September 2005 at 19:51.
veyron1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2005, 20:25   #23
Senior - BHPian
 
Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,042
Thanked: 95 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veyron1
i did but you see, the net efficacy of the turbo for road cars are lesser than superchargers, since turbos provide maximum boost at peak throttle (wherein the turbines are spinning at around 250,000 r.p.m+); at low revs
Well here goes you just contradicted yourself.

The energy lost on back pressure is way lower compared to the losses trying to turn the supercharger with the crank. hence a well tuned turbo car even with a bit of a lag will leave an equivalent supercharged car behind.
Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2005, 23:48   #24
Senior - BHPian
 
veyron1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 1,426
Thanked: 37 Times
Default

Quote:
Well here goes you just contradicted yourself.
i'm sorry for the confusion there, but what i meant to say was that in stock form, supercharged engines would produce more power (both bhp and torque).

as an example, both the skoda RS and the C200K have near equal capacity engines; the RS has a turbocharged engine, that produces 150 bhp and 21.4 kgm of torque. the C200K, with a supercharged engine, produces 158 bhp and 22.5 kgm of torque. (both have engine displacements of 1796 cc and 1781 cc, for the C200 and the RS respectively; it's a different thing that the RS has 5 valves per cylinder and the C200 has 4. i'm not quoting their performance stats, because one is a RWD and the other is a FWD).
veyron1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2005, 10:08   #25
Senior - BHPian
 
ananthkamath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,194
Thanked: 46 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veyron1
as an example, both the skoda RS and the C200K have near equal capacity engines; the RS has a turbocharged engine, that produces 150 bhp and 21.4 kgm of torque. the C200K, with a supercharged engine, produces 158 bhp and 22.5 kgm of torque. (both have engine displacements of 1796 cc and 1781 cc, for the C200 and the RS respectively; it's a different thing that the RS has 5 valves per cylinder and the C200 has 4. i'm not quoting their performance stats, because one is a RWD and the other is a FWD).

You obviously have a lot to learn. You are comparing two totally different engines with different valve arrangements from a simplistic viewpoint of displacement. You are not even considering boost, or intercooling or anything else. You are drawing a generic conclusion based on a 5% power difference which is nothing in the scheme of things, considering the fact that even 2 psi of extra boost on one engine could exceed that difference.
ananthkamath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2005, 12:00   #26
Senior - BHPian
 
veyron1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 1,426
Thanked: 37 Times
Default

Quote:
You obviously have a lot to learn. You are comparing two totally different engines with different valve arrangements from a simplistic viewpoint of displacement. You are not even considering boost, or intercooling or anything else. You are drawing a generic conclusion based on a 5% power difference which is nothing in the scheme of things, considering the fact that even 2 psi of extra boost on one engine could exceed that difference.
agreed, i have a long way to go- but then, don't we all..??? i quoted these powerplants as a mere example of road going cars, since these are the only two camparable powerplants available in india, in terms of capacity or otherwise, that are supercharged and turbocharged. and yes, i'm aware of the difference that boost can make in the power figures. for example, if the boost of the RS, that currently stands at 1.5 bar, was to be boosted to 1.8 bar (21.75 psi to 26.1054), the output goes upto 210 bhp+, with slightly modified ECM mapping(and reinforced internals- without any other modifications to the head, like porting or tensile valve springs, etc.)... and as for the 5 valve arrangement of the RS, although it does make a lot of difference in the head layout and gas flow characteristics from the engineering point of view, the arrangement is not that drastically advanced in terms of real-world power/torque characteristics.

all i was saying was this- the superchager benefits from superior boost at low and mid-range revs, whereas the turbo benefits from better boost characteristics at high revs.
veyron1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2005, 13:58   #27
Senior - BHPian
 
ananthkamath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,194
Thanked: 46 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veyron1
all i was saying was this- the superchager benefits from superior boost at low and mid-range revs, whereas the turbo benefits from better boost characteristics at high revs.

Then why don't you say it plainly. One time you quote peak power and torque figures, and in the very next post you contradict yourself once again...Can you explain that?
ananthkamath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2005, 19:00   #28
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: MUMBAI
Posts: 7
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

has anyone tried turbo-charging the esteem or the baleno? can it be done?
deathrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2005, 22:00   #29
Senior - BHPian
 
Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,042
Thanked: 95 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deathrow
has anyone tried turbo-charging the esteem or the baleno? can it be done?
2 Turbo carb esteems in Bangalore one been tested till 20 psi and the other runs regularly @10PSI

It can be done.
Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2005, 23:00   #30
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kalyani, West Bengal
Posts: 444
Thanked: 6 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Machine
Even the earlier Tata Sierra`s had KKK turbos.But KKK lacks reliability.

X

KKK invented turbo charging in the 30s and are among the most reliable turbos out there, point is their high price as compared to Tata subsidiary Holset, therefore they decided to use them.

All MB's fitted with KKK last as long as the engine of the car whereas few batches that came with Garret developed early turbo failures. Warner ISHI and KKK are among the top notch brands for turbo.
Gurkha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On Demand Supercharging - For Mpfi Esteem Harrie Technical Stuff 38 16th October 2009 11:16
Indica Turbo vs Non Turbo lbhavani Technical Stuff 0 5th September 2006 22:22
New Indica Turbo - is the turbo on? gakudva Technical Stuff 5 15th July 2006 23:00
supercharging pulsar carazy Motorbikes 4 22nd June 2006 19:36
Supercharging topend_hooligan Technical Stuff 0 18th February 2005 13:08


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 14:38.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks