Turbo V.S. SUper charge

[paintball9908 10+ year member]

I have recently found my self fasenated with super charges and turbo charges. As I was thinking, the idea came to my head why could'nt you have both, a turbo charge and super charge on the same engine. Has anyone herd of this, I never herd of it, but was wandering if it worked.

Click to read more...

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

Yes, it has been done before. Back in teh *0's, rally cars had a whole different class, called the Group B, or fondly known as "monsters". Having about 500BHP easy on gravel, it was like driving pike peak tuned rally cars on normal SS road conditions.

The Group B Lacia Integrale had both a super charger AND a turbo charger. The main reason is simple: As the turbo was building pressure, (the dreaded turbo lag, no anti lag systems back in those days) the supercharger pushed the engine till about 3,500rpm, and cut off just when the turbo spooled up. It was light years ahead furing its time and is still a marvel to see real life in motorsport museums.

 

[awalbert88 10+ year member]

These days, however, there is no practical reason to have both. Supercharger technology has advanced quite a bit and with the advent of the twin-screw Lyscholm design, you can get serious torque at low rpm's and crazy horsepower up top as well (ex. 03 Ford Mustang Cobra w/ Kenne Bell blower, or the new Ford GT). Turbo's still rule for ultimate horsepower production, but the bigger the turbo, the greater the lag. Small displacement engines typically use turbos as they won't suffer the parasitic loss in power that comes from a supercharger.