Turbo v Supercharger - Bob H
Since the introduction of turbocharging there have been a number of attempts to re-introduce supercharging - the Mercedes Kompressor 4 cyl the latest I am aware of.

The argument, as I understand it, is that the the power consumed by a supercharger offsets its advantage in drivability over the exaust gas driven turbo.

I havn't driven the Merc but it doesn't exactly get rave reports in the motoring press. On the other hand Mercedes don't often get it wrong.

Any opinions on this?

Bob H
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - Honest John
Try a Jaguar XJR or XKR. Goes like stink, and you get the whine of the Eaton supercharger. I agree that the supercharged 4 cylinder Mercs are no great shakes, mainly because the engine they have supercharged is boomy and devoid of any character. The only SLK worth having is the 3.2 V6 six-speed.

HJ
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - Pete
Slightly off thread but Merc do get things wrong! The A class fell over a bit and their manual gear boxes are a graunch clunky disaster!
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - Tomo
It partly depends where you live. Power loss at higher altitudes is partly offset by the increased efficacy of the turbine due to reduced back pressure.

The old bogey of turbo lag has been largely laid, and with a sequential twin turbo setup there is hardly any.
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - Andy P
Try the supercharged DB7......



Andy
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - Andy P
Try the supercharged DB7....or the twin-supercharged Vantage....



Andy
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - Piers
Lancia did both on the same engine - Supercharging for low revs and turbocharging for high revs. (For pedants.. Actually they are both supercharging - turbocharging is supercharging using a turbine to supply the pumping energy.)

Mechanical driven Supercharging has a better marketing 'image' for high end / prestige cars. Turbos have a bad / naff image from the 80's where cars equiped with one had to proclaim it with letters a foot high down the side (and loads of smoke from wheelspin when the boost pressure had built up...). Supercharging is associated with blower Bentleys etc and TURBO with a shopping car covered in GRP and graphics, with plenty of torque steer and a driver whose name is handily written on the top of the windscreen so you can be more prescise with the abuse you hurl at him as he smokes away from a pedestrian crossing....

Piers
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - John Kenyon
Piers wrote:
>

>
> Mechanical driven Supercharging has a better marketing
> 'image' for high end / prestige cars. Turbos have a bad /
> naff image from the 80's where cars equiped with one had to
> proclaim it with letters a foot high down the side (and loads
> of smoke from wheelspin when the boost pressure had built
> up...). Supercharging is associated with blower Bentleys etc
> and TURBO with a shopping car covered in GRP and graphics,
> with plenty of torque steer and a driver whose name is
> handily written on the top of the windscreen so you can be
> more prescise with the abuse you hurl at him as he smokes
> away from a pedestrian crossing....

My understanding was that we are more likely to see a return to
2 valve per cylinder petrol engines with a turbo in order to meet forthcoming
emissions regulations.

Don't ask me exactly where I heard this!

/john
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - David W
Blimey Piers I'm just about to lift the Xantia TD off the launch pad, must tell it what is expected of a "turbo". School queue beware, I'm rolling!

;-o

David
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - Brill
Watch those slippers don't slip on the accelerator pedal DW.
Re: Turbo v Supercharger - Brian
So THAT's why they are called "slippers" !
 

Ask Honest John Right column

Value my car