why are v8 are generally supercharged and not turbocharged?

[American Psycho]

twin turbo 1993 camaro 383

http://www.augsburg.edu/ppages/~chial/index.htm


937hp

[Haakon]

daaaaaammmmmmmmnnnnn

[Blackmilk]

SC was created in the beginning of 1900....
TC was really used by Renault in F1 in 1979
Before turbo wasn't used


Renault F1 turbo

[Haakon]

yeah,renault aint doing so bad in f1(but schumi should have been kicked out)

[Blackmilk]

Originally Posted by 88modell

yeah,renault aint doing so bad in f1(but schumi should have been kicked out)

Don't hijack this thread plz
It's very interesting
For your information, i believe Renault stopped F1 before Schumi became to be the boss

[Jonnychadootz]

Originally Posted by CRISTIAN

The reason V8's are usually supercharged is because with a supercharger which is belt driven it is easier for an 8 cylinder to make the most of it. In a 4 cylinder motor the motor is really only setup for whatever belt driven accessories that are on it already, sometimes not even that. Adding another belt driven accessory to a 4 cylinder motor is alomst doing it a disservice. A turbo runs on exhaust gasses which is easier for a 4 cylinder to utilize since its just using the waste of the car to run something that makes more power. It usually takes a twin turbo setup on V8's to get the same HP gains as a supercharger setup. Notice I say usually, this is not always the case though.

[vette_7t9]

yes, thats for true. the V8 can drive a super way more efficiently than a 4 banger. But turbo on a V8 would also reap BIG gains. i mean, the exhaust being pushed out of these engines is amazing. Ever see those TT mustangs, camaros, and vettes? Insane, upwards of 900-1000hp on rebuilt blocks and aftermarket internals. BUT, supercharger is the way to go. the power and torque is there when you want it. No waiting for spool up, BANG right on the throttle.

[JohnnyWash1]

Originally Posted by Jonnychadootz

The reason V8's are usually supercharged is because with a supercharger which is belt driven it is easier for an 8 cylinder to make the most of it. In a 4 cylinder motor the motor is really only setup for whatever belt driven accessories that are on it already, sometimes not even that. Adding another belt driven accessory to a 4 cylinder motor is alomst doing it a disservice. A turbo runs on exhaust gasses which is easier for a 4 cylinder to utilize since its just using the waste of the car to run something that makes more power. It usually takes a twin turbo setup on V8's to get the same HP gains as a supercharger setup. Notice I say usually, this is not always the case though.

No no no. It runs off the crank, and therefore will get more rotations out of a higher-winding 4 cylinder. A turbo will always be more efficient than a super, V8 or not, and the reason supers are used is because they are cheaper and work very well. Turbos are starting to get popular because we are reaching the limits of a supercharged setup.

[///AMG]

Originally Posted by JohnnyWash1

No no no. It runs off the crank, and therefore will get more rotations out of a higher-winding 4 cylinder. A turbo will always be more efficient than a super, V8 or not, and the reason supers are used is because they are cheaper and work very well. Turbos are starting to get popular because we are reaching the limits of a supercharged setup.

Like what, 7000HP like a top-fuel dragster? lol

[JohnnyWash1]

Originally Posted by ///AMG

Like what, 7000HP like a top-fuel dragster? lol

I'm assuming you are referring to the supercharger limits? Well, point out the practicality involved in a 7000hp top fuel dragster and I will concede. Otherwise, this discussion is for street vehicles, where supercharger efficiency and limits are paving the way for turbo popularity.


Jon

[NoHook]

TT doesn't always give you more power. I saw a TT F-Body dyno at 495 to the wheels and that sucks IMO for and force induction V8.

[American Psycho]

There is no right answer, Turbo vs Super


to each thier own

[///AMG]

Originally Posted by JohnnyWash1

I'm assuming you are referring to the supercharger limits? Well, point out the practicality involved in a 7000hp top fuel dragster and I will concede. Otherwise, this discussion is for street vehicles, where supercharger efficiency and limits are paving the way for turbo popularity.


Jon

Uh-huh...

[JohnnyWash1]

Originally Posted by NoHook

TT doesn't always give you more power. I saw a TT F-Body dyno at 495 to the wheels and that sucks IMO for and force induction V8.

Do you understand why you are wrong? Turbos have better efficiency because they are exhaust driven, not belt driven. They will always be more powerful.


Jon

[Jonnychadootz]

Originally Posted by NoHook

TT doesn't always give you more power. I saw a TT F-Body dyno at 495 to the wheels and that sucks IMO for and force induction V8.

Have you ever driven a street car that has 500 hp to the wheels? It would snap you back in the seat. There are cars with less HP that can snap you back. To answer your statement, from what i've seen it's about how the car is setup, boost,fuel,timing etc. Maybe the car that you saw dyno was on there for a reason, tuning . Also, who knows what that motor had in it. You run to much boost on stock parts.... well every1 knows what happens then. Still I think 500 hp is more than enough even considering the cars weight. For a street setup that's enough HP if you know how to use it