Superchargers or normally aspirated ?

[Matt32AMG]

Just curious about people’s opinions regarding the power under their right foot.

With the change in direction in engine design these last years, now no longer with forced induction, do you prefer the fireworks of a supercharged engine, or the larger capacity, normally aspirated progressive power plants. Obviously there are arguments both ways however I’m talking about how it makes you feel as a driving experience. BTW I not meaning to discriminate here on this, but it may be more directed or relevant to the AMG car drivers or drivers who have experienced both types.

 

[chiefski26]

just sold c63....awesome car......normal aspiration for me

 

[momomo]

just sold c63....awesome car......normal aspiration for me

But chiefski26 have you been behind the wheel of a 55K?

On the other hand ive not tried the 63 yet!

 

[Bellow]

With the change in direction in engine design these last years, now no longer with forced induction,

Excuse me, but I think you will find that in concert with downsizing, forced induction is the future..

That doesn't however, stop you posing the 'driveability' question!!

 

[Gridlock]

V8 for the daily slog, supercharged VR6 for the weekend back-road exploration

Supercharged V8 for... my next car

 

[kwakdonut]

Think I am inclined to agree with Bellow on this - it certainly seems that more and more cars are now fitted with either turbo or super-chargers as standard!

I used to love the kick-in-the-pants Celica I had years ago, my first turbo car btw. Since then I've had diesels which you just wouldn't drive without a turbo! (Drove an old Escort diesel years ago, no turbo, dreadfully slow to the nth degree lol)

Even the turbo on my 6 cyl 320 really makes it a warp drive machine (even if it is on the way out!!)

So for my vote, I love forced induction!! (automotively speaking thank you!) lol

 

[NormanC]

First of all, I've never driven a supercharged car but have lots of experience with turbocharger fitted cars as well as naturally aspirated.

With diesels, I believe that forced induction is an absolute necessity because they are so gutless without. I also have a lingering memory of certain lorry diesels from years ago not being able to run without a supercharger (Commer TS3??) but could be wrong.

I regularly swop between a 2 litre turbocharged car with 239bhp (Celica GT4) and a 3.2 litre naturally aspirated car with 218bhp (CLK320).

For performance there is no question that the turbo is by far better for outright performance but it needs much more driving. You have to use much more anticipation as being caught a 3000 rpm in top gear when you need to accelerate is not fun. However, when the turbo gets up to 1 bar of boost it's fantastic.

So, for petrol engines, I believe that a naturally aspirated engine gives a more relaxed drive but a turbo can be much more fun if you give it the attention that driving it needs.

 

[harry_dhuga]

Have had modified turbo car's in the past - Escort and Sierra RS & a Saab 9-5 Aero HOT and now drive a N/A V8.

Love them all - as long as they bring a grin on my face when I accelerate.

 

[chiefski26]

yes owned a sl55 amg few years ago was nice but prefer 63

 

[Bellow]

Diesels need turbos both to produce decent output and to improve efficiency.
The Commer used a roots blower as a source of scavenge air as it was a 2-stroke. Back then forced induction for road going Diesel had yet to gain popularity.

 

[harry_dhuga]

yes owned a sl55 amg few years ago was nice but prefer 63

So would I...!!!

 

[Gridlock]

Turbocharging isn't the same though - no lag, no sudden dump of power at a given rev point with a supercharger.

With a turbo my Golf would be.. interesting. With a supercharger it's just plain fast.

 

[harry_dhuga]

Turbocharging isn't the same though - no lag, no sudden dump of power at a given rev point with a supercharger.

With a turbo my Golf would be.. interesting. With a supercharger it's just plain fast.

If you have a modified turbo which spools quickly it reduces the lag drastically(from experience) so not too different really.

Would like to try a V8 Kompressor though as a real comparison.

 

[Maff]

Assuming you are talking about driving dynamics, then it always used to be better to have an NA engine for the pure linear curves they produced, which meant a cleaner driving style and that fact you knew what you were getting at any rev point.

Supercharging is now a pretty much old technology, as turbo's have moved on so much and are much more efficient than supercharging (plus supercharging was really a substitute to get round turbo lag in smaller engines where it was more noticeable)

However, with the new modern variable turbo's this is not really an issue, as the days of turbo lag are almost if not completely, no existent now.

Whether we like it no not with the new 2015 EU emission standards petrol turbo's will start to become the de-facto now for all new performance cars, AMG have announced the new 5.5 turbo, the new '500' engine is now also turbo (see news section), and BMW are both turbo in the 'normal' and performance 'M' versions. Even McLaren with their new car.

There will be a few die hard marques who will resist turbo pressure, such as Ferrari, but then their NA V12 engine is rather special
Just MHO of course

 

[Iain]

Am I correct in saying that the smaller Audi/VW engines use both technologies.
Turbo and supercharger.
Or am I dreaming?

 

[harry_dhuga]

Am I correct in saying that the smaller Audi/VW engines use both technologies.
Turbo and supercharger.
Or am I dreaming?

It will be supercharged OR turbocharged I believe - not both.

 

[Matt32AMG]

Some interesting answers here, and perhaps leads me to think I need to reword the question.

AMG cars up until the early to mid part of the (noughties?), it seemed superchargers were the way forward. This mindset changed for whatever reasons mid decade where we have seen the ever evolving naturally aspirated V8s output more and more power since moving away from supercharger technology with V12 cars dropped altogether. So, is that a better solution? Is it a paradox to one of the green reason for dropping the superchargers by the never ending effort to compensate for the loss of out and out performance sparkle achieved in previous models fitted with SCs, by increasing engine sizes and HP.
For example having driven both versions of SLKAMG and despite the V8 being more refined and progressive, with better road poise and handling, the fun factor is in the hysterical yet unruly SC V6 and thus wins the day for me. Similarly then, what is better in the 63 powered car than say a 55Sc car and why

 

[NormanC]

It will be supercharged OR turbocharged I believe - not both.

Certainly Lancia used a combination of both supercharger and turbocharger. The supercharger for low speed boost with the turbo covering the top end.

 

[harry_dhuga]

Certainly Lancia used a combination of both supercharger and turbocharger. The supercharger for low speed boost with the turbo covering the top end.

Fair play - pretty rare though I reckon to see both a turbo and s/c on the same car from factory.

 

[wemorgan]

Am I correct in saying that the smaller Audi/VW engines use both technologies.
Turbo and supercharger.
Or am I dreaming?

No you're not dreaming they do have both. IIRC the supercharger has a clutch so it disengages at higher rpm.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Volkswagen-Golf-1.4-TSI-160-GT/236806/
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=41626

"The VW Golf 1.4 TSI GT gets the 158bhp version of the 1.4-litre TSI engine. This is a tiny 16-valve petrol turbo unit with continuously variable inlet valve timing. Its headline feature is a crank-driven supercharger, which is on hand to augment the more usual turbocharger when extra torque is needed."