Thought that they'd swapped to turbos now.
I'm sure my C250CGI is a turbo and not a supercharger.
I'm sure my C250CGI is a turbo and not a supercharger.
renault12ts
MB Club Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 16,674
- Car
- 2005 W215 CL500.
Superchargers are crank driven...maybe it's to do with diesels being lower revving?
MarkACLS
Active Member
Drive train losses. Turbo charging is slightly more efficient.
Supercharging was used because the response time was better, less lag which was more noticeable in a petrol car versus a diesel due to the torque gap at low revs. Now with ball bearing turbos, variable vane, sequential turbocharging and electrical assistance, lag is almost gone - so now turbo charging is being used much more than before.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Supercharging was used because the response time was better, less lag which was more noticeable in a petrol car versus a diesel due to the torque gap at low revs. Now with ball bearing turbos, variable vane, sequential turbocharging and electrical assistance, lag is almost gone - so now turbo charging is being used much more than before.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 37751
Guest
I asked the same question six year ago: http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/engine/108938-why-no-supercharged-diesels.html
Scott_F
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,192
Why do some supercharged Mercedes petrol engines (I'm thinking about the M111.973/974 that first appeared in the 230 SLK and CLK etc. in the 90s) have such lacklustre performance ?
I thought it odd that when they first changed from a supercharger to a turbo on the C180 the emissions and MPG were worse. So I was happy to choose the supercharger and quite like having Kompressor on the boot lid.
