harry_dhuga
Active Member
Sweet - imagine that technology on an AMG V8...!!!
Superchargers or normally aspirated ?
- Thread starter Matt32AMG
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aspirated superchargers
Bellow
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Assuming you are talking about driving dynamics,
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
Only to add that the weight of a large NA engine can mitigate against the driving dynamics. Your main point re power delivery is as it always was and probably always will be...
witness Ferrari saying they can't turbocharge and deliver the characteristics expected of a Ferrari engine
And yes VW use both - Twincharger they call it - with some astounding results.
Heyday of turbocharging, was ironically 25 years ago. F1, 1500cc, 1470hp from the BMW 4 cylinder. Call it 1500hp and that's 1000hp/litre!
And please don't defile this achievement by mentioning dragsters that can only travel in a straight line for a few seconds and are in fact chemically supercharged (nitro).
F1 ran (nearly) pump fuel, drove circuits as tight as Monaco, and lasted the required 200 miles. All that 25 years back! Amazing!
gIzzE
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 5,735
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
- Car
- BMW F11 Touring + Porsche 911 Carrera S + Toyota Alphard Camper
For me it depends on the car.
In an 3 series, C Class etc, I would prefer NA, however in a 5 series or E class I would prefer FI. Supercharged is better than Turbo'd imho.
I would take the Alpina B5 over the M5.
I would take the C63 over the RS4.
I would take the E55 estate over the M5 as well.
In manual saloon guise I would take the M3 over the new Supercharged S4, however in avant form and with DCT and S-Tronic gearboxes I would take the S4 over the M3.
If I wanted a Sunday/Funday car I want to have to work it, to push it through to 8000rpm and hear it scream, if it is a Motorway Mile Muncher than a supercharged car is easier and far more relaxing whilst still fun in the way it gobbles the miles.
One is not better than the other, and to be honest with Mercs it makes less difference because they are always mated to an auto 'box so the differences are less pronounced, but the are completely different and it depends how I am feeling on the day to my answer.
In an 3 series, C Class etc, I would prefer NA, however in a 5 series or E class I would prefer FI. Supercharged is better than Turbo'd imho.
I would take the Alpina B5 over the M5.
I would take the C63 over the RS4.
I would take the E55 estate over the M5 as well.
In manual saloon guise I would take the M3 over the new Supercharged S4, however in avant form and with DCT and S-Tronic gearboxes I would take the S4 over the M3.
If I wanted a Sunday/Funday car I want to have to work it, to push it through to 8000rpm and hear it scream, if it is a Motorway Mile Muncher than a supercharged car is easier and far more relaxing whilst still fun in the way it gobbles the miles.
One is not better than the other, and to be honest with Mercs it makes less difference because they are always mated to an auto 'box so the differences are less pronounced, but the are completely different and it depends how I am feeling on the day to my answer.
gIzzE
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 5,735
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
- Car
- BMW F11 Touring + Porsche 911 Carrera S + Toyota Alphard Camper
I also prefer the Porsche 997 C2S over the Turbo, the turbo is bonkers and mad at first, but once that new car novelty wears off I reckon the NA C2S would have you grinning longer.
But a supercharger is (with the exception of clutch-engaged ones) driven by the crank, so has a linear relationship between boost and engine speed?
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 29,528
- Location
- Mittel England
- Car
- Smart ForFour AMG Black Series Night Edition Premium Plus 125 Powered by Brabus
On track you need progressive, predicatble response, so N/A is great. Anything that causes boost in performance will unsettle balance of a car which is important when most of the time the steering wheels are turned.
On a road car, I like forced induction. I point and squirt on straights. FI gives me a kick and surge that I like.
As suggested the VW twin-charged units do indeed have both.
Forced induction is important now. Emissions of a smaller engine during the standard cycles required for fuel consumption tests (and therefore driving CO2 outputs). That makes cars attractive in markets taxed on CO2 output, and makes cars attractive in markets where environment pressure is signifcant.
However FI gives the performance of a much bigger engine. Supercharging in particular gives the feel of a larger capacity N/A engine, and suits cars requiring a more sedate level of performance. Turbocharging (unless LPT) gives a different feel as it's less linear, making it more appopriate for cars requiring a sporty feel.
The driver for the use of superchargers in the 32/55K engines was down to three valve technology. An oomph was required as three valve engines generally don't rev. It suited the big engine hot rod feel that traditionally came with AMGs.
The market moves on. M-Power sell in greater numbers than Quattro and AMG, and both Audi and MB need volumes to be able to compete at an attractive price point. Influence of motoring press fuels the M-Power feel, and so Audi and MB moved in that direction.
The market moves on again driven by environmentally issues, and FI comes back into favour, and even M-Power use FI (eg X6, others follow).
On a road car, I like forced induction. I point and squirt on straights. FI gives me a kick and surge that I like.
As suggested the VW twin-charged units do indeed have both.
Forced induction is important now. Emissions of a smaller engine during the standard cycles required for fuel consumption tests (and therefore driving CO2 outputs). That makes cars attractive in markets taxed on CO2 output, and makes cars attractive in markets where environment pressure is signifcant.
However FI gives the performance of a much bigger engine. Supercharging in particular gives the feel of a larger capacity N/A engine, and suits cars requiring a more sedate level of performance. Turbocharging (unless LPT) gives a different feel as it's less linear, making it more appopriate for cars requiring a sporty feel.
The driver for the use of superchargers in the 32/55K engines was down to three valve technology. An oomph was required as three valve engines generally don't rev. It suited the big engine hot rod feel that traditionally came with AMGs.
The market moves on. M-Power sell in greater numbers than Quattro and AMG, and both Audi and MB need volumes to be able to compete at an attractive price point. Influence of motoring press fuels the M-Power feel, and so Audi and MB moved in that direction.
The market moves on again driven by environmentally issues, and FI comes back into favour, and even M-Power use FI (eg X6, others follow).
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
The next Enzo is V8 Turbo ..... The next M5 is V8 Turbo... It is very difficult to meet emissions for Euro5 least of all Euro6 for high power cars unless it is Turbo charged. I seem to remember reading recently that the MB "63" range are being replaced by 5.5 V8 Turbo's.....
Plus the small engine NASP cars are now going down the same route, 1.4T coming soon from Vauxhall and Ford, VW/Audi already have a Turbo and Twincharged, but unless you are driving really really slowly you'll never get the MPG which is the whole point of having them in the first place, put your foot down and <30mpg...
Last edited:
Bellow
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
But that is the point of them. At part load, the frictional and heat losses are vastly reduced compared to the larger NA engine that would be required for the same hp.
A road car only spends something like 6% of its life at full throttle, leaving a hell of a lot of part throttle/load running.
