Superchargers Shorten Lifespand Of Engine Correct?

[YayItsCola]

Superchargers shortens lifespand of engine correct? Turbos doesn't and gives you better mpg if you put it in vacuum right?

[Knightshade]

Superchargers shortens lifespand of engine correct? Turbos doesn't and gives you better mpg if you put it in vacuum right?

They're the same thing.

A supercharger and a turbo both do the exact same thing.

The only difference is the turbo is powered by hot exhaust gas, and the supercharger is powered by a belt.

A turbo is more efficient, since it's using "waste" product.

More relevant though is that neither is available for the ISx50 in the US.

There are 0 turbo kits worldwide. There is one supercharger kit available in Japan (doesn't work on US models).

LMS used to do a supercharger in the US for the IS350, but they sold like 3 of them since they're $6000 and only add about 40 horsepower.

With a 12:1 compression ratio and a very complex, and uncracked, engine management system, don't expect any more kits to show up anytime soon either.

[Randy&Bonnie]

..

[Gaugster]

Superchargers shortens lifespand of engine correct? Turbos doesn't and gives you better mpg if you put it in vacuum right?

Both superchargers and turbochargers are considered "Forced Induction" or FI for short. Both will add additional power to an engine. The life span of the engine depends on how much power is added and how often the driver uses that added power. An engine designed from scratch with either of these power adders can last a very long time. A bad design could have a life span of only a few minutes worst case.

The supercharge is driven from the engines crank shaft using the acceory belt. This adds a slight extra load to the engine during normal (grandma) driving but can be compensated for when the engine is at high RPM and under boost. A turbo charger does not put a mechinical load on the engine but technically does add some resistance to the exhaust flow. Again this is compensated for at high RPM and under boost conditions.

[Randy&Bonnie]

..

[Knightshade]

Yes they do.

The both force pressurized air into the engine.

HOW they do that is different (one is driven by exhaust gas, one is driven more directly off the engine itself)

They are both in essence an air compressor, they're just powered differently.

Here, this might help your confusion-

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm

[smooth1]

Yes, Knightshade and Gaugster are both correct. It's funny how different they are from each other, yet have the same destination if you will.

Yeaitscola, what car were you looking to FI? The question of reliability doesn't really rely on the turbo or supercharger. Many manufacturers use both with 150-200K mile lifespans. BMW has been using superchargers for years, and there have been alot of Turbo equipped cars rolling off the factory lines for years. The issue of reliablity is in the steps you take to prepare the motor for boost conditions, and how much boost you want to run. For example, the Toyota 2JZ motor. That motor has been proven to be able to double the horsepower very reliably on stock internals. But go much beyond that and your asking for trouble. But again, open the motor up, replace the pistons with a lower compression forged piston, and stronger connecting rods, AARP bolts and wrist pins, valve work, larger fuel injectors and and a return fuel system, replace the ECU with a tunable stand alone, and the motor can easily go to 750 hp reliably. Notice I said the MOTOR will be reliable. Because you have now exceeded the limits of the drivetrain, and will now have to also replace the tranny, drivesshaft, and rearend. Also your gonna need some wider tires to keep that amount of HP from just shreading the tires. But on the other hand, if you just want to run 2 or 3 PSI, then I think you might be pretty safe on most motors. Although, considering the cost of putting a turbo or supercharger on a car, the additional 20 hp or so you would get from it would seem a bit on the ridiculous side. Especially when you consider all the other ways to add hp and torque that would be just as effective and cost no where near that amount.

To put a turbo on a car that hasn't come with one on it, if you paid someone else to do it right would cost in the neiborhood of $15-18k. If you did all the work yourself, you could get that number down to and 10-12K. If you own an IS 250, it would be cheaper, and more efficient to just trade it in on an IS 350. That's a 100 hp boost right there. And if you own a IS 350 and need more, again, for the same money, you could just go and get the ISF, which again is a 100 hp boost up again. And if you wanted alot more then that, then get the new GTR. ;) these new high compression engines, and direct injection systems are built in the opposite direction of turbos and supercharger motors.

Basically, in an NA motor, to get the most hp out of it, you want to lengthen the stroke, increase the compression, and raise the rev limit. On a turbo or supercharger, you want to lower the compression, increase the exhaust's ability to move the air out, and balance the revs with the turbo size.

[bartkat]

Superchargers shortens lifespand of engine correct? Turbos doesn't and gives you better mpg if you put it in vacuum right?

Both superchargers and turbochargers are considered "Forced Induction" or FI for short. Both will add additional power to an engine. The life span of the engine depends on how much power is added and how often the driver uses that added power. An engine designed from scratch with either of these power adders can last a very long time. A bad design could have a life span of only a few minutes worst case.

The supercharge is driven from the engines crank shaft using the acceory belt. This adds a slight extra load to the engine during normal (grandma) driving but can be compensated for when the engine is at high RPM and under boost. A turbo charger does not put a mechinical load on the engine but technically does add some resistance to the exhaust flow. Again this is compensated for at high RPM and under boost conditions.

So, do they "do the exact same thing"?

They sure enough do. They compress. One gets power from exhaust gas while the other is turned by a belt off the engine crank pulley. What's not the same thing about compressing?