I keep hearing about super chargers everywhere, but what exactly are they?

 

 

I think a super charger is more like a blower, which forces air and fuel into the cylinder(s), while a turbo charger sucks the exhaust out the cylinder(s)faster, which in turn causes more air and fuel to be sucked in through the intake valve while the exhaust valve is still open. Or somethin'?

 

Actually both superchargers and turbos both work by forcing extra air into the cylinders allowing you to burn extra fuel - hence more power. It's all about having enough air to burn more fuel.
The actual difference between the turbo and supercharger (blower) is in the way they are driven. The turbo has two parts, one part uses exhaust gas to spin a turbin which in turn spins a turbine that compresses fresh air into the cylinders. A supercharger does the same thing (compresses fresh air into the cylinders) but is usually driven by a belt and pulley from the engine. The supercharger robs a little power to gain power where a turbo uses exhaust gasses that are a byproduct from the engine for it's power. A turbo by it's nature is much more efficient in design since it's not "robbing" anything from the engine. Superchargers are usually only a good idea on large powerful engines where power is desired over efficiency.
Hope this helps


PS I love turbos! I have a '00 SuperDuty Ford Supercab that has a PowerStroke turbocharged and chipped diesel engine in it that puts out in excess of 300hp/650 ft lbs torque. Believe me it WILL put you back in your seat!

 

One other difference between a turbo and a supercharger is: unlike a turbo, a supercharger has the ability to provide instantaneous "boost"
to the combustion chamber because it is mechanically driven. A turbo, on the other hand uses the exhaust from the motor to turn it. So there is a short period of time between opening the accellerator and the actual "boost" to the combustion chamber. This is know as "turbo lag" The speed at which the exhaust passes the turbine determines the amount of boost the turbo is able to produce so engine RPM must increase before boost can be attained.
Both systems work very well but I dont recall ever seeing a supercharger fitted on an ATV but I have seen turbos.

 

Years ago I had a Yamaha 650 Turbo. What a hoot. It came from the factory with about 70 HP, than Kawasaki introduced the 750 Turbo that had 90 some odd HP. There are some tricks you can do with what is called a waste gate which controls the point at which the turbo is bypassed to make a long story short Yamaha bypassed the waste gate and came up with an astounding 92 HP. Trouble was that the drive train couldnt take the abuse. Moral or the story is tubos are a great idea but they produce excessive amounts of heat in the engine so plan on changing pistons, rods and bearings before cracking the throttle and beef up the drivetrain too.. But what a hoot it takes a fraction of a second for the turbo to kick in and when it does it'll straighten your arms out! Let us know if you put bolt one on. Sorry to get long winded. Just thinking if I hadnt donated my wrecked Yamaha to the local high school I could have adapted the turbo to my 00 SC500 DAMN

 

Good posts, all, on the topic (what a pleasant surprise!). Where ARE the whiners, "Moderators pickin' on me," "My quad's faster, your is junk," etc., posters? They never will be missed!

While I agree generally with everything posted, I think there may be some blower drive power penalty with a turbocharger, as obviously exists with a chain-, belt-, or gear-driven supercharger. The turbine, using exhaust gasses, may increase exhaust back-pressure, resulting in a minor power penalty.

The gain from intake boost far exceeds the drive penalty for either the mechanically-driven supercharger or the turbocharger, surely; however, I'm not sure which drive system is more efficient.

Regarding "lag time" with forced aspiration systems, the turbo is somewhat "wait-a-bit," as mentioned. There may be some variation in high-rpm performance between mechanically-driven supercharger types also, depending upon whether the supercharger is a centrifugal fan-type or a positive-displacement ("Rootes") type.

Forced-aspiration systems stress components when producing additional power over normally-aspirated systems (no free lunch), with higher operating temperatures, and, with turbos, elevated exhaust gas temperatures. Combustion chamber pressures and temperatures are high with blowers (a boosted engine cannot run as high a calculated compression ratio as a normally-aspirated engine).

With these limitations, superchargers/turbochargers remain a fast and direct way to increase power from a given engine.

Diogenes

 

Do you think it would be worthwhile to add a turbo to the Polaris Diesel? Diesels benefit more from a turbo charger than does a gas engine.

Everyone talks about what a dog the Polaris Diesel is in performance, it might make it into a nice machine with respectable acceleration.

Just a thought.

 

Thanks for all the information. I've seen where superchargers cost in excess of $3000 dollars!That's a pretty penny! I often wondered if the Diesel would benefit much from a turbo. I guess it would have to. As soon as I save a few dollars I might get a Diesel, and maybe, just maybe a Sport or Scrambler 400. Can't get enough!! Ultimately I want to get a Ranger. That's one bad fire wood hauler.

 

I still have a 650 Seca turbo PLUS an extra fresh engine, and a turbo in need of rebuild. Best be careful when you have a passenger on board, as boost "kicking in" can pull a wheelie in a hurry!

Turbos are more efficient than superchargers.

The Polaris diesel would only benefit from a turbocharger if it smokes under load OR if you have the ability to turn up the fuel. I have not seen the fuel system on this engine.

FYI I dont get back here too often to read replies.

www.kennedydiesel.com