Nighttrain

I was wondering what people thought would be the the best option for adding power between these two forms of forced induction.

Supercharging or turbocharging your MERC.

I'm new to this forum, so I was interested to know who has done either, which one is more reliable, advanced, cost efficient, the MOST POWERFUL?

IF there are some experts in this forum, I'd really appreciate your input.

Sorry, if I'm repeating somthing you guys may have already talked about, but it would be nice to revisit it again,

Thanks.

Nighttrain.

Nighttrain

How much power are your cars producting?

Anyone putting out BIG BIG horsepower?

Mach430

The best system available is the Kleemann Supercharger. They combine the best type of supercharger (twin screw) with an intercooler that sits directly above the engine. The result is an awesome increase in power at only about a 5-7% additional strain on the engine. We installed it on my 430, and had tremendous gains! At the crank, I am putting out 460HP and 434lb-ft torque at only .5 bar. Of course, I plan on raising this shortly

Btw, the 55 puts out 530+ HP.

Ahmed

superchargers give you immediate boost from any RPM, while turbo relies on charging itself up before boosting, which mean DELAY IN BOOST !!!!!

am i right BEN?

...... i hope i'm right.

Mach430

It depends on the supercharger. Superchargers are pulley driven, so while they can deliver immediate boost (like a twin-screw supercharger), they do not start at full boost. As the engine increases in RPMs, so does the boost.

Brandon @ Kleemann

A positive displacement SC (KLEEMANN) displaces a fixed amount of air per rev. The SC is driven by the engine crank at a fixed ratio (lets say 2:1). This means at any engine speed the potential for full boost is there. SC's have operating efficiencies that vary up and down with speed. A KLEEMANN SC system will provide full boost (.5 bar) between 1600 rpms and 6200rpms.

A centerfugal SC will not produce this kind of linear boost- ever. Its is a gear driven turbo compressor- the worst of both worlds. The drive ystem cannot spin the turbo impeller at the speeds it is most effective. These are the SC's that provide boost that generally increases with engine speed.

Ahmed

wow.... that was alot on info !!!! phewwww....

i'm gonna go and get a drink now...OK!!!

Mark D.

460 HP on a CLK430?? damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

how much does that kleeman SC cost about?

Ahmed

apparently.. its worth every penny!

it beefs up the HP on a 320 from 218 to over 300!!!!

wow!

Mach430

The Kleemann SC for the 430 costs $14,350.

pigman

The Kleemann website says their CLK 55 outputs 560 HP. Will a stock 55 with just a Kleemann SC "bolted" on give out 560, or are other mods needed? thx.

Lucas

The KLEEMANN bolt on, on a 55 will give over 560 HP in Europe, a little less in the US has to be expected, due to lower fuel octane levels why US cars have different settings in the ECU.

quaz

That's like WOAH...

But hey....if I had 14 grand laying around idle maybe I'd get one installed!

Samir

For pure power, the turbo is the absolute king. Of the energy released during the combustion process, 1/3 is absorbed into the cooling system, 1/3 is absorbed down the the crank (power), and the remaining 1/3 is expelled (wasted) as heat out of the exhaust system...herein lies the turbo's advantage: using normally wasted energy to power a fan and ultimately reroute huge amounts of air for increased power/torque, whereas the supercharger drains power from the 1/3 absorbed down the crank, and cannot take advantage of wasted exhaust energy. Turbo lag is definitely a side effect of a turbo system, but is highly overstated as a drawback. Sure a giant T88 driven MKIV Supra will see a significant amount of lag, but the payoff is over 1000HP at the crank and sub 10 second ¼ passes. On the contrary, a well designed medium boost turbo system will outperform any other method of forced induction, while achieving full boost by 3000RPMs. Turbochargers have been responsible for thousands of wins within F1, IRL, LeMans, Rally, etc…don’t think I can remember the last time a supercharged car won a race when faced against other turbocharged vehicles. While the positive displacement blower has gained in popularity with OEMs, it has by no means replaced the turbo…rather it gives OEMs a cheaper alternative for street applications.

otoupalik

This is absolutely true, however, Samir leaves out the most important point. That it is much more expensive to develop power with a turbo then a S/C. Turbo systems require more pluming, much more labor, more expensive hardware and the big item is software tuning. Further, to get extreme power out of a turbo, you must have a turbo specific motor.

We have shown and documented this over the last year in European Car magazine with our project e36 M3 Turbo.

Turbos are the answer for the biggest power, however, in the real world the costs are way too prohibitive to make them a better option then a good S/C like the Kleemann.

Thanks

Brad

Samir

<i>Samir leaves out the most important point. That it is much more expensive to develop power with a turbo then a S/C. Turbo systems require more pluming, much more labor, more expensive hardware and the big item is software tuning.</i>

Perhaps at the R&D stage...the finished product only requires some additional CNC plumbing (about $700). The installation labor is approximately the same (about 16hours vs. 20hours). The additional hardware such as a wastegate, BOV, intercooler, exhaust manifolds, and boost controller are only about $2500.

<i>Further, to get extreme power out of a turbo, you must have a turbo specific motor.</i>

Same goes for any method of forced induction...whether you have a supercharger or turbocharger, they are both doing the same thing: stuffing more air into the combustion cylinder. Just as a turbo engine requires low-compression ratios too incorporate boost figures over 0.8bar (about 8.5:1-9.3:1), so too does a supercharged engine.

<i>Turbos are the answer for the biggest power, however, in the real world the costs are way too prohibitive to make them a better option then a good S/C like the Kleemann.</i>

Not true at all...there are plenty of V8 turbo kits available for other makes/models priced under $6K capable of 1000+HP...case in point: the Twin Outlaw Mustang 5.0L turbo...$5500. Another example on the other end of the spectrum would be the Koenig twin turbo system for the 360 Modena...about $25,000 for the kit (only about $8K more than the Kleemann55...but still less expensive in terms of car value $80K vs. $200K). Once Mercedes V8 twin turbo kits become available, they should be priced competitively with any other forced induction alternative...there is no reason for them not to be.

dj-po

Let us not forget the almighty torque.




Turbo = Better peak HP #'s, TQ ~ ok


S/C = Better TQ : HP ratio


Oh, yeah, and HEAT, very parasitic to usefull power in any engine, let alone forced induction.


Heat make car go BOOM!!!



John.

jswedberg

Having had both supercharged and turbocharged cars, I have to say I prefer supercharged for day to day driving.

The only turbo car that might change my mind is the 996 TT, but unfortunately that's out of my price range!

If turbochargers give more power,why is it that almost all professional (Top Fuel, etc) drag racers use supercharging?

I think maybe turbos give more "bang for the buck" - of course NOS is even cheaper...

otoupalik

Sorry, you are right - I thought we were talking about Mercedes, not Ford.

Show me a twin-turbo Mercedes Kit for $18K that makes as much power and driveablilty and has any reliabilty and costs $1800 to install and I will buy 20 of them on the spot!

Brad

Samir

<i>Turbo = Better peak HP #'s, TQ ~ ok
S/C = Better TQ : HP ratio</i>

Completely incorrect...the only supercharger worthy of a comparison is the Lysholm screwtype, with a claimed efficiency rating of about 75%. However, a turbo will always create more HP/Torque due to the fact that it is not a parasitic device (doesn't drain power from the engine) and doesn't create as much heat in the intake charge.

Comparisons between screwtype superchargers and turbochargers:

<u>Aftermarket Kits</u>

<a href="http://www.mbautowerks.com/performance/latest_project.html">MB Kleemann CLK55</a>:
Displacement: 5439cc
Compressor: PD Lysholm Screwtype w/ heat exchanger
Boost: 7psi
Power: 515HP
Torque: 519ft.lbs
Power/liter: 93HP/liter
Torque/liter: 94ft.lbs/liter
Cost: $16,995
Cost/HP: $98/HP

BMW AA Turbo M3 Stage 1
Displacement: 2990cc
Compressor: Intercooled Turbo
Boost: 7psi
Power: 360HP
Torque: 361ft.lbs
Power/liter: 120HP/liter
Torque/liter: 120ft.lbs/liter
Cost: $8,700
Cost/HP: $72/HP

<u>Production Vehicles</u>

Ford Saleen S281-E
Displacement: 4601cc
Compressor: PD Lysholm Screwtype w/ heat exchanger
Boost: 12psi
Power: 425
Torque: 440
HP/liter: 92HP/liter
Torque/liter: 96ft.lbs/liter

Porsche 996 Twin Turbo
Displacement: 3600cc
Compressor: Intercooled Turbo
Boost: 12psi
Power: 415HP
Torque: 400ft.lbs
HP/liter: 115HP/liter
Torque/liter: 111ft.lbs/liter

I think the numbers speak for themselves.


<i>Oh, yeah, and HEAT, very parasitic to usefull power in any engine, let alone forced induction.

Heat make car go BOOM!!!
</i>

You're absolutely correct...another reason why the turbo is superior and more efficient. While a screwtype can employ a heat exchanger, it is puny in comparison to a single or twin mounted intercooler(s).

jswedberg:
<i>If turbochargers give more power,why is it that almost all professional (Top Fuel, etc) drag racers use supercharging?</i>

There will always be exceptions, however, top fuel racing is a different beast where a race lasts about 4 seconds. In any other form of motorsport => F1, IRL, LeMans, WRC, etc...the turbo is the device of choice (past or present).

Brad:
<i>Sorry, you are right - I thought we were talking about Mercedes, not Ford.</i>

Geez...are we that arrogant? I didn't think you would reply with such an ignorant comment. FYI...the Ford Mustang 5.0L had one of the strongest engines ever produced, with many capable of 1000+HP on stock bottomend. And besides, I wasn't comparing Ford vs. Mercedes, instead I was merely pointing out that a V8 twin turbo kit can be had for less than $6K...meaning that a twin turbo kit for the M113 V8 would not need to cost significantly more...definitely not more than the Kleemann SC.

otoupalik

Ok, well I guess you are not going to actually put these on a car? How in the world can you do a cost comparison without including the installation? (~$1800 each)

Also, your numbers for the AA are about 10hp off. The gain is really about 100HP, to 350HP. Well, how do we know this, if you look at any issue of European Car over the last 18 months you will see the project car that only we have worked on (built many different stages of the AA Turbo on this car).

So, the real numbers are:

Kleemann - $108.64 per HP gain
AA - $95.45 per HP gain

Still not equal, but if you are going to give specifics, I think we need to be exact - don't you? This is also much closer then your number previously indicated.

However, comparing one Turbo on a BMW and a SC on a Benz is just stupid. There is no way to compare the gains of one type of system on one motor to the gains of another type of system on a different motor. This is just hype and is as worthless as bench racing. There is ZERO scientific or engineering proof gained by this!

Now, if we look at a S/C on the BMW, which we also do, we see the same HP numbers for roughly $2500K less installed and much less heat build up and potential for disaster.

That is such a simplistic view. Again, the numbers were not even correct. But even assuming they were, what does that tell you? Sure - drop in a Saleen motor and you will get more power? Your numbers are pointless except to show that Turbo's make good power, especially when they are mated to motors BUILT SPECIFICALLY FOR A TURBO, like the 996. They just don't take a 996 motor and slap a couple of hair-dryers on it you know!

How many of these have you installed? An AFTERMARKET S/C (as we are discussing aftermarket, not OEM where these things can be engineered around) has FAR less problems with heat build up then a turbo in most installs. The Turbo has to sit in a spot where it was not designed to be, on the hot side of the motor and builds up significantly more heat then a S/C. The example I am using is the BMW M3 - as that was your example above. On this motor, we see the same HP numbers for Turbo and S/C - but the S/C is cheaper and has less heat build up.

No, this is not an exception. The cars you are talking about all live life at extremely high RPMs. That is where a turbo thrives. As it is driven by exhaust gas, the race motors you are speaking of never have to worry about losing the boost so to speak as they are almost always at full revs.

Ever driven those cars? I have - you have HORRIBLE power till it comes on cam, then the cars scream as the turbos spool up. If you never let the revs fall, you will never loose boost.

Now, for the street, most of the RPM range used is much lower. Hence, a SC where the torque and power come in much lower is better suited.

Nope, not arrogant, I just kinda know what I am talking about here rather then trying to use absurd examples that are totally worthless to prove a point that is off base to begin with.

Yes, the mustang motor is very strong. So what? Do we have that motor in any MB? I think not. Let's try to talk about the MB motor as that is what the people on this board actually have and are asking about!

The cost of the Mustang kit has nothing to do with a Mercedes kit either. As you said the Ford motor is much stronger then the MB. As such, it is easier to toss a bunch of power in there without other modifications. Also, how many Ford Mustangs are there in the world, how many of those turbo kits do you think there are?

Do the math.

If the R&D costs $100K (which is WAY low) and there are 10K cars that get the kit, the R&D costs will only add $10 to each kit.

If there are only 10 cars that get the kit, the R&D distribution per kit is $10,000.

Which example do you think applies to the Mustang, and which one to the MB? I will let you try to figure that one out on your own!

Thanks

Brad

Samir

*yawn*

The numbers I indicated were taken directly from AA, Saleen, Porsche, and MBAutowerkes...so I feel they are going to report the correct numbers. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your reply...sorry, I've got better things to do than meddle with you about such things...you have your opinion, I have mine.

Brandon @ Kleemann

All this heady discussion with regards to SC vs Turbo......

Turbos are undoubtedly better adiabatic efficiency wise that any other compressor- period. Its the manner or characteristics of boost production that make the systems different.

Racing eninges will always be turbocharged- they live life in such a narrow RPM band that low speed boost production isnt even the point. F1 engines IDLE at 3K just to stay lit- Its difficult (if not impossible) to have a turbo produce significant boost below 3K engine RPM while making good boost on the top end. A small impeller will spin at low rpms, making boost, but provide prohibitive restriction at higher engine speeds. The opposite is true with a large impeller- NO boost down low and WADS of it up high. VATN (variable area turbine nozzle) turbos provide "two turbos in one" but have their own set of issues. Soon enough these will be solved.

A PD screw type SC provides boost pressure just above idle- if ratio driven properly. They do require power to turn- just as anything would. The amusing thing to me is that many people think that turbos are "penalty free" compressors- BS. Without backpressure the gas velocity required to spin a turbine isnt there. Quantify the hp loss of putting 5.5 liters per rev of spent gas through an opening the size of a half-dollar- less than a PD SC? Yes- Free? No way.

STREET performance- TORQUE is where its at. If you have two engines both making 350hp/300tq peak but one makes peak tq at 2200 and the other at 4200 the first car will out accelerate the second 0-60 EVERYTIME. Porsche ran extensive tests in the mid 80's with the 951 with SC and turbo- result? A sc'd 951 with 2 psi less boost would out accelerate the turbo to 100 mph- so much for big hp.

As for the cost comparision- this makes me *yawn*. If you havent seen a KLEMANN sc you owe it to yourself to look it over. Turbo systems are CHEAP to produce the parts for- they are off the shelf items- bent tubing, existing turbos, intercooler cores etc. EVERY single part of a KLEEMANN sc is cast and unique to our system. Dollar to hp is the talk I always hear- what about qualities like fit and finish- integration into the whole- reliability- serviceability etc.

Why post the War and Peace of posts and then claim not to have time to respond or read a rebuttle to your post? Whatever issues that exist between you, evsport, brad, myself or anyone for that matter shouldnt prevent you from participating in the heated exchange of ideas. You cared enough to make the first post but wont read or reply to the rebuttle?? Whats the matter, cutting into your Grand Turismo time?

Samir

You're absolutely right Brandon...whatever <i>issues</i> exist between Evosport and myself should not prevent me from participating in these "heated" discussions...and they don't. It's just that I don't care to sit in front of the computer and waste time replying to inane arguments. A question about turbos vs. superchargers was posted...I offered my opinion on the matter. Brad's reply was filled with static, which I simply cared to tune out and disregard. I have tried on many occasions to be civil with the guys at Evosport, but they never choose to return the courtesy, so why should I. At least your reply is rooted in logic and provides an intellectual perspective on the matter (and I surely don't feel that I have issues with you...I don't see any reason for there to be).

<i>STREET performance- TORQUE is where its at. If you have two engines both making 350hp/300tq peak but one makes peak tq at 2200 and the other at 4200 the first car will out accelerate the second 0-60 EVERYTIME.</i>

You are absolutely correct in saying that a PDK will create more low-end torque, but is this necessarily always a good thing especially when dealing with street tires? Smoking the tires off the line is great for show, but I'll gladly suffer a little lag in boost to get out the hole and hit the torque pipe right around 3K. Plus, having a manual transmission mated with a turbo virtually eliminates the PDK's low end torque advantage...allowing the driver to launch the car right at the turbo's torque peak. And while turbo race engines may always live in a narrow RPM band, is this not where the majority of street races are won as well?

I’m not saying the screwtype is the lesser equivalent to the turbo…on the contrary it commands respect as a forced induction device...it's ability to displace large amounts of air at low revolutions, while keeping a high thermal efficiency throughout most of the power range, gives it an obvious advantage in torque production. Secondly, it’s female/male helical blade arrangement allow for a much more efficient compression process as opposed to a twin blade roots. Plus it has only slight drawbacks when compared to other PDKs…namely some efficiency loss at low/high rpms and a slight increase in heat at idle/low throttle due to it's internal CR, which requires more power to run when under low-boost (however, this drawback is alleviated through the use of a heat exchanger). The Lysholm is definitely a superior device when compared to other forms of supercharging and Kleemann’s adept approach to incorporate an efficient air/water intercooler and manifold into one unit, makes it the best supercharger on the market (believe me, I did my homework on this long before I contacted the office in Denmark and would’ve loved to have slapped one on my 55, but unfortunately politics got in the way).

In any case, this topic is highly subjective and can be debated to no end...I tried to offer my perspective on the subject…I apologize if my opinion is somewhat biased in favor of the turbo, but I’m definitely entitled to it. In the end it all comes down to opinions and <i>egos</i>.

otoupalik

Yes, you are right. However, a discussion is better off when there are opinions and perspectives based on logical examples rather then random statistics and totally unrelated comparisons.

My post was static to you as you don't agree with it. I have no problem with that. You are free to think whatever you want.

However, when you come onto a board and post in such an authoritative way using statistic after statistic, even if they are unrelated or inapporiate, you may color people's abilty to understand the issue. This is totally unacceptable to me. We started this board to offer people a means to get accurate and honest information and a healthy debate.

This thread was not started asking about the merits of S/C's and Turbo's on all cars. It was a question on the merits of each for a MB.

If you are unable to answer that question and need to compare BMW's to Mercedes and Mustangs to Porsche's, then I think you are creating far more static then anyone else.

As for your attempts to be civil, I will answer this once and once only - in a personal message. Samir, it is inappropriate to continue to bring this up in a public forum, and we refuse to be dragged into doing so.

Thanks

Brad