poker_emperor

Okay Brothers,

Just got off the phone with my buddy, and he was smashing our superchargers. He was telling me how the skylines are much better because it was turbo. Although I would have to agree with him about the ability of turbos to gain more "usable" HP, I still think superchargers are more efficient and easier to tune. Am I wrong? It's difficult for me to have an intelligent conversation with my limited knowledge on this subject matter, so I told him I will do more research before I rebut his comment. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thericker

He's right, Turbo's simple to tune & make much more HP, not to mention un-godly TORQUE

Fantasm

Actually, the turbos are more efficient as the Superchargers actually add additional losses in HP from the crank due to the method they require to power themselves.
There's nothing like the instant torque from a Supercharger though

jmf003

Well, FWIW, Top Fuel dragsters run superchargers while Forumula One cars ran turbochargers before they were banned. That pretty much captures the performance difference: superchargers have somewhat better throttle response while turbos are somewhat more efficient.

If you were to compare two modern street cars with similar weight and power but one running a supercharger and the other a turbo, the performance differences would be pretty small. E.g. a supercharged Mini Cooper S (2002-5) performs very similar to a turbocharged Mini Cooper S (2006+).

The biggest performance difference between a Skyline and an SL55 is not engine but the weight. The Skyline will be 500 lbs (R35) to 750 lbs (R34) to 1,000 lbs (R33) lighter.

If you want to one-up your buddy just tell him you like to listen to the supercharger whine with the top down.

sprins

I heard jet-engines are even better still...

GFEAR

tq isnt always more in a turbo car, it all depends on the tune and the blower. roots blowers like 55's make instant hp and tq on demand, no waiting for a spool, and turbos are harder to tune.
i am talking in general, not just our cars.
i prefer turbo because i like the drivability and the increased hp from no drag on the motor and the hp potential is almost limitless, but i'll still take a sl55 over a sl600 every time.

ChristianR

I have both types, I prefer the turbo all day long over a SC

Sunir

I think a lot of it is in delivery as well...turbo cars can be smoother power through the band whereas the SC provides instand power/tq down low and propels the car in a brute manner..

Thericker

The TQ in 600/65 's is available off idle @ 1800 rpm's the small turbo's in these applications spool up instantly & negate turbo lag seen in other larger or single Turbo app's

You 55'ers need to run/drive a 600/65 before making these assertions, if 600/65 tuned? pretty much forget about it unless you're stage 5/6 in 55.

jturkel

generally:

TURBO+: easier to get more power out of, easier to mod turbo cars
TURBO-: many turbos suffer lag (except ball-bearing and some other ones)

Supercharger+: minimal to no lag
Supercharger-: parasitic loss due to being driven by crank

poker_emperor

Thank you so much for replying! I think I will have to lose this argument to my buddy

Sunir

So what are the advantages of a 55 to a 600/65 if any? besides the weight and cost (well not really cause a 600 and 55 used are around the same market point)...

there has to be some advantages to the 55 or SC setup...assuming that no lag is there in either setup...SC in the 55 vs. small quick spool turbos in the 600/65

Thericker

Having driven both, the Kompressor offers better engine note (stock vs stock) also great blower whine. The power bands both come on early but Kompressor feels a bit more violent as the supercharger engagement can be jerky. Besides that? the 600 comes w/nearly 100 ft lbs more TQ SL600 stk vs SL55 stk.

It was main reason I didn't opt for the SL55. Both are great cars w/+ & -

JAYCL600

I agree that the 55 offers a better exhaust note and makes it feel faster. In 2003 I drove a CL55 and a Cl600 back to back and the 55 sounds so much faster, but in reality they are about just as fast. I have also driven a very highly modified E55 (127mph traps) and my car back to back same day, I can assure you that a modified 600 is exponentially more "violent" when the turbos spool.

GFEAR

1. BETTER HANDLING AND MORE AGRESIVE RIDE
2. THE AMG BADGE
3. THE EXTERIOR BODYWORK AND GRILLS AND EXHAUS TIP, TAILIGHTS ETC
4. THE V12 IS MORE OF A MAINTENCE HEADACHE, THE 55 SEEMS TO BE MORE BULLETPROOF
THE ONE SL66 I RACED I BEAT, I THINK THE WEIFGHT OFSETS THE ADDED TQ, AND HP WINS RACES, NOT TQ.


sorry for caps, my work software is all caps and i forget its on

JAYCL600

so I assume you havent raced a modified 600/65's in your car yet?

Thericker

Here we go again The HP is also extremly underrated from factory on 600TT models all that have dyno'd these cars know this (average 55k has 400-420 rwhp, average 600TT 440-460 rwhp) The weight dif bet 600/55 is nill (SL55 doesn't come w/spare tire/wheel, inflator machine etc, SL600 does & it weighs nearly 100lbs) after removal they both weigh nearly 4300+ lbs

SL55 has true 5.4 liter V8, SL600 has true 5.5 Liter V12, engine weights are nearly = considering heavy Kompressor vs TT's w/extra Intercooling, the SL65 indeed has heavier 6.0 liter engine adding 100-200lbs

You can buy SL600 w/AMG body & paddle shifters OEM as I did

There's NO difference in suspension both have ABC

ALL MB's are maintenance nightmares, tho 55 vs 600 is a push, both share IC'ing failures, the only prob extra TQ/HP from V12TT has been collapsed motor/tranny mounts, besides that my time w/it has been flawless in nearly 2 yrs ownership

I'll gladly meet/run your SL55 to show you how they compare

I test drove SL55 before SL600, you need to look past the AMG badging & invest time in both models before making assumptions. The slightly heavier CL600 will beat SL55, member here runs 12.2x @ 114+ mph in stock CL600, stock SL55 runs @ best 12.5x @ 112. You think lighter SL600 will fair worse


Some think it's an old mans ride

FormulaZR

This may have been covered and I missed it, but if not there's a couple more things about S/C's and turbo's that should be mentioned.

There are two types of S/C, Roots and Centrifugal, roots are the ones most commonly associated with insane instant torque, BUT they are horrible about generating heat! Any car with a roots (positive displacement supercharger) suffers from heat soak, it can be minimized, but it still can't be controlled as well as on a turbo or centrifugal setup. These also only really come into their own with large displacement engines, mostly due to the law of diminishing returns. Also, these aren't really as suited to higher RPM applications as a turbo, or even centrifugal s/c...especially when pullied for peak torque.

Centrifugal S/Cs are great, and probably the "best of both worlds" in this case (especially if putting FI on a car that didn't come with it, this is the easiest and cheapest - mostly because it doesn't require special exhaust manis/headers, hood clearance issues, and less involved installation). If you aren't familiar with these, they bolt on like an accessory on the engine, like an A/C compressor. They are easier to control heat compared to a positive displacement and the higher quality units are slightly less parasitic loss. These are basically a belt driven turbo, and are easy to use aftercooler/intercoolers with. I think centrifugal s/c's are a compromise...you get the best of both worlds; just with some tradeoff.

Turbos, well...certainly if you get too big they do have lag (though on some dedicated drag cars a little lag isn't all bad). However, either twins, sequential, or properly sized turbos can minimize this...as can turbos with variable vanes. They aren't "easy" to tune, but they are infinitely tunable. They really have advantages on cars that want to run two tunes, ie: pump gas tune for street and race gas/meth tune for race (and can be adjusted in cab)...try that with an S/C! Also, the hot side of a turbo loves heat, because basically when the exhaust is hotter it displaces more air...thus having the ability to spin the turbo faster/quicker than cool volume would allow. Make no mistake about it though...turbos, when done properly, are king in everything but a TRUE drag car (and even then it's a gray area).

The argument earlier was that Top Fuel cars run them...and that's true, but here's why:
1) They only have to run for 10-30 seconds at a time, and only 5 seconds under full power.
2) These engines generate between 7k and 8k hp, and do not have gears in the transmission....lag is not an option here, and they can't run the type of exhaust required to support a turbo.
3) NHRA (and NASCAR) are somewhat antiquated in their ideas; so don't take what they do as best.
4) These cars are ALREADY at the limit for what their tires can hold. These engines can easily make more power...but they can't get it on the ground; that's also why they have to delay the clutches from engaging fully. More power won't benefit these cars...only "stickier" tires will.


So...I guess the point of my post, OP, is this: It depends on the application as to which is better; the world's quickest cars use Roots S/C...but don't ever try to compare your car to a top fuel, you almost share more in common with a WW2 fighter!

jmf003

Well, FWIW, I brought up the NHRA example along with the turbo-era F1 example but I wasn't trying to hold up either as the pinnacle of engine development. I was using the examples to illustrate the point that superchargers have better throttle response while turbos are more efficient. And that's still a true statement. Yes, turbocharging technology has gone a long way toward improving responsiveness: multiple turbos, smaller turbos, variable vane turbos. Still, at the end of the day, a turbo engine is less responsive than a naturally aspirated or supercharged engine.

JayCL600 pretty much hit the nail on the head with his comment, 'I have also driven a very highly modified E55 (127mph traps) and my car back to back same day, I can assure you that a modified 600 is exponentially more "violent" when the turbos spool.'

The truth? MB has an SL55 and SL600 at a similar price points for marketing reasons, not engineering reasons. They could have hobbled the SL600 with smaller turbos but chose not to. (And that's a good thing for SL600 buyers!)

Thericker

Gotta disagree w/you here I've owned all, raced all vs friends Supercharged/Turbo/N/A The Turbo's found on the 600/65 have zero lag, I modded the hell outta my old C6 Corvette kept N/A every concievable bolt-on incl 3.90 gears, my lightly modded V12TT would rape it from any speed no comparo.

I've raced other SL55's/CL55/CL63/SL63/E55/E63.... Supercharged C6/ C6 Z06 etc these 600's hold their own & then some.

Sunir

Looking at timeslips from drag races a modified 55K car can run 11.0 to 11.6 ussually is the range...although very few modified v12tt cars have run high 10's the bulk of them (even those with ECU/TCU tunes and other alterations, of course with the understanding that v12tt don't mod as much as 55k) are still in the 11.3 - 11.8 range ...so once modified seems that the power levels somewhat equalize...

I did an autotrader search today and was finding SL65's in the $62K - $79K range mostly. Figure you can get an SL55 for mid 40's and throw $15K into it and be faster than the SL65 ...now if you mod the 65 now your in for maybe another $5K - $7K and your low 11's or high 10's ...throw another 5K into the SL55 and your in 10's as well....

so the trend here is dollars to power convergence theory!!!

Thericker

Funny you use the BEST modded E55 #'s (modified 55K car can run 11.0 to 11.6 ussually is the range) yet ignore the more modded 65's running 10.70's @ 131mph, there's even a friggin heavy assed S65 RENNtech on Dragtimes running ECU/TCU airbox high octane @ 11.06 near 129mph

SL65 ECU/airbox 10.85 http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...slip-7670.html

The range for ECU/TCU SL600 is 11.2 - 11.8 the 11.9 was magazine listing argued to be stock... http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...g-Racing.html# (these BEST SL600 rec were run in Positive DA @ above Sea Level tracks in AZ, no doubt in 10's if ran @ Sacramento/famosa or East coast sea level tracks)

More heavily modded CL65 records in 10.7x - 11.4x
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html

CL600 10.9x - 11.7x http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html

Not many people mod these V12tt I'll try n' change that

jmf003

Well, I could be wrong of course but my guess is you are feeling the throttle response from that big, torquey V12 prior to the turbos spooling rather than feeling the turbos spooling instantaneously.

I've ridden in MarkoCL65's sub-11 second car--which is WAAAY faster than my 11.4 second car--and it felt to me exactly like JayCL600's comment: violently fast once the turbos spooled.

I completely agree with your main point: the 5.5L TT V12 is an awesome engine which makes the SL600 a really fast and mighty fine car.

Sunir

haha ok I kinda hedged the ranges a bit for valuation purposes ... looks like the 55k modded will do well compared to the moderately modded v12tt but a well modded SL65 will be doing 10.7 - 11.0 which is very friggin fast!

So the only way I really see the SL55 comparing to the v12tt, namely the 65 at the former's peak comparison levels, is a whole lot of mods... no way around it. At that point weight advantage, whomever lightens their car more could be faster (i.e cf panels and what not...)

Dang ricker ur throwin numbers at us 55 guys like bricks haha lol bro! You got a sick ride man keep up the good work I do love the v12tt cars...supposed to take a ride with Jay and his CL600 at MIR coming up in a few weeks...haven't driven any 65's down the strip I'd like to try and see how much faster they are

Thericker

Don't get me wrong both SL55/600/65 etc run like stink, I was trying to comment on how my old N/A 6.0 modded C6 felt (I used to race it against bro w/E55/Supercharged C6/Viper/ etc, the throttle response vs Sc'd or Turbo'd was night n' day, literally I'd hit the throttle on C6 & sit for a good sec waiting for the boom then the *** end would try n' come around w/345 MP's on 19x12 whls

When racing in Mexico I'd always have to jump on the 3rd honk or I'd be left by 2+ lengths from the get, N/A cars are horrible on throttle response vs SC'd or TT'd apps I've modded every vehicle I've ever owned (not all listed but plenty of old N/A muscle cars, built 351 Windsor Bronco's etc)