Cannis

So I until I started reading some posts around here, I was under the impression that the Kompressor was the same thing as a supercharger. I mean, I know that a supercharger is a belt driven mechanism (as opposed to exhaust driven turbo) that forces air into the engine and that there are different types of superchargers too. I thought the kompressor was simply a type of supercharger that uses 2 amazing 3D type thingies that screw together to force the air in (this is difficult to explain without a drawing or hand motions and I don't know the specific name).

Anyways, also I don't really get why some say (particularly the M5 fans, for obvious reasons) that MBz "knows that this isn't the right way to build engines" or something like that. What is this bull? Are huge aspirated engines that produce the same power as a smaller turboed or supercharged engine better somehow? Is it true that MBz plans to phase out Kompressor engines? Also, I know that forced induction mechanisms put more stress on engines (right?), but I thought factory systems (versus aftermarked addons) were generally reliable.

Anyways, any insight into any points made here would be much appreciated.

tx in advance

-Cannis

corgiman

Kompressor is the German word for supercharger. The MB type uses a helical impellar which imparts less shear and turbulence to the air. As far as I know this is the most efficicent system (but costs$$$). I think MB's move away from the superchargers has more to do with fuel comsumption than anythink else. Obviously you need a larger engine to generate the same power without forced induction. It's all about how much air you can cram in the engine.

I would expect the Kompressor to be as reliable as any other high performance engine. It is true that all forced induction systems generate more heat than normally aspirated engines. Compresssed air gets hot. It's just posturing however to say that it's "the wrong way" to build an engine. There's no universally accepted "way" to generate power. It is a more complex and costly way however. All of the big American muscle cars had big 7 or 7.5 liter engines in the 60's and were very cheap to build. With the advent of electronic controls however the ability to have forced induction has come a long way. Who had heard of knock sensors etc in the 60's?

BTW superchargers/turbos/4 valve OHC engines etc were all around int the 30's!

MadC32

good, interesting post. Thank you

awiner

Steve Clark

"large supercharged engines" are not the right way to make power...ie "cheating",they're in denial of their own heritage.

One of BMW's all-time best engines was the 801...a large,supercharged engine that used a lot of boost.

True-there's no "right" was to make power,as long as the engine package/perfomance fits its' purpose and doesn't break.

AMG FANATIC

S/C'ers do put stress on an engine, but making an engine revving higher is even worse. I am not saying that either the M3 or C32 route is wrong or right, but I'd much rather go for the s/c low revving engine than a high revving n/a engine. Wear and tear on revs goes up exponentially. In other words, for every 10% an engine revs higher the stresses are 20% more. That's why F1 engines that revs up to 19000rpm only lasts 600km or so.

Felix

but kompressor-engines are a lot more durable then turbo´s. turbos are driven by the exhaust, and these are always very hot. on the other side of the turbo you need air as cold as possible (due intercoolers). there are extreme heat-differences within only a few centimeters in one part, meaning really hard stress for the material.

a kompressor just needs cold air, and has not to stand these heat-differences. one importat factor why superchargers last a lot longer.

G Unit

AMG Kompressor

corgiman

Interesting thought about high revving engines. I guess at some point there is a finite number of times that the piston ( and all moving parts for that matter) can rub against each other without wearing out.

[/QUOTE]S/C'ers do put stress on an engine, but making an engine revving higher is even worse.

Steve Clark

"I guess at some point there is a finite number of times that the piston ( and all moving parts for that matter) can rub against each other without wearing out."

That's what lubrication prevents...the parts do not "rub against each other"-they are separated by a thin film of oil.When they do actually make contact and rub,disaster soon follows.

Assuming that all its' fluids are clean,once your engine is fully warmed up(after break-in),there is essentially zero wear between moving parts.What's hard on those parts is dirt and excessive thermal or inertial loads.

corgiman

Well OK but no matter how good the lubrication is given contaminants etc. there is SOME wear. Although I have heard that with synthetic oils the wear is undetectable even after many hours of operation.

I guess another factor to consider is that with very high RPM's the stress on the parts is greater when the pistons must reverse direction.

AMG FANATIC

You've got it dead right. It's not actual wear and tear, but more high g-forces we are talking about here.