turbocharger vs supercharger
#1
#5
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I pretty much bought this car for its sound and looks. Everything else is just gravy. Jaguar put alot of R&D money into getting it to sound amazing because it does attract alot of buyers. It adds so much to the experience of driving to hear roaring as you hit the gas as opposed to muffled flatulence.
#6
#7
Trending Topics
#8
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
To a point, yes. Jaguar could have easily stuck two turbochargers on the thing and made 750 horsepower... but that wasn't the point of the vehicle. Jaguar never aimed to make this car for lap times. Yes, they wanted to make a capable car, that handled and could hold its own on the track, but the car wasn't intended to beat the 911 on a road course. It was meant to be beautiful and ridiculous.
#9
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
High revving horsepower on the track is just fine (turbo) if you keep the engine over several thousand rpm at all times. However, street-able performance comes from low and midrange torque that is more easily generated with a supercharger. My wife and I each have a JCW MINI both with a 1.6L engine, hers with a turbo (2009) and mine with an SC (2002). Both have been tuned to roughly the same peak whp. The peak torque range is far broader with the SC (4k-7.5k rpm) than with the turbo (5.5k-7.5k) and performs much better particularly from 0-60. I would not have been nearly as interested in the F-Type if it wasn't supercharged.
Last edited by Unhingd; 03-05-2015 at 05:38 PM.
#10
#11
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Jaguar developed these engines years ago as supercharged, with the V6 and V8 derivatives being essentially the same design. They've been continuously refined for years now, and they had nothing else in the pipeline developing comparable levels of power at the time the F-Type was finalized. Thus, they had no alternative, other than to use someone else's engine.
Turbochargers have advanced considerably in the time since this engine was developed. They might go a different direction in the future.
Turbochargers have advanced considerably in the time since this engine was developed. They might go a different direction in the future.
#12
#13
#14
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
As for the sound, hell yes, that's what gives this car "soul."
#15
#16
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Swapping out the OEM filter with a K&N free flow filter could enhance the whine from under the hood. Doing that on my MINI had a huge impact on sound level. In fact, despite the sport exhaust, the SC is now the only thing you can hear under full trot. Sounds like a jet engine on takeoff. The reduction pulley also contributed. The reduction pulley for the V6S is already sitting on my desk.
#17
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Swapping out the OEM filter with a K&N free flow filter could enhance the whine from under the hood. Doing that on my MINI had a huge impact on sound level. In fact, despite the sport exhaust, the SC is now the only thing you can hear under full trot. Sounds like a jet engine on takeoff. The reduction pulley also contributed. The reduction pulley for the V6S is already sitting on my desk.
Did they do that for power, fuel economy, or what?
#18
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Now that you mention it, that reminds me of a question I've had. The modern Mini started with a supercharged engine in the Cooper S (for supercharged). In "Gen 2" cars, it became an entirely different engine, now turbocharged, but is still an S. My only Mini experience was with Gen 1, which are the only ones I like.
Did they do that for power, fuel economy, or what?
Did they do that for power, fuel economy, or what?
And yes, I like my Gen 1 much better than my wife's Gen2. It got big and fat. The gen3's are even worse.
Last edited by Unhingd; 03-05-2015 at 09:22 PM.
#19
![Default](/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Factory specs: HP went up by 10, peak torque went up by about the same but over a narrower range for the Gen 2. Fuel consumption went up by 2 mpg (8%). However, more tuning opportunity with the Gen1 SC.
And yes, I like my Gen 1 much better than my wife's Gen2. It got big and fat. The gen3's are even worse.
And yes, I like my Gen 1 much better than my wife's Gen2. It got big and fat. The gen3's are even worse.
I suspect they felt it needed to get bigger to gain more market share, particularly in this country. I'm sure the power gains were offset by extra pork in terms of performance.
#20