Centrifugal SC vs. Turbo

[DaileyDog]

To the untrained eye (mine for example), they look the same. I'd have a hard time telling them apart in person, I think. So, what's the difference? How do they work differently?

Mike

[chameleon]

Some one correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the only difference between a centrifugal super charger and a turbo is that the super charger runs off a belt and the turbo runs off the exhaust. I beleive that internally they basically operate the same way.

[vvtlikick]

Yep, a centrifugal supercharger is the same as the compressor (intake) half of a turbo, but the turbine (exhaust) half is missing, replaced by a set of gears and a drive belt/chain/etc.

Centrifugal superchargers offer less performance than turbos and positive-displacement superchargers because they have to be geared to not overboost at high rpm, which <b>severely</b> compromises low- and mid-rpm performance. They can produce impressive peak power numbers, but the powerband is <i>insanely</i> peaky. Peaky to the point where the car is dramatically slower than you'd expect for the peak power number.

I don't think they're a good choice for supercharging, until they're available with CVT drives, instead of a single fixed gear ratio to drive them.

[DaileyDog]

Many thanks.

[maztur]

For comparative purposes, the Vortech centrifugal supercharger for 99-00 Honda Civic SIs runs 13s easily ... www.clubsi.com

[Jesse IL]

In some situations, centrifugal supercharger applications work extremelywell, like on the Comptech kit for the S2000. A centrifugal supercharger is much more efficient than a positive displacement type, but spool up/surge is always an issue with these. There has been a supercharger in development for several years by Garret that uses a hydraulic pump to drive a turbo compressor. the pump could be made to spool up quickly, but not overdrive at high rpm. Would solve the problems with a centrifugal supercharger while eliminating the packaging issues of a turbocharger.