Date: 10 Dec 2001 11:34:04 -0800 From: johsnopsamanytime.co.uk (Johannes H Andersen) Subject: Re: turbo ( somewhat OT )
"Simon Putz" <simon.putznopsamline.de> wrote in message news:<9v2m0j$jb6$02$1nopsam.t-online.com>... > Hi ! > > thanks for the fast response ;) heh now im a bit wiser > well i do understand now, seems that turbo is more economical by > using something that would just go out in the air otherwise ;) > > > > > I think you mixes compressor and supercharger. > > > > well both are compression ratio increasing devices i think > so from that point both are "compressors" > dont mistake that with "compressor" used by mercedes which is actually > a supercharger > > other thing: i never noticed anything of the infamous "turbo-lag" even on OG 900 > because alot of people dramaticise this as if it would take 1 minute for the turbo to kick in ;) > > bye > > simon putz Since there is still some lingering discord in this thread, I looked it up in The Penguins Book of the Car. "Supercharging" is the general concept of pumping air into the engine. However, the devices splits into turbochargers (exhaust driven) and superchargers (mechanically driven). A compressor is a supercharger. This terminology is probably due to the fact that superchargers were used in the beginning. Superchargers are easier to control than turbos. A turbo tends to give either too little or too much boost if not carefully controlled. Modern computer control makes this much easier. Johannes
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
