Schmoe - I do not understand your second sentence. Can you explain it a bit more? So, S/C is safer than turbo?
Will super charger shorten the life of engine?
- Thread starter sifan
- Start date
- Status
OEM superchargers are less prone to failure due to heat, pressure spiking, oil coking, etc. Superchargers usually run around 8PSI constantly, and are normally less technically complex and less demanding to maintain, while turbos run anywhere between 0-13 psi or more depending on what your right foot is doing. They're more succeptible to heat related failure as they run quite hot during hard driving. I have seen some real success stories among old 2.2 liter turbo Mopars that were meticulously maintained...like around 250K miles on my friend's LeBaron convertible...but I think he's a rarity.
Supercharger over turbo, power the second you hit the gas! much less complex, easier to maintain - you won't get the same power from a SC but you get that power right away - IMO that is most important, I want to feel whiplash.
I understand the point of the engine needing to be designed for the use of a SC, but are some engines not better designed than other for SC use? say a factory stock vette?
I understand the point of the engine needing to be designed for the use of a SC, but are some engines not better designed than other for SC use? say a factory stock vette?
You can successfully add a SC to just about any car as long as you don't overestimate the PSI it can withstand. Some cars inherently have a weak head gasket and it takes very little to blow some of them...and other cars have internals (rods, bearings, etc) that seem to have been designed to withstand stock HP and very little more. If you use a little restraint like the automakers do, you could enjoy a long happy life with an aftermarket SC added to your car. The problem with aftermarket turbos is that people have spent thousands of dollars buying and installing them, and because of that, they demand maximum performance out of them....and they crank the boost to 15 psi. Usually the next thing that happens is one of the connecting rods cuts itself a window in the side of the block. A little discipline goes a long way. As far as a Vette is concerned, they're renowned for their bulletproof bottom end and there are some aftermarket tuners that are extracting 800+ horsepower from them, with complete reliability.
So from which do you expect the longest lifespan, all driving habits being equal?
A) 2.0 Liter 16V I4 Turbo @ 240hp
B) 3.5 Liter 24V V6 N/A @ 240hp
C) 4.0 Liter 32V V8 N/A @ 240hp
A) 2.0 Liter 16V I4 Turbo @ 240hp
B) 3.5 Liter 24V V6 N/A @ 240hp
C) 4.0 Liter 32V V8 N/A @ 240hp
The original post proved nothing related to the above question, as he is S/C, not T/C...but I hear what you're saying.
Right, I might not have gave my post the finishing thought. My thought is I wouldn't put this mini-van in the same class as a 1/4 mile drag car because it has a super charger. If driven like a normal daily driver, the engine should last a long time.
I think 97GTP was trying to make the point that the higher the engine's *specific power output* (h.p. per c.i.), the shorter the engine life, all else being equal. So the correct answer to your question is C, because the components are not as highly stressed.
(I drive a 2.7 liter 30V V6 with 2 turbos. Please pray for me.)
Let her blow..then you can get an RS4 and enjoy the longevity of a N/A V8 
That be an Audi A6.
heheh....you aren't putting 800 hp through a normal Corvette's stock shortblock with any expectation of longevity. Cranks are decent but the rods and pistons are no better than most. 500 whp is about the limit with a safe tune. It's all in the tune and keeping detonation out of the system. You'd be surprised how much power most modern engines can take over stock levels. Power is seldom what craters the engine. As for the thread starters question...nope. Don't worry about it anymore than you would a normal engine. Supercharged/turbocharged OEM cars can last just as long as their naturally aspirated counterparts. I know a few TC's over the 300K mile mark on the factory 2.3T.
My wife's 1997 Toyota Previa All-Wheel-Drive has the factory super charger which has 146k miles on odo. It is still running strong. I have it maintained by a dealer/Toyota specialist every 15k miles. It now needs new struts/shocks which costs a lot of money to replace. I just wonder if the super charger will shorten the life span of an engine because I would like to keep it for a long time.
BTW, I change oil every 3k miles with M1 5W30 since I bought it uased at 25k miles from a Toyota dealer.
Whenever greater-than-atmospheric pressure is added to an engine, you will usually find stress-related failures that you might not ever see in a normally aspirated engine. Greater heat and pressure in the combustion chamber can lead to many things, including more stress on the head gasket, rod and main bearings, valves, etc. But...a factory installed S/C means that the engine has been designed and tuned to account for what a supercharger will be subjecting it to. Superchargers added aftermarket are usually found to cause far greater numbers of failures than one that was designed and installed by the manufacturer. With OEM S/Cs you more often see the S/C fail in some way long before the engine does, due to the very high RPMs it's running during every minute of operation. You're doing well at 146K, but at some point expect at least to be replacing bearings in the S/C.
The engines that come with a turbo or super charger are built to take the extra load/pressures those put on an engine.
Since most engines so equiped don't get abused or even driven so the charger is in use much, I'd say these motors will last as long as any other.
Good oil and filter, and proper maintanence are the keys to long engine life for any engine.
Since most engines so equiped don't get abused or even driven so the charger is in use much, I'd say these motors will last as long as any other.
Good oil and filter, and proper maintanence are the keys to long engine life for any engine.
- Status
