Which is Better: Turbocharging or Supercharging?
2 Answers
Turbocharging and supercharging each have their own advantages and disadvantages, making it impossible to directly compare which is better. The comparison between turbocharging and supercharging is as follows: 1. Advantages and disadvantages of turbocharging; (1) The power source of turbocharging is engine exhaust, which is equivalent to waste utilization. Therefore, it can increase intake efficiency and improve engine thermal efficiency without consuming the engine's own power, achieving two goals at once. Moreover, the structure of a turbocharger is much simpler than that of a supercharger, resulting in lower manufacturing and maintenance costs; (2) Turbocharging only comes into play at high engine speeds. When the engine is at low speeds, the energy of the exhaust gas is relatively small, making it unable to drive the turbo to high speeds. As a result, the turbo's effect on intake boosting is very limited at this time; (3) Slow response. Since fresh air needs to go through the process of entering the engine, participating in combustion, exhausting, and then driving the turbo, this process takes some time. Therefore, there is always a slight delay between the desire for power and the actual acquisition of power, giving a "half-beat slow" feeling. This is the turbo lag effect. 2. Advantages and disadvantages of supercharging. (1) A supercharger directly places an air compressor in the intake tract, but this compressor is not driven by exhaust gas. Instead, it directly uses the engine's output power. It is directly connected to the engine's crankshaft (via direct gear meshing or belt drive), so as soon as the engine starts rotating, the supercharger begins to rotate as well. Therefore, it can show good boosting effects at low engine speeds, unlike a turbo that must wait until high speeds when the exhaust gas energy is high to start working. Additionally, due to its simple mechanical connection with the engine crankshaft, there is no lag, and its "on-demand" working attitude provides a more linear boosting effect; (2) Complex structure. A supercharger is essentially an air compressor, and its structure is much more complex than that of a turbo, making manufacturing and maintenance costs very expensive; (3) Boosting consumes engine power. The original intention of intake boosting is to improve the engine's thermal efficiency, but the biggest drawback of a supercharger is that while it improves efficiency, it also consumes engine power. Moreover, the higher the engine speed, the more power it consumes, so the effect of increasing power is often not as obvious at high speeds.
Whether turbocharging or supercharging is better depends on your driving purpose. I've driven many turbocharged cars myself, like those commonly used in modern family cars. They rely on exhaust gases to operate, so there's a slight delay in response when you step on the accelerator. For example, when driving a sports car, there's a noticeable lag from standstill to acceleration. However, once the RPM rises, the push-back feeling is incredibly strong, and it's quite fuel-efficient, making it suitable for daily commuting or highway driving. But if you prefer instant response, supercharging, which is directly driven by the engine belt, offers more immediate power delivery, like driving some muscle cars—it's very powerful at low RPMs, though it consumes more fuel. Overall, turbocharging excels in fuel efficiency, and modern cars widely use it to balance performance and economy, providing a smoother driving experience. I think turbocharging is great if you prioritize daily use; supercharging, on the other hand, suits enthusiasts who pursue linear power—each has its own merits.
