No parasitic loss from a turbo = BS - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

willhe64 · 12-03-2012, 09:02 AM

A turbo uses exhaust gas to drive the system. This is created from a piston doing and exhaust stroke. It is using crankshaft force to drive the system, same as a supercharger. It may be less than a direct belt driven system but it is there and it is significant.

VADER SS L99 · 12-03-2012, 09:40 AM

I dont think a turbos parasitic loss is nearly as significant as a supercharger. Just compare power per pound of boost between the 2 systems and you would see that.

RBL · 12-03-2012, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

I dont think a turbos parasitic loss is nearly as significant as a supercharger. Just compare power per pound of boost between the 2 systems and you would see that.

X2

Z_Rocks · 12-03-2012, 10:30 AM

You don't know what you're talking about...

family man · 12-03-2012, 10:32 AM

jordan 572 · 12-03-2012, 11:53 AM

This is a somewhat random post, sounds like you kind of figured out how a turbo works compared to a supercharger so you want to tell us about it. Both have their advantages but a turbo definitely has the upper hand in this department.

WheelmanSS · 12-03-2012, 12:02 PM

Is this a troll thread? It has to be. You can't seriously be trying to make this argument.

.... And this is coming from a supercharger guy.

christianmotox · 12-03-2012, 12:07 PM

Okay.

old motorhead · 12-03-2012, 02:51 PM

Absolutely there's parasitic loss from a turbo. It's just miniscule compared to the loss from a belt driven supercharger

. Does that mean that turbos are the answer for all things f/i. Hell no. They're the answer here and they're the answer there.....but they're not, by any means, the answer everywhere.

ChevyGuySS · 12-03-2012, 02:55 PM

thats like saying that a nitrous system will make your car slower because it ads weight...

429 · 12-03-2012, 03:19 PM

willhe64 · 12-03-2012, 04:24 PM

This isn't a troll thread. I made it in response to the general feeling on here that a Turbo doesn't take any power to run.
I saw a chart elsewhere that showed a turbo taking 18ft lbs of torque from an engine and a roots taking 38.
Quite a difference yes, but it is not miniscule.

VADER SS L99 · 12-03-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willhe64

This isn't a troll thread. I made it in response to the general feeling on here that a Turbo doesn't take any power to run.
I saw a chart elsewhere that showed a turbo taking 18ft lbs of torque from an engine and a roots taking 38.
Quite a difference yes, but it is not miniscule.

It is not significant either and no where close to what a supercharger takes away. The amount of power that is lost to drive a turbo is a VERY small percentage of what it gains. So small in fact that I am not even sure its worth mentioning.

xjer22x · 12-03-2012, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

It is not significant either and no where close to what a supercharger takes away. The amount of power that is lost to drive a turbo is a VERY small percentage of what it gains. So small in fact that I am not even sure its worth mentioning.

it also can depends on the actual turbo setup. If you got Cermic ball bearing turbos that barely take anything to spin, it will take less force then older style journal bearing turbos as well. Still though even with that it is still minimal compared to any belt driven blower.

i have seen a twin turbo vetter that was just idling for 10 minutes turn its engine off and the turbos continued spinning for approximately 30-45 sec after the car was shut off. You cant tell me that requires much effort to spin those up. (it was a pair of GT35R's for anyone curious)

12-03-2012, 09:02 AM	#1
willhe64 Drives: 2012 45th Vert, 2011 4x4, 9sec Vega Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Canada Posts: 2,188	No parasitic loss from a turbo = BS A turbo uses exhaust gas to drive the system. This is created from a piston doing and exhaust stroke. It is using crankshaft force to drive the system, same as a supercharger. It may be less than a direct belt driven system but it is there and it is significant. __________________ I feel it only fair to warn you, I have a black belt in CAPS LOCK.

12-03-2012, 09:40 AM	#2
VADER SS L99 Drives: 2013 A6 GT 5.0 Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Edmond, OK Posts: 2,909	I dont think a turbos parasitic loss is nearly as significant as a supercharger. Just compare power per pound of boost between the 2 systems and you would see that. __________________ BLK/BLK 1SS/RS Ordered 11-01-2009 Took delivery 12-22-2009. Heads/cam/converter/bolt ons. SOLD Feb 2015 to fund 6th gen LT1 SS with 8L90E.

12-03-2012, 12:02 PM	#7
WheelmanSS Logic is dead Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS Join Date: May 2010 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,804	Is this a troll thread? It has to be. You can't seriously be trying to make this argument. .... And this is coming from a supercharger guy. __________________ 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS (LS3) 573 RWHP 498 RWTQ - Vortech V3 Supercharger - Kooks Stepped Headers, Magnaflow 16580 - Suspension by Pfadt, Hotchkis. 2007 Trailblazer SS- Sold 2001 Trans Am WS6 431 RWHP 408 RWTQ - Sold 1994 Camaro Z28 - Sold

12-03-2012, 12:07 PM	#8
christianmotox Drives: ( . )( . ) Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,827	Okay. __________________

12-03-2012, 02:51 PM	#9
old motorhead Drives: Maggie blown LS3 vette Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: SE TX Posts: 1,490	Absolutely there's parasitic loss from a turbo. It's just miniscule compared to the loss from a belt driven supercharger. Does that mean that turbos are the answer for all things f/i. Hell no. They're the answer here and they're the answer there.....but they're not, by any means, the answer everywhere.

12-03-2012, 10:30 AM	#4
Z_Rocks Drives: everyone crazy... Join Date: May 2009 Location: SW Florida Posts: 2,109	You don't know what you're talking about...

12-03-2012, 10:32 AM	#5
family man Drives: . Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: . Posts: 1,085

12-03-2012, 11:53 AM	#6
jordan 572 Drives: none Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: MN Posts: 1,720 View My Garage	This is a somewhat random post, sounds like you kind of figured out how a turbo works compared to a supercharger so you want to tell us about it. Both have their advantages but a turbo definitely has the upper hand in this department.

12-03-2012, 02:55 PM	#10
ChevyGuySS Drives: 2009 Pontiac G8 GT Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Boca Raton Posts: 27 View My Garage	thats like saying that a nitrous system will make your car slower because it ads weight... __________________ 2009 Pontiac G8 GT M6 Kraftworks Built Forged 10.3-1 LSA w/ Ported/Polished LS3 Heads, Kraftworks spec Cam Motion billet Cam, LSA Blower/2.50 ADM Griptech, Lingenfelter ZR1 Clutch kit, Camaro SS 3.45, ProMotion Built TR6060, Kooks 1-7/8 Longtubes w. Catless Solo Connection Pipes, Solo Mach Shorty Catback, Rotofab Intake, Eibach Springs, G8Only Splitter with custom turnbuckles, 20x9.5 and 20x10.5 Sapphire Blue Forgestar F14, CTS-V1 4 Piston Brembos/w SS lines

12-03-2012, 03:19 PM	#11
429 Account Suspended Drives: 2010 camaro ss Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Richmond Hill, GA Posts: 726

12-03-2012, 04:24 PM	#12
willhe64 Drives: 2012 45th Vert, 2011 4x4, 9sec Vega Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Canada Posts: 2,188	This isn't a troll thread. I made it in response to the general feeling on here that a Turbo doesn't take any power to run. I saw a chart elsewhere that showed a turbo taking 18ft lbs of torque from an engine and a roots taking 38. Quite a difference yes, but it is not miniscule. __________________ I feel it only fair to warn you, I have a black belt in CAPS LOCK.