[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Turbo vs. Supercharger.



I was speaking of our dubs in general and VWs attitude on the subject
of the supercharger.  They could have used the quality of an Eaton or
Lysholm (they do have deep pockets), but instead they seemed to say
"Oh well, not too good" and they just dumped the G60 like a bad idea.
I have several friends that tried to stay loyal to the G60, but have since
gone the turbo route, or just gave up on the Corrado completely.  I had
every intention to make the Supercharger my next upgrade to my 86, now
I am pretty much convinced to do the Turbo.  I guess there have been
too many cases of VWs with superchargers going south.

Dale Witt
03 GTI 20AE
86.5 2.0 16v Scirocco
82 2.1 16v Zender Wide Body Scirocco

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neal Tovsen" <nealtovsen@yahoo.com>
To: "dale witt" <dwitt1@satx.rr.com>; "Scirocco List"
<Scirocco-l@Scirocco.org>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger.


> ? For the average driver, I believe the
> > supercharger is just too
> > high maintenance.
>
> I think the ***G60*** was too much maintenance for the
> average person. But that is in no way an indication of
> supercharger maintenance in general. The G60 design
> was unique and never perfected. The technology didn't
> exist, and nobody invested in it.
>
> Eaton or Lysholm units requre no more maintenance than
> a turbo. Some claim they require less. There's an
> Eaton-charged Rabbit on Vortex that claims to have put
> 150k on his SC after he pulled it from a junkyard!
>
> Neal
>
> --- dale witt <dwitt1@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > What do you suppose was the thinking at VW, as they
> > never really made a big
> > hit with the G60 and pretty much let it take a back
> > seat to the VR and now
> > the turbo.  For the average driver, I believe the
> > supercharger is just too
> > high maintenance.
> >
> > Dale Witt
> > 03 GTI 20AE
> > 86.5 2.0 16v Scirocco
> > 82 2.1 16v Zender wide body Scirocco
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "L F" <rocco16v@netzero.net>
> > To: "Dan Bubb" <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com>; "Mike Smith"
> > <smithma7@yahoo.com>;
> > "car" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 7:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   A million opinions!
> >   Superchargers tend to be less efficient
> > particularly at higher pressure
> >   ratios. So, they aren't as good at making really
> > high power.
> >
> >   YOU'D BETTER TELL THAT TO JOHN FORCE, HE COULD USE
> > SOME ADVICE ABOUT NOW.
> >
> >   OTOH a big really high power laggy turbo is the
> > last thing you need for an
> >   autocross car. Superchargers, particularly
> > positive displacement types,
> > have
> >   fast response.
> >   The primary issue then is quick response vs. power
> > producing capability.
> >   There are a million secondary issues!
> >   just my .02
> >   Dan
> >
> >   AS FOR THE REST, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH DAN.
> >   HAVE FUN!
> >   LARRY
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com