A SUPERCHARGED Sky in '08?!?!?!!?

[Robotech]

That's what Autoweek is saying...

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1/TOC01ARCHIVE

Anybody hear ANYTHING on this?

[DARZSKY]

What is the difference between Turbo and Super charged??? Please explain in laymen's terms if possible for those of us who do not understand all that mechanical jargon. Thanks

[MidniteBlues]

More power, more gas, go faster--=more danger=higher insurance--hmm--

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Robotech

That's what Autoweek is saying...

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1/TOC01ARCHIVE

Anybody hear ANYTHING on this?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Unless perhaps Saturn intends to put the 200 hp LSJ (the s/c engine from the ION Redline) in and create a mid-level model of the SKY. Not a horrible idea, but not one I see going very far either. Plus, I think they'd have a hard time getting the s/c model to fit price wise between the base and t/c model.

The difference between a supercharged (s/c) and turbo-charged (t/c) engine can be boiled down to really basic terms like this. A Supercharger helps blow air INTO the engine at higher speeds and lower temperatures. A Turbocharger uses the exhaust coming OUT OF the engine to generate more power. Obviously, the whole thing is much more complicated than that, but that's the easiest way I was ever told, and it made sense to me. A S/C is usually mounted between the Intake and Engine block, whereas a T/C is mounted between the Engine block and Exhaust.

Typically, a Turbo will give more power at the top end, but, a Turbo also takes a little longer to 'spool up'. This is why a Turbo typically only helps in the higher RPM bands. A Supercharger will give extra power throughout the entire range of RPMs.

For the SKY, you want the Turbo!

[KappaMan]

BS alert!


http://www.skyroadster.com/forums/at...0&d=1131119038

[CUINOZ]

I have a 2004 "Supercharged" 210 hp 260 LB/FT, Nissan Frontier and frankly it eats fuel like there is no tomorrow. I hope this is rumor and not fact.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by CUINOZ

I have a 2004 "Supercharged" 210 hp 260 LB/FT, Nissan Frontier and frankly it eats fuel like there is no tomorrow. I hope this is rumor and not fact.

Being supercharged vs. turbocharged will have little-to-no impact on fuel consumption. Both variants will suck fuel down. Your problem with the Frontier 'eating' fuel probably has more to do with the fact that it's a 4,000 lb truck. Plus, the direct injection system of the LNF turbo helps with the fuel a little bit.

[Robotech]

Originally Posted by DARZSKY

What is the difference between Turbo and Super charged??? Please explain in laymen's terms if possible for those of us who do not understand all that mechanical jargon. Thanks

Both turbo chargers and super chargers push more air into the engine than it would normally suck in on it's own (remember an engine is nothing more than a big air pump).

Turbo Chargers use exhaust gas to spin a turbine...think of it as a large fan...that will compress the incoming air.

Super Chargers have a belt that attaches to the crankshaft. This turns large impellers inside the super charger which compresses the air.

Turbos usually heat the incoming air considerablly, superchargers less so (when you compress a gas its temperature always rises. You want to minimize heat as much as possible...hence why we have intercoolers for turbos and super chargers). However, with a super charger it takes power from the engine to turn the super charger. They call this parasitic loss. With a turbo, you have what is called turbo lag. When you first mash on the gas the turbo has to "spool up" in reaction to the increased exhaust flow. This is why when you stomp on the gas in most turbo cars you feel a bit of acceleration and then BAM the car takes off. The larger the turbo the greater the lag generally.

[MRSSKY]

Turbo charged sky! come on you guys, that car won't stay on the road!.....IT'LL BE FLY-IN....lets add a little nitro!
Athough I come from a family of 4 brothers, let me tell ya....2 fantastic gear heads, and two salesmen.......

[skyfan]

Originally Posted by Robotech

Both turbo chargers and super chargers push more air into the engine than it would normally suck in on it's own (remember an engine is nothing more than a big air pump).

Turbo Chargers use exhaust gas to spin a turbine...think of it as a large fan...that will compress the incoming air.

Super Chargers have a belt that attaches to the crankshaft. This turns large impellers inside the super charger which compresses the air.

Turbos usually heat the incoming air considerablly, superchargers less so (when you compress a gas its temperature always rises. You want to minimize heat as much as possible...hence why we have intercoolers for turbos and super chargers). However, with a super charger it takes power from the engine to turn the super charger. They call this parasitic loss. With a turbo, you have what is called turbo lag. When you first mash on the gas the turbo has to "spool up" in reaction to the increased exhaust flow. This is why when you stomp on the gas in most turbo cars you feel a bit of acceleration and then BAM the car takes off. The larger the turbo the greater the lag generally.

I test drove a Acura RDX last week. I has a two stage turbo with a valve which is suppose to minimize the lag. I have to say I really didn't like the lag surge effect, but it did take off like rocket once it kicked in. I guess you will have to used to the feel of the car.

[mbleigh]

Originally Posted by skyfan

I test drove a Acura RDX last week. I has a two stage turbo with a valve which is suppose to minimize the lag. I have to say I really didn't like the lag surge effect, but it did take off like rocket once it kicked in. I guess you will have to used to the feel of the car.

My Passat does that now and it drives me nuts. For the first few weeks I was laying rubber at every stop sign.

By the way, was that you I saw driving south on 471 (maybe hitting 275 to head East??) with a Honda S2000 following you? And rightfully so. lol.

[deluke]

I BELIEVE it 's a bad rumor. My opinion only though.

[wtxhl]

I read about the supercharger too. I also read (in Motor Trend, I think) that GM has 300 hp Solstices/Skys in testing right now. Could they be the supercharged versions?

[ykS]

also, it is in the current issue of automotive news. this is a trade publication that a lot dealers subsribe to, and it usually pretty accurate.

however, cars are not usually the main focus of the publication; mostly boring stuff about dealer groups, UAW decisions, and business stuff.

in the section on future vehicles for GM it listed a both a turbo and a s/c sky (in the future). not the first time i've heard of it, but i haven't heard anything to confirm it (of course, a renault/nissan partnership might change a lot of plans for GMs future cars, but i don't think that will happen....knock on wood)

[BLUERIDGE SKY]

"When the Red Line comes along with 260 hp, less displacement, a turbo and a six- rather than a five-speed automatic, it shouldn’t be a problem. But in the base car, the automatic just strains this big-displacement four into an NVH engineer’s nightmare."

Same article... have they got Aura/Sky/Corvette/??? all mixed up or what????

[brentil]

MT seems to be the mag with the wildest shotgun style rumors.

[Seagull]

Originally Posted by MRSVIPER

Turbo charged sky! come on you guys, that car won't stay on the road!.....IT'LL BE FLY-IN....lets add a little nitro!
Athough I come from a family of 4 brothers, let me tell ya....2 fantastic gear heads, and two salesmen.......

When are they coming out with NITRO kits for the Sky???

And where would you put it???

[Jack B]

A couple of thoughts:

1. A SC has losses in the 25% range, therefore, will contribute far more under-hood heat for the same hp.

2. The pre-cooler overcomes most of the hot air issue described in this post.

3. A high hp SC tpically has issues keeping the belt and the harmonic balancer in place. On the speed channel a Ford GT in a review threw the belt.

4. The SC has fallen behind the turbo for a strip/street or even full race application. Take a look at any of the ride-n-drag series, like the Pump Gas Drags, the turbo's rule in the fastest classes. These are a bit different, but, the analogy is there.

The biggest issue for a turbo is the initial install, that is why a factory turbo is so nice.

[Ken]

All that may be true, but if a super charger is offered to Sky owners and keeps the warranty and doesnt mess with smogging your car here in cali..I'll get it for the extra ponies anyway! It may not be as nice as a turbo, but it will be a great increase for naturally aspirated Skys.

[C20LET_50]

Originally Posted by Ken

All that may be true, but if a super charger is offered to Sky owners and keeps the warranty and doesnt mess with smogging your car here in cali..I'll get it for the extra ponies anyway! It may not be as nice as a turbo, but it will be a great increase for naturally aspirated Skys.

For the customer it would be interesting to a choice out 3 engines with different power and torque

Base 2006 2.4L LE5 Graph.pdf

S/C 2006 2.0L LSJ Graph.pdf

T/C 2007_20L_LNF_Gragh.pdf

But as Superman mentioned

.... I think they'd have a hard time getting the s/c model to fit price wise between the base and t/c model.

And GM would not sell a single car more as now because the demand is higher as the production capacity.
If demand would decrease in the later future GM could decide to put a 6 cylinder engine out of the ecotec programm (2.8 L Turbo 230 or 250 hp) instead of the S/C.