1st Gen R53 Cooper S Most liked posts in thread: Supercharged vs Turbo

The turbo gets better fuel mileage.
Various mods can be done to both.
Each have their own share of common problems.
To you which is more fun to drive?
Which interior do you like better?

 

The SC powered MINI will have a reduction in midrange torque, and lack of throttle response (compared to R56 sport button). That type of performance can almost be matched by throwing intelligent money at the SC MINI. If you are able to compare in mile long full throttle operation, and intel money has been tacked on to the SC powered car, the stock turbo MINI will feel like it has run out of steam sooner before mile's end. In stock forms, the R56 has more usable power performance on the street than an R53. If you are attaching some esoteric value to each method of forced induction as mentioned by others, power performance won't be a concern to you.

Steering feedback on the street is greater on the R53 than R56 in my opinion; you may feel a difference when driving.

 

I don't feel "disconnected" in my R56. I have never understood this complaint. I've driven R53s at autocrosses and they felt just as responsive and planted as an R56. *shrug*.

This biggest felt difference is a better pull off the line for the R53. The highway pulls are much better with a turbo.

I am comparing stock for stock. No mods. So, if you plan on modding I have nothing useful to add.

 

This is true, just pick one and you will be happy.

 

Going with your theory Dave... you and I should swap cars :ihih:

:devil:

 

Love my R56. It is an S with the JCW mods. Fast, pulls hard, handles great. Only other mod is a Forge POV, which did wonders for low end pull.

And it looks sharp.

And it rides great.

And it handles like a dream.

So if you wanna get a little more fatigued "feeling" the road and "feel" like you are going faster, go with the R53.

If you want to be a bit more comfortable and ACTUALLY go faster, go with the R56.

 

Both supercharger and turbo for the win!

 

Redline is dictated by, among other items, valve inertia. In order to increase redline you need to reduce reciprocating valve train mass...springs, valves... etc. This is necessary to reduce valve float. And it's not simply a matter of increasing the stiffness of the valve springs. Increasing the spring rate has the downside of increasing cam wear.

 

Not true.....CNC allows consistency not necessarily quality.

 

A CNC is only as good as the programer and operator, however that equipment if used properly will give repeatable results time after time. And a beter quality in the long run, I ran a CNC when I was making aircraft alternators with Bishop Aviation.

 

^^^ pea brain? Hardly? I've learned a lot on MA. .. And have a long way to go to catch up with most of the true hands-on experts here.

Actually a fixed geometry supercharger has an optimum efficiency at one speed. Same with a turbo. If the supercharger is a roots blower type then options are somewhat limited. If it is a screw compressor then its possible to use a slide valve to vary the volume ratio over a range of speeds. True the supercharger doesn't suffer lag like a turbo. A supercharger can be thought of as proactive. A turbo is more reactive. Thus the lag... A turbo with variable inlet vanes could be designed to spool up fast and yet have more than sufficient volume so it doesn't choke at high flow. It's doable but can get a bit complicated (read that as expensive).

On a supercharger arrangement, the engine must overcome the mechanical losses of the compressor. The crankshaft "sees" the compressor load. On a turbocharger arrangement, the compressor and turbine are not mechanically connected to the engine crankshaft, so the engine does not see that load. Whew .....

 

^^^ you're right about back pressure causing a loss of performance.. Heck most of us have swapped out the restrictive OEM exhaust for one that breaths better. I don't know what the pressure drop through the turbo is but I'm sure it is a only few psi. However with respect to providing intake boost, a turbocharger is generally a more efficient method, which may be why they are more prevalent in today's vehicles. A centrifugal compressor will usually have a flatter head curve compared to a positive displacement SC and the TC can do more flow. On the other hand, a SC can do more lift in a single stage of compression than a comparable single stage centrifugal (turbo). And a SC may be better at rapid changes in flow.... jump on the throttle and its nearly instantaneous. A turbo can be equipped with variable inlet vanes to nearly eliminate any lag. Usually a turbo-compressor will tend to be better at steady state operating conditions, but variable inlet vanes or a variable diffuser (exit) will take care of that too. Several auto companies are using VVT's (variable vane turbos) now too.

For automotive use, there is no single "best" method. It's really the designer's choice.

I am just starting a new compressor design project at work... It's a 5,500 HP single stage internally geared centrifugal. The best part is that after I design and build it... I get to test it to destruction. Several times..

 

I got 10 feet of snow a hour away from me......that's what's nice about it...it's an hour away from me :lol:

 

ouch

 

There is no lag and the power delivery is more linear with the SC. That said Turbos have improved in this area greatly and continue to do so.

 

On the track years ago, I was just keeping up in the straights with an unmodded R56. My R53 at that time had a CAI, pulley and exhaust. Those engines pull very strongly.

The R53 to me feels more raw and connected to the road... the choice for an enthusiast. The R56 feels like a better daily driver and grocery getting machine (from my week in a loaner '08 MCS) and is still fast, but it feels dialed back a bit.

I still love the energy and personality of an R53 and I have no plans of getting rid of my '06 MCS R53 anytime soon.