keithw1975

My dad has been asking me for ages why people don't put superchargers on trucks when they are looking for raw power and other than the fuel economy argument I couldn't give him a good answer. Can anyone on here tell me why that wouldn't be an amazing setup?

Keith

htgreen3

Detroit used to use the supercharger along with turbos on some of their 2 cycles, the turbo fed the supercharger if I recall correctly.

RustyJC

The 2-cycle Detroits (-53, -71, -92 etc.) used scavenging air blowers. These were not superchargers; they were required to pump the scavenging air required for these engines to run.

When these blowers were mounted on 392 Hemis for drag racing, they were reapplied as superchargers.

Rusty

blackdiesel

if i was going to guess, it would be something along the lines of not enough volume for the "raw power" hes talking about.

plus, they run off of the belt, and that takes hp. where as a turbocharger dosnt.

96_12V

Basically what the last post said - turbo's work better with the long-stroke, torque-dense nature of most diesels. Supercharges might help overcome some of the initial lag until enough pressure is built to provide boost, however after that, it's just extra weight and belt-driven drain on engine power. Too expensive, too heavy, and just generally not needed.

I think overall people just tend to like them due to that name..."Supercharger!!!" Man, that just sounds fast!

jrs_dodge_diesel

I don't know, i like 'turbo'charger better. They sound better too.