104-0 - eviltoast
  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    If the size of the turbo on my VW is anything to go by, I think the rotating mas of an automotive supercharger would be more likely on the order of 2 kg, not 20 kg. In my mind, that has two implications: (a) the gain from bothering to disable it is perhaps not actually all that significant, and (b) the additional mass that would come with attaching a clutch to it might be large compared to the total mass you’re trying to control, so maybe it wouldn’t be worth it. Then again, the Previa supercharger the other reply gave (which certainly wouldn’t be a very large supercharger) might be a counterexample…

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Turbos spin far faster than (Roots-type) superchargers, and can therefore be much smaller.

      Besides that, I don’t think rotating mass is really the issue. Yes, more inertia is like having a bigger flywheel so the engine will be slower to spin up/down, but that doesn’t consume much energy, especially in steady-state cruising.

      Superchargers compress air - that takes energy. You then restrict it through the throttle body, because you’re not cruising with a wide-open throttle. That throws away all the compression.

      You also have pumping losses and bearing/gear/belt losses.