[ergoproxy]

I thought of this as I was reading about a factory FI kit for the Toyota Tundra:

The SAE published a technical paper in the 1990s coming down on the side of the directly coupled supercharger as preferable to turbo-supercharging.

http://papers.sae.org/870704/

SC offers better low rpm performance, no lag, fewer emissions issues. Yet it seems exhaust-driven turbos are everywhere. My finger is not on the McLaren pulse like some of you guys, but I have not heard of any new NA or SC McLaren models.

Is it efficiency? Improved ECUs and emissions tech? Or maybe the peak outputs of (exhaust driven) turbos being so much higher?

 

[HyperMac954]

Superchargers are by definition less efficient, and as long as you properly match the turbo to the application, you shouldn't have any lag. And because turbochargers usually have fewer parts, they generally weigh less (though not always)

 

[falb]

Generally speaking this is my understanding in brief. Superchargers are cheaper, more simple, and more reliable. They are in use extensively by OEM and aftermarket. Turbos technology has come a long way and is more efficient, providing better top end performance and gas mileage than S/C.

I am sure McLaren has volumes of data on this stuff.

 

[MitchF1GTR]

Yup, plus using 2 smaller turbos vs 1 larger one or a supercharger removes lag and improves the efficiency of the system. Not to mention as has already been said, it's a lighter design. Factor in the height added to the engine with normal superchargers and going turbo is the far better option.