Turbos have been around in emissions compliant production cars for a very long time now. Comparatively, superchargers are new to the game.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Ultimate top end power, you turbo. Power everywhere else, you supercharge.

But reliability is something completely different. I know the release of the Eaton M series, which evolved into the current TVS line is the driving force (pun intended).

But how reliable are they?

I have seen turbos with 200k miles going strong. I haven't ever seen that out of a supercharger. But I must admit this is from a limited exposure so I don't have a large enough sample size to make any judgment. That is where the Hive comes in.

So who knows about the life span of the new generation of superchargers? Are they all that or are the OEMS trading life cycle for impressive numbers?

EDITED for the children to keep them on topic.

I'd think superchargers are at least as reliable as turbochargers. There are some Toyotas and Mercs that rack up big mileage with a supercharger without trouble. I'd also say that superchargers are almost obsolete, vs. modern turbo systems with very low lag. A supercharger can only have a performance advantage where that tiny bit of lag is a big problem, such as in drag racing.

The supercharger in my 'V' was replaced under warranty @76k.That being said, the smile factor when mashing the loud pedal has a tendency to make one forget previous issues

Doesn't a turbo technically have a single moving part?

That's obviously only looking at the turbo and not the ancillaries like boost/airflow/fuel control. But superchargers must have most of the same ancillaries (must meet the same needs, not necessarily be the same device).

First supercharger was 1921 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger

First turbo in a truck was 1938, car was 1962 - http://www.turbos.bwauto.com/products/turbochargerHistory.aspx

factsmatter

Yeah, I was gonna say that I thought superchargers were way older technology. I think the supercharger/turbocharger argument these days is basically out of date. Either system with modern components will provide equal amounts of power and long term reliability. The choice of one system over the other comes down to cost, engine bay space/vehicle design, manufacturing preference, and target market.

Superchargers are pretty darn mature technology. They've been around for decades in over the road trucks. The supercharger of choice for hot rodders back in the day was a 6-71 taken off of old worn out Detroit diesels. In general the blowers on the GM and Ford V6s outlasted the engines they were mounted on and the cars they were installed in.

look at GM's 3800's with the supercharger on them, there are tons of them around and they have a tendency to last just about forever if you keep up with maintenance on some of the common failure parts (which are unrelated to it being supercharged).

Lots of GM 3800s still running with factory superchargers after 200k

Edit: Looks like edizzle and I were thinking alike

FlightService wrote: Turbos have been around in production vehicles for a very long time now. Comparatively, superchargers are new to the game. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Ultimate top end power, you turbo. Power everywhere else, you supercharge. But reliability is something completely different. I know the release of the Eaton M series, which evolved to the current TVS line is the driving force (pun intended). But how reliable are they? I have seen turbos with 200k miles going strong. I haven't ever seen that out of a supercharger. But I must admit this is from a limited exposure so I don't have a large enough sample size to make any judgment. That is where the Hive comes in. So who knows about the life span of the new generation of superchargers? Are they all that or are the OEMS trading life cycle for impressive numbers?

You have that backwards, superchargers have been used on cars since at least the 1920's. Turbo's are the new kid on the block, having been developed for aero and Diesel before migrating to auto use.

The ones Ford used in the supercoupes outlasted the engine regularly too but that is because Ford's 3.8L is junk, especially next to the 3800.

Centrifugal superchargers are even better then the old roots style. My supercoupe had 138k on the engine/supercharger without issue when i sold it. Packaging and technology have made tiny turbos the better technology for day to day driving.

It is interesting seeing how turbos and superchargers wax and wane. Porsche and BMW have only ever used turbos. Minis used one, then the other. So did Toyota on the MR2. Mercedes used to be mostly supercharger, now they're all turbo. Ford has mostly gone from supercharging to turbos. Aston Martin used to use superchargers, now they're using turbos. GM uses a supercharger on their strongest powerplants. Flyin' Miata uses both :)

Longevity is a good question. I'd love to see solid data on them. I've always pegged supercharger (specifically, positive displacement type) lifespan as around 100k, but obviously it varies by application.

Ok

Like a bunch of children laughing at someone saying "Look under where?" You have decided to take something wrong, out of context and in a different direction entirely. So facts matter and so does context.

I NEVER said which tech was older, Superchargers or Turbos. I did say production vehicles, maybe I should have said emissions compliant production cars to be more precise and accurate (hey you all want to be juvenile, I can be too).

So now that we have clarified the question. Please proceed.

FlightService wrote: Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Ultimate top end power, you turbo. Power everywhere else, you supercharge.

Well... not really true

Roots superchargers make good low end but mostly create heat up top. Twin Screw superchargers do a pretty good job of making power all across the board. Centrifugal superchargers come on up top like an old school turbo. Turbo superchargers can be tuned to make power pretty much anywhere with variable geometry or sequential setups.

Interesting that Mercedes used turbos on their diesels since forever ago but when they started making boosted AMG cars they only used superchargers. Now, they're all turbos. And almost every vehicle they make has an optional turbocharged engine. Also, their turbo cars can be tuned for stupid gains while the supercharged ones not so much. Both are known to go many miles though.

The industry wide trend of switching to turbos is explained pretty simply by the fact that modern turbos are more efficient compared to a belt driven supercharger, and they have greatly reduced lag which was the biggest detriment in the past.

With electronically controlled variable geometry, electronic wastegates, and direct injection it's also easy to tune them for a variety of power/reliability levels too with nothing more than a quick and cheap software change.

In reply to FlightService:

Your defensiveness certainly doesn't help answer the question.

In spite of your ninja edit, what you said was, "Turbos have been around in production vehicles for a very long time now. Comparatively, superchargers are new to the game".

I see no reason for us to assume you meant something other than turbos pre-dating superchargers in production vehicles.

Now that you've changed the question, I'm sure we will all be happy to discuss longevity differences in current production models (or something similar).

Calling everyone else childish for trying to accurately answer your question is, well, kinda childish.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with longevity. That's not something manufacturers need to care much about.

It's marketing. "Turbo" is a word that has become universally accepted by the general buying public as something cool. "Supercharger" sounds like something doofy from '60's era Mopars.

They also consider packaging, and a few other technical aspects, but ultimately what matters to manufacturers is more units sold. They do what they need to to sell more units.

Longevity only becomes an issue for manufacturers when failures damage their brand (like Ford 6.0L diesels).

In reply to SVreX:

What question did I ask on my OP or "ninja" edit (not really ninja when you put an edit statement and leave a comment about the skewing/drift now is it?) that would require anyone to tell me which tech was created first, which was implemented originally or anything else. Also, as previously stated in my post I said I can be juvenile too. So back to the point of the post.

There was 1 question asked and only 1. How reliable are the modern supercharger setups?

So am I over reacting? Probably. Are there a lot of people on here unable to tell the difference between a question and a statement? Well, the lack of response to the OP sentence with a question mark at the end tells you that answer.

OEMs overwhelmingly use turbos today because of the increasing fuel efficiency regulations. Since they harness otherwise-wasted heat energy in the exhaust gasses, turbos have an inherent theoretical efficiency advantage. You don't really see that in aftermarket setups because it's drowned out in the noise from the other variations, but an OEM designing an engine from the ground up can take advantage of it.

As for reliability, I don't see any reason why a supercharger should be inherently less reliable. It's got a few more moving parts than a turbo, yes, but it's still pretty small compared to the number of moving parts in the V6 pistons engines they're usually bolted to.

I have been using turbo and superchargers for many years and each has it's pro's and con's. Turbochargers seem to either last forever or will not make it till the next oil change. Superchargers seem to last well past 100K miles, my current Grand Prix GTP just tripped over 240K miles with only changing the oil in the supercharger.

YMMV

Paul B

Here's a data point.

89 Ford Super Coupe. 180K. Factory stock, original engine, original Eaton supercharger. It has started to rattle at idle, so it probably needs a drive coupler and a oil change.

I will say, for day to day driving, in traffic, around town, I prefer the supercharger. The SC pulls like a big block from 1200 rpms, all the way to red line. You can't beat that for the stop light dance in rush hour.

FlightService wrote: EDITED for the children to keep them on topic.

Not sure that excellent past performance in both SC's & turbo's translates well to the current crop of DI motors out there.

Direct Injection seems to create a lot fuel/oil dilution & "sooty goop" issues that lead to carbon deposits everywhere. These deposits start to cause problems at 80-100K in my experience. I've had intake plenum, intake valve & turbo wastegate deposits on two modern DI/turbo cars. Both required intake cleaning @ ~80K and the one I kept got a new turbo at 110K.

These DI motors are supposed to be cleaner than old port injection based designs, but my checkbook and a look at the crud in tailpipe tell me otherwise. Maybe when PCV/oil separator tech catches up they'll come around. Until then I remain skeptical about the longevity of any kind of blower in a DI motor.