"Stuperchargers"

[Phil@sievers.com (Phil Payne)]

In message <01IDQ9YDPY3M8WZ2ID@delphi.com> audidudi@delphi.com (Jeffrey J. Goggin) writes:

> >> Any good mechanical engineer will tell you that a turbocharger _is_ a
> >> supercharger.

Don't disagree.  Didn't disagree.  Never have disagreed.

> >But a supercharger is not a turbocharger.  And I think the difference will
> >become more relevant now that some cars are to be offered with both.
>
> Wrong ... I hate to be pedantic but "supercharger" is the generic
> engineering term for any forced-induction system, of which turbocharging is
> but one type.

Well, this really _is_ pedantry.  If I had written "not NECESSARILY a
turbocharger" would you have been any happier?

The simple fact is that non-exhaust driven superchargers (happy with
that?) are coming, from a number of manufacturers.  Now (engineering
pedants notwithstanding) these cars are going to be _SOLD_ to Joe
Public - and these manufacturers are going to want to differentiate
their wares.  How they will do this - I don't know.  Will they claim
"cool running" as an advantage?  "No need to cool your turbo"?

<pedant> "No need to cool your super"? </pedant>

I obviously have no idea.  But English is a flexible language - look
what happened to "gay".  Within a few months (if not already) you will
see widespread use of "turbocharger" to mean "exhaust gas driven" and
"supercharger" to mean any OTHER sort of <pedant>supercharger</pedant>.

A dashboard, I would remind you, was originally a board placed BENEATH
THE FEET of a coachman.  Its meaning changed, as the meaning of
"supercharger" will change.

Times change - so do meanings.

--
 Phil Payne

 (phil@sievers.com, despite what the bounces say.  If I don't
  reply, your message is probably still stuck on a Demon punt.)

 Phone: +44 385302803  Fax: +44 1536723021  CIS: 100012,1660