In this part of the world the terminology is EXACTLY the same.
So pleeease don't nuke us!
Regards
John from
New Zealand (or as u say Nooo Zealand)

----- Original Message -----
From: CHRIS STANN <cstann@home.com>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: Supercharger (was: 5 cyl. Audi in Vanagon - was Engine
Conversions)

> Turbocharger, Supercharger, Turbosupercharger.
>
> Let me set the story straight.  In Good Ol' US of A, us Yankees refer to
an
> exhaust-driven inlet pressurizing device as a Turbocharger, more commonly
> known as "Turbo."  A belt or gear-driven inlet pressurizing device is
known
> as a Supercharger.  Now that we are familiar with U.S. terminology, let's
> not argue when we, Yankees, refer to such devices by different names form
> you, the rest of the world.
>
> After all, if you, the rest of the world, don't like it, we'll just 'nuke
> ya!  You want blood, you got it, Mark Dorm.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:50 AM
> Subject: Supercharger (was: 5 cyl. Audi in Vanagon - was Engine
Conversions)
>
>
> > >Techincally, a turbo charger is exhaust driven, a super charger is
> > >mechanically driven
> > >Mark
> >
> >
> > No no no!!! Any form of increasing the inlet charge is a supercharger.
> > Nitrous oxide is a chemical supercharger. There are various totally
> > different types of belt-driven superchargers, and these can also be
driven
> > by shaft or geartrain (or even fluid coupling, though I've never heard
of
> > that last being used). Turbo, a contraction of "turbosupercharger", is
> > merely an exhaust-driven supercharger. And don't forget that fluid
drives
> > and linkages (turbos, hydraulic brakes) ARE mechanical...fluid
mechanics.
> >
> > Maken no difference whether it's driven by belt, shaft, gear or fluid
> > (either liquid or gas), whether it uses vanes, gears, scrolls or
turbine,
> > it's still a supercharger.
> >
> > And HERE is where the adage of popular (mis-)usage defining the
definition
> > falls down. Technical (and even more figorously so, scientific) terms
are
> > static; use a technical term incorrectly and it's abuse.
> >
> >
> > Andrew Grebneff
> > Dunedin, New Zealand
> > VW & mollusc nut
> > 1969 Kombi with Corvair 2.4 & Powerglide
> > 1975 Kombi derelict ex 3.6 Toyota V8
> > 1984 Caravelle 3.8 Holden V6
> > 1984 Mitsubishi Galant Sigma 2.0 (FWD)
> > 1986 CE80 Toyota Corolla 1.8DX diesel
> > 1989 CT170 Toyota Corona Select 2.0 diesel