Im just wondering why with a turbo you can get a 30-40% hp increase, and with a supercharger only like 40hp increase??

many factors, mainly depending on the compression ratio of the engine, turbos typically run more psi boost,

Im just wondering why with a turbo you can get a 30-40% hp increase, and with a supercharger only like 40hp increase??



If you're only getting an increase of 40hp from a Supercharger then something is wrong.

The Supercharger for the VK56 in the Titan adds like 150hp.

The Twin Turbo kit gives you like 200hp or so. I don't know the exact numbers, I do know the kit costs like $12,000. Insane.

Well, for some of the s/cs i've seen its only like 40 hp... and the difference between the regal 3.8l vs the regal gs 3.8l s/c is 40 hp :/

as far as us ricers go, the turbo seems to be a much better choice. my turbo install was way less than a supercharger (ripp mods) would have been. plus gas mileage is less effected. people could, and do, argue all day over which is better. it depends on the application. but generaly the turbo is more efficent. and it sounds better too!

Generally? turbo's will always be more efficent unles compared to screw type superchargers which have about the same efficency as turbos. however for carburated set ups superchargers are a whole lot easyer. if its fule injected and it inline turbo would be the better choice. V engines can be turbochargerd but it is much easyer if you do a twin turbo setup.

On Horsepower TV they had a Dodge Dart making around 400 horses at the rear wheels. They then put on the biggest supercharger you can get out there and the Dart made 700 horses at the rear wheels.
My vote goes to the supercharger on this.

I thought the turbo was always the way to go for the most power.

No, not necesarily. Lets rip it down to the basics, a turbo is run off the exhaust gasses of the engine so there is less powerloss then a supercharger but there is still power loss from the energy it takes to spin the turbines which create a little backpressure. A supercharger is run off a belt that is connected to the engine which creates more of a loss then a turbo charger but is not a substantial amount. Now as to the screw type superchargers being less efficent then a centrifugal is incorrect, the reason is if you run a centrifugal supercharger you have the option to run the compressed air through an intercooler which creates more of a power gain, there are options to cool a screw type supercharger (often referred to as a roots type) but they are more expensive and harder to run, basically something you dont want to run on the street. I would think that a centrifugal supercharger would be able to create more power then a turbo because of its direct connection to the engine. Also another benefit of a supercharger is that it creates power from idle to whatever your shift point might be a turbo charger has to "spool" up to create boost some spool quicker then others but it still has that delay. In my opinon superchargers are the way to go because you dont see the 8000 horsepower top fuel dragsters running turbos, the turbos just cant keep up. But then again that is just my :2cents: .

i prefer turbo's. superchargers make great power but full boost only comes at the end of the rpm range and the gains are parasitic. with a turbo you don't achieve boost as fast as a supercharger but at least you'll get full boost at the beginning of the powerband, plus it's all free power.

I'm going to have to vote on a turbocharger for truck applications. Right now, the top dog on superchargers for my particular style truck is the Radix. I have yet to see a Radix put one of these trucks anywhere close to the 600hp range. Now that the turbo kits have come out for these trucks, those numbers have been easily destroyed. There is a limit on what a supercharger can do(smaller pullies, etc,) on these newer trucks. The turbos are putting down huge numbers, and are only limited by how much your motor can take. Now for dragsters, etc. the huge superchargers are the way to go because the motors are made to produce those numbers. The smaller, stock motors are not. Either way would be a huge kick in the pants for your application, but the new sts turbo kit would be alittle better on your wallet.

WOW this thread has more misinformation then a white house report

lol
why wouldnt a turbo spool up when you rev it w/ the clutch in?

i prefer turbo's. superchargers make great power but full boost only comes at the end of the rpm range and the gains are parasitic. with a turbo you don't achieve boost as fast as a supercharger but at least you'll get full boost at the beginning of the powerband, plus it's all free power.

Not necesarilly true, the internal stepup of a centrifugal supercharger allows it to hit almost full boost off idle. Although it is true that they are still lacking till they hit there 1:1 ratio with the RPM's, but is 2 psi enough to argue about when your getting it almost off idle instead of 3000 rpms's.And also there is a limit to what you can do with the smaller pulleys on the outside of a supercharger but you can toy with the internal stepup ratio all you want to achieve more boost, a supercharger can boost just as much as a turbo can.

Ahhh yes, the ongoing supercharger vs. turbocharger debate...this topic has been beat to death many a time, and I'm sure the moderators would agree with me.

Not necesarilly true, the internal stepup of a centrifugal supercharger allows it to hit almost full boost off idle. Although it is true that they are still lacking till they hit there 1:1 ratio with the RPM's, but is 2 psi enough to argue about when your getting it almost off idle instead of 3000 rpms's.And also there is a limit to what you can do with the smaller pulleys on the outside of a supercharger but you can toy with the internal stepup ratio all you want to achieve more boost, a supercharger can boost just as much as a turbo can.

True on the toying internally, but I was simply refering to a typical guy just wanting the best bolt on off the shelf, without having to break open a $6000 supercharger to play. :) I'm also just staying with these newer trucks by example, not all cars in general.

WOW this thread has more misinformation then a white house report

What, in my post, if applicable, is so misinforming? I'm simply basing my opinion on a new truck application. Where did I go wrong?

Ahhh yes, the ongoing supercharger vs. turbocharger debate...this topic has been beat to death many a time, and I'm sure the moderators would agree with me.

True, but it's still fun to debate about it.

Here's how I've always looked at this issue for both.

Superchargers - think they go best with the American V8
Turbochargers - think they go best with the 4-banger imports

True, but it's still fun to debate about it.

Here's how I've always looked at this issue for both.

Superchargers - think they go best with the American V8
Turbochargers - think they go best with the 4-banger imports

I agree with you, I think lighter cars are a better fit for a turbo because they can launch well enough that they can still manage a good jump while waiting for the turbo to spool. As for v8's, they are generally heavier and need more power right away like you would get froma supercharger, but this is all my opinion, in reality neither is better than the other.

I agree with you, I think lighter cars are a better fit for a turbo because they can launch well enough that they can still manage a good jump while waiting for the turbo to spool. As for v8's, they are generally heavier and need more power right away like you would get froma supercharger, but this is all my opinion, in reality neither is better than the other.

Well, this is how I see things and how they'd go together.

Superchargers take power from the engine to run them. They also give you power right off of idle though. The American V8 makes more torque than the imports do. The greater torque generated would have an easier time powering the supercharger.
The superchargers put on big block muscle cars wouldn't even be considered to be put on an import engine. These superchargers require somewhere around 30%-40% engine power to run them. The big blocks generate so much torque though, it can handle them and get a bunch of power in return.

Turbochargers just need to be revved up a little before they start kicking the power in. Import engines don't have a whole lot of torque but they get good horsepower once they rev up a bit. The turbocharger would go good with this since it needs to rev up to get its power.

I think that in the end superchargers are more for low end torque engines while turbochargers are for high end horsepower machines.

exactly, it all depends on the type of the car (weight, engine size, etc) and what its manly being used for

why doesnt someone put a simple gear train somehwere between where the s/c would attach to the engine and where another belt would attach to the s/c to reduce the amount of power required from the engine to turn the s/c.....??

Because if you where to do this it would alter the boost of the SC, if you put a geartrain it would spin the SC's pulley easier but it wouldnt spin as fast making less boost, there is just no way to get around it. Just take for example a top fuel's supercharger even with gear reductions a stock small block chevy cant turn them over.

there is a 1200hp turbo kit for the supra.... just thought it might be relevant...

i prefer turbo's. superchargers make great power but full boost only comes at the end of the rpm range and the gains are parasitic. with a turbo you don't achieve boost as fast as a supercharger but at least you'll get full boost at the beginning of the powerband, plus it's all free power.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it free. You can equate the backpressure created by the exhaust turbine as the parasitic loss caused from an super-charger pulley. However, the turbo is generally more efficient since it is using lost power to make power while the super-charger is just using power to make power.

lol
why wouldnt a turbo spool up when you rev it w/ the clutch in?

Because turbo-chargers are load bearing. They will only boost when under load.

As for my opinion, I don't super-chargers because they are parasitic, you have to change the pulley if you want to add boost, and they tend to be less efficient. Really though it comes down to preference, they both do the same thing and they both have pros and cons. I just happen to prefer turbo-charging.

Superchargers - think they go best with the American V8
Turbochargers - think they go best with the 4-banger imports


First of all that is the biggest load of manure I've heard. Seriously you need to stop being so biased in your posts.

If you think that is true why do you think the best tuner for Corvettes and a drag racing legend Lingenfelter chose to put turbos on his top upgrade package combined with "big block" displacement, his TT vettes are 9 second street legal. Also Callaway is prepping a TT kit for the C6 vette. Same goes for the 502ci Hennesy vipers. So the best american tuners for the best american cars chose turbos. So do you still think turbos are for 4 banger imports?

Further proof of american turbo cars just talk to GNX guys, try telling them that its unamerican or something. Maybe you can call them riceboys. Or try the same with turbo mopar guys.

Now lets dispell some myths:

Superchargers give you low end while turbos gice you top end.
That is false, because if you would select full boost at low rpm you'll over boost at top end using a super. On the other hand with a turbo you can have full boost at very low RPM (if you choose the proper turbo) and keep it steady all over the powerbad or basically do whatever you want with it since you have absolute controll over it trough the wastegate.

they tried to acheive the same for superchargers using dual speed supers or clutch controlled puleys but it never caught on for several reasons.

And if still think turbos are not good for low end look at this:
http://www.mopar.com/img/dyno_srt4_s3.gif

that is the torque band of an srt4 with a stage 3 turbo. Yes a larger turbo than stock that has even more lag, therfore the TQ kicks in a bit later. Does that look like a lack of low end? And do you think you could acheive the same TQ with a suprcharger? No because in the cas of the super the TQ band would be steady rising with boost instead of staying steady up.


So to end this lets make a short list of advantages of each system:

Supercharger:
linear power delivery (boost rises with RPM) so its a bit more predictable
generally cheaper easier to install

Turbo
more efficient
its load dependant and not RPM dependent therfore boost can come in at desired RPM
you can dial in diffent boost settings on the fly

i hate you nuetrino
you spoke first, but you did a better job then i would have, cause i forgot all about the gnx.

It takes 900 hp just to spin the supercharger of a top fuel dragster, by the way...good thing they have something in the vicinity of 7,500 hp, lol.

yes they have already mentioned one big big down fall of a blower. in order to run higher boost, you need to swap pulleys. generally if you want to run higher boost with a blower, you will need to run super high octane fuel like with turbos. however the main difference is that we can change our boost level with the push of a button on our boost controller, we can also run different boost settings for different gears, etc. this way we can run low boost for the streets and run pump gas, while the guys with the blower gotta change pulleys all the time to able to do the same thing.

also even a roots type blower is still load dependent. you rev it in neutral and it will not make a single psi either.

also i don't think i would be able to fit a large enough blower to give me a 200-300% power increase that i can get with my T4 turbo.

One the reason top fuel dragsters arnt on turbos is bc they would produce to much hp. They had to stop somewhere and it become unsafe to run a turbo considing that according to the book i read(sry it was about a yr ago and i dont know the name) the top fuel dragster would be running 10000 to 11000 hp. A turbo is more efficent over anyother design. Lets look at the designs Turbo ok turbine. Supercharger there is basicly 3 forms roots, twin screw, and centifurge. OK these test results were taken straight out of a magazine called muscle mustang and fast fords. on a 4v 4.6l dohc 03 mustang corba running 14 psi. Eaton (stock supercharge its a screw form) 583 hp and 550 lbs of tourqe. Kenne bell (twin scre design best desing of a supercharger in my book) 704 hp and 595 tourqe. the centifurge produced 725 hp and i cant find the tourqe number. Drumroll plz the twin turbo setup by hp performance at 14 psi came out to be 830 HP and 756 lbs of bad ass tourqe. http://img29.exs.cx/img29/816/dyno46a7pq.th.jpg (http://img29.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img29&image=dyno46a7pq.jpg)http://img29.exs.cx/img29/816/dyno46a7pq.jpg
http://img52.exs.cx/img52/751/dyno462wp.jpg[img=http://img52.exs.cx/img52/751/dyno462wp.th.jpg] (http://img52.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img52&image=dyno462wp.jpg)


In the 2ed dyno chart we see the Eaton vs the Kennebell twin screw as u can see the torque production is instant and the kenne bell holds a higher production of torque and hp though the whole band which shows the more efficent design of a twin screw bc even know u produced 121 more hp the eaton it also spun at 4000 less rpm! on a screw design the production is instant and has a boarder torque band. next we have the Eaton vs the vortech here is where u see the the centrifugal has less builds boost thought the rpms while the screw has max boost around 3000 rpms. but as u see the vortech took over and took over with a bang at about 5300 rpm showing a higher reving moter is great with a centrifugal. Now here comes the big one the Eaton vs the Hp proformance one thing to notice is the tt kit reachs boost of 13.6 and still produces 830 hp whole the eaton is running 14. also u will notice that torque in the turbo surpasses the eaton at about 3700 and the chart is almost vertical at that point showing it gains power and it does it fast. the hp passes the eaton at about 3700 also. the supercharger produced more then 100 hp and 150 lbs or torque while being almost a full pound of boost down then the twin screw which reached a max boost of 14.5. So there u go a tt is more efficent then a supercharger at producing more hp and troque to boost period! supercharges rob power from the crank for which the crank is what turns the blower. Now its up to people what they want a turbo is better after about 4000 rpms or so but doesnt have the low end grunt as the blower does. Also someone metioned turbo lag yeah that basicly no existent now adays according to gale banks that makes tt kits for 350 chevys and holds the world record of the fastest gasiloine pistion opperated car at 283 mph! the only downfall turbos are more expensive and harder to put on but offer more power and easier to control the boost pressure. so they become more streetable also. the worlds fastest doorslammer is a montecalo with a turbo!
Another point to look at is in which rpms do u run at. I for example run(96 mustang gt) between 3200 and 5250 in my power band when i shift i drop down to 3200 that is running with stock 2.73 gears. so at the point a turbo would be the best bet bc around 3200 its producing more power then most blowers. Also the only time i would be down low would be in my launch which i would want all that torque. 595 lbs or torque out of the whole is a good amount of power to snap down to the asphalt u pry would have to be running slicks or drag radials and have a great suspension set up. the lower torque makes the launching alittle easier. if i ran lets say 4.10 a more race ready geat then i wouldnt even drop down to 3200 rpms and with mods would pry run to lets say 6500 rpms. So the turbo would be even better. Another thing is people use n2o to spool the turbo faster.
If any info is wrong plz tell me. i am open to ur thoughts.

neutrino, i'm not disagreeing with you...but you're using an example of a car that's turbo from the factory. that motor is designed for a turbo...so of course it's not going to work as well with a supercharger. plus, there are no supercharged SRT-4s to make a comparison to. You have to compare a factory N/A car to a supercharged version and a turbocharged version with the same mods. That's the only way you're going to see which is better. And that's only going to be which is better for that particular application. Not to mention that still isn't going to prove which is better for a certain individuals needs..so damn. There is no end to 'superchargers vs turbochargers'.

Hey dampachi u pry posted the same time i did look at my post its right before urs. also a car that is set up for turbo is set up for supercharging in the sense that both have lowed compression and stronger internal parts.

neutrino, i'm not disagreeing with you...but you're using an example of a car that's turbo from the factory. that motor is designed for a turbo...so of course it's not going to work as well with a supercharger. plus, there are no supercharged SRT-4s to make a comparison to. You have to compare a factory N/A car to a supercharged version and a turbocharged version with the same mods. That's the only way you're going to see which is better. And that's only going to be which is better for that particular application. Not to mention that still isn't going to prove which is better for a certain individuals needs..so damn. There is no end to 'superchargers vs turbochargers'.


again the best US tuners all use turbos for their high end packages but they still offer superchargers for cheaper kits. Why is that?

Second in most forms of motorsport turbos are banned. Including formula 1. And when there were no restrictions on forced induction Formula 1 cars choose turbos. Remember those are the most technologically advanced cars period with astronomical budgets.

And if you want a dirrect comparison between the same car lets take those:
Lets take a vette aggain they have classic american 350 V8's in them. They have both turbos and super kits for them. Which system use the most powerful ones.
Same with a monstorus 500Ci viper engines which put out more power: TT versions or supercharged?

Now lets take a look at small displacement engines. Most notably hondas. They have so many kits of super chargers and turbo chargers its not even funny. Now ask any diehard honda fan which hondas make by far the bigest numbers the ones with turbos or superchargers?

And even better lets take a look at those two dyno charts:

the one i already posted:

http://www.mopar.com/img/dyno_srt4_s3.gif
and one of a supercharged tiburon
http://webpages.charter.net/dzignrconcepts/tiburon/SDS-Dyno.jpg

so one is that of a turbo car with smaller displacement (2.4) and the other is that of a 2.7 liter v6 with a supercharger.

Those are the two closest displacement engines with the two types of FI discussed that i could find on short notice. I hope the difference in TQ curves is clear enough

I am with neutrino and plz look at my post on the second page at the end accutly ill repost it.

here it is again
One the reason top fuel dragsters arnt on turbos is bc they would produce to much hp. They had to stop somewhere and it become unsafe to run a turbo considing that according to the book i read(sry it was about a yr ago and i dont know the name) the top fuel dragster would be running 10000 to 11000 hp. A turbo is more efficent over anyother design. Lets look at the designs Turbo ok turbine. Supercharger there is basicly 3 forms roots, twin screw, and centifurge. OK these test results were taken straight out of a magazine called muscle mustang and fast fords. on a 4v 4.6l dohc 03 mustang corba running 14 psi. Eaton (stock supercharger its a roots screw form) 583 hp and 550 lbs of tourqe. Kenne bell (twin screw design best design of a supercharger in my book) 704 hp and 595 tourqe. the centifurge produced 725 hp and i cant find the tourqe number. Drumroll plz the twin turbo setup by hp performance at 13.6 psi came out to be 830 HP and 756 lbs of bad ass tourqe. http://img29.exs.cx/img29/816/dyno46a7pq.th.jpg (http://img29.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img29&image=dyno46a7pq.jpg)http://img29.exs.cx/img29/816/dyno46a7pq.jpg
http://img52.exs.cx/img52/751/dyno462wp.jpg[img=http://img52.exs.cx/img52/751/dyno462wp.th.jpg] (http://img52.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img52&image=dyno462wp.jpg)


In the 2ed dyno chart we see the Eaton vs the Kennebell twin screw as u can see the torque production is instant and the kenne bell holds a higher production of torque and hp though the whole band which shows the more efficent design of a twin screw bc even know it produced 121 more hp the eaton it also spun at 4000 less rpm! on a screw design the production is instant and has a boarder torque band. next we have the Eaton vs the vortech here is where u see the the centrifugal has less boost at low rpms and builds boost though out the rpms while the screw has max boost around 3000 rpms. but as u see the vortech took over and took over with a bang at about 5300 rpm showing a higher reving motor is great with a centrifugal. Now here comes the big one the Eaton vs the Hp proformance one thing to notice is the tt kit reachs boost of 13.6 and still produces 830 hp whole the eaton is running 14. also u will notice that torque in the turbo surpasses the eaton at about 3700 and the chart is almost vertical at that point showing it gains power and it does it fast. the hp passes the eaton at about 3700 also. the supercharger produced more then 100 hp and 150 lbs or torque while being almost a full pound of boost down then the twin screw which reached a max boost of 14.5. So there u go a tt is more efficent then a supercharger at producing more hp and troque to boost period! supercharges rob power from the crank for which the crank is what turns the blower. Now its up to people what they want a turbo is better after about 4000 rpms or so but doesnt have the low end grunt as the blower does. Also someone metioned turbo lag yeah that basicly no existent now adays according to gale banks that makes tt kits for 350 chevys and holds the world record of the fastest gasiloine pistion opperated car at 283 mph! the only downfall turbos are more expensive and harder to put on but offer more power and easier to control the boost pressure. so they become more streetable also. the worlds fastest doorslammer is a montecalo with a turbo!
Another point to look at is in which rpms do u run at. I for example run(96 mustang gt) between 3200 and 5250 in my power band when i shift i drop down to 3200 that is running with stock 2.73 gears. so at the point a turbo would be the best bet bc around 3200 its producing more power then most blowers. Also the only time i would be down low would be in my launch which i would want all that torque. 595 lbs or torque out of the whole is a good amount of power to snap down to the asphalt u pry would have to be running slicks or drag radials and have a great suspension set up. the lower torque makes the launching alittle easier. if i ran lets say 4.10 a more race ready geat then i wouldnt even drop down to 3200 rpms and with mods would pry run to lets say 6500 rpms. So the turbo would be even better. Another thing is people use n2o to spool the turbo faster.
If any info is wrong plz tell me. i am open to ur thoughts.

And to further my argument lets take an extract from a Hot Rod magazine article:

Twin Turbo Tech
Advantages Over Superchargers, Plus a Few Pointers on Tire Width and Dragstrip Dynamics

By Bill Watson, Jeff Koch
Photography: Jeff Koch

Online Editor’s note: The November ’01 issue of Hot Rod featured an extraordinary twin-turbo ’66 Mustang owned by Bill Watson, a jet engineer with Garrett/Honeywell. He generously supplied us with way more detail on his project car that we could fit in that issue, so we decided to include this question-and-answer interview that explains why he considers turbocharging superior to either supercharging or stroking an engine for more power. You may not agree with all of his points, but he knows his stuff. (After all, his Fastback runs in the 11s on—get this—SlimFast 215-section tires!) Blower buffs are invited to email us their alternative views on the best way to obtain boost.

Q: Other than the fact that the company you work for makes turbos, why go the turbo route? Why not use a supercharger or build a stroker? Are turbos simply the most efficient way to go?

A:There are four main reasons why I think turbos are superior to a blower, but of course I can’t argue that the supercharger isn’t easier. It is. I can appreciate why supercharger kits are more popular for the bolt-on crowd. But here are the reasons that I prefer turbos:


1) Turbos always will outperform supercharged cars when it comes to power production. It’s simple—you don’t have to spend (for instance) 70 crankshaft horsepower to drive compressors by taking engine horsepower right back off the crank. True, you back-pressure the engine on a turbo car, but much of the compressor horsepower comes from heat—and that is "free." The bottom line is that you don’t sap as much power out of the engine to get your pressurized air.

2) Easily adjustable boost! It’s a breeze to set up a knob inside the passenger compartment to adjust the wastegate setting up or down. When I drive in the mountains, I can raise boost to get back the power lost at higher altitudes. On the other hand, if I buy cheap gas I can turn it down, or change boost to compensate for summer or winter air temperatures (or for that matter, morning or evening temps too!). With a blower car you have to change pulleys—not that hard, mind you, but very few people are going to change pulleys as they’re climbing mountains, or at a gas station after buying a tank of cheap gas.

3) Midrange torque!! Boost vs. rpm is far superior on a turbo car. With a belt-driven centrifugal blower, you have to choose a pulley size so you won’t overboost at redline. But that means that at every rpm below that, you aren’t running as much boost as you can. The nature of centrifugal blowers is parabolic, meaning at half the redline rpm, you make less than half of the boost. So on a typical 5.0L, you might only make 3 psi of boost at 3,000 rpm, where a turbo car can easily be on the wastegate for 11 psi. That’s why I make 550 lb-ft at 3,000 rpm. Hey, if you cut my boost to 3 psi at 3,000, my torque would be down to 340—that’s 200 lb-ft less! To me, the best way to optimize a belt-driven centrifugal blower car would be to loosen the torque converter. Then you can hit the gas, immediately be at 4,000 rpm for example, make boost in an instant, and have a bolt-on car that just hauls. The only downside there is the economy will take a hit unless you can design in a lockup converter when you want to just cruise down the freeway. The turbo doesn’t have any of these compromises.

4) Finally, turbos run proportional to demand. What I’m getting at is that compressor speed is dependent on airflow, which comes from two main variables: engine rpm and throttle position, if you will. Now, a belt-driven blower car’s compressor speed is dependent on only one variable: rpm. So why care? Because when you’re just maintaining speed on flat and level ground, trying to make some mileage, a turbo car’s compressors are going very slowly and hence don’t increase pressure before the throttle body. But a belt-driven blower car has no idea what the throttle position is; the compressor is simply geared to the crankshaft, so it’s spinning much faster and making, say 2 psi in our example here. (And if it’s a Roots-type blower, it’s making 6, 8, or even 10 psi!)

So what do you do? You have to back out of the throttle even more. That means throttling losses are up (bad for mileage), and you’re pumping hot compressed air through your intercooler all day if you have one, and you’re using crankshaft horsepower to compress the air—then throttling it back anyway! At least put the throttle body before a blower; you can see why positive displacement (Roots or screw compressors) blowers have the throttle plate before them to avoid this problem. Then it’s much more of a non-issue.

You’ve also asked why I didn’t go to more cubic inches. Of course that works, but as you note the mileage wouldn’t be as good, plus I’d still have to build a 7000rpm motor to make this kind of power on something under 400 cubes. Then that requires all the money for rpm-related hardware to accommodate moving the operating range up, which I have spent zero dollars on. The turbo approach was different, in the sense that you spend the same money but on different hardware. I’ve done the cam/carb/intake/heads/headers/loose converter thing before. It was fun, but this time I wanted something that was a real sleeper until you lean on it.

i think Neutrino and I kinda put a end to that war with a partha of info on how a turbo is better then a super.

Wow.
Thought everyone knew a Turbo was better then a supercharger already.

One little thing to add.
Some people choose superchargers just because they're cooler. Look at the classic hot rod people, and their nice shiny engines. They wouldny look as cool with turbo's IMO :P

And as for the top fuelers. I beleive their's a rulebook with the info on what engine's they can use and how they're set up.

One problem in many of these posts... It says supercharger vs. turbocharger, not supercharger vs. turbocharger's. Some of you are talking about twin turbo setups. What about twin supercharger setups??? And a supercharger only adds 40 h.p.??? That's on a GM that they have from factory running at low boost. They weren't trying to target people looking for high psi. Could you imagine the warranty issues if they had a Regal GS or Grand Prix GTP running at high boost from factory? What about a twin turbo stealth or 3000gt vr4. The twin turbo's only added 80 H.P. to them in the early 90's.
Back to the turbo vs. supercharger... On a 6 or 8, I like a supercharger. But on a 4 cyl. I would go with a turbo.

Like I said, I wasn't disagreeing with you...I just wanted to see a comparison of the same car N/A, then turbo, then supercharged. Rather than an example of a factory turbo car. This leaves me with one question...why did ford use a supercharger on their 03/04 cobras rather than a turbo?

Oh..and I'm not trying to be an ass and attack you for this..but 'partha' isn't a word...I think you mean 'plethora'.

Mutiple reasons one being realiblity turbos must be tuned and have relibilty issues. two Cost a supercharger is much much cheaper then a turbo charger even in mass production. Mor low end grunt then a tt and thats what they wanted. Also a single turbo set up can still yeild the same hp gain see in a single turbo u must run a large one so on the street two small ones are better then one large one usally bc of the higher rpms u need to be at. The worlds fastest door slammer is a single turbo set up.

Yep, which is why I'll take a supercharger anyday. Sure, you might make alot more hp with a huge turbo setup...but is it going to start up everytime? Yay, reliability.

Hey, guys... I think we've veered off of the main focus of this particular thread. The guy that originally posted this thread has a Toyota Tundra. He's a noob, and probably not as mechanically inclined as most of you. So, with staying on topic, he probably wants to know which is better for his truck as a simple bolt on type procedure. Before last year, I would have probably told him a supercharger would be the best bang for the buck for his truck, since turbo kits were hard to come by on the newer trucks. Now that companies have gotten off of their butt, and came out with turbo "kits" for this truck, I'm going to have to go with the sts turbo. A simple bolt on supercharger would work great for him to gain some power, but it would eventually be limited after pulley swaps, and he probably wouldn't won't to tear into the supercharger and swap some things out. The STS turbo kit for his truck is a very simple install(basic mechanical knowledge, as claimed by the company), costs less than most superchargers, and will most likely be the route I would take in this particular vehicle. Everyone has a ton of opinions on which is better, and that's good, but to stay on topic, which would you recommend for his particular truck? I think he could go either way and be extremely pleased with the results.

What about a twin turbo stealth or 3000gt vr4. The twin turbo's only added 80 H.P. to them in the early 90's.
.

well when using just 9b turbo's then yea its gonna have its limits. it depends on what turbo is used.

lets take a supra for example, even n/a supra's, when they are going big power like say 700hp+ they tend to go with single turbo setups

lingenfelter could throw on a single turbo at say the 800hp mark, but he wanted to make the car easy to drive in everyday sitiuations.

again the question, why do you think lingenfelter used turbo's?
the sledgehammer did 259mph, ya know a street legal car with a supercharger doing anything similar?


you have your answers all through this thread, seems maybe you just want the supercharger to be better. well then ignoring good facts is up to you.

First of all that is the biggest load of manure I've heard. Seriously you need to stop being so biased in your posts.

I'm not trying to be biased and pick one make over the other. I was just stating an opinion on which I think goes better on the other. I believe superchargers work better with American engines and turbochargers work better with imports from like Japan. I promise I'm not trying to start a flame of any kind.

Yep, which is why I'll take a supercharger anyday. Sure, you might make alot more hp with a huge turbo setup...but is it going to start up everytime? Yay, reliability.

Oh come on, don't be ignorant.

I know guys that run 10s in the 1/4 mile with a turbo and use that car as a daily driver. I also know guys that have over 200,000 miles on their stock turbo.

The fact of the matter is that the harder you run something the faster it will wear out. Turbo-chargers are no less reliable than super-chargers and no less daily driveable.

:rolleyes:

I'm not trying to be biased and pick one make over the other. I was just stating an opinion on which I think goes better on the other. I believe superchargers work better with American engines and turbochargers work better with imports from like Japan. I promise I'm not trying to start a flame of any kind.

again, the corvette sledgehammer, twinturbo, 259mph and ran mid 10's in the 1320, street legal

do you think a supercharger could do better?

vipers and corvette's use turbo's all the time, heard of the hennesy viper?

Oh, I know stock turbos can be very reliable...I have around 245,000 miles on my mercedes 300 turbo diesel.

I'm not trying to be biased and pick one make over the other. I was just stating an opinion on which I think goes better on the other. I believe superchargers work better with American engines and turbochargers work better with imports from like Japan. I promise I'm not trying to start a flame of any kind.

Also, from an engineering standpoint, why would super-chargers work better on American engines and turbo-chargers would work better on imported engines?

I understand that you're not being biased, but you’re stating your opinion with absolutely no facts or proof to back it up. The fact is that there are no facts to back it up since either form of forced induction will work just as well on an imported or a domestic engine. It doesn’t matter where the engine was manufactured.

Oh, I know stock turbos can be very reliable...I have around 245,000 miles on my mercedes 300 turbo diesel.

Well, even aftermarket ones can if you maintain them correctly.

You guys have brought up many points why turbochargers can be more reliable, but most of you seem to have completely ignored the 1st and 2nd generation RX7s and early 90's TT 300ZXs....apex seals, anyone?

You guys have brought up many points why turbochargers can be more reliable, but most of you seem to have completely ignored the 1st and 2nd generation RX7s and early 90's TT 300ZXs....apex seals, anyone?

Ahh, but the RX-7s had problems because of poor exhaust port placement. The addition of the turbo-chargers only compounded the problem. Bursting apex seals were not a reliability problem of the turbo. It was because of an engineering mistake. Also, what was unreliable about the Fairlady Zs?

I don't know what the problem was exactly, but I know a lot of Z32 twin turbos never made it to the 100k mark from browsing some of the Z forums, whereas the N/A versions have made it to the 200k mark, so I'm assuming it was a problem with the realiablility of the turbos.

well i'm at 160,000 miles and i've been beating the hell out of my car, turbo's still going

But you have a VR4, not a fairlady Z...aren't there different engines in those things? Doesn't the Z have a V6 whereas the VR4 has an I-6?

But you have a VR4, not a fairlady Z...aren't there different engines in those things? Doesn't the Z have a V6 whereas the VR4 has an I-6?


Nope, it's a V6.


Most of the problems attributed to the 300zxTT was the fact that they weren't properly maintained by their previous owners. The basic maintanence on them is hideously expensive, so I can understand why people don't want to pay for it... but the problems only compound and get worse.

Great cars when running properly.

But I wouldn't own one if you paid me.

Also, from an engineering standpoint, why would super-chargers work better on American engines and turbo-chargers would work better on imported engines?

I understand that you're not being biased, but you’re stating your opinion with absolutely no facts or proof to back it up. The fact is that there are no facts to back it up since either form of forced induction will work just as well on an imported or a domestic engine. It doesn’t matter where the engine was manufactured.

I'll just say now that I have no facts or proof to back up what I'm saying. All I'm going to say is the things I observe are where I get my opinions.

I'll just give off a few car names that are imports from Japan.

Supra
Skyline
EVO
3000 GT

All of the above cars were either turbo or twin-turbocharged. These are some good cars that work very well with a turbocharger.

I'll now give off a few car names that are from America.

SVT Mustang Cobra
Lightning
GT-40
Corvette? (wasn't there a special edition Corvette a couple of years back with a supercharger?)

As to answer the Corvette Sledgehammer and the Hennesy Viper I really consider them a little different than the normal production vehicles. Since they'll be thrown in, then I'll include Roush and Saleen. They supercharger their vehicles opposed to Hennesy turbocharging.

I just see that the Japanease like to put the turbochargers on their cars. Also, what American V8s get a power adder it just seems to be a supercharger.

Finally, when I go to car shows and see all the Mustangs, Corvettes, Firebirds, Camaros, GTOs, Chevelles, Road Runners, Chargers, ect, the ones with power adders have a supercharger on them. Of all the American muscle cars I see with power adders, about 1% of them it seems has a turbocharger.
This is just my opinion when making these certain observations.

No, there hasn't been any Corvette that had force induction of any type from the factory. Corvette's have always been fast through mechanical means.

And the reason you see more superchargers on Mustangs, Corvettes, Firebirds, Camaras, GTOs, Chevelles, Road Runners, Chargers , etc, is that there aren't very many readily available Turbo kits for these cars. Especially the older cars where theres specific piping needed for turbos.

You just bolt a supercharger on (I know, not really) and go. Turbo requires a bit more planning.

RX-7's can be maintianed into the 200k mark if you know how to maintain a rotaryl. its not your change the oil every 3,000 and rotate the tires. A blown apex seal isnt the end of an engine. its like a blown head gasket with out the danger of head warpage. wure they are a pain in the ass to replacei n your driveway because yo uhave to completely tear down the engine. but if you replace the stock 2mm for aftermarket 3mm and you use correct oil (never use synthetic in a rotary) the engine will go just as long as your conventional piston design. The only "turbo" problem with the 7's is the fact that they are sequincial. pain in the ass to jump the boost on if you are looking to tune them. that first smaller turbo wont like being spooled to make 14+ psi. This is why most people go for the larger single utrbo if looking to make large numbers from the 13B.
as far as other reliability standpoints are concerned. its all about maintanence and how hard you drive it. if you have a turbo making 1+ atmospehres constnatly and drive the car like your autocrossing on the street but dont maintian it of course its going to screw up. that is like running a roots blower and not properly oiling it when needed. its not going to last. Reliability between a properly maitained tuebo and supercharger is about the same.
Power is a given. Turbo's will always make more power with a given boost pressure when compared to superchargers. Turbo's dont get the larger portion of their energy from exaust flow. they get the larger portion of their energy from exaust heat. as it continues to expant it pushes the turbine. if it was simply from the piston pushing the exaust out hte turbo would never spool and therefor never boost. 99% of motor sports have baned turbo's in the extrememly high performance classes. NHRA outlaw class and queen dragsters are only allowed twin screw (roots) superchargers. if they where allowed turbo's and a turbine that could handle the exaust heat could be made most would be running turbo's. giving back the engine the 600+ hp it is loosing simply by turning the supercharger.

Why would american muscle benifit more from a super then a turbo The large ci and larger displacement make a turbo even better lets think a 830 hp 4.6 l runs 13.6 psi of boost! How much psi do u have to run to make a talon or a surpa have 830 over 23psi(i think thats 700 something hp in a surpa) pry almost 30 psi in the talon Hmm that would mean the turbo is more effective in a large engine or american muscle then it is in a import (not talking crap about imports just stating facts. if i am wrong plz correct me but i believe i am correct at the moment.)

sry about the relbilty issue i posted that about the corba y it was super other then turbo thought that was one reason that i read Honest mistake sry.

Why would american muscle benifit more from a super then a turbo The large ci and larger displacement make a turbo even better lets think a 830 hp 4.6 l runs 13.6 psi of boost! How much psi do u have to run to make a talon or a surpa have 830 over 23psi(i think thats 700 something hp in a surpa) pry almost 30 psi in the talon Hmm that would mean the turbo is more effective in a large engine or american muscle then it is in a import (not talking crap about imports just stating facts. if i am wrong plz correct me but i believe i am correct at the moment.)

That is true, but the same applies for a super-charger. Airflow equals power and more displacement equals more airflow. So, a bigger displacement engine will yield higher power from the same mods as a smaller displacement engine be it a super-charger, turbo-charger, intake, and pretty much anything else you can think of.

how can we all foreget just leaving it n/a depending on your car like hondas launch a lil slower but they have a v tec to give them there killer factory umph while if it is low end torque it can get moving quicker ??? i was thinking when building a car would you wnt to build off of the strong suit or bad suit like as inhondas would you want to supercharge it so it can get going quicker and have the v tec kick in and let er fly of would you want a fat turbo to make her have a lil lag then have all of that boost throw in ??? i am so confused

how can we all foreget just leaving it n/a depending on your car like hondas launch a lil slower but they have a v tec to give them there killer factory umph while if it is low end torque it can get moving quicker ??? i was thinking when building a car would you wnt to build off of the strong suit or bad suit like as inhondas would you want to supercharge it so it can get going quicker and have the v tec kick in and let er fly of would you want a fat turbo to make her have a lil lag then have all of that boost throw in ??? i am so confused

I don't know much about the vtech giving the hondas "killer" umph, but I seem to be having plenty of success staying with just the motor. :biggrin:

Jeez, this thread has been all over the world and back. Has anyone looked at the first few posts, and wondered where this one got outta hand? :lol: I love these hard fought debates!!!

FYI All VTEC does is change valve timing. DOHC Vtec gives best gains but at most 15hp. it gives a slightly flatter torque curve. E-Vtec, I-Vtec, and Echo Vtec where all designed to give better economy wile maintaining a flat(er) torque curve when compared to a fixed cam.
Larger displacement engines respond to modifications because they have more power in the first place (for the most part) ie. 300hp 350ci V. 115hp 100ci. add 1 atmosphere of boost to the 350 at 70% compressor efficency and you will gain 210hp making it 510hp. add 1 atmosphere of boost to a 115hp engine at a 70% compressor efficency and you will gain a little over 72hp. making it 187hp.

FYI All VTEC does is change valve timing. DOHC Vtec gives best gains but at most 15hp. it gives a slightly flatter torque curve. E-Vtec, I-Vtec, and Echo Vtec where all designed to give better economy wile maintaining a flat(er) torque curve when compared to a fixed cam.
Larger displacement engines respond to modifications because they have more power in the first place (for the most part) ie. 300hp 350ci V. 115hp 100ci. add 1 atmosphere of boost to the 350 at 70% compressor efficency and you will gain 210hp making it 510hp. add 1 atmosphere of boost to a 115hp engine at a 70% compressor efficency and you will gain a little over 72hp. making it 187hp.

This wasn't directed to me was it? I hope it was to the guy that posted above me with the "killer" umph statement. :iceslolan

'Twas (killer umph)

'Twas (killer umph)

heh..heh...killer :biggrin:

V_tECh Typ3 R OWNZZZ jo' !!!!!1!!!!!

Musashi... where are u!!!/??

This thread has been beat to death so many times, however I guess its necessary to keep repeating it since there are so many newcomers around here. Didn't we used to have a sticky on this subject or is that in another forum?

And while we're on the topic of Superchargers vs Turbochargers how about bringing something new to it, what brand superchargers/turbos would you NOT buy? For example, from all of the S-10 owners I've talked to on another forum, it seems the Powerdyne centrifugal supercharger is a horrible brand to pick. It's the one of the cheapest out there but apparantly has the most problems. You get what you pay for I guess.

This thread has been beat to death so many times, however I guess its necessary to keep repeating it since there are so many newcomers around here. Didn't we used to have a sticky on this subject or is that in another forum?

And while we're on the topic of Superchargers vs Turbochargers how about bringing something new to it, what brand superchargers/turbos would you NOT buy? For example, from all of the S-10 owners I've talked to on another forum, it seems the Powerdyne centrifugal supercharger is a horrible brand to pick. It's the one of the cheapest out there but apparantly has the most problems. You get what you pay for I guess.

Same with the Mustang crowd. Powerdynes are the least popular. Paxton, Vortech, and ATI seem to have about equal popularity. I'm going w/ a Vortech

I'll go with the fred flinstone supercharger :D

I have hamsters on a cocaine and redbull direct blood injection in mine...

I'd have to vote Paxton, but I'm a lil biased :p

FYI All VTEC does is change valve timing. DOHC Vtec gives best gains but at most 15hp.
VTEC does more than just change valve timing - it also changes lift and duration. Probably gains more than 15 horses too if you judge the difference between an h23 (non-vtec) and an h22...more like 30 horses. True the h22 has higher compression ratio, but only slightly (9.8:1 h23 compared to 10.0:1 h22).