4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang Technical discussions on 1996-2004 4.6 Liter Modular Motors (2V and 4V) within.

Turbo vs. Supercharger

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-13-2006, 12:31 AM
  #1  
gtboy2k
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
gtboy2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 194
Default Turbo vs. Supercharger

First off, I did some light searching with no avail, so if this topic has been covered please direct me to it. I am curious as to the pro's and con's of each. Also I am wanting a KB supercharger for my car, but my friend wants twin turbos. According to him he will be quicker than I, if so, how much more so would he be? Any and all information you can provide on this topic is much apreciated. Thanks in advance.
gtboy2k is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 12:43 AM
  #2  
HaV
5th Gear Member
 
HaV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Okla.
Posts: 2,060
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger

When in doubt, go to howstuffworks.

Click me for a 'splination.


Turbo's do give you more HP in the top end and are a little quicker.. A KB is a screw type blower, and does a lot more for low end and makes max boost much sooner. A vortech or procharger type supercharger or a turbo make boost at higher RPM's. All work fine and add loads of power vs stock.
HaV is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 12:43 AM
  #3  
blueangelfightr
5th Gear Member
 
blueangelfightr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 3,645
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger

It all depends on how much bottom line HP you want. If you want a 400hp weekend warrior then the KB will be enough. If you want to destroy everything then you might want the TT's. But remember something. You can only run 400 RWHPish on a stock GT engine. If you go too much over you run the risk of blowing your engine. So the TT will mean alot more work and alot more $$ as well. It will be faster then the kenne bell would though. So decide on how much you want to spend and what you want your bottom line hp to be.
blueangelfightr is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 12:46 AM
  #4  
czwalga00gt
5th Gear Member
 
czwalga00gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pittsburgh/Dayton
Posts: 3,062
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger

Turbos >> Superchargers


Especially with the ball bearing turbos that no longer really lag. However for the mustang turbo kits are extremly expensivive. A good 2/3 more than a centrifugal supercharger kit. About a 1/3 more than a kenne bell.
czwalga00gt is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 01:13 AM
  #5  
gtboy2k
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
gtboy2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 194
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger

In other words, unless I want to rebuild the motor with forged internals, a kb is my best bet, speaking of which, Is Kenne Bell one of, or the best supercharger out there?
gtboy2k is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 01:28 AM
  #6  
MustangMafia
4th Gear Member
 
MustangMafia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,860
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger

ORIGINAL: gtboy2k

In other words, unless I want to rebuild the motor with forged internals, a kb is my best bet, speaking of which, Is Kenne Bell one of, or the best supercharger out there?
It has the ability to make more hp sooner than most other blowers.... Whether something is the best or not is a matter of opinion
MustangMafia is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 01:56 AM
  #7  
czwalga00gt
5th Gear Member
 
czwalga00gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pittsburgh/Dayton
Posts: 3,062
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger


ORIGINAL: MustangMafia

ORIGINAL: gtboy2k

In other words, unless I want to rebuild the motor with forged internals, a kb is my best bet, speaking of which, Is Kenne Bell one of, or the best supercharger out there?
It has the ability to make more hp sooner than most other blowers.... Whether something is the best or not is a matter of opinion

All depends... the F1 blowers make big numbers as well. Theres a few different KB's.... 1.8, 2.2 and 2.4. You wont make that much boost with a 1.8; but you wont want to buy anything else unless you're going to rebuild the motor.
czwalga00gt is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 03:08 AM
  #8  
racer02GTstang
5th Gear Member
 
racer02GTstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nashville/Knoxville, Tennessee
Posts: 4,687
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger


ORIGINAL: blueangelfightr

It all depends on how much bottom line HP you want. If you want a 400hp weekend warrior then the KB will be enough. If you want to destroy everything then you might want the TT's. But remember something. You can only run 400 RWHPish on a stock GT engine. If you go too much over you run the risk of blowing your engine. So the TT will mean alot more work and alot more $$ as well. It will be faster then the kenne bell would though. So decide on how much you want to spend and what you want your bottom line hp to be.
i think ive proved that wrong about 400 hp on a stock motor.... but who knows how much longer my shortblock will last....

id say i'd rather a turbo setup just because they are way more efficient... but superchargers are way cheaper. it just depends if you wanna make your car a supra killer, or just something that will destroy vettes and such on weekends.
racer02GTstang is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 12:02 PM
  #9  
Zoie_daGT
5th Gear Member
 
Zoie_daGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,616
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger

Turbo > Supercharger IMO

A Supercharger is sweet in its own right. It does however have some parasitic loss from the engine to make it work. Some people absolutely go crazy w/ the whine that a supercharger makes. As told before, a KB will have instant power and torque.

A Turbo or TT kit will give you higher end power and more of it. The Turbos have virtually no parasitic loss to make them work since they are run by the exhaust gases. It takes a moment for them to spool up and make boost but it will be more power than a supercharger at the same boost level.

I think someone said this awhile back in another thread and I would have to agree.

A turbo and blower at the same boost level, the turbo will win. It will make more hp.
A turbo and blower at the same hp level, the blower will win. (esp. KB because it has a very agressive powerband.)
Of course there are variables and exceptions to this but it is a general statement.

Hope that was a bit of a help.
Zoie_daGT is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 12:31 PM
  #10  
Fallstar01
4th Gear Member
 
Fallstar01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,654
Default RE: Turbo vs. Supercharger

It really depends on many factors. For example, if you rebuild your entire engine, drivetrain, and cooling and you were to push the limits of a twin-turbo and a kenne bell, if the twin turbos are of the proper size, they'll out run the Kenne bell. However, since you asked about the pros and cons of each...

Twin Screw Supercharger Pros:
Full boost at low RPMs which makes it less jerky and more smooth
Nice torque curve
Much much easier install/removal
Less expensive
Harder to break, strong contruction.
Great resale value if you switch it out to sell the car.
Easier to tune.
Generally more HP and torque over the entire hp range. Turbos may cost some hp/torque down low before the spool up.
Higher boost is just a pulley swap away.

Twin Turbo Pros:
Higher potential.
Massive torque after spool up.
No Belt drag.
Air/Air intercooler.

For auto-cross and motorsports involving many turns, kenne bell is better because it requires less down shifting.
For Drag racing, Twin turbos are usually better because you're always in post-spool RPMS and the torque is incredible.

Let me make it crystal clear that twin-turbos are a major PITA to both install and tune. Twin turbo setups are more expensive and you usually have to swap out your entire front suspension and k-member. For the Twin-Turbo kit to be a worthwhile investment, you would need to spend alot of other money on your car getting everything else up to spec so you can crank the boost up.
Fallstar01 is offline  


Quick Reply: Turbo vs. Supercharger



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 AM.