Supercharger VS Turbo Charger for the 5.0
06-12-2011, 11:11 AM
#11
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 204
as far as in the 5.0? Supercharger! why? there is no good place to mount a turbo, rear mount kits is all i've seen, which apparently suck.
turbos are more efficient in that they use your wasted exhaust to create power, superchargers take power to make power. so on little 4 cyl that dont put out much power n/a turbos make sense, on a v8? only if your goal is maaasive boost/power needing a built engine, a supercharger or turbo can put out equal power levels on the stock engine and blow it up, but for big power you'll reach an area where you have to get some specialty big *** blower to make the power a cheaper turbo or twin turbo can do. Just about every person with a built engine with big goals has tried superchargers and ended up with turbo(s). some have stuck with them, but not the majority... unless i can see a poll to prove otherwise
turbos are more efficient in that they use your wasted exhaust to create power, superchargers take power to make power. so on little 4 cyl that dont put out much power n/a turbos make sense, on a v8? only if your goal is maaasive boost/power needing a built engine, a supercharger or turbo can put out equal power levels on the stock engine and blow it up, but for big power you'll reach an area where you have to get some specialty big *** blower to make the power a cheaper turbo or twin turbo can do. Just about every person with a built engine with big goals has tried superchargers and ended up with turbo(s). some have stuck with them, but not the majority... unless i can see a poll to prove otherwise
Go look up hellion's single turbo kit for the 5.0 and come back and say there is no good place to mount a turbo
06-12-2011, 05:02 PM
#12
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Fl
Posts: 49
no airflow to the ic and the air filter is so small and in such a bad location it would have to be changed a whole lot..
beers
06-12-2011, 08:25 PM
#13
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 204
Pretty sure he said turbo not ic ... that can always be mounted lower or take the support out and mount it there. But truthfully to each his own, I'd always rather have a turbo unless I track(not drag) the car.
06-13-2011, 04:40 AM
#14
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Fl
Posts: 49
yep they got a good place for the turbo. and screwed everything else up...
but, hey they got a kit out, and some#s well kinda, they seem to have obscured them.
beers
07-14-2011, 07:51 PM
#15
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: GA
Posts: 99
as far as in the 5.0? Supercharger! why? there is no good place to mount a turbo, rear mount kits is all i've seen, which apparently suck.
turbos are more efficient in that they use your wasted exhaust to create power, superchargers take power to make power. so on little 4 cyl that dont put out much power n/a turbos make sense, on a v8? only if your goal is maaasive boost/power needing a built engine, a supercharger or turbo can put out equal power levels on the stock engine and blow it up, but for big power you'll reach an area where you have to get some specialty big *** blower to make the power a cheaper turbo or twin turbo can do. Just about every person with a built engine with big goals has tried superchargers and ended up with turbo(s). some have stuck with them, but not the majority... unless i can see a poll to prove otherwise
turbos are more efficient in that they use your wasted exhaust to create power, superchargers take power to make power. so on little 4 cyl that dont put out much power n/a turbos make sense, on a v8? only if your goal is maaasive boost/power needing a built engine, a supercharger or turbo can put out equal power levels on the stock engine and blow it up, but for big power you'll reach an area where you have to get some specialty big *** blower to make the power a cheaper turbo or twin turbo can do. Just about every person with a built engine with big goals has tried superchargers and ended up with turbo(s). some have stuck with them, but not the majority... unless i can see a poll to prove otherwise
07-15-2011, 10:28 AM
#17
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: LA
Posts: 1,201
Regardless of year or car for that matter, it's always the same debate. I had a P1SC procharger in my 06 stang GT, then went with a 67mm turbo, then a 76mm on the same car. The car got to 10.0 at 136 mph with the 76mm at 22 lbs boost. Not sure what the rwhp was (something we never focused on), but likely in the 700 range??? Now car has been rebuilt again and chasing low 9s with the same 76 (although many other changes).
Went turbo because more practical to make small incremental boost changes from the cockpit at the dragstrip, while datalogging. Likely an F1 Procharger would have yielded similar ET results though.
If you go turbo, make sure it's sized for the application. Bigger is not necessarily better with turbos, and would rather go with a bigger single than twins for racing. I noticed significant lag going from 67 to 76 in street driving. At the strip any lag is eliminated with the correct build.
Went turbo because more practical to make small incremental boost changes from the cockpit at the dragstrip, while datalogging. Likely an F1 Procharger would have yielded similar ET results though.
If you go turbo, make sure it's sized for the application. Bigger is not necessarily better with turbos, and would rather go with a bigger single than twins for racing. I noticed significant lag going from 67 to 76 in street driving. At the strip any lag is eliminated with the correct build.
Last edited by forensicsteve; 07-15-2011 at 10:35 AM.
roushcharged tbs of course 13lbs of boost an a touch of m1
looks good too, I say got tvs, awesome low end torque and makes good power
07-21-2011, 11:12 PM
#20
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 129
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr wrooooooooooooooooooooooong! lol my car builds boost NOWHERE near what it's like in a big turbo car. And depends what whipple kit you're talking about, it's not as simple as just saying "a whipple". IMO.
that's not to say it wont be a fast car, but I think you'd be faster with a whipple or a turbo.Last edited by CJStang50; 07-21-2011 at 11:12 PM. Reason: spelling correction