turbo vs. supercharger
09-02-2010, 01:38 AM
#2
Multi-Tasking Moderator!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Detroit Rock City!
Posts: 15,618
I do not condone turbo VS. S/C threads as its comparing apples to oranges.....everyone with a S/C will say get an S/C and others that have a turbo (s) will say get the turbo (s)...regardless both forms of FI will get you the HP you want and the fun they both offer is to be experienced by everyone IMO....
So if this thread gets out of hand or becomes a pissing match between the 2 forms of FI I will shut it down and ban members that got out of hand....
this topic has been wildly debated in the past and I actually cant believe I am going to leave this thread open....I hope no one proves me wrong in leaving this open for discussion but I hope things have changed for the better from past threads such as this....time will only tell...keep the debate factual and the comments/remarks civil
enjoy!
So if this thread gets out of hand or becomes a pissing match between the 2 forms of FI I will shut it down and ban members that got out of hand....
this topic has been wildly debated in the past and I actually cant believe I am going to leave this thread open....I hope no one proves me wrong in leaving this open for discussion but I hope things have changed for the better from past threads such as this....time will only tell...keep the debate factual and the comments/remarks civil
enjoy!
09-02-2010, 01:40 AM
#3
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,062
I don't know much about that particular kit, but generally speaking the concepts are the same. A supercharger is pretty much a belt driven turbo. I wouldn't say either is "better", just different. A supercharger is parasitic in that it needs to be spun by the engine with a belt to operate, which costs some power. A turbo is technically more proficient in achieving forced induction since its driven by exhaust gases to spin it's turbine. For these Mustangs that aren't really receptive to high boost levels, I personally think the supercharger is the way to go, as over-boosting is far easier with a turbo. A supercharger can only produce the amount of boost that is relational to the pulley size vs the maximum RPM that it can be spun by the motor... If I were building a race car with a fully built brick s@#thouse block, I'd use a turbo.
As far as cost, when I researched turbos last, the prices were in line with the supercharger kits. I would expect a twin turbo kit to possibly cost a little more just simply because of the additional hardware? I would also expect that twin turbo kit to be more difficult to tune, but granted I'm no tuner.
I don't know if any of this info helps you, but FWIW anyway...
As far as cost, when I researched turbos last, the prices were in line with the supercharger kits. I would expect a twin turbo kit to possibly cost a little more just simply because of the additional hardware? I would also expect that twin turbo kit to be more difficult to tune, but granted I'm no tuner.
I don't know if any of this info helps you, but FWIW anyway...
Last edited by Mudflap; 09-02-2010 at 01:42 AM.
09-02-2010, 01:58 AM
#4
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lubbock/Dallas, Texas
Posts: 186
From what I've read a turbo will get you more overall power and performance but a supercharger will get the power to you quicker. I have no real experience with either as don't have a supercharger or a turbo so anyone feel free to correct me, just stating what I've got from reading threads here.
09-02-2010, 02:06 AM
#5
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,062
Yeah generally the twin screw or roots type superchargers are more responsive than a turbo by way of how they work. That said, I've driven and owned turbo cars with VERY little lag, so that is not an absolute. I had an 06 GTI that had no detectable lag, but it also had a tiny turbo. Generally speaking, the smaller the turbo, the less it takes to spin it, and the faster it "spools".
My '03 WRX was pretty heavily modified, and would take off fairly slowly off the line, but 2 seconds later I would spin all 4 tires and the thrust was kickass and came on like a sledgehammer. Granted that was a tiny 2.0L engine that without the turbo couldn't get out of its own way. I would think a turbo on a V6 or V8 would probably feel a bit more progressive, but thats just a guess... I've had 4 or 5 turbo cars in my life, but they were all 4-bangers.
My '03 WRX was pretty heavily modified, and would take off fairly slowly off the line, but 2 seconds later I would spin all 4 tires and the thrust was kickass and came on like a sledgehammer. Granted that was a tiny 2.0L engine that without the turbo couldn't get out of its own way. I would think a turbo on a V6 or V8 would probably feel a bit more progressive, but thats just a guess... I've had 4 or 5 turbo cars in my life, but they were all 4-bangers.
09-02-2010, 02:11 AM
#6
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 15
What you choose to go with largely depends on what your goals are concerning the use of your car. Superchargers and turbochargers each have their own respective advantages/disadvantages so one form of FI may be desired over another for your particular application.
A supercharger has no lag due to the fact that is driven off the crank so power increases proportionally to engine speed. This, however, results in some parasitic loss like mentioned above. Turbochargers are more efficient due to the fact that they are driven off exhaust gasses that would be otherwise wasted into the atmosphere so there is no parasitic loss to worry about. This higher efficiency translates to more power, all else being equal. One downside to turbochargers is depending on certain factors they typically have some mild to moderate lag since the turbine needs exhaust gasses to increase before it begins spinning enough to generate the desired boost. Superchargers are generally regarded as being more reliable although that is not always the case.
These are just a few of the more basic things to consider, more experienced and knowledgeable people will chime in soon enough I'm sure.
A supercharger has no lag due to the fact that is driven off the crank so power increases proportionally to engine speed. This, however, results in some parasitic loss like mentioned above. Turbochargers are more efficient due to the fact that they are driven off exhaust gasses that would be otherwise wasted into the atmosphere so there is no parasitic loss to worry about. This higher efficiency translates to more power, all else being equal. One downside to turbochargers is depending on certain factors they typically have some mild to moderate lag since the turbine needs exhaust gasses to increase before it begins spinning enough to generate the desired boost. Superchargers are generally regarded as being more reliable although that is not always the case.
These are just a few of the more basic things to consider, more experienced and knowledgeable people will chime in soon enough I'm sure.
09-02-2010, 06:19 AM
#8
If you go turbo on our bigger displacement V8 engines, it is much better to go with multiple smaller turbos than it is to go with one massive turbo. The reason for the lag is primarily the inertia the turbocharger's compressor & turbine wheels exhibit.
The bigger the wheel, the more rotating mass, and therefore, the more resistance to spooling up to speed.
This is why V6 and V8 engines typically go with twin turbos: you have smaller diameter wheels, less rotating mass to fight against, and thus the faster you can accelerate the wheels to proper operating RPMs to give you the proper boost you need for the specific crank RPM you are turning at.
In my thoughts, for V8 engines, I would go a step further than twin turbo. I would go quad turbo; 1 turbo for every two cylinders, and go with much smaller turbo wheels. This further eliminates more lag than a twin turbo.
Additionally, there are sequential and compound turbo set-ups where you have a smaller turbo for quick response and little lag and a larger turbo for high end high boost. Both turbos are plumbed either in series or in parallel, but the set-up is meant to address lag for all RPM ranges.
The bigger the wheel, the more rotating mass, and therefore, the more resistance to spooling up to speed.
This is why V6 and V8 engines typically go with twin turbos: you have smaller diameter wheels, less rotating mass to fight against, and thus the faster you can accelerate the wheels to proper operating RPMs to give you the proper boost you need for the specific crank RPM you are turning at.
In my thoughts, for V8 engines, I would go a step further than twin turbo. I would go quad turbo; 1 turbo for every two cylinders, and go with much smaller turbo wheels. This further eliminates more lag than a twin turbo.
Additionally, there are sequential and compound turbo set-ups where you have a smaller turbo for quick response and little lag and a larger turbo for high end high boost. Both turbos are plumbed either in series or in parallel, but the set-up is meant to address lag for all RPM ranges.
09-02-2010, 06:38 AM
#9
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MI
Posts: 1,292
lol quad turbo, maybe if you are willing to spend $30k on the setup
Even the hennessey ford gt (1000 hp) only has 2 turbos
Supercharger would be the easiest way to go as far installation, turbo requires a lot of modification with all the piping, intercooler, etc.
Even the hennessey ford gt (1000 hp) only has 2 turbos
Supercharger would be the easiest way to go as far installation, turbo requires a lot of modification with all the piping, intercooler, etc.
09-02-2010, 06:47 AM
#10
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: LA
Posts: 1,201
I know two people, couple of years back, that used to have 4.0s and with a single turbo from Powerhouse, one got to 11.0 and the other 10.9 in the 1/4 with their V6s.
If you go turbo on our bigger displacement V8 engines, it is much better to go with multiple smaller turbos
Disagree based upon personal experience with my 06GT and not just the theoretical. Went from a Procharger P1SC to a 67mm single, then the present a 76mm which is not massive. Noticed some lag between the 67 and 76 for street driving. For 99+% of S197 owners something like the 67mm, that has no noticeable lag and is capable of around 650 rear wheel with the appropriate build, is more than enough. The 76 will get my car well into the 9s. Noone needs a massive turbo (except for someone eyeing 8s) and if you did, you would need way more cubes anyway.
Being one of the very few that have had both types of FI on the same vehicle....I have no preference. The single 67 turbo worked well with no lag, the 76 has no lag with the racing setup, and a supercharger with the right setup would meet my ET goals just as well.
If you go turbo on our bigger displacement V8 engines, it is much better to go with multiple smaller turbos
Disagree based upon personal experience with my 06GT and not just the theoretical. Went from a Procharger P1SC to a 67mm single, then the present a 76mm which is not massive. Noticed some lag between the 67 and 76 for street driving. For 99+% of S197 owners something like the 67mm, that has no noticeable lag and is capable of around 650 rear wheel with the appropriate build, is more than enough. The 76 will get my car well into the 9s. Noone needs a massive turbo (except for someone eyeing 8s) and if you did, you would need way more cubes anyway.
Being one of the very few that have had both types of FI on the same vehicle....I have no preference. The single 67 turbo worked well with no lag, the 76 has no lag with the racing setup, and a supercharger with the right setup would meet my ET goals just as well.
Last edited by forensicsteve; 09-02-2010 at 06:55 AM.