Turbo or Supercharger poll

[Granatelli]

I'm not claiming one type of forced induction is better than another. All I'm saying is that Granatelli's test is biased in favor of the turbo system. Just because a kit doesn't have a vital component and does badly because of it, doesn't mean the kit is a bad choice. In the matter of exhaust, the choice is very personal - thus it would be counter productive for a kit to offer its own exhaust.

Considering that an LS1 has a 3.6" stroke, plus 48 square inches inches of piston area per revolution, each PSI of backpressure costs about 14 ft-lbs of torque. This is why it's so important for forced induction to have free-flowing exhaust. Granatelli mentioned earlier in this thread that his vette had 7 psi of backpressure even without the blower; Lingenfelter says that an efficient exhaust system should have no more than 2 psi of backpressure. Thus, his statement that the blower generates as much backpressure as a turbo is untrue, since an NA system with 7 psi of backpressure is overly restrictive even without a blower.

OMG - Talk about selective opinions. If it comes from Lingenfelter it must be true. All these numbers are subjective until we see them on the dyno on each particular application and combo. Factually, if i drop the back pressure in my 06 vette from 7.2psi (N/A) to 2 as you claim "Lingenfelter" says is best, I will not pick up (5 x 14 ft-lbs) 70 ft-lbs. But I do agree it would go a long way to making power.

John L was a friend of mine and although some of the parts we sold competed against each other we alwasy bounced idea off each other. Lingenfelter was the ing of small block Chevys as they certainly have tons on time and testing data to support several hundred different combo but GMS based on our years at Paxton and CART more then earned our stripes in teh forced induction world.

I am not hear to compete over which product works better like I said from day one they all have there + and -. Naturally since I spent years in the indy car ranks I am all about the turbo, My family has also held over 300 land speed records with both Centrifugal belt driven superchargers and turbos.

With that said if all you want is eye candy, IMO it is tough to beat a polished twin screw smack in the middle of the engine. But if you want power then the centrifugal or turbo do all the talking.:drivin: :drivin:

[stonebreaker]

Not sure why you are stuck on the "free flow exhuast thing" You keep saying that. They all have the same stock mufflers and the turbo is limited to 1 2.5" exhuast pipe as where the 2 blower cars have twin 2.5 exhuast. Why do you keep saying the turbo has the advantage. -

Respectfully you are like a broken record but you keep playig the wrong song:beer:Free-flowing exhaust is a HUGE advantage, both for FI and NA cars. Merely changing the cat-back on a 94-96 impala (the car I'm most familiar with) bumps rear wheel horsepower from about 210 to 230, without even getting into headers and free-flow cats. Going back to your mustang test, both the blowers, despite being completely different in design, needed about the same amount of boost to make similar horsepower - roughly 9 psi. The turbo needed roughly 5. If the stock cats merely caused an additional 4 psi of backpressure, then that right there eats up all the extra boost the blowers needed to meet the horsepower goal. But we'll never know, because the test was biased.

If free-flowing exhaust weren't a big deal, then people wouldn't be reporting such huge gains from it, particularly after they install other mods, from heads and cams to blowers. For example, in this article from MM & FF, (http://www.kennebell.net/media/articles/MODS4MODS_3Vpart2.pdf) a 2005 mustang GT made 459 rwhp on 9 psi of boost, not 400, and exceeded 400 ft/lbs of torque from 2700 rpm on up. The difference? The car had a free-flowing aftermarket exhaust on it. And that was with the smaller 1.7 liter blower, not the 2.4. The exact same car made 432 hp with only 7 psi with the 2.4 blower.

Extrapolating from the data, the 2.4 KB blower, the exact same one you tested, makes an average of 23.4 hp per pound of boost. That means the KB blower, when properly set up, is capable of hitting the 400 whp mark on 5.6 lbs of boost, not 9 as you reported. The 1.7 blower was making 21 hp per pound of boost at 9 psi, so the numbers are very consistent.

As far as your engineering credentials, you may be Thomas Edison and Smokey Yunick all rolled into one, I don't know. What I do know is, right now I feel like you're trying to blow Smokey up my butt on this turbo vs. blower thing.

[Granatelli]

Free-flowing exhaust is a HUGE advantage, both for FI and NA cars. Merely changing the cat-back on a 94-96 impala (the car I'm most familiar with) bumps rear wheel horsepower from about 210 to 230, without even getting into headers and free-flow cats. .

Ya and like i said they all have the same mufflers. and the Turbo car has the smallest exhuast and still keeps the cats

Going back to your mustang test, both the blowers, despite being completely different in design, needed about the same amount of boost to make similar horsepower - roughly 9 psi. The turbo needed roughly 5. If the stock cats merely caused an additional 4 psi of backpressure, then that right there eats up all the extra boost the blowers needed to meet the horsepower goal. But we'll never know, because the test was biased. .
1. what part of "as delivered" are you guys missing?
2. It take more power to drive the blower then the turbo that is why it take more boost to make the same power as the turbo.
3. I agree dropping the cats would help all three combos

If free-flowing exhaust weren't a big deal, then people wouldn't be reporting such huge gains from it, particularly after they install other mods, from heads and cams to blowers. For example, in this article from MM & FF, (http://www.kennebell.net/media/articles/MODS4MODS_3Vpart2.pdf) a 2005 mustang GT made 459 rwhp on 9 psi of boost, not 400, and exceeded 400 ft/lbs of torque from 2700 rpm on up. The difference? The car had a free-flowing aftermarket exhaust on it. And that was with the smaller 1.7 liter blower, not the 2.4. The exact same car made 432 hp with only 7 psi with the 2.4 blower..:lol: this car was tested on a dynojet which always reports like 12% higher then a Mustang Dyno. So you can add like 40 hp to my dyno figures FOR ALL 3 DIFF COMBOs


As far as your engineering credentials, you may be Thomas Edison and Smokey Yunick all rolled into one, I don't know. What I do know is, right now I feel like you're trying to blow Smokey up my butt on this turbo vs. blower thing.
I am not trying to honk my own horn but you guys asked where I ws coming from on all this so I tried to explain my back ground. I am happy to help or share my opinion regardless of the installed FI Product

So I change my opinion I think Centrifugals are better. Turbos suck :dunno:

[Granatelli]

Try this one on for size - The 2.4 KB tested by me had a Vortech on it and made 505 rear wheel hp but very low torque numbers. This guy opted up to the KB and paid extra to go with 8 rib conversion. He now picked up 45 lbs-ft of torque and lost like 60hp. The car feels great out of the hole and then past 5000 falls on it face as compared to the centrifugal.

Ask any guy (or chick :love:) that took his roots blower off his 03/04 cobra in favor of a Procharger what he thinks of it. They all report the same results - great at the track crappy on the street. So it all come down to what you want. Horsepower or just put around town grunt. Of course ask the same guys what happened when they took the roots off and in stalled a turbo upgrade:notworthy:

[stonebreaker]

:lol: this car was tested on a dynojet which always reports like 12% higher then a Mustang Dyno. So you can add like 40 hp to my dyno figures FOR ALL 3 DIFF COMBOsWrong. You report that your test cars made between 256 and 262 rwhp. The car in the MM&FF article was reported to make 268 rwhp. That's within 3% of your cars' average of 259 hp, not 12%.

You're digging yourself in deeper.

[stonebreaker]

Ya and like i said they all have the same mufflers. and the Turbo car has the smallest exhuast and still keeps the cats


1. what part of "as delivered" are you guys missing?
2. It take more power to drive the blower then the turbo that is why it take more boost to make the same power as the turbo.
3. I agree dropping the cats would help all three combos
No, your turbo kit for the '05 stang comes with its own cats. This introduces another variable in the equation, apart from the efficiency question.

You keep saying that the turbo is more efficient. It may or may not be, and at least in part of the powerband, probably is. My point is, I find I can't accept your word as to that because of the mistakes and contradictions in your posts.

<EDIT> Aha! I knew it! (http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19980527/press012919.html) I knew you were a sales guy. So what happened? You bought the supercharger business from your pop, a business your family's been in for 50 years, and now you're selling turbos. What happened?

[Granatelli]

No, your turbo kit for the '05 stang comes with its own cats. This introduces another variable in the equation, apart from the efficiency question.

You keep saying that the turbo is more efficient. It may or may not be, and at least in part of the powerband, probably is. My point is, I find I can't accept your word as to that because of the mistakes and contradictions in your posts.

<EDIT> Aha! I knew it! (http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19980527/press012919.html) I knew you were a sales guy. So what happened? You bought the supercharger business from your pop, a business your family's been in for 50 years, and now you're selling turbos. What happened?

Look you are totally missing the point. You and sifting through each word looking to grasp any straw you can. I have nothing to gain by pushing you guys in any specific direction I was merely post my opinion.

Look it up for yourself

I am at 1000 Yarnell Place in 93033
Vortech and Paxton are at 1650 Pacific Ave 93030

Starting from: 1650 Pacific Ave, Oxnard, CA 93033-2746 Save Address
Arriving at: 1000 Yarnell Pl, Oxnard, CA 93033-2454 Save Address
Distance: 0.2 miles Approximate Travel Time: 1 min

These guys are walking distance and I can have all the install business I want. We buy, sell and recommend each others products every day. The question posed was which I prefer. I like them all but THE TURBO MAKES THE MOST POWER per pound. PERIOD

The Vortech and Paxton are the easiest to install. I really don’t care if you believe me or not. The facts remain the same. And you refuse to acknowledge the turbo has the most to gain by a better exhaust. I see you claim to be an engineer so be objective and read the same data. You tend to lean towards turbo data from 10 years ago versus all other data that is up to date. Next you will say that turbos have lag. Yester-year but not anymore my friends.

I never saw that press release until today - thanks - it is all wrong though. Paxton was a family owned business as was STP Oil Treatment. While I am an engineer I am also a sale person. If my salesmanship comes out in my writing it is not meant to be in any way dishonest just factual. In 1998, I sold Paxton to David Adams and stayed on shortly as the President. I had been sales manager of Paxton from 1985 to 92 and VP of Operation from 92 to 98. While my family owned a portion of the company I was the driving force from 92 until I helped sell the business for the family in 1998. I never needed a title as it is common knowledge I was the JACK of all trades. Engineering, Operation and Sales. I took a team though and I credit the team for the success. I believe it speaks volumes that most of the staff at GMS has been with me since the very early 90's. When I sold Paxton and started GMS most of the key employee came with me. They could have stayed at Paxton but chose to stay with the core team .

[ericwilloughby]

I agree Ganatelli. The tests were very informative. They proved that a turbo car makes at least 70 more hp than a SC. To the wheels none the less and that 70 hp is still in the crank of the sc car there to break things.

Thank you for the test data and the abuse you've taken in the prosses.

[Granatelli]

I agree Ganatelli. The tests were very informative. They proved that a turbo car makes at least 70 more hp than a SC. To the wheels none the less and that 70 hp is still in the crank of the sc car there to break things.

Thank you for the test data and the abuse you've taken in the prosses.

Thanks for noticing that i was just reporting what I saw and not trying to steer anyone based on salesmanship but moer so on experience

[stonebreaker]

Look you are totally missing the point. You and sifting through each word looking to grasp any straw you can.I'm not missing the point - your point is that you feel turbos are superior to blowers. What am I missing?

I have nothing to gain by pushing you guys in any specific direction I was merely post my opinion. That's not true, since you no longer sell blowers (I didn't see any listed on your site, anyway) but you DO sell turbos. Thus, I was hardly suprised to find that a test conducted by you determined your own system to be superior.

The question posed was which I prefer. I like them all but THE TURBO MAKES THE MOST POWER per pound. PERIODFine. You've stated your position. All I'm saying is that you've failed to prove it.

The Vortech and Paxton are the easiest to install. I really don’t care if you believe me or not. The facts remain the same. And you refuse to acknowledge the turbo has the most to gain by a better exhaust. Maybe it does, I don't know. However, again, my point is the different cats in your kit invalidate your test results. You changed more than one variable at a time. The fact that you even include cats says to me that they are a restriction, otherwise it wouldn't make financial sense to include them in the kit. Therefore, the test proves that a turbo + aftermarket cats is better than a supercharger + stock cats, but does not prove which type of forced induction is actually best.

I see you claim to be an engineer so be objective and read the same data. No, I claim to be a REDNECK engineer - I see you're unfamiliar with the term. A redneck engineer is the same thing as a ghetto rigger, just from a different part of town. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy035.gif

You tend to lean towards turbo data from 10 years ago versus all other data that is up to date. Next you will say that turbos have lag. Yester-year but not anymore my friends.I'm only going on the posts you've made in this thread, plus a magazine article from August of 2005, which I linked, that contradicts your statements. For example, you tried to dismiss the results of said article by claiming their dyno was reading 12% higher than yours - despite the fact that the stock hp readings in the article were within 3% of your own. Another example is the cats - rather than admitting the stock cats may have been holding back the blowers, you have repeatedly attempted to sidestep and obfuscate. You could have refuted my point at any time by stating the cats you used had the same flow as the stockers, yet you didn't. The only logical conclusion left to me, therefore, is that the stock cats are not up to dealing with forced induction, and were at least partly responsible for the poor showings of the blowers.

I never saw that press release until today - thanks - it is all wrong though. Paxton was a family owned business as was STP Oil Treatment. While I am an engineer I am also a sale person. If my salesmanship comes out in my writing it is not meant to be in any way dishonest just factual. In 1998, I sold Paxton to David Adams and stayed on shortly as the President. I had been sales manager of Paxton from 1985 to 92 and VP of Operation from 92 to 98. While my family owned a portion of the company I was the driving force from 92 until I helped sell the business for the family in 1998. I never needed a title as it is common knowledge I was the JACK of all trades. Engineering, Operation and Sales. I took a team though and I credit the team for the success. I believe it speaks volumes that most of the staff at GMS has been with me since the very early 90's. When I sold Paxton and started GMS most of the key employee came with me. They could have stayed at Paxton but chose to stay with the core team .That's nice - always good to have a good boss. You may be interested in this article on Paxton's industrial division after the automotive side broke away. (http://www.altfeldinc.com/casestudies.html) Also. I never knew that the Paxton name came from the guy who started McCulloch (http://www.vs57.com/history.htm) chainsaws.

[Granatelli]

I'm not missing the point - your point is that you feel turbos are superior to blowers. What am I missing?

That's not true, since you no longer sell blowers (I didn't see any listed on your site, anyway) but you DO sell turbos. Thus, I was hardly suprised to find that a test conducted by you determined your own system to be superior.

Fine. You've stated your position. All I'm saying is that you've failed to prove it.

Maybe it does, I don't know. However, again, my point is the different cats in your kit invalidate your test results. You changed more than one variable at a time. The fact that you even include cats says to me that they are a restriction, otherwise it wouldn't make financial sense to include them in the kit. Therefore, the test proves that a turbo + aftermarket cats is better than a supercharger + stock cats, but does not prove which type of forced induction is actually best.

No, I claim to be a REDNECK engineer - I see you're unfamiliar with the term. A redneck engineer is the same thing as a ghetto rigger, just from a different part of town. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy035.gif

I'm only going on the posts you've made in this thread, plus a magazine article from August of 2005, which I linked, that contradicts your statements. For example, you tried to dismiss the results of said article by claiming their dyno was reading 12% higher than yours - despite the fact that the stock hp readings in the article were within 3% of your own. Another example is the cats - rather than admitting the stock cats may have been holding back the blowers, you have repeatedly attempted to sidestep and obfuscate. You could have refuted my point at any time by stating the cats you used had the same flow as the stockers, yet you didn't. The only logical conclusion left to me, therefore, is that the stock cats are not up to dealing with forced induction, and were at least partly responsible for the poor showings of the blowers.

That's nice - always good to have a good boss. You may be interested in this article on Paxton's industrial division after the automotive side broke away. (http://www.altfeldinc.com/casestudies.html) Also. I never knew that the Paxton name came from the guy who started McCulloch (http://www.vs57.com/history.htm) chainsaws.

This link is without a doubt 99% propaganda. It is factually 100% backwards. Industrial was always bigger then Automotive. Automotive made us famous but industrial made all the big money.

I feel hurt by this link because it kind of Diss's my father and all his efforts. ITW came to Granatelli to purchase and we did turn them down just like the other 3 offers we got. When my father got sick - they did decide to sell. Duane Breazell works for GMS now. He left ITW just like the rest of the key employees.

[Liquifire]

Granatelli--I understand your test results and where they came and that they were done as sold by the manufacturer kit by kit. You would agree however that this test could only be more accurate and truly comparable if tested with the same exhaust including cats, right? I understand both of your points(each one being different) of both you and stonebreaker. It would be nice if you could duplicate the test with the same car changing only what is REQUIRED to be changed(dual exhaust to single for the turbo, etc....) and not modifying anything else, or at the very minimum changing things out that are not stock for all of the products being tested. You would have to agree as well that the hi-flow cats do create an advantage for the turbo in this specific test, right? I do understand as I stated before that you tested them as kits and it is comparing the kits, not just the supercharger/blower vs. the turbo.

[Granatelli]

Granatelli--I understand your test results and where they came and that they were done as sold by the manufacturer kit by kit. You would agree however that this test could only be more accurate and truly comparable if tested with the same exhaust including cats, right? I understand both of your points(each one being different) of both you and stonebreaker. It would be nice if you could duplicate the test with the same car changing only what is REQUIRED to be changed(dual exhaust to single for the turbo, etc....) and not modifying anything else, or at the very minimum changing things out that are not stock for all of the products being tested. You would have to agree as well that the hi-flow cats do create an advantage for the turbo in this specific test, right? I do understand as I stated before that you tested them as kits and it is comparing the kits, not just the supercharger/blower vs. the turbo.


YES - I have tons of tests done on supercharged cars with not cats and they still don't hang lbs for lbs with the turbo.

I have a car coming in in 2 weeks with a KB 2.4 and no cats at all. I will put those dyno numbers against my car with cats. I am sure you will see very similar results

[stonebreaker]

YES - I have tons of tests done on supercharged cars with not cats and they still don't hang lbs for lbs with the turbo.

I have a car coming in in 2 weeks with a KB 2.4 and no cats at all. I will put those dyno numbers against my car with cats. I am sure you will see very similar results
That sounds like a plan. I would appreciate it if you could post the entire dyno graph and not just peak numbers, though. I'd like to plug the power curve into Desktop Drag and see which one would work better with my combo.

[Granatelli]

That sounds like a plan. I would appreciate it if you could post the entire dyno graph and not just peak numbers, though. I'd like to plug the power curve into Desktop Drag and see which one would work better with my combo.
:notworthy: the turbo will work better:notworthy:

[Liquifire]

has anyone here done some across the graph averaging of turbos vs superchargers or of different superchargers vs. each other(lets say an average of hp and torque from 2500-6500 rpm's?) This info would be very neat to compare........some real r+d number's.................I know that it doesn't always matter for across the board numbers for all applications but I would be curious just to see these results.

[Liquifire]

That sounds like a plan. I would appreciate it if you could post the entire dyno graph and not just peak numbers, though. I'd like to plug the power curve into Desktop Drag and see which one would work better with my combo.
You wouldn't happen to have any graph's of a vortech or preferably a procharger D-1sc would you? I would prefer these as they are my preference for debate as they are the more popular superchargers used on LS1's.............

[ericwilloughby]

has anyone here done some across the graph averaging of turbos vs superchargers or of different superchargers vs. each other(lets say an average of hp and torque from 2500-6500 rpm's?) This info would be very neat to compare........some real r+d number's.................I know that it doesn't always matter for across the board numbers for all applications but I would be curious just to see these results.

SC make almost no boost at 2500 and turbos make almost max.

[goldfingerfif]

Anyone see the new porsche 911 with variable turbine geometry? It reaches peak torque by 1900rpms of 475ft/lb i believe and maintains that to redline. I think I know my next mod.

[F8L Z71]

I've owned a Powewrdyne, Vortech, STS, and now a Radix Magnacharger and of all of em I liked the turbo the most. That is saying a lot since front mount turbos are better and even the poor STS was better than the superchargers I have owned.

That being said, there are applications for all the systems and not any 1 unit is right for everyone. I am liking this Radix but like all other systems, I have my gripes about it.

[Ratdaddy07]

Fastpontiac, how difficult was the install on that STS, did someone do it for you and how much all told. Putting heads cam, headers and the works thinking turbo next year. Does it need a specific cam, is there more to it than just purchasing and installing the STS package?

[ldickson]

I had a super charger and loved it but I'm going with a turbo this time around.:yup:

[Granatelli]

has anyone here done some across the graph averaging of turbos vs superchargers or of different superchargers vs. each other(lets say an average of hp and torque from 2500-6500 rpm's?) This info would be very neat to compare........some real r+d number's.................I know that it doesn't always matter for across the board numbers for all applications but I would be curious just to see these results.

It's not a Chevy but here is a great example of a Turbo vs Supercharger
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3746/saleenvsgmsturboyn0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The twin screw supercharger on the Saleen has a quick moment of greatness but none of it is useable. The turbo with less boost has the advantage on Average Power and Torque

Below is my old Tahoe with 350 Chevy. I had a 10 psi Paxton on it and then removed it and installed a 60mm turbo. The results were amazing! While peak power numbers were similar, Average power was way up and torque? fa-getta-bout-it the TURBO is KING :flex:

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7589/pvstcp6.jpg

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7349/tvspke7.jpg

[Granatelli]

has anyone here done some across the graph averaging of turbos vs superchargers or of different superchargers vs. each other(lets say an average of hp and torque from 2500-6500 rpm's?) This info would be very neat to compare........some real r+d number's.................I know that it doesn't always matter for across the board numbers for all applications but I would be curious just to see these results.

Hope this works better

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/jr/t-vs-p.jpg

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/jr/p-VS-t.jpg

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/jr/Saleen-vs-GMS-Turbo.jpg

[Fedge]

in Granatelli's defense, he didn't say that the dyno results were 12% higher than his, he said that the DynoJet readings are typically 12% higher than a Mustang Dyno, so he could add 40 more hp to his readings...






party on:)

[Pyromaniacal]

IMO Procharger, not supercharger, is better than turbos. Any other S/C I can think of is blown out of the water by a well-balanced turbo system. But roll in Procharger, and things shift quickly vs a turbo.

[Marc87GN]

IMO Procharger, not supercharger, is better than turbos. Any other S/C I can think of is blown out of the water by a well-balanced turbo system. But roll in Procharger, and things shift quickly vs a turbo.


A well balanced turbo setup will blow out a Procharger as well. Look at the fastest Mustangs in every class where there are turbos. No supercharger, including Prochargers, comes close and that's with all of the turbo cars with weight penalties. Now why would they have weight penalties? As long as it's pulling on the crank, it is costing power on the front end to make power on the back end and that is the problem.

[Granatelli]

A well balanced turbo setup will blow out a Procharger as well. Look at the fastest Mustangs in every class where there are turbos. No supercharger, including Prochargers, comes close and that's with all of the turbo cars with weight penalties. Now why would they have weight penalties? As long as it's pulling on the crank, it is costing power on the front end to make power on the back end and that is the problem.

I gotta go with Marc87GN on this. All power adders have there strengths and weaknesses. If you want 950 hp on the street and you must have a centrifugal it is hard to beat the Novi2000. Even Prochargers owners gave props to the Novi2000 as teh king of 1000hp 50 state legal blowers:hyper:

[Fedge]

I gotta go with Marc87GN on this. All power adders have there strengths and weaknesses. If you want 950 hp on the street and you must have a centrifugal it is hard to beat the Novi2000. Even Prochargers owners gave props to the Novi2000 as teh king of 1000hp 50 state legal blowers:hyper:

I remember when my friend Mike Truppi took a pre-production Novi2000 to the 1000hp mark for the first time on a Bennett prepared 306 about 10-12 years ago...but he said he did that with around 30PSI (I don't remember the exact figures)

[Granatelli]

I remember when my friend Mike Truppi took a pre-production Novi2000 to the 1000hp mark for the first time on a Bennett prepared 306 about 10-12 years ago...but he said he did that with around 30PSI (I don't remember the exact figures)

Truppi - How has he been? I gave Mike the Blower for that car. Car was owned by Car & Custom. Orange LX. That was teh baby Novi-2000 not the big one

[Fedge]

Truppi - How has he been? I gave Mike the Blower for that car. Car was owned by Car & Custom. Orange LX. That was teh baby Novi-2000 not the big one

yep! that was the car!

He's fine...I get to see him as much as I used to, but I saw him this past winter and he was ok...Ralph was supposed to move the shop 2 years ago, but I dunno what happened. Mike was the only guy who worked on my LT1 back in 93-95, but we hung out long after that...

[FastPontiac]

Fastpontiac, how difficult was the install on that STS, did someone do it for you and how much all told. Putting heads cam, headers and the works thinking turbo next year. Does it need a specific cam, is there more to it than just purchasing and installing the STS package?

My car was completely stock before I started except for the cat back which I removed to put the turbo on. I bought the kit on EBAY for $3250 new. Somebody claimed they had bought the kit and then wrecked their car, so I got a deal. Add another $530 for a racetronix fuel pump and 42lb injectors. and $568 for installation of the injectors and to get the car tuned.

I installed the kit by myself in my garage with the car on jack stands. It wasn't too bad, I spent a few hours every day for about a week. I finished it on a sunday night and drove it to the tuner with the stock injectors the next day. I just made sure I didn't go into boost. Then they installed the bigger injectors and dyno tuned it. I've been driving it daily ever since without any problems. I did have to add some tubular rear control arms and relocation brackets to stop the wheelhop from the added power. I now have about 9 months and 7400 miles on the kit.

I wouldn't bother adding the headers if you are going to use the STS system. I'm runing my stock Y pipe cats and exhaust pipe leading back to what used to be the muffler and works fine. I also have the stock cam and heads.

[realstiffyman]

I am picking up my 06 LS2 GTO this week and want to get a turbo kit, who make the best complete kit with the dependability, great perfomance gains and nice clean installation... I have been looking at the STS... Is there something better? What other mods should be done to this car?
Thanks Everyone

[Mitch83]

I voted Supercharger over Turbo. That is only based on what I feel would be a better additon to an LS1 in the engine bay of a T/A or camero.

I've never used a supercharger only turbos. I currently drive a turbo MR2. I feel that for over all power a turbo is the only way to go I mean it's free horsepower and most turbos are going to operate in the 60% effiecency range a supercharger really can't drop those kind of effiecency numbers.

However, I feel the LS1 is a torque based engine and adding a supercharger over a turbo will continue to give it that torque on demand feel that I love so much. My main beef with STS is that they use an oil pump to lubricate the CHRA. Turbos were never and still are not designed to have the oil pumped into the center carthridge it should be gravity feed. If the oil pump fails then you just lost your turbo. On top of the fact that your having to pressure almost 5ft of piping which in itself is an inefficent design.

If I was going to Force induce a 4 cyclinder or an Inline 6 turbo hands down but a V-8 I would prefer a supercharger. This is all just my personal opinion.

[Chevythunder17]

I am picking up my 06 LS2 GTO this week and want to get a turbo kit, who make the best complete kit with the dependability, great perfomance gains and nice clean installation... I have been looking at the STS... Is there something better? What other mods should be done to this car?
Thanks Everyone

I think STS would be your best bet, especially since you can do the install yourself with minimal tools in your own driveway or garage. I'm planning on getting one for my Trans Am... someday...:yup:

[anarchy99]

Turbos all the way... I'm kinda biased though.

[Wesman]

I voted Supercharger over Turbo. That is only based on what I feel would be a better additon to an LS1 in the engine bay of a T/A or camero.

I've never used a supercharger only turbos. I currently drive a turbo MR2. I feel that for over all power a turbo is the only way to go I mean it's free horsepower and most turbos are going to operate in the 60% effiecency range a supercharger really can't drop those kind of effiecency numbers.

However, I feel the LS1 is a torque based engine and adding a supercharger over a turbo will continue to give it that torque on demand feel that I love so much. My main beef with STS is that they use an oil pump to lubricate the CHRA. Turbos were never and still are not designed to have the oil pumped into the center carthridge it should be gravity feed. If the oil pump fails then you just lost your turbo. On top of the fact that your having to pressure almost 5ft of piping which in itself is an inefficent design.

If I was going to Force induce a 4 cyclinder or an Inline 6 turbo hands down but a V-8 I would prefer a supercharger. This is all just my personal opinion
.

Those are some good points, I totally agree. Turbos are great for smaller engines, but I think Superchargers are best on V8s, since they basically keep the same powerband and driving characteristics, its just much faster :yup:

[ericwilloughby]

I voted Supercharger over Turbo. That is only based on what I feel would be a better additon to an LS1 in the engine bay of a T/A or camero.

I've never used a supercharger only turbos. I currently drive a turbo MR2. I feel that for over all power a turbo is the only way to go I mean it's free horsepower and most turbos are going to operate in the 60% effiecency range a supercharger really can't drop those kind of effiecency numbers.

However, I feel the LS1 is a torque based engine and adding a supercharger over a turbo will continue to give it that torque on demand feel that I love so much. My main beef with STS is that they use an oil pump to lubricate the CHRA. Turbos were never and still are not designed to have the oil pumped into the center carthridge it should be gravity feed. If the oil pump fails then you just lost your turbo. On top of the fact that your having to pressure almost 5ft of piping which in itself is an inefficent design.

If I was going to Force induce a 4 cyclinder or an Inline 6 turbo hands down but a V-8 I would prefer a supercharger. This is all just my personal opinion.

The oil is pumped to the turbo by the engine. Just like it's supposed to be. The pump is to get the oil back to the engine and it scavenges the turbo. It is also equiped with a pressure switch, If it fails an alarm goes off in the car. Even so, if it fails there is too much oil in the turbo and will just leak into the exhaust or intake pipes.

[Liquifire]

My car was completely stock before I started except for the cat back which I removed to put the turbo on. I bought the kit on EBAY for $3250 new. Somebody claimed they had bought the kit and then wrecked their car, so I got a deal. Add another $530 for a racetronix fuel pump and 42lb injectors. and $568 for installation of the injectors and to get the car tuned.

I installed the kit by myself in my garage with the car on jack stands. It wasn't too bad, I spent a few hours every day for about a week. I finished it on a sunday night and drove it to the tuner with the stock injectors the next day. I just made sure I didn't go into boost. Then they installed the bigger injectors and dyno tuned it. I've been driving it daily ever since without any problems. I did have to add some tubular rear control arms and relocation brackets to stop the wheelhop from the added power. I now have about 9 months and 7400 miles on the kit.

I wouldn't bother adding the headers if you are going to use the STS system. I'm runing my stock Y pipe cats and exhaust pipe leading back to what used to be the muffler and works fine. I also have the stock cam and heads.

you are running your stock cats?.......what if a chunk of them brakes loose or it deteriorates and falls apart.........poof goes the turbo.....fwiw I would take them out of the system. What type of HP and torque do you have? do you have a dyno graph that you could post?

[EStealth]

Turbos. Better for longer distances.

[Marc87GN]

Those are some good points, I totally agree. Turbos are great for smaller engines, but I think Superchargers are best on V8s, since they basically keep the same powerband and driving characteristics, its just much faster :yup:

That's a very incorrect statement. He didn't say they were faster because that would have been false. If you match the correct components, you can maintain the same driveability and powerband with a turbo except with tons more torque. There are a great deal of turbos, hybrids, exh. housings, BB & non BB etc.

I had a 99 GT that ran a V2 S-trim for 2 years and then I got smart and put a T-76 turbo kit on it. It ran 10s all day on pump gas with the turbo at 16 psi & stock longblock. 100% stock-like driveability and was getting 22 mpg on the highway with a 750 rpm idle and no whistle during normal driving. Turbos are great for any engine. After experiencing both for years on the GT and now years with the GN, you can't give me a belt driven poweradder.

Remember, that was his opinion based on never owning a turbocharged V8. Drive both setups and tell me if they feel the same. Until then, it's sheer opinion and speculation.

[Forcedinductiontech]

That's a very incorrect statement. He didn't say they were faster because that would have been false. If you match the correct components, you can maintain the same driveability and powerband with a turbo except with tons more torque. There are a great deal of turbos, hybrids, exh. housings, BB & non BB etc.

I had a 99 GT that ran a V2 S-trim for 2 years and then I got smart and put a T-76 turbo kit on it. It ran 10s all day on pump gas with the turbo at 16 psi & stock longblock. 100% stock-like driveability and was getting 22 mpg on the highway with a 750 rpm idle and no whistle during normal driving. Turbos are great for any engine. After experiencing both for years on the GT and now years with the GN, you can't give me a belt driven poweradder.

Remember, that was his opinion based on never owning a turbocharged V8. Drive both setups and tell me if they feel the same. Until then, it's sheer opinion and speculation.

I agree 100 percent with Marc. of course..he's another TR guy...so I have to agree with him:ughlaugh:

[FasstChevys]

Turbos. Better for longer distances.

How so?

[crazycat]

TURBOS VS SUPERCHARGERS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Given equivalent vehicles, the turbo would easily motor away from the centrifugal in an acceleration contest......The turbo offered massive midrange torque production, the only system to exceed 600 lb-ft. Need more convincing? At 4,000 rpm, the turbo was more than 100 lb-ft. stronger than either the Roots or centrifugal." - Battle of the Boost, Hotrod Magazine, August 2003.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turbocharging vs. Supercharging


Screw-type Supercharger


Centrifugal Supercharger
Turbocharger

Similarities

Turbochargers and superchargers are similar in that they both compress air to higher than atmospheric pressures. Normal or standard atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 psi (pounds per square inch or "psi"). The job of the compressor common to both turbochargers and superchargers is to increase air pressure so that more air is forced into the cylinders ("forced induction"). This increased air volume ("boost") is mixed with a proportionately increased fuel volume which, when burned in the combustion cycle, results in increased horsepower and torque production. However, this is where the similarities between the two types of systems ends.

Roots Supercharger


Differences

Power Curves

Because they are belt driven from the engine crankshaft, centrifugal and roots superchargers build boost as rpm increases in a linear fashion. As engine rpm increases, the supercharger compressor speed (and boost level) increases to the point of peak boost occurring at peak engine rpm. For example, a centrifugal or roots supercharger designed to produce 8 psi at 6,000 rpm may produce as little as 2.5 lbs. of boost at 3,000 rpm. Screw-type superchargers are more like turbochargers in that they build boost much earlier than a centrifugal or roots-type, but they are also belt-driven. Turbochargers, on the other hand, are exhaust driven, and come up to speed very quickly (almost instantly if properly sized), and will reach the same 8 lb. peak boost level as low as 2,500 rpm. The result is much more horsepower and torque being produced earlier at lower rpm levels with a turbocharger vs a centrifugal or roots supercharger.



Efficiency

Just like the air conditioner compressor on a car, all superchargers, including centrifugal, roots and screw-type, require horsepower to turn them. This "parasitic" drag is always present, even when the car is being driven normally, and can rob 20%-30% of the power being produced by the engine. The result is a significant decrease in fuel economy and less net power produced. Turbochargers, however, are exhaust gas driven and don't require any horsepower to spin the compressor. When driven normally, a turbocharged car will not consume more fuel and, in fact, gas mileage can actually increase. Even when under full throttle, a turbocharger system will produce as much horsepower at 9 psi as a supercharger at 12 psi



.

Reliability

Both superchargers and turbochargers require high compressor rpm to compress the air. This ranges from 30,000-65,000 rpm in superchargers and can be even higher with turbos (over 100,000 rpm). In order to achieve the high rpm levels required to compress the air to the psi required, superchargers must have a step-up mechanism (gears, belts, pulleys or a combination thereof) consisting of numerous moving parts, to convert 6,000 engine rpm to the 40,000+ rpm necessary to build boost. Turbochargers need no step-up mechanism and have only one moving part, the compressor/turbine wheel assembly (see Figure 2). The simplicity of the turbocharger is therefore less prone to mechanical problems. Superchargers must have a belt to drive them, and belt slippage or breakage is a common problem. More serious problems include crankshaft, bearing and engine damage caused by belt tension forces on the crankshaft. Turbochargers have no belt and no direct mechanical connection to the crankshaft, thereby eliminating these problems. It is interesting to note that many automobiles and nearly all large over-the-road trucks use turbochargers that regularly log in excess of a million miles of reliable performance.



Maintenance

Some superchargers have a separate lubricating system that must be maintained, but turbochargers are lubricated by the engine oil and require no additional maintenance beyond what is normally required for a naturally aspirated car.

Streetability

Superchargers are always connected to the engine, they are always producing some level of boost and cannot be "turned off". Because turbochargers only produce boost when under load (as in full throttle acceleration), performance under normal driving conditions is no different than if the engine were naturally aspirated. Turbocharged cars exhibit excellent driveability characteristics.

Upgradability and Adjustability

Superchargers are generally not upgradeable. When higher performance is required beyond the capabilities of a specific supercharger system, the entire system must be replaced. Turbocharger systems, however, are usually upgradeable by simply upgrading or installing a larger turbocharger without requiring replacement of the entire system. Further, adjusting the boost levels on a supercharger requires removing and replacing pulleys, idlers and belts. Adjusting the boost levels on a turbocharger may be accomplished with a simple turn of a boost controller knob from the comfort of the inside of the car.

Value

At first glance, turbo systems may appear to cost more. However, if you consider everything that is included in a complete turbo kit that must be purchased in addition to the supercharger kit in order for the supercharger kit to be comparable (not even considering the performance differences), you may find the turbo system is less expensive and a much better horsepower per dollar value.

Conclusion

What does this all mean? Basically, an 8 psi turbo kit will produce more peak power due to the fact that a supercharger is using a fairly large amount of power just to get it spinning. What is more important for a street car is "power under the curve" meaning the average horsepower produced. This is where the turbo really shines since you can have full boost at as little as 2500 rpm! This will make the turbo car feel like it has 50% more cubic inches (or more). The difference in torque at low rpm's can be as much as 100 lb ft in favor of the turbo due to the additional available boost....now that's performance!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Forcedinductiontech]

Good read..>

[EStealth]

How so?

A supercharger helps out in the lower RPMs, and the turbos help in the higher RPMs. So if your running a long race the turbos would be more benificial. You might not be very fast of the start but once you get up there you'll pull away.

See:

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/jr/Saleen-vs-GMS-Turbo.jpg

[Marc87GN]

A supercharger helps out in the lower RPMs, and the turbos help in the higher RPMs. So if your running a long race the turbos would be more benificial. You might not be very fast of the start but once you get up there you'll pull away.


I think that is far too much of a general statement. If the turbo is properly matched to the engine/combination, it can make full boost before a supercharger can. My stock GN was documented in 86 & 87 as 0-60 in 4.9 seconds almost 19-20 years ago. Peak torque of 330/355 lb-ft respectively was reached at 2000-2200 rpms. I would say that power came on rather early wouldn't you? With the introduction of BB turbos, ceramic impellers, etc, even bigger turbos can spool much sooner offering very little lag and very quick spoolup. Turbos are much more load dependent than RPM dependent so rpms don't have much to do with it unless you are trying to spin a mismatched turbo/turbine housing.

Put a BB turbo on that Mustang and I bet all of those numbers begin about 300-400 rpms sooner without changing anything else.

[EStealth]

I think that is far too much of a general statement. If the turbo is properly matched to the engine/combination, it can make full boost before a supercharger can. My stock GN was documented in 86 & 87 as 0-60 in 4.9 seconds almost 19-20 years ago. Peak torque of 330/355 lb-ft respectively was reached at 2000-2200 rpms. I would say that power came on rather early wouldn't you? With the introduction of BB turbos, ceramic impellers, etc, even bigger turbos can spool much sooner offering very little lag and very quick spoolup. Turbos are much more load dependent than RPM dependent so rpms don't have much to do with it unless you are trying to spin a mismatched turbo/turbine housing.

Put a BB turbo on that Mustang and I bet all of those numbers begin about 300-400 rpms sooner without changing anything else.

I know that the RPMs thing isn't exactly correct, but yea. It takes turbos longer to help out, than the supercharger, but the s/c peeks sooner than the turbos and therefor gives the turbos the advantage in the higher RPM range.

Hope I said that right! :)

[Marc87GN]

I know that the RPMs thing isn't exactly correct, but yea. It takes turbos longer to help out, than the supercharger, but the s/c peeks sooner than the turbos and therefor gives the turbos the advantage in the higher RPM range.

Hope I said that right! :)

Hell, it confused me, but somehow doesn't look right. The post above by crazycat says it all. I believe this contradicts what you just said.

"Turbochargers, on the other hand, are exhaust driven, and come up to speed very quickly (almost instantly if properly sized), and will reach the same 8 lb. peak boost level as low as 2,500 rpm. The result is much more horsepower and torque being produced earlier at lower rpm levels with a turbocharger vs a centrifugal or roots supercharger."

[EStealth]

Hell, it confused me, but somehow doesn't look right. The post above by crazycat says it all. I believe this contradicts what you just said.

"Turbochargers, on the other hand, are exhaust driven, and come up to speed very quickly (almost instantly if properly sized), and will reach the same 8 lb. peak boost level as low as 2,500 rpm. The result is much more horsepower and torque being produced earlier at lower rpm levels with a turbocharger vs a centrifugal or roots supercharger."

I'm thinking about what I said and I know what I mean, but I can't exactly explain myself. All I know is that if you had two identical cars, except one was Turbo charged, and the other was Supercharged, the S/C would take off faster, but the T/C would catch up and eventually pass the S/C. At least I'm almost 100% sure that's what would happen.:dot:

[Forcedinductiontech]

Maybe with an older turbo setup...but with todays technology, and a properly matched set up...lag is almost not existent.

[Marc87GN]

I'm thinking about what I said and I know what I mean, but I can't exactly explain myself. All I know is that if you had two identical cars, except one was Turbo charged, and the other was Supercharged, the S/C would take off faster, but the T/C would catch up and eventually pass the S/C. At least I'm almost 100% sure that's what would happen.:dot:

This is based on what evidence? People also thought the world was flat for a very long time. I would say that you should have bought the TT version of the Stealth (R/T I believe) and your opinion would be far different.

Even back then lag was overrated. The GN busted everything at or near it's price range from 0-60 and 4.9 is still quite quick by todays standards. This was also in a full frame heavy automatic car rated for only 245 hp. Where was the lag?

[Forcedinductiontech]

Here is a link to another thread that was going on a while back. There is some good info relating to Turbo vs S/C.
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/t417.html

[EStealth]

This is based on what evidence? People also thought the world was flat for a very long time. I would say that you should have bought the TT version of the Stealth (R/T I believe) and your opinion would be far different.

I will own the RT/TT soon enough, and my opinion won't change :) I love the Stealth:love: (hopes he doesn't get shot at by all the LSx lovers).

[Forcedinductiontech]

To each his own...I love the LC2 six banger...:nana: :debil:

[anti-social]

I would say turbo if I had a C5 Vette, But im gonna have to say Procharger. No one makes a decent turbo kit Without relocating/removing things.

[Pythias]

8 pages... and all I gotta say is wow.

[95camaro131]

i will tell you this is crazy this much crap over turbos & chargers lol
but i will add my two cents i have had turbo cars and man thay were fast
for what thay were the only thing i did not like is fuel cut and LAG but i like nx the best for drag :givesaf: LMAO

[djvaly]

turbo is nice, but I hear they are better for v6 and I4 cars, especially the imports, supra, mazada, civix,. and for the american muscle cars superchargers are more popular in V8 like in the cobra, f-body etc..
superchargers are usually cheaper too. it all depends on your application and car make/model, and how much room under the hood you have, how much power/torque you want at what RPM, cost, lag.. etc..
I would go with a Vortech+aftercooler 460rwhp stock LS1.. pretty nice.

[JwMonE99]

Way too much to read to see what everyone said but all i got to say is that Turbos is good for top end when supercharger has its power everywhere. Muscle cars are already great at the top end so a ricer needs the turbo to compete, (i go to the dragstrip down here and i see non turbo real cars kill others with a turbo) but since the muscle cars are perfect the way they are might as well just give it power everywhere top and bottom. Still nothing can touch it unless you race on a 60 roll...

[JwMonE99]

Superchargers all the way

[ericwilloughby]

Superchargers do not have power everywhere. Either on bottom and middle with a roots type. Or on top with a centrifugal. But both have triple the loss over a turbo in the power it takes to drive them. Plus a turbo is good for middle to top end. It's been proven on this site and others with dyno #'s and identical cars except for the FI. That is takes 9 lbs of boost with a sc to make the same power as 6lbs boost with a turbo.

[djvaly]

I don't think it's that much of a difference 3lbs.. but yeah I agree they behave differently at different RPM. superchargers are less expensive too.
they may end up putting a little less hp, but not a problem at all. I've seen some turbo guys loose at the track vs superchargers, they goofed up with the lag on turbo. it doesn't matter if you ultimately got a little more power but don't know how to use it or hitting a lag. oops.
whoever crosses the finish line first wins.

[ericwilloughby]

I think it's more than just a little power difference. I also think the 3 psi dif is accurate. And as far as price I don't see a difference. Either way you are looking at 5-6,000 aren't you. If you know of a cheaper one I'll buy it. I think the FI industry has settled on the $5,000 mark and just refuse to sell for less.

Also 500 whp would be enough for me, but isn't this, and 13psi, the limit for a SC where as you are just getting to the efficiency range of a turbo.

[djvaly]

hmmm. interesting how the poll is getting more like 50/50 on this. don't like the lag in turbos. but they are cool.

[mingo99z]

super
tubro sounds like forgin car:Patriot:

[EE1983]

super
tubro sounds like forgin car:Patriot:

I dont think so. Ive heard a turbo Camaro (STS) kit and it made me wannt to get one ASAP. Here is a Twin turbo Cobra vs Kenne Bell Cobra w/60shot. Im gonn have to say the turbo Cobra sounds way better and its running 3psi less boost and still walks it.

http://srvidz.com/VIDZ/race1.html

[djvaly]

single turbo better than twin,

[EE1983]

single turbo better than twin,


Not always

[djvaly]

Not always
most of the times, I mean twin asynchronous. uhh they alternate,, better get a nice single turbo. in most cases single is best!

[Orange SS]

majority of twin turbo setups are for the ooh-ahhh factor...a single can outperform a twin setup in most cases

[shabysurf]

theoretically, an electric centrifugal supercharger, no parasitic loss, and could tune what boost you want at a certain rpm, and could adjust boost for daily driving to strip in a matter of minutes, to bad no one has made a good highly tuned kit yet

P.S. turbos do have parasitc power loss, can you say backpressure!

[djvaly]

backpressure ;), uhh and lag

[1badazz02z28]

I've heard a twin setup with different size turbos is better and will eliminate the lag or most of it.

[djvaly]

heard eh? different story from having to deal with one.. zzZZzz.. my friend hates his twin turbo on the Sup dog supra, a single turbo will nail him 600-650 at 25psi.. yah!!!

[BatCar]

Sorry, but I like the muscular deep sound of my car (it's a muscle car for damn sake) and don't want it changed by some turbo that makes it sound wimpy. I'll take a supercharger anyday over a turbo.

[djvaly]

ok we beat this poll to death, I think it's fair to say 50/50 with a margin of 5% error. ;)

[djvaly]

I like the Procharger sound... I may get one next year or so...

[Extreme]

I like superchargers myself.
Nothing like the sound of straight cut gears. No SQ here :)

I've been running a vortech since it come out for the ls1 and love it. :D
I'm running the 2nd kit ever made for the ls1. The first was on vortechs
test car the 2nd is on mine. ;)

[Runn_WS7]

Twin Turbo

[djvaly]

Twin Turbo

off topic, really quick mate...what wheels brand name u have there, sizes too, and what tire model and sizes?.. they look nice.. ps. you are not enabled to receive PM.. :dunno:

[Joshua.Grooms]

wow, um, how about both at the same time? no? not really? darn, well for now:sword:
i too like Turbos and am getting one day. I like the lay around and wait for it effect. I like it when he thinks "haha, i won already", then BAMB!! right in the kisser! Sounds kinda cool too. so I vote turbo:box:

[AngryRoomate]

^^^
yeah, do it! i've seen many twin-charged cars work decently.
a couple things i read in this thread bothered me.

"headers won't work on a turbo car" of course they won't because they are replaced with exhaust manifolds with flanges for turbos. wtf?

LAG- the way a lot of you seem to think of it indicates you have never been in a turbo car. my experience with turbo cars has been i4 and i6 smaller displacement. (2.0 and 2.5) even those cars with larger turbos dont exhibit the kind of turbo lag you guys think is present on big v8s with properly sized turbos.

"single turbos are usually better" not really. for max hp and power under the curve TT are better. more expensive and complicated, but proven in many applications. drag racers don't seem to care about anything but the peak HP number... go figure.

"boost is boost" really? so 10psi from a garret t25 is the same as 10psi from a mitsubishi t78? no, it's not and i'm shocked granetelli didn't mention this.

"BB reduce lag" not entirely true. BB does nothing over conventional cartridge bearing housing turbos as far as intial spool. nothing. the big advantage is in transient response. (on/off throttle)

which brings me to.... how either system behaves at a race track. transient response is a non-issue for most superchargers. all that matters is what rpm youre at. a turbo will be on and off boost as you modulate the throttle. this doesnt matter if all you want to do is drag race. for everything else it matters .

i dont and have never owned an american car with a v8. i want to though. it just suprises me how ignorant many people here on this board are. i.e "turbos or for the rice, heeyuk yuk"
i think that reality is that for all out power and speed turbos are better. that being said there are still many reasons to go with a supercharger. linear boost production is attractive to many as it ends up still "feeling" n/a. (i myself like this)

the backpressure argument- silly squabbling. with no exhaust whatsoever any setup will make more power. at the cost of literally a couple ft/lbs of tourqe in some instances.

once we can all agree that turbo is best the internet battle over the intracacies (sp, wtf?) of turbos can begin. (ex mani design, internal/external gate, twin scroll worth it?, VNT turbos, etc...)

[djvaly]

^^^
"single turbos are usually better" not really. for max hp and power under the curve TT are better. more expensive and complicated, but proven in many applications. drag racers don't seem to care about anything but the peak HP number... go figure.


I've seen many single turbo kits that outperform most TT kits on the market.
Most single turbo applications turn out higher peak rwhp and work more efficient than asynchronous TT. hint. see what a single turbo can do to a Supra for example.

[AngryRoomate]

I've seen many single turbo kits that outperform most TT kits on the market.
Most single turbo applications turn out higher peak rwhp and work more efficient than asynchronous TT. hint. see what a single turbo can do to a Supra for example.
hint. see what kind of turbos the top hp supras have.
a really high peak number is a cute trick, but REALLY big single turbos actually pay the huge lag penalty. 1000whp from 8-9k rpm is nice, but not if it's coupled with 250whp at 5k rpm... you would think that on a v8 board a broad powerband would be more valued since v8s specialize at this, unlike the revvy 4cyls...???

sequential tt is cool for a great power band in a lower hp application. not really necessary these days though.

[djvaly]

hint. see what kind of turbos the top hp supras have.
a really high peak number is a cute trick, but REALLY big single turbos actually pay the huge lag penalty. 1000whp from 8-9k rpm is nice, but not if it's coupled with 250whp at 5k rpm... you would think that on a v8 board a broad powerband would be more valued since v8s specialize at this, unlike the revvy 4cyls...???

sequential tt is cool for a great power band in a lower hp application. not really necessary these days though.

heheh, that's why for street legal, one of my friends is putting a single turbo 600rwhp easy on his supra.. the TT setup got him to 450rwhp. if you're talking drag race 800-900rwhp anything is possible but for street legal single can outperform in most cases the tt :yup:

[AngryRoomate]

heheh, that's why for street legal, one of my friends is putting a single turbo 600rwhp easy on his supra.. the TT setup got him to 450rwhp. if you're talking drag race 800-900rwhp anything is possible but for street legal single can outperform in most cases the tt :yup:
you are wrong. tell your friend to try twin hks 2835s. thatll smoke well past 600whp and make more power down low than your buddies single turbo.
you have no idea what youre talking about.

[Joshua.Grooms]

ok, since on the topic of twin-turbos, what happens if you have two different sized turbos? One big one and one smaller.
What will that do to the powerband? Would the smaller one pick-up first and then the larger pick-up where the smaller one left off?\
Sounds like a neat theory anyway. im sure ill get slapped around for this one.:splat: :brick2:

[djvaly]

you are wrong. tell your friend to try twin hks 2835s. thatll smoke well past 600whp and make more power down low than your buddies single turbo.
you have no idea what youre talking about.

you seem like you have it all figured out, :rolleyes:

[AngryRoomate]

you seem like you have it all figured out, :rolleyes:
why the rolleyes?
you really do not know what youre talking about.

[djvaly]

heheh... you may have some tech point but it's opinion based, I doubt you tried the highend tt package vs a single turbo highend one. but you like to disregard my point because you feel you are right. that's your opinion but don't make blanket statements. you smell like an ignorant then. ;)
and yes I have an idea what I am talking about, it may not be what your opinion is, oh well. :rolleyes:

[BOSSONNOS]

We have fitted a single turbo to one car, no lag goes hard but a pig to fit.
Just finished a 402 ci with a Vortech V7YSi with 15 psi and it rocks.
I'd pick a blower PD or Centrifugal depending on when you want your power.

[djvaly]

We have fitted a single turbo to one car, no lag goes hard but a pig to fit.
Just finished a 402 ci with a Vortech V7YSi with 15 psi and it rocks.
I'd pick a blower PD or Centrifugal depending on when you want your power.

noice, I saw this video of a silver color Supra 1200rwhp or so this guy from Houston, single turbo, damn the guy was soooo freaking fast, he did 8.5 in 1/4.. 170s trap speed. omg!

[Granatelli]

noice, I saw this video of a silver color Supra 1200rwhp or so this guy from Houston, single turbo, damn the guy was soooo freaking fast, he did 8.5 in 1/4.. 170s trap speed. omg!

1200hp and only 170mph - that car must be real heavy - like 3100lbs

[Granatelli]

I am re-voting Turbo AGAIN. A positive displacement can't even come close. The centrifugal is still a great choice but the turbo is the king of torque. My Vette speaks to that. I tried a huge procharger. While it made like 800 it was loud and flat down low as compared to the litel twins

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/images/artlr/dyno22_small.jpg

only 9psi and REAL pump gas

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/images/artlr/dyno22a_small.jpg

15psi and 100 octane

[Granatelli]

off topic, really quick mate...what wheels brand name u have there, sizes too, and what tire model and sizes?.. they look nice.. ps. you are not enabled to receive PM.. :dunno:

Speaking of wheels - I want to get wheels for my WS6 - I am looking for Z06 type. I hear you can stuff a 17 x 12 in the back is that true and where do I buy rims at the best price

[ShelbyGLHS]

I would prefer a turbo car over a SC because I do alot of road course. My Shelby GLHS (2.2T) has a nice powerband 3500-6500 rpm (300lb/ft, 2300 lbs) perfect at the track with no power loss like a SC at high rpm.

SC cars are great on the street, step on it and bye! My wife has a SC Mini Coop and the 1.6l feels like a V6.

For these LS1 cars, I love em NA. My Z28 at the track is so controllable and reliable I would only do NA mods. I only pop the hood at the track to check the freakin power steering fluid (I need a better cooler).

Once you start to boost it, something always comes up IMHO.

Anyone out there able to do 30 minute track sessions WOT in the summer in a boosted F-body?

[ShelbyGLHS]

I am re-voting Turbo AGAIN. A positive displacement can't even come close. The centrifugal is still a great choice but the turbo is the king of torque. My Vette speaks to that. I tried a huge procharger. While it made like 800 it was loud and flat down low as compared to the litel twins 15psi and 100 octane

I love to see the dyno sheet! And to your Vette, the only thing to say is "Holy Crap Batman!!!" :D

[djvaly]

1200hp and only 170mph - that car must be real heavy - like 3100lbs

yeah they weight about 3400 stock, not sure what he did on the weight,
one of my friend actually met with him on a Supra meet here in Dallas.
my bud has a 94 TT Supra 390rwhp. he said it must be the slowest Supra around cause everybody he knows runs single turbos and stuff, going at least 700-800.. eheh more money more boost ;)

[Street Lethal]

I personally get a rush from both systems, and both can be tuned to aquire tremendous results. Yes, turbo's seem to do much better overall on the dyno, but then again I've seen supercharged systems spank turbo charged systems making significantly more horsepower than them at the track. Definitely boils down to personal preference, as far as the "simplicity" of the install is concerned, for one. Both systems can propel our street cars to sub ten seconds in the quarter mile, and that is a damn fast time for a freaking street car. I'm personally looking into the Gale Banks TT kit for my next project car, a Motown inspired Twin Turbo 454 small block, Holley Stealth Rammed, '89 Iroc.... :devil: