View Poll Results: turbo or super?

Voters
876. You may not vote on this poll
  • I prefer a supercharger to turbos.......

    389 44.41%
  • I prefer turbos to superchargers........

    487 55.59%
Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 464

Turbo or Supercharger poll

This is a discussion on Turbo or Supercharger poll within the Forced Induction forums, part of the LSx Technical Help Section category; Originally Posted by Wesman Those are some good points, I totally agree. Turbos are great for smaller engines, but I ...

  1. #141
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    123

    Black
    1987 Grand National

    Quote Originally Posted by Wesman View Post
    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
    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.

  2. #142
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lexington
    Age
    45
    Posts
    36

    Black
    87 Buick GN

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc87GN View Post
    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

  3. #143
    Senior Member FasstChevys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,315

    White
    '10 ZR1

    Quote Originally Posted by EStealth View Post
    Turbos. Better for longer distances.
    How so?

  4. #144
    Junior Member crazycat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    new york
    Age
    47
    Posts
    60

    red
    95 z28 convertible

    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!

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

  5. #145
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lexington
    Age
    45
    Posts
    36

    Black
    87 Buick GN

    Good read..>

  6. #146
    Stealth Owner EStealth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Canton, OH
    Age
    29
    Posts
    32

    Firestorm Red
    1993 Stealth ES

    Quote Originally Posted by FasstChevys View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Granatelli View Post

  7. #147
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    123

    Black
    1987 Grand National

    Quote Originally Posted by EStealth View Post
    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.

  8. #148
    Stealth Owner EStealth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Canton, OH
    Age
    29
    Posts
    32

    Firestorm Red
    1993 Stealth ES

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc87GN View Post
    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!

  9. #149
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    123

    Black
    1987 Grand National

    Quote Originally Posted by EStealth View Post
    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."

  10. #150
    Stealth Owner EStealth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Canton, OH
    Age
    29
    Posts
    32

    Firestorm Red
    1993 Stealth ES

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc87GN View Post
    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.

  11. #151
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lexington
    Age
    45
    Posts
    36

    Black
    87 Buick GN

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

  12. #152
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    123

    Black
    1987 Grand National

    Quote Originally Posted by EStealth View Post
    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.
    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?

  13. #153
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lexington
    Age
    45
    Posts
    36

    Black
    87 Buick GN

    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

  14. #154
    Stealth Owner EStealth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Canton, OH
    Age
    29
    Posts
    32

    Firestorm Red
    1993 Stealth ES

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc87GN View Post
    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 (hopes he doesn't get shot at by all the LSx lovers).

  15. #155
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lexington
    Age
    45
    Posts
    36

    Black
    87 Buick GN

    To each his own...I love the LC2 six banger...

  16. #156
    Junior Member anti-social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Long Island
    Age
    39
    Posts
    34

    Black
    2002 camaro

    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.

  17. #157
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sneads Ferry, NC
    Age
    29
    Posts
    261
    2002 TA

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

  18. #158
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    iowa park
    Age
    37
    Posts
    17

    white&black
    1995 camaro ss

    Exclamation

    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 LMAO

  19. #159
    car enthusiast djvaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Philly area
    Posts
    9,863
    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.
    Last edited by djvaly; 10-31-2006 at 12:39 PM.

  20. #160
    Rice Killa JwMonE99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Myrtle Beach
    Age
    27
    Posts
    5,561

    Black With T-Tops
    96 Z28 M6

    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...

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. supercharger or turbo
    By pipes_ta in forum Forced Induction
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 02:34 PM
  2. Question: turbo vs supercharger
    By SSMOKEshow in forum Forced Induction
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-17-2008, 08:59 AM
  3. Supercharger or Turbo? What do you have/like
    By fastfirebird2002 in forum Forced Induction
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 11:58 PM
  4. who says you can't turbo a supercharger?
    By third_shift|studios in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-05-2007, 10:02 AM
  5. A4- supercharger or turbo?
    By socialdbob in forum Forced Induction
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-21-2006, 07:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •