Turbo or Supercharger poll

[goldfingerfif]

I am not the expert and just cant bring myself to put down the $5,000 for a SC or turbo. I'd rather buy a new 05 GTO. But you would get less, maybe much less, of a gain moding the exhaust of a turbo car. Headers are supposed to create a suction on the valve. Scavenging. Thats why there is a separate tube for each EX port. It would be very hard to get that done with all the tubes emptying into a 1.6" turbo scroll. And a turbine blade blocking the path.

Do any of the factory turbo cars have headers on them??????

I have asked before. Will an SC engine with headers and exhaust and maybe a cam make the same power as the same engine with a turbo?? Same boost and intercooler of course?

Granatelli, do you know?

It takes about 5hp from the engine to make a turbo give it an additional 100hp. It takes about 30hp from the engine to give it 100hp.

So the one with the turbo will have slightly more.

[Granatelli]

What are you taking about? You are making the numbers that prove I am right but you refuse to see it. I am very impressed that you actually took the time and work to measure the back pressure.

18psi is significant. I didn't know it would be that high.

Of course the turbo creates extra back pressure. It's a restriction in the exhaust that drives a compressor. WTF.

The SC does not impose back pressure on the exhaust. You arn't measuring back pressure caused by the driving of the SC. You are measuring the exhaust pressure created by making more HP. The running of more fuel and air into and out of the engine.

You are wrong but OK. - You will note there is only 4 lbs of pressure in the exhaust system even with the turbo in the exhaust stream. In a perfect world, there should be like 2lbs of back pressure in a N/A motor and 1 to 1 with forced induction. So 10psi in the engine should be like 10 or 11 psi in the exhaust. - That is regardless of blower type or turbo type.

A turbo DOES NOT need back pressure to drive drive it. However that does not mean that the pressure from the exhaust does not drive the turbo.

The original point made was turbo’s take power to drive them via Exh back pressure and Blowers take power off the crank to drive them. My factual rebuttal to that was, “the back pressure gained by driving the turbo is insignificant as compared to the blower” - case it point - we did more testing today on 3 2006 Mustangs.

It was a very interesting approach - the goal was to make 400hp. Magazine wanted to know how much boost it took to make 400 at the tires. Like I said all 3 cars were tested bone stock

Car 1 - made 256hp
Car 2 - made 260hp
Car 3 - made 262hp

Car 1 - we installed the new GMS turbo system with air to air front mount intercooler
Car 2 - we installed a Vortech with water to air after cooler
Car 3 - we installed a new KB 144 blower with 8 rib belt upgrade and water to air after cooler.

Car 1 - took 4.75 psi to meet the goal (401) - At 6 psi it had 435 and 441 ft-lbs.
Car 2 - took 9.10 psi to meet the goal (399.4) - At 6 psi it had 365 and 355 ft-lbs.
Car 3 - took 9.81 psi to meet the goal (401.2) At 6 psi it had 358 and 396 ft-lbs.

Notes -
Car 1 picked up 35hp by increasing boost by only 1.25psi – at 8psi it made 498hp and 509ft-lbs
Car 2 - took 3.1 psi to gain 35hp
Car 3 - took 3.8 psi to gain 42hp

You can shoot holes in the test notes and claim the other blowers do not have the ability to adjust boost like a turbo and therefore the test is off a bit as it relates to peal rpms but the real picture is in the original test. – HOW MUCH BOOST FROM VARIOUS FORCED INDUCTION SYSTEMS WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE 400 HP ON A NEW MUSTANG – Now we know

[Granatelli]

are headers and hiflow cats useless to a turno setup? i was always planning a blower so i'm new to the turbo thang... but i have headers and hiflows awaiting install... if i sell them off i'll be that much closer to turbo if i go that route and wont gain anything... i'll be saving nearly a grand in installation if i can manage to run without them...

Hi flow cats will help the turbo tremendously - headers well that depends on the turbo kit - but probably not

[HSVFREAK]

Twin turbos = Awesome driving experience

I have owned a vortech V7 charged ls1, Its just doesn't compare to the power of twin turbo's

[FasstChevys]

I agree actually - Kinda. Heads and a cam go a long way on the LS1. No need to yank the motor out though. Our turbo kit with heads and cams can make 700hp when asked to. You can easily drive around town with 550 and then turn it up when you want to race. Naturally 700 is a lot to ask from the stock short block but the average person is way happy with 550 to 600 and the stock short block can do that if you don't drive it like you stole it every day

Why bother running 700 on a stock bottom end? The end result is inevitable, so why go there? Go forged before chasing that kind of power, otherwise be happy with about 500 to the wheels on the stock bottom end. That's my 2 cents.

[ericwilloughby]

You are wrong but OK. - You will note there is only 4 lbs of pressure in the exhaust system even with the turbo in the exhaust stream. In a perfect world, there should be like 2lbs of back pressure in a N/A motor and 1 to 1 with forced induction. So 10psi in the engine should be like 10 or 11 psi in the exhaust. - That is regardless of blower type or turbo type.

A turbo DOES NOT need back pressure to drive drive it. However that does not mean that the pressure from the exhaust does not drive the turbo.

The original point made was turbo’s take power to drive them via Exh back pressure and Blowers take power off the crank to drive them. My factual rebuttal to that was, “the back pressure gained by driving the turbo is insignificant as compared to the blower” - case it point - we did more testing today on 3 2006 Mustangs.

It was a very interesting approach - the goal was to make 400hp. Magazine wanted to know how much boost it took to make 400 at the tires. Like I said all 3 cars were tested bone stock

Car 1 - made 256hp
Car 2 - made 260hp
Car 3 - made 262hp

Car 1 - we installed the new GMS turbo system with air to air front mount intercooler
Car 2 - we installed a Vortech with water to air after cooler
Car 3 - we installed a new KB 144 blower with 8 rib belt upgrade and water to air after cooler.

Car 1 - took 4.75 psi to meet the goal (401) - At 6 psi it had 435 and 441 ft-lbs.
Car 2 - took 9.10 psi to meet the goal (399.4) - At 6 psi it had 365 and 355 ft-lbs.
Car 3 - took 9.81 psi to meet the goal (401.2) At 6 psi it had 358 and 396 ft-lbs.

Notes -
Car 1 picked up 35hp by increasing boost by only 1.25psi – at 8psi it made 498hp and 509ft-lbs
Car 2 - took 3.1 psi to gain 35hp
Car 3 - took 3.8 psi to gain 42hp

You can shoot holes in the test notes and claim the other blowers do not have the ability to adjust boost like a turbo and therefore the test is off a bit as it relates to peal rpms but the real picture is in the original test. – HOW MUCH BOOST FROM VARIOUS FORCED INDUCTION SYSTEMS WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE 400 HP ON A NEW MUSTANG – Now we know

I never argued that a turbo wasn't better. It is. Just not free.
Great tests. I'm not here to shoot holes. Here to learn.

1 question. water to air. What temp is the water? 180, engine thermostat. Or what ever the water temp is in the radiator??? I assume each car had proper tuning?
2. 9+ psi is high. How did you get them to run on that? Alcohol injuction. Race gas?

Conclusion to our point. At 6 PSI the turbo made 70 HP more than the others. If the turbo was free boost then it took 70 HP to drive the SC. If it was taking 100 HP to drive the SC then the turbo was robbing 30 HP. I doubt the water to air is nearly as good as the air to air. Why didn't they use the same intercooler on all tests? The #'s would have been much closer.

[ericwilloughby]

Was the boost measured in the intake or on the SC-turbo outlet?

[Granatelli]

I never argued that a turbo wasn't better. It is. Just not free.
Great tests. I'm not here to shoot holes. Here to learn.

1 question. water to air. What temp is the water? 180, engine thermostat. Or what ever the water temp is in the radiator??? I assume each car had proper tuning?
2. 9+ psi is high. How did you get them to run on that? Alcohol injuction. Race gas?

Conclusion to our point. At 6 PSI the turbo made 70 HP more than the others. If the turbo was free boost then it took 70 HP to drive the SC. If it was taking 100 HP to drive the SC then the turbo was robbing 30 HP. I doubt the water to air is nearly as good as the air to air. Why didn't they use the same intercooler on all tests? The #'s would have been much closer.

3 different cars - Each kit was tested as it is delivered by the manufacture

Actually air to water works better on dyno blasts

[stonebreaker]

You are wrong but OK. - You will note there is only 4 lbs of pressure in the exhaust system even with the turbo in the exhaust stream. In a perfect world, there should be like 2lbs of back pressure in a N/A motor and 1 to 1 with forced induction. So 10psi in the engine should be like 10 or 11 psi in the exhaust. - That is regardless of blower type or turbo type.

A turbo DOES NOT need back pressure to drive drive it. However that does not mean that the pressure from the exhaust does not drive the turbo.

The original point made was turbo’s take power to drive them via Exh back pressure and Blowers take power off the crank to drive them. My factual rebuttal to that was, “the back pressure gained by driving the turbo is insignificant as compared to the blower” - case it point - we did more testing today on 3 2006 Mustangs.

It was a very interesting approach - the goal was to make 400hp. Magazine wanted to know how much boost it took to make 400 at the tires. Like I said all 3 cars were tested bone stock

Car 1 - made 256hp
Car 2 - made 260hp
Car 3 - made 262hp

Car 1 - we installed the new GMS turbo system with air to air front mount intercooler
Car 2 - we installed a Vortech with water to air after cooler
Car 3 - we installed a new KB 144 blower with 8 rib belt upgrade and water to air after cooler.

Car 1 - took 4.75 psi to meet the goal (401) - At 6 psi it had 435 and 441 ft-lbs.
Car 2 - took 9.10 psi to meet the goal (399.4) - At 6 psi it had 365 and 355 ft-lbs.
Car 3 - took 9.81 psi to meet the goal (401.2) At 6 psi it had 358 and 396 ft-lbs.

Notes -
Car 1 picked up 35hp by increasing boost by only 1.25psi – at 8psi it made 498hp and 509ft-lbs
Car 2 - took 3.1 psi to gain 35hp
Car 3 - took 3.8 psi to gain 42hp

You can shoot holes in the test notes and claim the other blowers do not have the ability to adjust boost like a turbo and therefore the test is off a bit as it relates to peal rpms but the real picture is in the original test. – HOW MUCH BOOST FROM VARIOUS FORCED INDUCTION SYSTEMS WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE 400 HP ON A NEW MUSTANG – Now we know

I have to question this test. For one thing, KB doesn't sell a 144 blower - a 144 is an old school roots blower sold by Weiand/Holley and B&M, not a modern twin screw as you implied by calling it a KB, which, quite frankly, makes me question whether you actually conducted this test since you didn't even get the competitors right.

Secondly, did you put any type of free-flowing exhaust on the blower cars? Your turbo kit comes with high-flowing cats - did you use the same cats for the blower tests or did you use the stockers? It would be real easy to torpedo the blowers with a restrictive exhaust.

[Granatelli]

I have to question this test. For one thing, KB doesn't sell a 144 blower - a 144 is an old school roots blower sold by Weiand/Holley and B&M, not a modern twin screw as you implied by calling it a KB, which, quite frankly, makes me question whether you actually conducted this test since you didn't even get the competitors right.

Secondly, did you put any type of free-flowing exhaust on the blower cars? Your turbo kit comes with high-flowing cats - did you use the same cats for the blower tests or did you use the stockers? It would be real easy to torpedo the blowers with a restrictive exhaust.

Let me start by saying this is not a bash Jim and or Kenne Bell post. the point was being made as to all the bad things that come with a turbo and I was merely evidencing that untruthes as to how they were posted

http://www.kennebell.net/supercharge...gt05-06_3v.htm If you go to their website you will see the blower I tested as it appears to be right on their home page. They claim it will support 850 hp. I was told it was a 144. They call in a 2.4 which actaully makes it a 146.4 - So you are correct it is not a 144, it is a 146.4.

GMS merely did the testing. They had there own people doing all installs on the various cars and of the various kits. As I recall all the cars had stock exhaust manifolds (including the turbo car). AND the turbo car had a single 2.5" down pipe feeding back into the factory 2.5" exh.

Therefore they all had similar exh systems and the turbo was at the biggest disadvantage. If I wanted to stack the test int he favor of the turbo I could have run a 3" down pipe.

[ericwilloughby]

Air to water. Once again. is the water in the intercooler 180 degrees or what?
Was the boost measured at the intake or where?
Why didn't they use the same intercooler on all tests? The #'s would have been much closer.

[Granatelli]

Air to water. Once again. is the water in the intercooler 180 degrees or what?
Was the boost measured at the intake or where?
Why didn't they use the same intercooler on all tests? The #'s would have been much closer.

Eric - you are trying to skew the test. The test was never intended to pit each product against each other - although I think the results would have still been much the same.

This test was intended to show the performance of each product "as delivered” in fact the Kenne Bell blower was the only one that was not a direct off the shelf tested kit as it had a special 8 rib upgrade and a smaller blower pulley.

I am not here to fight with you guys - let’s go back 30 or 40 posts.

I like the turbo for power and torque. This is my opinion. I owned and operated Paxton for several years and I am credited with designing the Novi-2000

[stonebreaker]

Let me start by saying this is not a bash Jim and or Kenne Bell post. the point was being made as to all the bad things that come with a turbo and I was merely evidencing that untruthes as to how they were posted

http://www.kennebell.net/supercharge...gt05-06_3v.htm If you go to their website you will see the blower I tested as it appears to be right on their home page. They claim it will support 850 hp. I was told it was a 144. They call in a 2.4 which actaully makes it a 146.4 - So you are correct it is not a 144, it is a 146.4.

GMS merely did the testing. They had there own people doing all installs on the various cars and of the various kits. As I recall all the cars had stock exhaust manifolds (including the turbo car). AND the turbo car had a single 2.5" down pipe feeding back into the factory 2.5" exh.

Therefore they all had similar exh systems and the turbo was at the biggest disadvantage. If I wanted to stack the test int he favor of the turbo I could have run a 3" down pipe.

Not necessarily. If the stock cats and not the mufflers are the primary restriction, then it is still possible to skew the test if that restriction was reduced for the turbo and not the blowers. So, did the blower cars have stock cats? The fact that it took the centrifugal and the positive displacement blowers similar boost numbers to make the same HP, suggests to me that you left the cats stock on those cars.

As far as calling a 2.4 liter blower a 144, I wasn't there so it's impossible to verify your account; however, since KB uses metric nomenclature, I find it incredibly suspicious that you would convert the metric number to English units in your head and just happen to be off by 2 ci, "accidentally" identifying it incorrectly as a roots blower.

All told, I'm having a tough time accepting your assertions at face value. You've made too many technical errors in this thread to make me feel comfortable with your level of expertise - I get the feeling you're more into the sales side of things than you are the technical side.

[Granatelli]

Not necessarily. If the stock cats and not the mufflers are the primary restriction, then it is still possible to skew the test if that restriction was reduced for the turbo and not the blowers. So, did the blower cars have stock cats? The fact that it took the centrifugal and the positive displacement blowers similar boost numbers to make the same HP, suggests to me that you left the cats stock on those cars.

As far as calling a 2.4 liter blower a 144, I wasn't there so it's impossible to verify your account; however, since KB uses metric nomenclature, I find it incredibly suspicious that you would convert the metric number to English units in your head and just happen to be off by 2 ci, "accidentally" identifying it incorrectly as a roots blower.

All told, I'm having a tough time accepting your assertions at face value. You've made too many technical errors in this thread to make me feel comfortable with your level of expertise - I get the feeling you're more into the sales side of things than you are the technical side.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have no problem with anyone questioning me that is why this is an open forum. It is hard to dispute the facts though.

The facts are that I designed the Novi-2000 start to finish. To date it is the only 50 state legal supercharger capable of producing 1000 hp. I have dyno'd at least 15 '05 Paxton and or Vortech Mustangs and they are all pretty much the same. I have tested 3 KB '05 Mustangs this last one being what I was told as their best kit. It was the first to have the 8 rib conversion. As for converting from metric to otherwise, all the old timers (like me) go by cubic inches not liters. So if you chose to question my math so be it. Everyone at the test referred to the blower as the new KB 144.

Last week Magnusson tested what they called their new 170 blower on a H2 Hummer. But I guess you would call that a 2.7.

When guys ask me what kind of car I drive I say a LS1 Vette with a 350. I never call it a 5.7. Even though it is really a 5.6.

I raced Mod Motor Mustangs and they are commonly known as either 4.6 or 5.4 liter engines. No one calls them 281’s or 331’s. However when Saleen sells the car the badges the car as a 281 not a 4.6. Ford sells their race 4v race motor a Boss302 aka Cammer 5.0.

How guys here drive a 302 Mustang and how many drive 5.0? Last time I checked it was the same. 144 or 2.4 – ask me (which you did not) and I say you a few of you are hyperfocussing on the wrong thing.

The thing is the Turbo makes more power pound of boost for pound of boost or AKA lbs for lbs.

Someone asked did we measure boost in the motor at the blower. Once you go wide open it all equalizes so what is the difference where you measure it – the simple answer is ALL CARS WHERE MEASURED AT THE MANIFOLD.

The KB blower made boost sooner then the other combos but not more power or torque. That just tells me that it take more power to turn it down low.

As for the exhaust comment. – Like I said the kits were tested as delivered.

Let’s do this in reverse – you have a stone stock car and you have $6000 to spend on forced induction. How would you spend the 6k. I would buy a turbo. It will make the most power and torque and I will have money left over for a wax job. You can install a twin screw and headers and any cat or no cat – I will still make more power and torque pound for pound and that will mean less stress on the rotating assembly

[stonebreaker]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have no problem with anyone questioning me that is why this is an open forum. It is hard to dispute the facts though.

The facts are that I designed the Novi-2000 start to finish. To date it is the only 50 state legal supercharger capable of producing 1000 hp. I have dyno'd at least 15 '05 Paxton and or Vortech Mustangs and they are all pretty much the same. I have tested 3 KB '05 Mustangs this last one being what I was told as their best kit. It was the first to have the 8 rib conversion. As for converting from metric to otherwise, all the old timers (like me) go by cubic inches not liters. So if you chose to question my math so be it. Everyone at the test referred to the blower as the new KB 144.

Last week Magnusson tested what they called their new 170 blower on a H2 Hummer. But I guess you would call that a 2.7.

When guys ask me what kind of car I drive I say a LS1 Vette with a 350. I never call it a 5.7. Even though it is really a 5.6.

I raced Mod Motor Mustangs and they are commonly known as either 4.6 or 5.4 liter engines. No one calls them 281’s or 331’s. However when Saleen sells the car the badges the car as a 281 not a 4.6. Ford sells their race 4v race motor a Boss302 aka Cammer 5.0.

How guys here drive a 302 Mustang and how many drive 5.0? Last time I checked it was the same. 144 or 2.4 – ask me (which you did not) and I say you a few of you are hyperfocussing on the wrong thing.

The thing is the Turbo makes more power pound of boost for pound of boost or AKA lbs for lbs.

Someone asked did we measure boost in the motor at the blower. Once you go wide open it all equalizes so what is the difference where you measure it – the simple answer is ALL CARS WHERE MEASURED AT THE MANIFOLD.

The KB blower made boost sooner then the other combos but not more power or torque. That just tells me that it take more power to turn it down low.

As for the exhaust comment. – Like I said the kits were tested as delivered.

Let’s do this in reverse – you have a stone stock car and you have $6000 to spend on forced induction. How would you spend the 6k. I would buy a turbo. It will make the most power and torque and I will have money left over for a wax job. You can install a twin screw and headers and any cat or no cat – I will still make more power and torque pound for pound and that will mean less stress on the rotating assembly

Fair enough. All I'm trying to figure out is which system will get the most air into the cylinders with the least amount of boost. I have a problem with your 3-car test because you are testing kits only without the supporting mods. I would never put heads and cam on a car without a commensurate upgrade in the exhaust system. You make a good point about the bang for the buck; however, your test is fundamentally flawed because the difference in exhausts invalidates the results.

[Granatelli]

Fair enough. All I'm trying to figure out is which system will get the most air into the cylinders with the least amount of boost. I have a problem with your 3-car test because you are testing kits only without the supporting mods. I would never put heads and cam on a car without a commensurate upgrade in the exhaust system. You make a good point about the bang for the buck; however, your test is fundamentally flawed because the difference in exhausts invalidates the results.

OK I hear you loud and clear but again these kits were as supplied by the manufactures. Even if you add headers and no cats the test shows me they will not catch the turbo in the 4 to 10psi range

[Zakar]

i agree... even if the exaust did flow better it still wouldnt be enough of a gain to overcome the advantage the turbo holds


Stonebreaker, most public librarys have a book called Maximum Boost by corkey bell.. check it out. its a good read

[stonebreaker]

OK I hear you loud and clear but again these kits were as supplied by the manufactures. Even if you add headers and no cats the test shows me they will not catch the turbo in the 4 to 10psi range

How does the test prove that? One car has a free-flowing exhaust and the other has a banana in the tailpipe...

[stonebreaker]

i agree... even if the exaust did flow better it still wouldnt be enough of a gain to overcome the advantage the turbo holds


Stonebreaker, most public librarys have a book called Maximum Boost by corkey bell.. check it out. its a good read

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.

[Granatelli]

How does the test prove that? One car has a free-flowing exhaust and the other has a banana in the tailpipe...

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