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.

[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

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, 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, 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..

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

[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 ) 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

[stonebreaker]

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

Wrong. 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! 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! 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. PERIOD

Fine. 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.

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. Also. I never knew that the Paxton name came from the guy who started McCulloch 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.

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. Also. I never knew that the Paxton name came from the guy who started McCulloch 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.

the turbo will work better

[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.