Turbo V Super Charger

[Torquen]

ok i want to know pro's and cons of both and what ppl reckon would be a more effecteive (purely power wise) setup. owww and any price estimations would be good to. cheers fellas.

[Torquen]

ohh and i am talking perseficly about VS's...befor a mod says "this isnt VS-VR specific, thread moved"

[sixshooter]

Depends on the application in which you use the motor.

more bluntley put...

Superchargers are great for street cars...as there is no time lost waiting for power to happen...it just snaps your neck and your off when you hit the accelerator.

Turbos are just as great on the drag-strip you just spool them up with a high stall and then let them rip... however this practice makes them less practical for a street car.

When a turbo falls off boost you need to wait till the exhaust gas builds up enough velocity again to spin the impellor fast enough to force air in on the other side - they are generally gutless off boost unless you've got a sizeable engine of over 3 litres to compensate. This makes them much more frustrating to drive at times such as driving in the hills and falling off boost when hitting a steep slope - the power delivery is either on or off so to speak.


Each to their own... I'd prefer the supercharger over the turbo for everyday driving.

[Pretender]

As above but the supercharged motor runs out of puff as the revs rise.
Best set up is both. No you don't get double the power but you do get power right through the rev range.
Wouldn't like to guess at price (if someone was willing to do it) but it would be expensive.

[burnz]

the turbo is more eficient at making power
a vortec super charger is more practical
and you can cool the intake charge
roots type blower you cannot.
a correctly setup turbo is on boost all the time and you can cool the intake charge

[payne]

what would be quicker? i kno a supercharger is much quicker of the mark but will a turbo blow it on 1/4 mile? considering both are round the same size and same cars

[deathsminion]

The power curve on my blown car is consistant all the way through the rev range.. none of this supercharger running out of puff at high revs crap.

[Crimmo]

I can't wait till I have enough money to buy a S/C'd or turbo'd car

Driving my Dads 350Z is nice but I've heard once you've felt a turbo kick in, you can never go back to NA

[Pretender]

The power curve on my blown car is consistant all the way through the rev range.. none of this supercharger running out of puff at high revs crap.

Power curve will be reasonably flat with S/C where as a turbo will peak as revs rise.
With S/C you have peak power almost from idle but spool up a turbo and you have the same urge off the line with the power increasing through the revs with the peak much higher in the range.
When compared with a turbo a S/C motor does run out of puff at high revs and a turbo has nothing down low, it is the way they work.
A good setup will limit the drop off as revs rise.
S/C are easier to drive sedately with the constant power rather than the sudden rush of a turbo.

[grigor]

A turbo that's on boost all the time is just costing you money. The whole idea is to have enough power maintaining speed/economy but with an enormous reserve available.
A supercharger is drawing power the whole time it's running, whereas modern turbo technology has reduced "lag" to bugger all.
I've got 2-turbo cars and a stock VS. The VS does a best of 8.5L/100 on a trip and produces a staggering 95rwkw.
The R33 does 9-9.5L/100 and has well over 260rwkw available, but driven at that power level, you can watch the fuel gauge go down.

[sixshooter]

As above but the supercharged motor runs out of puff as the revs rise.

Not sure where you getting you info from there....

I haven't experienced "Run out of Puff" in a L67.... the first time I nailed it... It redlined so quickly and stomped all the way up there... I quickly backed off cause it wanted to spin the tacho right around the dial... I wasn't sure if the previous owner had removed the limiter... It spun to 5800 easy !!!

[Stretchomatic]

i also doubt they would run out of puff, but i can understand that a turbo would pull alot harder higher in the revs...still i like the idea of super charger, bolt on seems so much easier, for me anyway, i'd rather a simple mod that gives nice improvements...

[Pretender]

OK, I just did a lot of reading.
I am now up to speed with current systems.

I was wrong in saying that supercharged motors run out of puff.
This was true about twenty years ago but current systems have a linear curve producing power all the way up to maximum revs.
Both fitted to identical motors and both running 10psi will see the turbo produce peak power between 2000 and 3000 rpm and will produce more power and torque overall than the supercharged motor.
The blown motor peaks high in the rev range for power but produces much of it's torque at low revs.
That is nearly as opposite as you can get from my previous post.
Too late to take back my previous post and I think I'll read a bit more before posting. Two errors in the last week I've made.

Back on track with what I've learnt,
costs are about the same for standard installations.
Turbo cars will use less fuel as they are not on boost all the time
A turbo will produce more peak power running at the same boost
Superchargers generally are longer lasting

Now I'll crawl back under my rock

[1991_Vn2nV]

if ya gonna go turbo, go twin turbo

otherwise go a supercharger imo

[Torquen]

k cheers for the help fellas. i love the suden rush of the turbo but i also love the S/C's low end power (mmm spell that rubber). keap the info flowing.

[garfa]

ever thought about just doing up your n/a engine?
also you cant say modern engines have stuff all lag because of advances in the technology!
the only advances have been that materials used, which are lighter, but the reason you skyline has no lag is because what do you think a normal buyer would be more inpressed with? a car with a smaller turbo that has less power and torque but feels like it has a "better" engine because there isn't a heap of lag or a car with a huge turbo that you need to get out a 24 hour stop watch to time how long it takes the turbo to get the fin's spinning fast enough!
its exactly the same in the road and dirt bike world. 2 stroke has better power to weight ratio but they are less reliable and have a very prominent power band where as a four stroke has more torque and a smoother power band.
now guess whats happening? the 2 strokes are becoming less popoular because of their power band because its impractile to ride. and 4 strokes have strpped up the pace because they are revving higher and their power curves are more like a 2 strokes top end but but with torque down low.
you will get sick of a turbo'ed car if you drive a s/c car. s/c is more practile with the main downside being about 20-30% of power lost through the belts resistance.
so a turbo will produce more power but its not anywhere as usable (ever tried keeping a turboed car at peak power while not going in a straight line?) but a normal person will be faster in a s/c car.

[Torquen]

i guess the mods cant help themselves...bloody moved post. cheers garfa 4 the info.

[Jamie_87]

u gotta remember also a turbo creates alot of heat for an engine, not to mention all the strain on internals. I think turbos are more suited to inline engine, eg ford 6's VL's , supra's, skylines etc... as they have a hot side(exhaust/turbo side) and a cool side(intake/fuel side), all the heat from exhaust side can stay on the hot side with very little interfearence of heat into the intake side = better more efficient power. Personally if i were to do up my ecotech i would go Naturally aspirated mods.

[Torquen]

hmmm, s/c's dont seem to put excesiv strain on the engine so wouildnt that be a better alterantive the n/a engine.

[sixshooter]

hmmm, s/c's dont seem to put excesiv strain on the engine so wouildnt that be a better alterantive the n/a engine.

Any forced induction setup be it Turbo or S/C that is running decent boost will require stronger internals than an N/A equivalent... both work on the principal of more mix in makes a bigger bang and more pressure on the piston.

Thats why the S/C Ecotec has stronger rods and teflon coated piston sidewalls which reduce friction enabling them slide in the bores easier.

[WILD VR CLUBBY]

all so with forced induction you get more bang for the buck
i perfer turbos because you can drive them like a na vehicle and if you want you can set them up to drive like a supercharger allmost constant boost but be prepared for the fuel consumption to go through the roof

[grigor]

Garfa I can say modern turbo technology has reduced turbo "lag" to bugger all.
The stock R33 turbo was designed about 1989, ball bearing and ceramic turbine wheel, it was the duck's nuts for its day.
The HKS that the car now runs is absolutely brilliant. It spools up faster and at lower rpm. It can make enormous boost and is easily maintaining 20psi at the limiter.
It's the right turbo for that engine with a beautiful linear power curve.
If you inherit an ancient T3 or something from a truck and bolt it on your engine, then expect less then exciting performance.
It costs a heap experimenting with different turbo/engine/cam combinations and luckily Skylines have a big following to draw info from, whereas a turbo'd ecotec is cutting edge stuff.

[shaggerz]

Remember also that different types of superchargers have different characteristics amongst themselves...

For example a positive displacement supercharger such as the roots type blower on the L67 generally provides more low down torque, at the expense of lower efficiency and an increased intake charge temperature.

A centrifugal supercharger will have less torque down low due to the design relying on the momentum of the air (which is reduced at lower revs) but has a lower intake charge temp and therefore will produce a little more power for the same boost pressure.

Another point to consider is that the argument that you cannot cool the intake charge with a supercharger is absolutely NOT true. All centrifugal type blowers can be intercooled and even the Eaton M90 on top of the L67 can be intercooled using a special adapter plate that bolts between the blower and the intake manifold.

All in all, it depends which you prefer more... Instant kick in the back from the moment you press the pedal, or having to wait for the turbo to spool up and then copping it. It also depends if you like the wank factor of adding a BOV and getting "psssssshhh" when you back off the throttle.

Each to his own really, but my personal preference is the supercharger simply for its instant power, and also for its own wank factor of the oh-so-delicious whine coming from the intake when you nail it.

[Torquen]

yeh...lol i could never own a BOV cause i allways diss ricers for having em. yeh id love of the line kick so S/C is lookin the goods