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]

Really

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]

turbo

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.