Supercharger or Turbo?

[5hift]

Hey I just got a 2001 Prelude SH and I'm thinking to go for the perfomance mods first. I already have the basic upgrades that dont give much of a power increase (exhaust, intake, ceramic headers, air filter). Im not too sure if I should go with a Turbo, or something like a Jackson Racing supercharger. Can any one can tell me the main differences, what will produce better peformance, and also what is easier to maintain and easier on the engine, and the approx costs of setting up each?

I dont know too much, but from what I've been told is a Turbo will get better gains in HP but a supercharger is a lot easier to maintain as you dont need a turbo timer or any boost gauges to follow and you dont need to let it warm up or cool down for extended periods of time like a turbo charged engine. I've also been told that a supercharger may not get as large of a HP gain but will still perform better as there is no "turbo lag"? I'm not too sure how long the turbo lag would even be or if this is even much of a factor. The reason I'm asking what is easier to maintain is because since I dont know too much about this, I dont want something I will have to continuosly work on to maintain.

Thanks for the help

[redline]

the bottem line is Superchargers are ass and turbos rule

why does this question keep getting asked?:banghead:

[5hift]

Im asking because I dont know much about this. I was kinda looking for a reason and not just an opinion as I have more than just straight up performance to consider.

[habsfan]

depending on what you want, you can probably get it from a turbo. you can get supercharger like response with a smaller turbo or huge power the bigger you go, albeit with more lag.

[5hift]

What about maintence, the costs to actually get the set up, things like that as well?

[JCX]

Originally posted by redline
the bottem line is Superchargers are ass and turbos rule

why does this question keep getting asked?:banghead:

You know what you're talking about don't you? Ever hear of the Ford GT? Lightning? Cobra? Seen what a Kenne Bell blower does on those cars?

I agree pm 4 cylinders turbos are generally better for power, but your statement reeks of ignorance. Superchargers are generally easier to tune and install.

It's all about goals.

[5hift]

If anyone else has any info that would help me with making a decision considering not just performance but the cost and how easy it is to maintain, I would greatly appriciate it. While i appriciate just opinions, being told superchargers suck ass doesnt really tell me much as to why I should go one way or another.

[LudeRoca]

They are both good in their own way. Superchargers give power from idle, as turbos give power at higher rpm. turbos are a lot more expensive to maintain. Also you have to build you motor up a fair bit before you boost it. Supercharger i don't think you need to do as much. They are both good. BUt who can say no to the sound of a turbo:burnout:

[Dick Starbuck]

Superchargers are good, but they aren't as versatile. The lack of versatility is good and bad. It's good because it is stable and constant and you are less likely to blow stuff up. It's bad because you are limited to the pulley and can't decide, oh it sure would be nice to have an extra 5 pounds of boost right now. If you can handle this and just want something to drive everyday with no worries superchargers are good solution.

Turbochargers are better though imo. A well designed turbo system with equal boost and a properly sized turbo will probably out perform a comparable supercharged system. Also on a stock h22 i wouldn't worry about turbo lag so much -- It's a big motor and has relatively high compression. Just don't go crazy on the boost.

Either way remember to upgrade your fuel system. A bigger radiator wouldn't be a bad idea either.

[tsi_neal]

this entire thread stinks of ignorant ass...

as was said before its all about goals. what do you ultimatly want to do? answer that and then someone will better be able to tell you SC or turbo

here are things to think about,

maintence costs will be roughly the same for both. why would a turbo be more expensive? bottom line is its not any more expenisve.

Turbo's are more efficient than a good SC figure roughly 30% of the power a SC makes is used to drive it, where as 5-10% of the power a turbo makes is used to drive it. (common misconception that turbos are "free" power)

even the smallest best designed turbos wont be as responsive as a supercharger

turbos put out more heat than a SC, making an intercooler more of a necessity

the money upfront should be roughly equal with either system, like within a grand (in my books if your spending money to go fast a grand isnt a big deal)

Oh and to get even close to thinking about maybe taking close to full advantage of either system the compression of a stock honda motor is too high. high compression and high boost on pump gas never works well. so plan on rebuilding your motor if your looking for any kind of serious gain.


My advice, get nitrous. youll spend 1/5th as much for a bigger HP jump. you wont take a hit in daily gas mileage and youll have the bottle for whoppin ass at the track

[zer0]

I have an 03' silverado.. 5.3L V8.. is a supercharger better? All my friends say it is for a truck?

[mdntepoet]

and many that lack an education

the two setups are VASTLY different..
the only thing that remains the same is that the engine compression must be dropped to fully utilize either upgrade

1) the compression chamber volume limits your total air intake volume. pump gas predetonates at a given pressure.. in the case of 93 octane gas this is roughly 9.3 bar or 140 psi

if the detonation pressure is reached BEFORE the spark plug fires (typically 38degrees before top dead center) engine damage will result.

hence BOTH setups require a drop in compression so that you may significantly increase the mass of the air forced into the engine without exceding the heat and pressure level for predetonation.

2) neither are free gains
a superchager DOES sap some power in order to pump the air, directly off of the crankshaft.
some of this power aids in driving the piston down, many people read the power loss at a given pressure and flow without taking into consideration that SOME energy is recouperated by piston movement.

TURBOS suffer from the same issue, a turbo IS NOT SPUN for free.. and it has little to do with it's EFFICEINCY. a turbo is driven by the hydralic force of the air being forced out by the piston. as the piston is driven by the crank, again you have a direct loss.. again some of this is recouped.

one must note however, a supercharger DOES NOT restrict exaust, meaning the cylinder has LESS SPENT AIR in it when the intake valve opens than a similar turbo setup.
this aids in volumetric efficiency.

the only free bost gained from a turbo is the amount of spin/spool gained from the exaust exiting under combustion pressure, BEFORE the piston begins to squeze it out. one most note in high rpm situations though, exaust "blow down" is often used to scavenge the cyl, since that exaust must now be PUSHED out the turbo is still leaching power in this instance..

2) camshaft choice, a turbo setup will not tolerate high overlay camshafts, in fact they typically like SMALL camshafts, smaller than a stock VTECH cam. Overlay on a turbo setup allows exaust backpressure (typically quite high in order to produce the hydralic force to spin the turbo) to backup into the intake rather than spool the turbo. A big cam with a turbo hurts spool time, and in most cases power output also. turbo cars benifit from an early exaust opening, and a very short intake durration, in order to keep the cyl volume at the point of compression as large as possible, and the overlay low.

superchargers with fixed displacements offer the benefit of a large camshaft selection. the exaust should be sized in order to handle the new volume of air going through the motor, but intake durration may be chosen to match desired RPM range much in the same way a conventional engine is built. larger cams REDUCE the work a blower has to do in order to push air into a cyl.

in short, blowers get along with big cams, turbos like small cams.

you will find at the same boost with proper cam choices either setup will make roughly the same power IF everything is chosen properly. the main difference will be the lack of throttle response, or "LAG" from a turbo. this is the time it takes for airflow to build up enough to reach a hydralic force to spin the turbo it's self. this varies by RPM as an engines flow varies by RPM. IN this aspect a supercharger has the same boost available, immediately, at all rpm levels. this tends to make them easier to drive, and faster off the line. a turbo sized for high end flow (efficiency in higher rpm ranges) will suffer from increased lag, or complete lack of boost at low rpm.

turbos have yet another disadvantage, HEAT
a turbo brings the intake charge side by side with the exaust, this builds heat, extra heat means the air fuel charge is not as dense for the same given pressure, and that the fuel may predetonate at a lower pressure. intercooling is a necessity, unfortunately this adds cost, and in harms spool further, by netting a larger volume of air that must be compounded before the charge pressure hits the cylinder. ie the longer the pipe from turbo to cyl, the longer the lag. turbos also heat up the engine considerably more. by restricting the exaust they also restrict the heat in the manifold and head. head temperatures tend to be much higher on turbocharged cars. it is quite possible to get turbo manifolds to GLOW red hot. this shortens the life of seals, such as valve guide seals, the turbo's shaft seals, cam seals, and to some degree cylinder rings as their temperature is ussually higher. supercharged engines in that regard tend to last considerbably longer. most superchargers themselves have a fairly long service life. From 100-150K miles. under hard drivng you are lucky if a turbo lasts over 60K miles before it begins to use oil, and have shaft play. turbos require more servicing by far. the heat from turbos also thin out oil considerbly, not to mention they are FED ENGINE OIL diredtly. this shortens oil life, requireiing more frequent oil changes, and special care (such as not shutting down hot)

superchargers do not suffer from these problems.
it is true in some cases, with a properly setup turbo the parasitic losses at PEAK power output are lower than a supercharged setup. however across the board over a larger range that tends to be untrue. turbos are only effiecient over a very small rpm range at their peak efficiency. in fact the best of them only transfer roughly 80% of their parasitic draw into charging the air, and on most engines they only fall into the flow range to be that efficient for about 1,000 rpm. average torque from shift in to shift out is often higher with the superchager.

there is a reason... ALL of the fastest top fuel cars run superchargers and NOT ONE is turbocharged.

turbo manufacturers would like you to believe otherwise, in reality it is because turbos are considerably easier to produce. with one basic cast housing, a few seals, only ONE preceision shaft and two bearings on it. a turbo is simple and requires very little expensive machining...

a blower has two bearing sets, two shafts, and two impellers. this transfers into expense.

again these are genral advantages and disadvantages to both systems. as a rule of thumb, small motors with reasonably low compression (1.5-2.0 liters, 9:2:1 compression or less) tend to do quite fine with a turbo as they can tolerate a decent amount of boost at that level, the heat buildup can still be easily controlled (as the engine is small to begin with and total air flow is not very high) also small turbos do not require much work to spin.

larger engines tend to do better with blowers as spool time on large turbos is considerably higher, heat quickly becomes an issue as literage and flow increases.
high compression engines do not really like either setup. a blower tends to be cooler and may be more tolerable.

personally I would not install either on an engine over 9:1 compression, why go through the hassel and expense if you can only force a 25% increase in displacement. at 8.7:1 you can typically shove 160% (or higher) displacement into a motor (given it is strong enough to take it.. and tuned properly) this makes an H22 run with torque output similar to a 3.5 liter motor with very high compression..

moral of the story,, look honestly at your budget and skill level
I would not do either unless you're willing to change out rods and pistons to drop compression and add strength
consider cam choice for both setups.
remember a supercharger is typically better for all around torque and driving, a turbo may be slightly better at peak power output
turbos typically do not last as long

weigh it carefully.

one thing to note, I have put together, and dealt with THOUSANDS of performance engines first hand
I have NEVER heard a complaint on a blown engine
I have SEEN MANY people with durability compliaints with turbos (ussually due to heat)

consider this.. on a daily driven car where you do not want problems...



PS: do not buy a kit (blower) that is only 4-8psi, if you're going to spend the money, get a setup good for 14 psi and drop compression...

[5hift]

Wow thanks for the posting mdntepoet... holy shit i didnt know it got that complicated. At least i was right in saying i know next to nothing on this topic. Well to answer some questions, I would want something thats easier to maintain and more suitable for a daily driver.

Even before this thread was started I was leaning towards a supercharger from whatever biased info i could find on the net. I think its a supercharger for sure now thanks to mdntepoet.


The question I have now is how to go about doing it. Are these kits that come with everything from Jackson Racing good or am I better off just going to a local shop.

and mdntepoet, you mentioned you've done alot of these, is this something you still do as a job or is this a hobby. And any recondmendations of where to do this in Calgary?

[Dick Starbuck]

Everything said for the most part by mdntepoet is bang on. My first post was based on the assumption that he wanted something bolt on using stock block and internals. Some stuff I didn't agree with but, oh well.

Jackson racing supercharger kits are goodquality and complete, but I think you'll find them limited in terms of power. They are a good choice if you don't want to build your engine.

If you are going to build your engine I would opt for something else like a custom system using a vortech centrifigal type supercharger.

I'd still lean towards some sort of turbo setup though. Be careful with turbo kits for your car because most are designed for non-sh models. So a system my be needed to be peiced together.

[iced_out_00]

Turbo = turbo lag and spool up time

Supercharger = instant power

[tsi_neal]

Originally posted by mdntepoet
...



Great info, MOST people need to read that and a whole lot more before they consider even making "turbo it" comments.

BUT i do have problems with the post
I have very regularily seen turbo last MUCH longer than 60k miles
two examples of cars ive owned, a volvo 740 turbo the turbo did let go but it was nearing 150,000km daily drivin. and a merkur xr4ti pulled the origional turbo for a rebuild at 160,000km and really it was a waste of time, the turbo was mint when i pulled it.
Basically a well maintained and cared for turbo car wont see turbo failure till much later in life, and even then a rebuild kit is under 200 bucks for turbos ive rebuilt im not really concerned.
ALSO what high performance motor generally lasts 60,000km? turbo, SC, or nitrous. if your properly boosting power, ie doubling stock output the stress that the rod and main bearings see is considerable. Making a total teardown now and again a "normal" procedure.

Secondly id really like to compare dyno charts of similarily built turbo and SC cars, i really think it depends on the setup but youll have a very hard time convincing me that total area under the curve is greater on a SC than a turbo, despite peak #'s. The big example that comes to mind is the buick 3800 series motors. Ill briefly compare a grand national and a grand prix GTP. I know there are ALOT of differences here so im mostly just playing devils advocate BUT the fastest GTP (or any 3800SC ive heard of) is running mid 11's at best where as GN's have easily been in the 8's for years. Also the guys that once had 3800SC's that want to run faster than 11's are building custom turbo setups.

[Dick Starbuck]

Originally posted by iced_out_00
Turbo = turbo lag and spool up time

Supercharger = instant power

This is a total blanket statement. With proper turbo sizing and engine management turbo lag shouldn't be an issue. If your goal is to build a dyno queen then of course there is going to be lag, but a properly sized turbo on a daily driven car should see almost no lag. Especially with full ball bearing turbos.

[crx62]

down

[crx62]

I say if u have the cash kickin around, do both. , if not do turbo

[Primer_Drift]

Originally posted by mdntepoet
and many that lack an education


TURBOS suffer from the same issue, a turbo IS NOT SPUN for free.. and it has little to do with it's EFFICEINCY. a turbo is driven by the hydralic force of the air being forced out by the piston. as the piston is driven by the crank, again you have a direct loss.. again some of this is recouped.

the only free bost gained from a turbo is the amount of spin/spool gained from the exaust exiting under combustion pressure, BEFORE the piston begins to squeze it out. one most note in high rpm situations though, exaust "blow down" is often used to scavenge the cyl, since that exaust must now be PUSHED out the turbo is still leaching power in this instance..


:bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit:
I'm sorry but that is total crap, a turbine is not spun by hydralic force of air being pushed out by the piston. Ever heard of Boyles Law? You know one of those pesky laws of physics like "gravity"??
Boyle's law: At constant temperature the volume of a gas is inversely proportional to the pressure.
The temperature increase of the gases exiting the cyclinder is proportional to the pressure increase of gases. In terms you might understand, the expanding gases turn the turbine.. not the suck and blow of the engine. The turbo is not "leeching" power by making the engine push the gases past the turbine, they exit out quite freely on their own..

[mdntepoet]

-------------------------------------
I'm sorry but that is total crap, a turbine is not spun by hydralic force of air being pushed out by the piston. Ever heard of Boyles Law? You know one of those pesky laws of physics like "gravity"??
Boyle's law: At constant temperature the volume of a gas is inversely proportional to the pressure.
The temperature increase of the gases exiting the cyclinder is proportional to the pressure increase of gases. In terms you might understand, the expanding gases turn the turbine.. not the suck and blow of the engine. The turbo is not "leeching" power by making the engine push the gases past the turbine, they exit out quite freely on their own..
---------------------------------------

to respond to this..

do you know the definition of hydralic force...
take a few more physics classes..

first off.. air MOVEMENT is FLUID MOVEMENT
the pressure drop causing that movement is HYDRALIC FORCES
flow is restricted by the turbo INCREASING THE PRESSURE ON THE PISTON.. this INCREASES the EFFORT or more specificly WORK in pushing the piston up and results in a PARASITIC LOSS on the crankshaft as the driving force must be produced by the combusting piston

you sir need an education before you speak..

the EXPANDING pressures you speak of are genrally refered to as "blow down" in high performance engine building circles, this is the pressure evident when the exaust valve first opens and the piston is still on the way down... any power sapped at this point however is power that WOULD HAVE accelerated the exaust out the port and helped to clear the cylinder. in other words your exaust restriction DID cause pressure increas on the way up, and less of the cylinder to be flushed on the exaust stroke.
if all of the exaust "exited freely on it's own" we would all drive 2 stroke powertrains.
the fact is.. if the exaust was not FORCED out of the cylinder before the intake valve opened no fresh air would flow in. on a naturally aspirated engine. as the cylinder would still be full of spent air. the force required to pump the exaust out is refered to as " pumping loss"
this is CONSIDERABLY higher on a turbocharged engine. this is because the manifold exaust is expelled into contains genrally 2-3 times the pressure of a good header.

since you seem to like math do a flow (diffusion type calculation) comparing pressures at standared atm.. (1 bar) compared to at 3 bar. you will see that to acieve the same flow across the valve/port restriction it requires considerably more work.. where do you think this comes from? magic hamsters in the engine?


you should note that no singular physics formula acurately describes all factors in an engine.

proponents of turbo use tend to leave out half of the math...

i am not saying you do not get a benefit from a turbo.. one must realize they come at a cost.
no power or driving force comes for free. to produce pressure on the intake side requires energy spent SOMEWHERE.

a very free flowing exaust, and plenty of headflow HELP to minimize the "pumping" loss of driving the turbo.. but it may never be removed



to respond to durability issues...

the 2.3 ford you refer to in a merker is an odd setup
(I actually own one in my t'bird, that reliably makes about 350 horses and gets 25 mpg ave) the rod and main bearings are CONSIDERABLY larger than most four cyl. in fact the bearing area of a 2.3 liter's mains is closer to a BIG BLOCK CHEVY than even a 5.0 liter ford. if you compare main bearing area per liter it is one of the largest EVER PRODUCED.. it also came with forged pistons very wide rings that were moly, a cooling system that holds 4 gallons or so.. and an iron block and head. it really is designed to cope with heat, pressure for long periods. it also may have come with the garret turbo which could easily sustain 350++ horses.. yet the engines camshaft and stock boost levels limited you to around 200 hp and 4500 rpm..
if you run twice the turbo required for your performance level durability is not often an issue.. however spool time just plain sucks.. I will be boring and stroking mine to a 2.65 liter setup just to help low in torque and spool time.

if you look at the same engine with the IHI turbos that produced full boost by 2000 rpm and great throttle response.. most engines saw three turbos by 120K miles..
I tried a few (5 of them) before I just settled for the lag of the larger turbo.. the small turbo SUPPOSEDLY can handle 320 hp.. but operating it at 300 hp I was eating them about once every 2 months on my car (I drive like a maniac) every t'bird I have seen with an IHI that has come into my shop needed a turbo. reality is that a fast spooling (small) turbo will not last long if the boost is used most of the time.. your volvo was in a similar boat, large turbo, low boost, VERY conservative flow compared to compressor size..

if you feel your engine has ENOUGH torque at low RPM to handle driving around without boost (remember at the new lower compression) then turbos are a good choice..
I would not hesitate to turbo a 2.0 liter motor in a really light car as the engine is enough (with a good flowing head) to not be a complete dog with turbo cams and compression. (light meaning 2k lbs or less)
in a 3,000 lbs car with only a 2.2 liter engine.. I would think otherwise. a lower compression engine will need boost pressure to produce much torque. it will be sluggish untill higher revs. this translates into higer average RPM usage, more fuel consumption due to friction, and a less responsive setup.

an H22 in a civic hatch I would turbo, in a larger car, I would want the low end punch of a supercharger


you cannot compare the grand national to the FWD 3.8 liter
one was 90degree the other 60degree..
the grand nationals valves were 30% bigger, the heads had considerably larger flow, and it was an all around stronger setup. the blower motor for FWD cars was idealized for 2000-4000 rpm torque not power output. it was used to give the smooth feel of a V8 without the size. camshaft durration is almost non existant (less than 200 degrees) the grand national was designed for power.
thats not a fair comparrison.

[rss]

uh, turbo for that car.

[fast95pony]

Originally posted by mdntepoet


a blower has two bearing sets, two shafts, and two impellers. this transfers into expense.





True for a positive displacement supercharger,but not for
a centrifugal supercharger.

[Primer_Drift]

:rolleyes:
Fixing my response later, little tired when I wrote last.

[tsi_neal]

Originally posted by mdntepoet



you cannot compare the grand national to the FWD 3.8 liter
one was 90degree the other 60degree..
the grand nationals valves were 30% bigger, the heads had considerably larger flow, and it was an all around stronger setup. the blower motor for FWD cars was idealized for 2000-4000 rpm torque not power output. it was used to give the smooth feel of a V8 without the size. camshaft durration is almost non existant (less than 200 degrees) the grand national was designed for power.
thats not a fair comparrison.


this is gonna be fast as im on my way to work

but you DO NOT know your buick motors at all
both are 90* motors the GN is an earlier revision of the the GTP's the GTP's bottom end is much stronger. in most of the 11 second GTPs the stock eaton m90 was switched for either a twin screw charger or an eaton M120... both are much more efficient than the M90. the heads of the series 2 also flow better than those on the GN. the stock cam sucks, but do you honestly think any of those guys run it? Nope. I know of a couple series2 motors (the GTP ones) that were making ~400 at the wheels with the SC FULLY built running 17psi. when the switch to a t66 turbo was made unintercooled (but alky injected) at 15psi the power went up to 530hp... the new setup is intercooled with alky injection and hes expecting well over 600hp out of it. Funny thing was the superchager was a better built setup but making 100hp less? he has complained that he did loose some bottom end but said overall the car pulled FAR harder from 3500-6500 and when in a drag race are you below 4000? at the launch if you dont have enough grip... bottom line its faster with less boost on a turbo than the SC

ill adress more after work

[rage2]

Since I own a supercharged car and a turbo car, I'll give the end user advantages/disadvantages, as the technical aspects have pretty much been covered.

A properly sized supercharger will result in torque everywhere. For cars that are high revving, a supercharger has a slight disadvantage. Superchargers have a sweet spot where they are most efficient, so one that works well at 4000-9000rpm will be a bit sluggish off the line. I'm not aware of any superchargers that can cover a huge rpm range such as those of Honda high revving motors. If you've driven a supercharged S2000 (extreme case), you'll know what I'm talking about. It's peppy off the line, but it's not monsterous torque. Still need fairly high revs to launch right.

Turbos... the biggest advantage is fuel choice. Because you can basically choose the boost level to run, you can easily switch between pump gas and race gas to make the most power possible with the fuel that you have. You can not change boost levels easily with supercharged cars.

If you're only going to be driving on the street and pump gas, a well sized turbo will have torque characteristics similar to a supercharged car. Lag should not be a problem with street only cars... if you have lag issues, your turbo is too big.

[tsi_neal]

Originally posted by mdntepoet
...
to respond to durability issues...

the 2.3 ford you refer to in a merker is an odd setup
(I actually own one in my t'bird, that reliably makes about 350 horses and gets 25 mpg ave) the rod and main bearings are CONSIDERABLY larger than most four cyl. in fact the bearing area of a 2.3 liter's mains is closer to a BIG BLOCK CHEVY than even a 5.0 liter ford. if you compare main bearing area per liter it is one of the largest EVER PRODUCED.. it also came with forged pistons very wide rings that were moly, a cooling system that holds 4 gallons or so.. and an iron block and head. it really is designed to cope with heat, pressure for long periods. it also may have come with the garret turbo which could easily sustain 350++ horses.. yet the engines camshaft and stock boost levels limited you to around 200 hp and 4500 rpm..
if you run twice the turbo required for your performance level durability is not often an issue.. however spool time just plain sucks.. I will be boring and stroking mine to a 2.65 liter setup just to help low in torque and spool time.

if you look at the same engine with the IHI turbos that produced full boost by 2000 rpm and great throttle response.. most engines saw three turbos by 120K miles..
I tried a few (5 of them) before I just settled for the lag of the larger turbo.. the small turbo SUPPOSEDLY can handle 320 hp.. but operating it at 300 hp I was eating them about once every 2 months on my car (I drive like a maniac) every t'bird I have seen with an IHI that has come into my shop needed a turbo. reality is that a fast spooling (small) turbo will not last long if the boost is used most of the time.. your volvo was in a similar boat, large turbo, low boost, VERY conservative flow compared to compressor size..


Im not sure what your arguing here. that garret makes better turbos than IHI? all i was saying is that any turbo thats well taken care of will last WELL beyond 60k miles and ones that are pushed hard enough to not are attached to motors that will need more frequant teardowns as well. and BTW the garret t3 that comes attached to the ford 2.3 is NOT a big turbo for the motor. If your expecting a no lag full spool by 2000rpm turbo then i have no doubt why you like superchargers. hey i like em to... but i simply cant buy that a good turbo only lasts 60,000km it seems your basing all you experiance on the IHI turbos used in fords that if i recall correctly were not water cooled, which may be your answer on why they didnt last.

And id still like to see dyno charts that show a better curve on a SC motor, as i have them that show otherwise on a buick 3800. and all the theroy and personal experiance i have tells me otherwise. the only place turbos totally fail is low rpm

[89coupe]

:bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit:


Originally posted by iced_out_00
Turbo = turbo lag and spool up time

Supercharger = instant power

[89coupe]

I think you better do a little more reading...LOL.


Originally posted by LudeRoca
They are both good in their own way. Superchargers give power from idle, as turbos give power at higher rpm. turbos are a lot more expensive to maintain. Also you have to build you motor up a fair bit before you boost it. Supercharger i don't think you need to do as much. They are both good. BUt who can say no to the sound of a turbo:burnout:

[5hift]

well thanks for all the opinions, information, and replies ... im about as confused as I was when i started this but I think now that im gonna go with the supercharger. Any one know of any good shops in calgary that i can go to and get this done

[ls/vtec-crx]

Originally posted by iced_out_00
Turbo = turbo lag and spool up time

Supercharger = instant power

turbo=turbo and spool time (makes good power seen as good as 285whp @ 8psi)

supercharger=instant power (makes shitty power 210whp @ 8psi)

if you are looking instant power with no lag and a little better kick then i would go with the JRSC. But if you are looking for more power and looking to just kick some 5.0L ass then go with the turbo.

Both systems would work well and have good reliability as long as tuned properly and done right.

To be honest in my opinion i have driven a prelude with a JRSC and one with a turbo. I am not impressed at all the super charger cause it didn't feel like anything but the turbo pulled really hard and was much better.

but that's my opinion

[silky]

SUPERCHARGER OR TURBO..........which one ummmm TURBO :rolleyes:

[method]

:rolleyes:

the jrsc is cheap and completely self contained.

if you dont want to spend much money on forced induction and want a simple install, the jrsc is pretty decent.

this bandwagon crap is pathetic.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by ls/vtec-crx


To be honest in my opinion i have driven a prelude with a JRSC and one with a turbo. I am not impressed at all the super charger cause it didn't feel like anything but the turbo pulled really hard and was much better.



I think that's cuz you don't really notice a supercharger working, since boosting all the time. But I agree - the gains with a supercharger are sometimes limited.

[method]

especially the JRSC... as the kit stock, it only boosts around what.. 6 psi? non intercooled and low boost generally wont develop a lot of power. JRSC is supposed to be a bolt on as well, no engine management sortings..

plumb in an intercooler, throw on a smaller pulley, and sort out engine/fuel management issues - then you're laughing. but that gets more complicated, and I think jrsc is going for simplicity with their setups.

[ACX]

tell me a centrifugal supercharger has instant torque & Power....

[gorillam]

Originally posted by ACX
tell me a centrifugal supercharger has instant torque & Power....
Yes, centrifugal superchargers do have instant power, they are driven directly from the crank as everyone knows....

Unlike the turbo which takes a little while to spool up.. regarless of how small it is.



Case closed.
:drama: :closed:

[finboy]

Originally posted by gorillam

Yes, centrifugal superchargers do have instant power, they are driven directly from the crank as everyone knows....

Unlike the turbo which takes a little while to spool up.. regarless of how small it is.



Case closed.
:drama: :closed:

correct me if i'm wrong, but a turbo will see max boost before a supercharger.

centrifugal, boost varies with rpm, ie 2000 rpm = 2 psi, 5000 rpm=6psi, etc.

turbo = start boosting at 2500 rpm and full boost at say 3200 rpm.

these numbers are just used as an example

[2muchfun]

After reading the many posts on this topic (Sort of like discussing religion & politics!) I would like to offer some reasonable advice. Both systems work. Both perform the same function which is forcing your air/fuel charge into your cylinders. That being made clear please remember there is only so much displacement available before your engine self destructs or the seals go or the rings go or etc. etc. Turbos typically produce about 8lbs. of boost which results in seat of your pants torque once up to speed. Stock superchargers can produce upwards of 14-18lbs of boost instantly without destruction because they don't have high temps to contend with. However they do run out of breath once RPM's get into their upper ranges. This is due to the pressure from the supercharger is being vacated before it has time to build like it does at lower RPM's & also air under pressure gets hotter resulting in Heat Soak. A turbo overcomes this, I believe by turning much faster than a Supercharger. Both systems require an intercooler to be effective. Cooler air results in better combustion. Which is more efficient? In my opinion & for my limited finances I would go with a supercharger because most of your fun factor will probably be stoplight to stoplight & for sheer simplicity & reliabilty a supercharger can't be beat. If you decide to Boost your engine you are looking at a big expense with either choice, about $5,000 by the time you are done. For that kind of money you could probably buy an engine with internals already engineered to sustain the boost & temperatures involved. For what it is worth there is a supercharger system bolt on that is under development called a Twin Screw or Whipple. They may have an application suitable for your car. There is a reason why manufacturers have gone away from Turbos recently. Mercedes, Pontiac, Ford, & BMW (Mini) are selling Superchargers instead of Turbos simply because they are more reliable when engineered correctly.

[finboy]

Originally posted by 2muchfun
Turbos typically produce about 8lbs. of boost
what?



which results in seat of your pants torque once up to speed. Stock superchargers can produce upwards of 14-18lbs of boost instantly without destruction because they don't have high temps to contend with. intercooler
In my opinion & for my limited finances I would go with a supercharger
you can build your own turbo kit for less than 1500


There is a reason why manufacturers have gone away from Turbos recently. Mercedes, Pontiac, Ford, & BMW (Mini) are selling Superchargers instead of Turbos simply because they are more reliable when engineered correctly.

srt4, pt-turbo, wrx and wrx/sti, lancer evo, mazda speed protege, mazda speed miata, etc.

as for reliability, i have seen many 300,000+ km turbo's that are still in great shape, can't say i've seen the same for superchargers. not to mention a rebuild on a turbo is MUCH cheaper.

turbo's are NOT unreliable, i don't know why people have this misconseption :dunno:

[2muchfun]

As for the post regarding Turbos lasting for 300,000Km's I doubt very much that they are the original factory seals & bearings at that mileage. As for the WRX Turbo nice car & engine with decent power but at $35-40K It should be! As for the Mazdaspeed & Proteges, they are producing what? 165HP? Hardly worth the trouble when there are normally aspirated cars available producing much more power. Mazda vehicles have never been big on power, they offer excellent value for your money but don't expect to come close to the output that Honda & Toyota are producing. Their engines won't take it. Why do you think the Mazdaspeed only has 7-8lbs. of Boost? (iirc) & don't even think of seeing them in Formula 1. Mazda always has been extremely conservative in the vehicles they produce with the exception of the RX7. I've owned 3 of them & for daily drivers they are practical & reliable but for performance I wouldn't consider them. As for my own experience with Turbos & Superchargers in our local club & the West Coast MR2 clubs I have seen Turbos producing 350HP from 2 litres regularly, reliably but not without problems. I have seen 1.6 litre Supercharged engines producing 200hp with extreme reliability. In fact I don't know of a supercharged engine failure due to boost pressure & only a couple of the Rootes type Blowers needed a rebuild. This is on engines now that are approaching 12-15 years old! I don't think many manufacturers of aftermarket Turbos or Superchargers can offer that kind of reliabilty.

[h22aseller]

ok, I have chosen the turbo route so people will inevitably think that I am biased. The truth is though that I installed my entire turbo system myself in around 5-6 hours. I am running fairly low boost (5-8psi, 5 daily, 8 with 100 octane gas that I get from the states) and have had no issues with reliability. Also, the notion of the "EVIL LAG" is not really that bad anymore. no doubt that the turbos of the 70s and 80s were retardedly bad but there has been considerable advances in the turbo manufacturing world.

I have the F23a enigine (2.3L SOHC vtec) and I am running a garrett turbo and my lag to full boost is usually 2100rpm in first gear. In ANY other gear if I just want to pull out and pass or am just running through the gears I cannot discern the lag. If you have a properly sized turbo, with a BOV, then the time that it takes you to spool after a shift is almost non-existant.

not only this, but with a turbo, you don't have to be boosting all the time, at part throttle lowish rpm you can usually do a fairly good job of keeping it out of boost. this results in fuel savings.

furthermore, even at 5psi there is noticably more power and torque, enough for my humble accord to run along with a tsx damn near evenly (me being slightly slower, ever so slightly). and as for dropping compression, i didnt and haven't had detonation issues, im not too sure on the h22 though as it runs at higher compression (mine is 9.8:1, yours is 10.6:1), but even so, it should not be that big a deal, but i refuse to say that i know everything. The biggest thing is that with a turbo, just intercool it, no ifs ands or buts, and make damn sure your fuel system is tuned to meet the demands of a turbo or supercharger. running lean is like throwing your engine into an incinerator, bad shit will happen.

i have personally no experiance with a supercharger, so i won't say anything on them.

[h22aseller]

dude, 165hp of the mazdaspeed miata? try close to 180, out of a 1.8L. not too shabby when you think of the application. they didn't go bigger because they didn't need to. it already has a better power to weight ratio than a BMW z4

[Alpine Autowerks]

i curious. i had a mazda gt(1.6l DOHC turbo) with 300,000 km my dad's merkur has 450,000 km both have original turbos. in 25 years of Porsche service I have changed ...2 944t(oil feed restriction) & .....1....ONE 930 i have thrown out maybe a dozen k26 that I removed for upgrakes cuz I got tired of tripping over them. I have not met an SLK owner who still has their 1st supercharger (both 4 & 6cyl ver) Corrodo owners use cling stinkers from lube shops to keep track of G-charger maintenance replacements... which do think I find more reliable

[legendboy]

Originally posted by Alpine Autowerks
i curious. i had a mazda gt(1.6l DOHC turbo) with 300,000 km my dad's merkur has 450,000 km both have original turbos. in 25 years of Porsche service I have changed ...2 944t(oil feed restriction) & .....1....ONE 930 i have thrown out maybe a dozen k26 that I removed for upgrakes cuz I got tired of tripping over them. I have not met an SLK owner who still has their 1st supercharger (both 4 & 6cyl ver) Corrodo owners use cling stinkers from lube shops to keep track of G-charger maintenance replacements... which do think I find more reliable

:rofl:

[finboy]

Originally posted by 2muchfun
As for the post regarding Turbos lasting for 300,000Km's I doubt very much that they are the original factory seals & bearings at that mileage.

believe it, the factory turbo off my spirit had 225,000 km's on it and it was in BEAUTIFUL shape. if you want more examples, go to the wrecker and check some cars.


As for the WRX Turbo nice car & engine with decent power but at $35-40K It should be! As for the Mazdaspeed & Proteges, they are producing what? 165HP? Hardly worth the trouble when there are normally aspirated cars available producing much more power. Mazda vehicles have never been big on power, they offer excellent value for your money but don't expect to come close to the output that Honda & Toyota are producing. Their engines won't take it. Why do you think the Mazdaspeed only has 7-8lbs. of Boost? (iirc) & don't even think of seeing them in Formula 1. Mazda always has been extremely conservative in the vehicles they produce with the exception of the RX7. I've owned 3 of them & for daily drivers they are practical & reliable but for performance I wouldn't consider them.

mazdaspeed protege is 180, and i will agree mazda wasn't trying to make the fastest straightline car around.


As for my own experience with Turbos & Superchargers in our local club & the West Coast MR2 clubs I have seen Turbos producing 350HP from 2 litres regularly, reliably but not without problems. I have seen 1.6 litre Supercharged engines producing 200hp with extreme reliability. In fact I don't know of a supercharged engine failure due to boost pressure & only a couple of the Rootes type Blowers needed a rebuild. This is on engines now that are approaching 12-15 years old! I don't think many manufacturers of aftermarket Turbos or Superchargers can offer that kind of reliabilty.

now here is what i don't get, there is a 150 hp gap here, so it isn't really a good case to use if the supercharged motor is making 150hp less, and not facing as much abuse.

[method]

Originally posted by finboy

what?


they do bud. the typical stock turbo setup is boosting around 6-10 psi. for a pump gas, stock tune engine coming out of the factory, 6-8psi is usually a good number.

save for things like 4g63, 2jz, etc etc, but those engines are properly built for turbocharging from the factory. for engines like the MS protege, they just had to slap the damn thing on, thus only low boost.

[M_Power]

Turbo vs. SC Comparison Dyno (http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=688120)

[962 kid]

Originally posted by 2muchfun
Turbos typically produce about 8lbs. of boost which results in seat of your pants torque once up to speed. Stock superchargers can produce upwards of 14-18lbs of boost instantly without destruction because they don't have high temps to contend with.


stock turbos can produce 14-18 psi as well, and don't think that superchargers don't have high temperatures to deal with. the slk32 has twin intercoolers and only runs 14.5 psi


There is a reason why manufacturers have gone away from Turbos recently. Mercedes, Pontiac, Ford, & BMW (Mini) are selling Superchargers instead of Turbos simply because they are more reliable when engineered correctly.

mercedes - SL, S, CL 600 & 65, etc
ford - focus rs
BMW - turbo diesels

[finboy]

Originally posted by method


they do bud. the typical stock turbo setup is boosting around 6-10 psi. for a pump gas, stock tune engine coming out of the factory, 6-8psi is usually a good number.

save for things like 4g63, 2jz, etc etc, but those engines are properly built for turbocharging from the factory. for engines like the MS protege, they just had to slap the damn thing on, thus only low boost.

oh i know some cars only come with around 8 psi, but he said...

Turbos typically produce about 8lbs. of boost which i would say isn't entirly true.

SOME cars come with that low of boost but like you said, most motor's from the factory are built for boost usually see more in stock form, which would be typical

[finboy]

Originally posted by M_Power
Turbo vs. SC Comparison Dyno (http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=688120)

and just for a little more fun, some theory...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/tomak/page10.html

[London Bill]

I was very impressed with the SC v Turbo dyno comparison as I soon going to install an Eaton M90 supercharger on my V8 Toyota Soarer (Lexus SC400) and am looking for SC data.

My car weighs the best part of 1800kg as does the twin turbo, straight six version which in std trim has an output of 280ps but the 2 small turbos will expire around 100k, in "boosted" form the small turbo's become a weak link and need to be upgraded to steel turbines or larger units if you are going to boost over 1Bar.

The V8 version outputs 260ps (a very lazy 4.0Ltr engine) and despite many attempts at adding turbo's (or even a single) it is very difficult as the wide V8 motor fills the engine bay leaving little room for the required pipework, Lextreme from the US managed to fit two small turbo's and intercooler but the turbo's hung underneath and behind the engine, reducing ground clearance and invoking very long pipe runs which sap power.

So a supercharger is a sensible option, a friend of mine imported a couple of C's supercharged Toyota Celsior's (Lexus LS400) from Japan, these are fitted with Eaton M90 blowers running 8psi boost. Last week I drove one of these big fat heavy beasts and the performance was just stunning. We have not taken any figures yet but the 0-60mph has to be well under 6Sec which is some feat for a lard 4rse, limo sized motor.

To date he has done one supercharger transplant from the Celsior to the Soarer, it's not been tuned yet but has transformed the car, low down grunt is abundant, it will spin-up through 1st and 2nd gears with the traction turned OFF. The mid range is where the power gets strong but unlike the turbo version there is no transition from off/on boost and it does not tail-off in the higher rev range (the turbo's are small).

While the SC v Turbo dyno comparison looks cut & dried, the "on-road" experience is very rewarding with the SC, you have to remember we are talking about heavy, high geared cars which top 160mph so unlike a small buzz box they spend a lot of time "in gear" where the flat curve V8 needs more power, this style of power delivery may not suit lighter cars with faster revving engines as they spend much less time "in-gear".

But the which is best discussion continues, I am sure the 4.0Ltr V8 would benefit greatly from twin turbo's but it is impractical which leaves the much simpler supercharger option (it lierally just bolts on the top of the engine), despite the V8 having a bullet proof bottom end with six bolt mains the stock Soarer autobox has a safe power handling limit of 450bhp so ultimate power is not the goal.

So in this case a supercharger is the "best option", all I need now is a sandwhich intercooler to fit under the M90 blower, anyone?

More SC Info;

TIF (http://www.toyotaimportsforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?threadid=3806&referrerid=9)

[THREE40SEVEN]

Originally posted by mdntepoet

the only thing that remains the same is that the engine compression must be dropped to fully utilize either upgrade[/B]
Thats quite a generalization... Stock compression ratio's range from the low 8:1's to 10:1+...

Originally posted by mdntepoet

predetonation[/B]
Thats not a word.

Originally posted by mdntepoet

turbos have yet another disadvantage, HEAT

turbos also heat up the engine considerably more.[/B]
Not if the system is designed correctly. Ceramic coating, turbo blankets, and heat wraps/shields are available to significantly reduce underhood temperatures, and act's. The 4.6 that i just tuned ran an average of 10 degrees cooler for coolant temperature, and an average of 60 degrees cooler air charge temperature while driving and dynoing in comparison to the typical centrifical.
Kenne bell (autorotor) superchargers often get so hot that you cannot touch the surface of the case. Kenne bell also claims 30% less heat the Eaton Superchargers.



Originally posted by mdntepoet

supercharged engines in that regard tend to last considerbably longer. most superchargers themselves have a fairly long service life. From 100-150K miles. under hard drivng you are lucky if a turbo lasts over 60K miles before it begins to use oil, and have shaft play. turbos require more servicing by far. the heat from turbos also thin out oil considerbly, not to mention they are FED ENGINE OIL diredtly. this shortens oil life, requireiing more frequent oil changes, and special care (such as not shutting down hot) [/B]
Many centrifical superchargers are also fed by engine oil. With proper maintenance, either is relaible.

Originally posted by mdntepoet

average torque from shift in to shift out is often higher with the superchager.[/B]
Turbochargers make more torque. Period. Powershift if she's standard, or buy an automatic.

Originally posted by mdntepoet

there is a reason... ALL of the fastest top fuel cars run superchargers and NOT ONE is turbocharged.[/B]

Thats becuase they are outlawed in top fuel, as well as MANY other racing classes. There's a reason ;)


Originally posted by mdntepoet

again these are genral advantages and disadvantages to both systems. as a rule of thumb, small motors with reasonably low compression (1.5-2.0 liters, 9:2:1 compression or less) tend to do quite fine with a turbo as they can tolerate a decent amount of boost at that level, the heat buildup can still be easily controlled (as the engine is small to begin with and total air flow is not very high) also small turbos do not require much work to spin.

larger engines tend to do better with blowers as spool time on large turbos is considerably higher, heat quickly becomes an issue as literage and flow increases.
high compression engines do not really like either setup. a blower tends to be cooler and may be more tolerable.[/B]
The larger the engine, the more heat energy, the larger turbo you can use efficiently- and the larger the turbo, the less the exhaust restriction.

I have datalogged ACT's with twin screw superchargers of well over 210 degrees. Intercooled centrificals are normally in the 180's after a run, and the average ACT of the 4.6 turbo i just tuned was ~120 degrees.

Originally posted by mdntepoet

one thing to note, I have put together, and dealt with THOUSANDS of performance engines first hand
I have NEVER heard a complaint on a blown engine
I have SEEN MANY people with durability compliaints with turbos (ussually due to heat)[/B]
Thousands? I've done WAY less than that, and i've expreienced multiple thrown belts, siezed superchargers (still full of oil), bad bearings, cracked housings, and leaky seals.

Originally posted by gorillam

Yes, centrifugal superchargers do have instant power, they are driven directly from the crank as everyone knows....

Unlike the turbo which takes a little while to spool up.. regarless of how small it is.



Case closed.
:drama: :closed:
While a centrifical is belt driven, most of the boost or airflow is made in the higher RPM. The average centrifical blower rated at 9lbs, see's 2-3lbs of boost @3000rpm, while a turbocharged car will hit full boost by that time in most cases.


A turbocharger will make more power and WAY more torque than a comparable supercharger.
If you have the funds, go turbo.
I'm cheap and lazy, so i bought a supercharger that will get me into the 11's for just over $2400cdn.

[Foreign1]

Both....