General Vehicle Discussion/News Non-Mustang Vehicle Chat, Other Makes

Supercharger Vs Turbo

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 31, 2007 | 11:41 PM
  #1  
SVTCobraR315's Avatar
Thread Starter
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
From: Coral Springs, FL
Supercharger Vs Turbo

what do you guys think... a supercharger or a turbo. pretty simple. and if a supercharger what type?
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2007 | 07:43 AM
  #2  
boduke0220's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: March 3, 2007
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 1
From: North carolina
i know nothing about either except they add alot of hp and cost alot of $$$ too but when i get the go ahead from my dad, a vortech will be on my car
Reply
Old Sep 1, 2007 | 10:09 PM
  #3  
Moosetang's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
The parasitic nature of the Supercharger is a knock against it, but it's got better power-on-demand. However, with modern, multi-stage turbos and better intercoolers I have to give the turbocharger the nod these days. A well-built twin-turbo set up is just marvelous.
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2007 | 01:07 AM
  #4  
burningman's Avatar
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 7,446
Likes: 12
From: Proudly in NJ...bite it FL
screw style blower is also a way cleaner install. You don't see 400 miles of plumbing to make it work
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2007 | 12:17 PM
  #5  
ScottyBoy302's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: August 20, 2005
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
From: BC
Theres a huge cost difference which is another reason most people opt for the blower route.
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2007 | 02:29 PM
  #6  
SVTCobraR315's Avatar
Thread Starter
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
From: Coral Springs, FL
im a roots type myself. easy to install and and great power on demand like CineMax on Demand lol
Reply
Old Sep 2, 2007 | 08:15 PM
  #7  
bob's Avatar
bob
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Cost no object and complexity not a concern, turbo's get the nod, not gonna be able to out power them. Want something simpler and cheaper to install, go with a supercharger.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2007 | 04:00 PM
  #8  
Knight's Avatar
Needs to be more Astony
 
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
Yeah it really depends on what you want. If you are looking for big power, then turbo is the way to go, like others said...more costly.


If you are going SC then a roots or screw type SC is the way to go. Very simple. power from idle all the way up.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2007 | 09:25 PM
  #9  
97svtgoin05gt's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: July 21, 2004
Posts: 2,924
Likes: 1
From: New Jersey
Turbos if cost is no object. For most street applications and budgets the blower will generally win every time.
Reply
Old Sep 24, 2007 | 11:21 PM
  #10  
clockworks's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: August 7, 2005
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Moosetang
The parasitic nature of the Supercharger is a knock against it, but it's got better power-on-demand. However, with modern, multi-stage turbos and better intercoolers I have to give the turbocharger the nod these days. A well-built twin-turbo set up is just marvelous.
I think even the single turbos these days are great. Very low boost threshold and lag.

I'd go with a turbo (depending on how your car is used). I had a twin screw supercharger (Saleen) and the torque curve was boring.

I've heard that the heat generated by a turbo can be very problematic on a road course.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2007 | 02:50 AM
  #11  
Moosetang's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by clockworks
I think even the single turbos these days are great. Very low boost threshold and lag.

I'd go with a turbo (depending on how your car is used). I had a twin screw supercharger (Saleen) and the torque curve was boring.

I've heard that the heat generated by a turbo can be very problematic on a road course.
There's decades worth of racing Porsches which would disagree with this. The only reason it would be a problem on a bolt-on is becuase the person(s) who installed the system didn't do a thurough enough job upgrading the cooling system.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2007 | 10:07 AM
  #12  
clockworks's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: August 7, 2005
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Moosetang
There's decades worth of racing Porsches which would disagree with this. The only reason it would be a problem on a bolt-on is becuase the person(s) who installed the system didn't do a thurough enough job upgrading the cooling system.
True, but I think most people just want to buy a "kit" and be done with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Mustang turbo kits don't upgrade the cooling system and are mainly designed for steet driving / drag racing.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2007 | 10:31 AM
  #13  
Knight's Avatar
Needs to be more Astony
 
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
Originally Posted by clockworks
True, but I think most people just want to buy a "kit" and be done with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Mustang turbo kits don't upgrade the cooling system and are mainly designed for steet driving / drag racing.
you are correct. If you were road racing you might want to put a better cooling system in regarless.

I'm sure you could put some heat wrap on the exhaust side of the turbo you would be perfectly fine.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2007 | 05:57 PM
  #14  
TJ4Cam's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: July 18, 2004
Posts: 645
Likes: 2
Cost aside, for me I would choose a well designed turbocharger system all day long and twice on Tuesday! A TT V8 Mustang is where its at.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2007 | 06:25 PM
  #15  
Glenn's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: August 7, 2006
Posts: 16,113
Likes: 789
From: In Boredom
turbo's are priced pretty close to the s/c
Reply
Old Sep 26, 2007 | 06:21 PM
  #16  
boduke0220's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: March 3, 2007
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 1
From: North carolina
i really prfer naturally aspirated motors. think about it.
say you got a 400 hp N/A 5.0 and a
supercharged/turboed 400 hp 5.0
If you but the naturally aspirated one it is easier to put a supercharger on it and have 500 hp vs having to up the boost on the stock supercharger and run the risk of the internals failing
Reply
Old Sep 26, 2007 | 06:34 PM
  #17  
krnpimpsta's Avatar
 
Joined: May 31, 2007
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Before I got into Mustangs, I've generally thought most twin-turbo setups involved one giant turbo (for ridiculous boost) and one small turbo (for boost while the big one spools up).

With our V8, it looks like that option (or even single turbo) would be alot more work, because we naturally have two exhaust lines... and it looks like twin symmetrical turbos seem alot simpler than different twin turbos or a single turbo..

I'm new to this. So when you guys are referring to "twin turbo," which kind of "twin turbo" are you guys referring to? Any words on advantages/disadvantages?
Reply
Old Sep 27, 2007 | 11:15 PM
  #18  
clockworks's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: August 7, 2005
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by boduke0220
i really prfer naturally aspirated motors. think about it.
say you got a 400 hp N/A 5.0 and a
supercharged/turboed 400 hp 5.0
If you but the naturally aspirated one it is easier to put a supercharger on it and have 500 hp vs having to up the boost on the stock supercharger and run the risk of the internals failing
NA only goes (practically) so far though. If you keep pushing and pushing, the car will have very poor driveability characteristics.

That's the great thing about FI. The car drives like stock until you get into the boost.
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2007 | 12:16 AM
  #19  
Moosetang's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by krnpimpsta
Before I got into Mustangs, I've generally thought most twin-turbo setups involved one giant turbo (for ridiculous boost) and one small turbo (for boost while the big one spools up).

With our V8, it looks like that option (or even single turbo) would be alot more work, because we naturally have two exhaust lines... and it looks like twin symmetrical turbos seem alot simpler than different twin turbos or a single turbo..

I'm new to this. So when you guys are referring to "twin turbo," which kind of "twin turbo" are you guys referring to? Any words on advantages/disadvantages?
From a production and do-it-yourself standpoint we're talking parallel twin-turbo. You use two identical small(ish) turbochargers (one for each exhaust bank on the V) which spool up faster than one large (cutting down lag), while still producing alot of power by their combined action. Add in modern turbo tech like variable geometry and you can have a pretty devasating setup with minimal complexity.

Sequential Twin-turbos use a two-stage setup where one small turbo runs all the time and a second only kicks in at high RPM for top-end. Problem is that you have to plumb all your exhaust through both, which is a minor nightmare. Racing machines and exotic can pull that off, but not regular production cars or home conversions.
Reply
Old Sep 28, 2007 | 04:58 PM
  #20  
ScottyBoy302's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: August 20, 2005
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
From: BC
Originally Posted by boduke0220
i really prfer naturally aspirated motors. think about it.
say you got a 400 hp N/A 5.0 and a
supercharged/turboed 400 hp 5.0
If you but the naturally aspirated one it is easier to put a supercharger on it and have 500 hp vs having to up the boost on the stock supercharger and run the risk of the internals failing

Also, generally any engine cranking out a lot of NA power would have a high compression ratio, to run boost you need to lower the compression (or else...). So its not like you can take a real wild NA setup (say 400hp 5.0) and just strap on a blower running the same amount of boost as you could put on a 225hp 5.0.
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:49 AM.