Never had a turbo...I've had a procharger 600b intercooled setup with cogs 14lbs...Paxton novi 1500 renegade (for sale for foxbody $1500) and now a novi 2000...next is the novi 2500 ...no dump number yet but im guessing 800hp+

 

it all depends , on 4bangers, turbo is better, but for v8s, either way is good. i personally favor turbos, but thats my opinion

 

i would say it depends on use of the car.

Turbo will make more hp given the same boost as a supercharger.

superchargers like twinscrews and roots will create a more linear torque curve.

 

I love them both, but I favor turbos. Not only more power pound for pound(literally), but instead of needing a pulley change you can just reach over to your boost controller.

 

A turbo makes power for free...no parasitic loss. And turbo seems to make a flatter torque curve. But boost is boost and they both kick ***

 

Not entirely true, turbochargers do recoup energy lost through the exhaust but they also incur increased pumping loses compared to supercharged and naturally aspirated engines. Eaton maintains that parasitic losses for a turbocharger through pumping losses and the amount of power that a shaft driven supercharger uses are about the same - Not sure I agree with them on the later, but the former certainly makes sense.

 

They both cost a lot of money for a good setup, each good setup can put your car to a level where it's too much car for you to handle. So it comes down to, do you like yourself some blower whine? Or bov action?

 

both can blow your stock block into a fine silver mist.
depends on where you want the power, turbo's will always make more power and tq per PSI.

 

true there is still some parasitic loss in a turbocharger but not as much as a supercharger dispite what eaton claims.

Its been proven over and over from the guys using turbos, they make more hp at the same level psi then a supercharger.

There are of course pros and cons, where boost is being made in the powerband and such.

 

Agreed, there is a large body of evidence supporting the turbocharger's effciency over a supercharger (its just not the free lunch turbo guys like to claim). I think the one area a blower really trumps a turbo is in packaging and overall cost. Lag is the other area where superchargers still reign supreme, but the gap is narrowing with ball bearing turbochargers and composite materials.

I suppose its not a matter of which one is better, rather which application is better suited for the task at hand since both can produce some really big power numbers.

 

I agree with Bob about cost. Turbos are expensive, especially if you get one of the crazier turbos(billet, or the new Borg Warner). You can easily spend as much on a turbo as you would an entry-level supercharger kit!

Concerning lag, if you size the system properly then lag won't be an issue. I prefer to get the power toward 3k rpm's as your gas mileage won't be shattered and should you ever get on it the person who's next to you won't know what hit em.

 

The on3 performance kit is only $1,895

http://on3performance.com/mustanggt3v.html

I know of quite a few people who have been running them with no issues.
Buy an upgraded turbo and you're pretty much done for uner 3k.

 

I guess it just depends on what kind sound you like. Either is very nice to have. Hearing the bov hit or the whine of the supercharger are just awesome.

 

You can have a BOV working in a centri blower as well, the sound turbos make that is unique to them is the wastegate dumping.
Although you can also put a wastegate on a centri blower as well.

 

Read an interesting claim by Magnusson the other day, at cruise (60 mph), and I'm guessing this is when the S/C is in bypass mode that it takes .33 hp to drive the compressor.

All this has me really wondering what it really takes to drive a supercharger under boost? And likewise how much parasitic loss is incurred with turbos under boost with pumping losses?

I still maintain its a matter of application though, cost no object maximum effort engines are certainly a different beast altogether.

This debate reminds me of the GM OHV V8 vs. the Ford OHC V8 debate and power density (dimensions & mass vs. power) and my stock answer is usually "does it really matter? Ford doesn't design the Mustang to fit a GM V8, they designed it to accept a Ford V8 so where is the problem"?

 

Anyone ever heard of compound boost? twin turbs run by a blower up top. Seems like that would solve all the problems. Never seen one personally but I've seen the setups on AM

 

What is the basic difference in operating principle between the Twin Screw, Roots type and centrifugals?

All superchargers make good "peak" horsepower given the same boost level. Superchargers pump more air into the engine than it can normally use with the atmosphere's 14.7 psi boost. Hence the supercharger builds up back pressure (boost). The twin screw and Roots type are "positive displacement" superchargers and build the same boost at any rpm 2000 up. However, it is a well known fact that size for size the twin screw is much more efficient than the Roots type (lower discharge temp and less parasitic loss) this includes new 2.3 TVS. The centrifugal is not a positive displacement type. It is essentially a belt, ball or gear driven turbocharger which pumps relatively little air flow at the low and mid range rpm bands. It depends solely on engine rpm to build boost. The higher the rpm, the higher the boost - typically 1 psi per 1000 rpm on a 5-6 psi kit. The delivery air volume increases as the square of the rotational speed of the impeller. Nothing (advertising, opinions, or spin Doctors etc.) can change these basic physical operating principles.

Cut & Pasted from Source:
http://www.kennebell.net/KBWebsite/F...q-answers5.htm

 

So nobody has an opinion on compound boost ...