Which one and why my friends?

 

Good old N/A is my favorite, but S/C's and Turbo's both have some great advantages. Here's a link to another thread about the same topic:

Superchargers or Turbochargers

 

Depends on the engine size.
Turbocharger for smaller engine, supercharged for bigger engine.

 

Engine size has nothig to do with it, engine design does

 

I'm a stinker for a kick **** N/A engine. However if I was betting the farm it would be a well thought out turbo engine.

 

A lot of truly fast cars today go with turbos. Think Porsche for example. But the Ford GT boasts a supercharger so there are obviously different schools of thought out there.

I'm partial to supercharging because there's no lag in boost--not much of an issue these days but it's still there--and there's less heat build up unless you get one factory installed from the start. Again, see Porsche, Subaru, and Saab and others. Besides, with SC the car performs like stock until you really put your foot in it. That means better mpg in daily driving, though I doubt that's an issue with you if you're considering going down this road.

 

I think in a way it's sorta cheating when you quote hp/tq figures when using boost or nitrous oxide. What impresses me is a well built motor. Theres a guy who gets got into the 9's with a NA Honda motor (albeit he's a pro and has the resources) says alot more than bolting on a turbo, SC or spraying.

That being said, turbo lag WAS the major draw back to using turbos and since larger displacement engines make more low end torque as a rule SC was the way to go on larger motors. Now technology has advanced turbos to the point turbo lag is not really as much a factor. They are a more eficient design, SC use the motor to turn, turbo uses your exhaust which is wasted otherwise. So If forced to chose FI, I'd bet turbo would be a better option.

I voted NA though. I love when people put the time and investment to get really good numbers without using FI, just seems more legit.