D-Dawg1990

What Do You Guys Think

mystic cobra

I think I would rather have a supercharger rather than a turbo.
btw I think that you are gonna love it on here Drew,and its good to have another person from Shelbyville on here.

Fordracing200

a Turbo will make more power and is more efficent.

joker

I voted for turbo. Superchargers literally take alot of hp away from your engine in order to make the power that they do. I forgot what the exact ratio was but I think for like every 100 hp you gain, it takes 40 hp to away to make that hundred. (meaning that if you didnt have the parasitic loss involved with spinning the charger you would actually pick up 140 hp from the boost)

As fordracing said, turbos are much more efficient. They use the exhaust gas to make them work, so no extra strain is put on the engine in order to make the extra hp. Also, check the web in some supercharger forums, and you will noticed fighting with belts is a pretty widespread problem. Either they slip off, break, or what not. With a turbo there are no belts to have to worry about breaking.

Some will argue that a s/c will get you power quicker at low rpms compareed to the boost lag of a turbo, but if a turbo is properly sized for you engine combination, then that lag would be very minmal.

There are cars out there making 750+ rwhp with turbo setups on midly built 302's where as the highest hp s/c car I have seen was around 600 to the wheels.

The downside to doing a turbo stang most people will tell you is cost related, which really isnt true in my opinion. If you really want to get alot of power (not the 60 or 70 hp you pick up from entry level s/c kits), you are gonna spend 4k on a supercharger setup. A turbo setup can be had for close to the same amount.

So i guess the decision on which one to get depends on what you want from the car. If you are looking for a little extra hp for 3k or less, get a small to mid s/c. If you want to swing for the fences and build yourself a monster, get a turbo kit.

holderca1

That's a tough call, neither is a perfect means of forced induction by any means. Each has it's benifits over the other. The S/C provides immediate boost as it's belt driven, but it requires power from the engine to get it going. The turbo is much more efficient since it uses the engine's "waste" to generate power. The downside of this system is that it isn't immediate, you have probably heard of "turbo lag," which is simply the time it takes for the exhaust levels to increase after the accelerator is pressed. A lot of it depends on the engine, for a 4 cyl, I would say without question a turbo, just for the fact that it doesn't have much power n/a to start with. That's why you see STi, SRT-4, ect... with turbos. You can get by with a s/c much more easier on a V6 or V8.
I would say go turbo if you want more power and willing to spend the money, if you have ever heard of a Lingenfelter Corvette, you will see what a well setup turbo system can do. Lingenfelter is currently working on a 950 hp/950 ft-lb twin turbo C6 Corvette.

1999 Black 35th GT

For racing and if you have the money, a Turbo for sure.

For a lesser price and street applications an S/C


They are both great

future9er24

ManEHawke

Well now they have turbos with virtually zero lag. I'd get one of those no doubt.

gotmy05

I could never put a turbo on my car every time I hear turbo I think foreign. I'll stick with a super charger plus it sounds cooler

1999 Black 35th GT

:scratch: All of your heavy duty Powerstroke diesels are turbo charged, I really don't think foreign when I hear turbo.

Fordracing200

When I hear the high pitch whistle of a turbo, i see and think DIESEL! and then I Think Horspower!
And today, 90% of diesels and all diesel pick-up trucks are turbo'd and intercooled

bob

You cant beat a well executed turbo set-up, S/C is nice and uncomplicated, but if your going for max power then I think the only thing that can compare with a turbo would be nitrous and that only lasts as long as you got stuff in the bottle

05WindveilGT

This thread could go on forever, many debates about this before.

AnotherMustangMan

For ULTIMATE performance...yes....ULTIMATE. You can not deny the twin-turbo set up, as seen on every ULTIMATE performance application out there. Konig Ferraris, LPE Vettes, Viper Venoms, Continental GTs, the Veyron (okay okay...thats quad turbo but whatever), and SO ON.

BUT!

Uhhh......twin screw lysholm superchargers offer 90% of the top-end horsepower of the turbo and all of the low-down torque of a roots supercharger.....plus they are cheaper than a good turbo kit.


Soo, unless you want to break records, get a kenne bell or a whipple.

Budders

God I love blower whine

Knight

Turbo is by far better in terms of efficency and output.

Turbo is the only way to go. Why waste hp to make hp like a blower would?

y2kcobrar

Waste power to make power...well said. But turbos use power too, just not as much. And there is another downside to turbocharging...HEAT. Think about it, what causes the bane of all engines, detonation?
3 things:
Too much timing
Too low octane for timing and compression needs
HEAT

You have all that hot exh gas moving through that turbine, which DOES get transferred to the compressor via conduction. Which in turns gets transferred to your now boosted intake charge via convection.

You might say, well duh, intercool it. OK, yes, intercooling will help, to a degree (no pun intended). But it will only remove so much.

So heres the first problem IMHO about turbocharging a N/A motor. Tuning is a MUST and better be done properly, timing retard, fuel oct increase, some method of cooling. Plus a good turbo timer is nice if you want it to last long.

Second: Complexity. In short, MORE PLUMBING. The fabbed header a.k.a. downpipe, to your turbo, which can be simple or COMPLICATED depending on where you locate it. Especially with all the room to work with we have underneath our mod motors. Then the plumbing out of the turbo to the front of the car for your intercooler, and back around to your intake. For that portion of the plumbing, you'll be removing you front bumper, one of your fenders, maybe relocating the battery and possibly other components. This amounts to downtime. And labor. And labor translates to cost. Unless of course you know how to do all of this on your own. oh, and before I forget, plumbing to oil the turbo. Thats right, time to tap the oil pan. Not so bad? 1 problem. Component failure. Works both ways, turbo takes a crap...engine gets to enjoy that same contaminated oil that will problably have debris in it. Or...engine starts leaving shaving in the oil that gets picked up by the turbo. In both cases, your not only out a $5000 or more engine, but a comparibly expensive turbo too. And with the advent of the self-contained S/C, such is not the case.S/C takes a crap, you lost boost, so what. Engine starts to deteriorate, i.e. bearings and what-not. So what. At least you can turn around and sell the S/C and recoup some of your loss, or save it for the new motor.

Third: Cost. Kinda already touched on it, but it was said earlier in the thread that you can get a turbo kit for about the same cost as a S/C. Sure...if the only cost you are looking at is parts. LABOR is the killer. In nearly every application, the labor for a turbo setup will cost you...big. Not so with a supercharger, centrifugal or roots/screw type. ESPECIALLY the screw type. And I don't know about you, but I'm not one of the "money is no option" kinda guys. Wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Don't own my own business. Just want to go fast, on as little of my extra cash as possible.

My choice. Superchager. Simpler, safer, cheaper, and still makes great gains.

P.S. Still want that turbo sound? S/C's making enough boost can use a blowoff valve too, for that ever cool "PHiissssss"

Knight

I still say go with a turbo.

And if you worried about cost and heat... this is the way to go.
Not sure if they make em for Mustangs though.

Rear mounted turbo
http://chevyhiperformance.com/techar...48_0502_turbo/

Here they sell for less then 4000 bucks
http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog/?acti...gories&pcid=259

y2kcobrar

Thats gotta be just about the dumbest idea I have ever seen. Ya, lets put it back there, 6 inches from the ground where it can get smacked with rocks, debris, knocked around by speedbumps and backing into the occasional too tall curb. And talk about extra tubing... wanna make boost lag worse? thats how you do it...WTF were those guys smokin'? A sock for the air filter to keep water and dirt out...Geez...Maybe for ideal conditions only would that be a good idea...

Knight

Actually there isn't any more piping there then there would be with traditional turbo with intercooler. So it does not increase lag.

Have you seen the turbo on Vipers or Corvettes...they are also 6 inches from the ground.

Thats pretty far under the car...if you actually parked so bad that a curb got way under there you deserve to break your car.

The only thing bad is the air filter placment as it seems the tire would kick up water on it.

Besides that its a pretty good idea.

Learn about it before you knock it.