turbo or s/c ?
05-17-2006, 11:02 AM
#11
1. Turbo's are more "efficient" than a Supercharger, IE, they don't take power to make power like a Supercharger does.
2. Turbo's require more plumbing (single Turbo) or a LOT more plumbing (Twin Turbo) to install. They are typically harder on the engine oil (they have extremely hot exhaust gasses going through them all the time) which may or may not be an issue, depending on how you look at it.
3. On a 302, you can make more power RELIABLY with a Turbo because of the lack of parasitic drag on the engine. With EITHER form of forced-induction you can make enough power to split the block, this is a given, with a Supercharger, that number is ~500RWHP, with a Turbo, that number is ~600RWHP, why? Because technically, both motors are making the same power. The difference is, the Turbo doesn't TAKE any power to run, so the 600RWHP is delivered to the wheels, where as on the Supercharged car, there is a 100HP loss required to run the blower. The 100HP is relative of course, not all of them take that much power, some take less, some take more, its very dependant upon the blower in question and what the actual power numbers you are making are, but its a good point of reference anyways. The same goes for the block, not all stock bottom-ended 302's will take 500/600RWHP reliably, but some will, again, just an average point of reference.
4. Cost and labour: The Supercharger is MUCH easier to install and is much less labour-intensive, this can often be the biggest factor in some people's minds; having their car down for a day or two rather than a week or two for plumbing in the Turbo setup.
5. Tuning: Turbo setups can be more difficult to tune as well, this can also be a factor and a number of people will end up running stand alone fuel management systems in order to tune their setups correctly, like FAST systems and the like.
Hopefully this information is helpful.
-Chris
2. Turbo's require more plumbing (single Turbo) or a LOT more plumbing (Twin Turbo) to install. They are typically harder on the engine oil (they have extremely hot exhaust gasses going through them all the time) which may or may not be an issue, depending on how you look at it.
3. On a 302, you can make more power RELIABLY with a Turbo because of the lack of parasitic drag on the engine. With EITHER form of forced-induction you can make enough power to split the block, this is a given, with a Supercharger, that number is ~500RWHP, with a Turbo, that number is ~600RWHP, why? Because technically, both motors are making the same power. The difference is, the Turbo doesn't TAKE any power to run, so the 600RWHP is delivered to the wheels, where as on the Supercharged car, there is a 100HP loss required to run the blower. The 100HP is relative of course, not all of them take that much power, some take less, some take more, its very dependant upon the blower in question and what the actual power numbers you are making are, but its a good point of reference anyways. The same goes for the block, not all stock bottom-ended 302's will take 500/600RWHP reliably, but some will, again, just an average point of reference.
4. Cost and labour: The Supercharger is MUCH easier to install and is much less labour-intensive, this can often be the biggest factor in some people's minds; having their car down for a day or two rather than a week or two for plumbing in the Turbo setup.
5. Tuning: Turbo setups can be more difficult to tune as well, this can also be a factor and a number of people will end up running stand alone fuel management systems in order to tune their setups correctly, like FAST systems and the like.
Hopefully this information is helpful.
-Chris
05-18-2006, 10:16 PM
#12
Basically for a daily driver, a supercharger would be the logical choice, a roots-style would be optimum, but a centri would work well too, I guess it all depends on what you want. A centrifugal works best at higher rpm, a roots better at lowerrpm, more of a flat power curve, also easier on the engine IMO, a roots of course is more expensive, the KB unit is very nice, if you can afford it.
06-13-2006, 11:53 PM
#15
I was sold on turbos until I figure out it would cost me about 3k plus tuning and a supercharger w/intercooler is gonna cost me 1500, plus tuning.Both used prices)
Since I want to install my self and this is my first power adder, im gonna go with the s/c.
cheaper and easier, and with my combo about the same hp.
just more boost to get the hp level with s/c.
:
its the turbo vs s/c war.....
Since I want to install my self and this is my first power adder, im gonna go with the s/c.
cheaper and easier, and with my combo about the same hp.
just more boost to get the hp level with s/c.
:
its the turbo vs s/c war.....
07-23-2006, 03:44 PM
#17
CMOC Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 19
Every one is saying that turbos are "free power" and that s/c's take power to make power. When both require power to make power, with a turbo you are suvearly restrict exhaust flow in order to spin the impellers, and make boost. As well you are going to have to wait for that flow to gain enough momentum to make boost, ie turbo lag, this lag could be shortened by going to a twin turbo set up, a shorter spool time but less top end than a massive single. Really, power is cool how ever you make it :thumb1:
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
