Supercharger or Turbo, let the debate begin!
- Thread starter coached4417
- Start date
As said it all depends what your after
Twin Screw gets my vote
The WHY ? would be INSTANT BOOST / hence INSTANT POWER on demand ANYTIME you want it. And you can do it in a day no problem...
If you were looking to build something for the sole purpose of racing and you dont mind the fabrication and amount of time it takes to go Turbo, (or the look) well then maybe Turbo would be a better choice "for you".
Twin Screw gets my vote
The WHY ? would be INSTANT BOOST / hence INSTANT POWER on demand ANYTIME you want it. And you can do it in a day no problem...
If you were looking to build something for the sole purpose of racing and you dont mind the fabrication and amount of time it takes to go Turbo, (or the look) well then maybe Turbo would be a better choice "for you".
Positive displacement supercharger (roots/screw) generally will give you more torque in the less than 3000RPM range than a turbo kit. UNLESS you select a turbo unit that is designed to make boost in that range but it WILL limit your top end power (unless some genius finally puts a staged twin turbo kit . . .I'm still waiting). If you have an automatic, you probably don't care about low end boost/torque
I'm sure there are more than a fair share of termi owners on here that will attest to the incredible off idle torque that their eaton's, kb, whipples make and if you search the posts you'll find some dyno charts. I've had an impossible time finding dyno results in the <3000RPM range on turbo kits probably for good reason.
Also on the mod motors, you can use intercoolers on which is a must for forced induction. No dice on us fox body guys. I'm going turbo kit eventually for that very reason.
At the same boost levels, a turbo kit WILL give you AT LEAST 50HP (@10psi boost range) more than a centfrigual (vortech) kit and more on a positive displacement.
Pros and cons but like its been said, depends on what your goals are.
-Chris
I'm sure there are more than a fair share of termi owners on here that will attest to the incredible off idle torque that their eaton's, kb, whipples make and if you search the posts you'll find some dyno charts. I've had an impossible time finding dyno results in the <3000RPM range on turbo kits probably for good reason.
Also on the mod motors, you can use intercoolers on which is a must for forced induction. No dice on us fox body guys. I'm going turbo kit eventually for that very reason.
At the same boost levels, a turbo kit WILL give you AT LEAST 50HP (@10psi boost range) more than a centfrigual (vortech) kit and more on a positive displacement.
Pros and cons but like its been said, depends on what your goals are.
-Chris
The car the that would be receiving this mod., is an 09' GT manual transmission. At this point the budget is about 5K and I'm still not sure if thats enough for it to be installed. My understanding is that turbo is more expensive but less wear and tear on engine, supercharger cheaper but more wear and tear. The idea is not to really create a track car but I would like to run on one on occassion, lets hope that petition does something, but to create a 400Hp to 500Hp street sleeper that can REALLY handle.
I am really curious about the Edlebrock based on its claim for high horse and low PSI. What are the other performance considerations when adding a boost mod? I have a stock 3:55 rear, does that need to be upgraded, brakes, suspension, engine internals? Your advice is appreciated.
I am really curious about the Edlebrock based on its claim for high horse and low PSI. What are the other performance considerations when adding a boost mod? I have a stock 3:55 rear, does that need to be upgraded, brakes, suspension, engine internals? Your advice is appreciated.
If you want 500hp you will need to upgrade your brakes as well as your suspension. Its great to have 500hp but if you can't stop or handle it your in big trouble. Figure upgrading those two will run you 2k (big brakes are big $$$) and that leaves you 3k to get a SC....and I've never seen a complete SC + install for 3k.
You can but a BRAND NEW Procharger kit for @ 4K for the tuner kit and @5K for the complete kit (intercooler, injectors, pump, custom tune/hand held)
Used they go for 2-3K
I put one on my 99GT in one day all by myself and it came out AWESOME
(I had a shop up the road throw the pump in)
A few things I REALLY LIKED about the Procharger Kit are
#1 No drilling a hole in your oil pan, no secondary oil source needed
#2 Big HP Gains at low Boost
#3 It's nothing more than a Belt driving Turbo
#4 70-75 % INCREASE IN HP over stock numbers
With the Centrifugal Superchargers one of the advantages is if you drive it slow and easy you wont be in the boost at all and will reek the rewards of factory comfort, performance, and economy (MPG), BUT will still have increased HP + Tq. And when you do step into the pedal WATCH OUT !!!
Used they go for 2-3K
I put one on my 99GT in one day all by myself and it came out AWESOME
(I had a shop up the road throw the pump in)
A few things I REALLY LIKED about the Procharger Kit are
#1 No drilling a hole in your oil pan, no secondary oil source needed
#2 Big HP Gains at low Boost
#3 It's nothing more than a Belt driving Turbo
#4 70-75 % INCREASE IN HP over stock numbers
With the Centrifugal Superchargers one of the advantages is if you drive it slow and easy you wont be in the boost at all and will reek the rewards of factory comfort, performance, and economy (MPG), BUT will still have increased HP + Tq. And when you do step into the pedal WATCH OUT !!!
The wear and tear part is debatable. I think there are two reasons why people say turbo's are less wear and tear on the motor. First, the supercharger, as you know uses the crank to spin the compressor and therefore there is additional loading on the crank shaft and bearings from the drive belt. However, I don't think I've seen any proof supporting this on a street kit where moderate boost levels don't require massive tensioning of the belt to avoid belt slippage. Second, when comparing a turbo (exhaust driven centifugal) vs. a centrifugal supercharger of similar trim, a turbo will make more torque lower in the RPM range and will limit the high RPM power when the turbine section section runs out of "steam". The supercharger, when properly pullied, can continue to make power at higher RPM's. However, stress wise, when you combine torque loads with cyclic loads (RPM), its easier on parts life to handle high torque at low RPM than it is to take high torque loads at high RPM. Considering positive displacement superchargers and their massive torque production off idle and inefficiency at high RPM, throw that whole argument out.
Given your car is a stick, primarily a street car, and a relatively heavy car (well compared to fox and sn95), I would go for a positive displacement's massive low RPM torque production/flat torque curve. It'll be more rewarding to mash the throttle at any gear at any RPM and feel forward motion (big block anyone??). And since you're only looking for 400-500HP, you won't really care about the limitations of positive displacement blower inefficiencies at high RPM. With a turbo, if you're cruising <3000RPM, expect to downshift, otherwise it'll feel like a stocker until the boost kicks you in the rear. Check out torque curves on turbo kits below ~3000RPM and you'll see levels similar to a n/a motor. Of course I would not deny the coolness factor and uniqueness of a turbo kit. And a turbo WILL be more efficient than any supercharger kit, could even gain some MPG's (remember that you're just using wasted energy that otherwise goes out your tailpipe).
Regarding Edelbrock's claim on power with lower boost levels, lets remember that power is made by airflow (mass flow) not by boost/pressure. Common misconception. Boost is merely the result of 1)the amount of airflow and 2)the amount of restriction/friction losses. Like flowing water in a pipe, if you increase the flow rate, you get more pressure. Likewise, if you flow the same amount but use a pipe of smaller size, your pressure will go up. What Edelbrock designed was a more efficient pathway from the discharge of the compressor, through the intercooler, and then to the motor. Less losses, less boost/pressure for similar airflow comparative to other brands.
Hope this helps.
-Chris
by the way, there is a post on boost 101 located here:
http://newyorkmustangs.com/forums/boost-101-t132.html
Given your car is a stick, primarily a street car, and a relatively heavy car (well compared to fox and sn95), I would go for a positive displacement's massive low RPM torque production/flat torque curve. It'll be more rewarding to mash the throttle at any gear at any RPM and feel forward motion (big block anyone??). And since you're only looking for 400-500HP, you won't really care about the limitations of positive displacement blower inefficiencies at high RPM. With a turbo, if you're cruising <3000RPM, expect to downshift, otherwise it'll feel like a stocker until the boost kicks you in the rear. Check out torque curves on turbo kits below ~3000RPM and you'll see levels similar to a n/a motor. Of course I would not deny the coolness factor and uniqueness of a turbo kit. And a turbo WILL be more efficient than any supercharger kit, could even gain some MPG's (remember that you're just using wasted energy that otherwise goes out your tailpipe).
Regarding Edelbrock's claim on power with lower boost levels, lets remember that power is made by airflow (mass flow) not by boost/pressure. Common misconception. Boost is merely the result of 1)the amount of airflow and 2)the amount of restriction/friction losses. Like flowing water in a pipe, if you increase the flow rate, you get more pressure. Likewise, if you flow the same amount but use a pipe of smaller size, your pressure will go up. What Edelbrock designed was a more efficient pathway from the discharge of the compressor, through the intercooler, and then to the motor. Less losses, less boost/pressure for similar airflow comparative to other brands.
Hope this helps.
-Chris
by the way, there is a post on boost 101 located here:
http://newyorkmustangs.com/forums/boost-101-t132.html
Help me understand this saying, in that "the supercharger is always on and the turbo is their only when you need it." Somebody in trying to explain the difference between the 2 said this to me and it needs more clarification. So, far what I have learned from you my NY Mustang brethren, is that 5K is not enough to do this the right way and I don't know how to do it any other way. It seems I need to save more if I am going to build the Mustang I am dreaming about and that is not a bad thing, patience isn't one of my strong suits but you can't spend money you don't have.