Supercharger or Turbo, let the debate begin!

P

ProjectSVO

Well-Known Member
#42
#42
coached4417 said:
The idea is not to really create a track car but I would like to run on one on occassion, but to create a 400Hp to 500Hp street sleeper that can REALLY handle.
Click to expand...
Yank that V8 lump & sell it, then swap in a 4cyl 2.3L Turbo........

Cause what you just described is my '86 SVO street car, only I've got a little more rear wheel than 500Hp.
:rock::rock:
 
T

turbo05

Well-Known Member
#44
#44
No other way but turbo..todays turbos spool up waaaay faster then the old ones..lag is a thing of the past. todays kits dont require any fabrication, they are direct bolt on kits. no relocation of p/s, or a/c. my turbonetics kit was easy to install and very fun to drive. pound for pound of boost the turbo will always out perform a superchareger..you dont have to worry about belt slippage, pressure on the snout of the crank etc..hands down, turbo is the way to go! with the turbo blanket, the underhood temps are low as well..the kits now are about the same price as a good supercharger kit..ive had both, i will never go with anything other than a turbo!
 
cobra20sc

cobra20sc

Well-Known Member
#45
#45
coached4417 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The saying quoted above doesn't really mean anything or is worded incorrectly. Its true that a supercharger is always spinning in relation to the crank shaft. So in terms of response (maybe what is being referenced as "supercharger is always on"), you will always have a quicker response from a supercharger than a turbo when you snap the throttle, no matter how quickly turbos these days can spool. The response time of the supercharger will be directly related to the response time of the bypass valve closing which is must faster than any turbo can accumulate enough momentum from the exhaust in the turbine section to spool up the compressor.
It is also not true that you will rob a lot of power off of the crank at low load when the engine is pulling vacuum since the bypass valve is open and is recirculating the air at the discharge of the compressor back to its inlet and therefore no compression of air and therefore no work associated with that process. So the only load required by the supercharger will be that to overcome the friction losses of the bearings which is minimal.
Turbos and superchargers are there only when you need it.
How bad are the brakes on a stock 09 Mustang? I thought they were half way decent, I'm sure a heck of a lot better than the stock fox brakes! I would think you could just replace the brake pads with some nice Hawk performance pads, replace the brake lines with some steel braided lines and call it done (at least temporarily).

-Chris
 
jkstang78

jkstang78

Well-Known Member
#47
#47
cobra20sc said:
How bad are the brakes on a stock 09 Mustang? I thought they were half way decent, I'm sure a heck of a lot better than the stock fox brakes! I would think you could just replace the brake pads with some nice Hawk performance pads, replace the brake lines with some steel braided lines and call it done (at least temporarily).

-Chris
Click to expand...

If the 09 brakes are bad. Then I must be dong something good. Since I have stock 91 GT brakes on my car. And going mid 9s @ 143 and I don't have any problems stoping my car. I still have drums in the back also. But will be changeing to a rear disk brake system soon. Since I will be doing car shows with the car this year and hate the way drums look with good rims.
 
cobra20sc

cobra20sc

Well-Known Member
#48
#48
coached4417 said:
Chris,
your treatise on the different types of boost and how they work was exactly what this science teacher needed an education in understanding why each system does what it does. Are turbo Mustangs that uncommon or is it that Superchargers are more cost friendly and easier to install? Do you have a company you prefer over the others available and a shop you have used to install?
I really appreciate the time you took to answer.
Click to expand...
Turbo kits are more common these days but the supercharger kits have been around for awhile, plenty of time for these kits to mature and gain experience. As far as cost friendly, on a fox body, its tough to beat a B&G turbo kit for $2900. If you're comparing prices, make sure to understand exactly what is included in the kit, some kits are all inclusive (injectors, fuel pumps, flashed computer tunes, FMU's, etc. etc. etc.) Some kits may not.
I'm afraid I'm no help when it comes to what kits to look at. I only have experience with Vortech and have been very satisfied with the kit both from an installation stand point and a durability (had it with no issues since 2000 and about 40K miles). However, it is a centrifigal compressor and that is my only complaint.
-Chris
 
coached4417

coached4417

Well-Known Member
#49
#49
The turbo party is presenting some food for thought in my decision making process. What is the durability and maintenance on a turbo system and how does it effect daily driving vs the supercharger? How much of the engine has to come apart to install either system?
 
cobra20sc

cobra20sc

Well-Known Member
#50
#50
jkstang78 said:
If the 09 brakes are bad. Then I must be dong something good. Since I have stock 91 GT brakes on my car. And going mid 9s @ 143 and I don't have any problems stoping my car. I still have drums in the back also. But will be changeing to a rear disk brake system soon. Since I will be doing car shows with the car this year and hate the way drums look with good rims.
Click to expand...
to further that, my brother raced his 92 Mustang with a full suspension kit, stock 93 cobra brakes (wonder where he got that from) sans Hawk pads and steel braided lines at Lime Rock and won ESP in NYR SCCA with that setup (I forgot the year)
 
coached4417

coached4417

Well-Known Member
#51
#51
Chris,
Yeah I was probably misquoting the statement but you answered the implied questions. As for the brakes on my 09', I think they are adequate but I've never had a boosted car and it would seem if an upgrade is necessary you should probably do the brakes first while you have the money. I've been up to 110mph but had a enough room left over to let it coast down to reasonable speeds. My concern is its my daily driver, not that it would stop me from modifying it, but I need to factor that in as I do this.
 
cobra20sc

cobra20sc

Well-Known Member
#52
#52
jkstang78 said:
I owned my car for 4 years now. With the same turbo kit on it. As many know Muscle Mustang and Fast Fords did all the work on this car. That kit has really been on the car since 02/03. It has been very relaible It has prove that is can go fast. My best being a 9.46 @ 143 with 13 psi and 65mm Turbo. So isn't even a large race turbo. It can go max of 30 psi. So I still have a lot of room. I plan on running 25 psi this year just have to go get my race tune tweaked for it. I'm going to try and break into the 8's with this little 65 mm turbo.

Turbo systems can be a very good for making power and going fast. If you look at most NMRA races, They are switching to turbo setups. Even regular car companies. Use either turbo setups to make power. Audi, BMW, Even Fords new Eco-boost motors are Turbocharged.
Click to expand...
Turbo kits are definitely more efficient and with the rising costs of gas prices and government mandates on manufacturers to meet mpg requirements, that is the way to go.

Are you running an automatic in your car?

What's the lowest RPM your turbos spool up at? Reworded differently, about how much boost are you running at 2000RPM? I'm continually shopping for turbo kits for the day I can buy one and that is a prerequisite for me, boost response at off idle . . .and I don't want to cap power off at 5000rpm.

-Chris
 
coached4417

coached4417

Well-Known Member
#53
#53
Chris,
Need some more education, you mentioned the complaint being a centrifugal compressor, is that the same as saying twin screw or roots type supercharger? I know the vocab. not necessarily the meaning. What are the draw backs of the centrifugal ?
Thanks.
 
cobra20sc

cobra20sc

Well-Known Member
#54
#54
turbo05 said:
No other way but turbo..todays turbos spool up waaaay faster then the old ones..lag is a thing of the past. todays kits dont require any fabrication, they are direct bolt on kits. no relocation of p/s, or a/c. my turbonetics kit was easy to install and very fun to drive. pound for pound of boost the turbo will always out perform a superchareger..you dont have to worry about belt slippage, pressure on the snout of the crank etc..hands down, turbo is the way to go! with the turbo blanket, the underhood temps are low as well..the kits now are about the same price as a good supercharger kit..ive had both, i will never go with anything other than a turbo!
Click to expand...
Let me first say that I am a proponent of turbos over superchargers, as an engineer, turbos just make thermodynamic sense, hands down. But I do believe there is an advantage for each based on a specific application so I'd like to play devils advocate here and propose a study.

I would like to see dyno graphs (torque curves really) of similar engine setups (displacement, valve/head, etc) one with a turbo kit, one with a positive displacement supercharger (eaton, whipple, kb, etc), and one with a centrifigul supercharger (vortech, procharger) all setup for the same max boost levels. I know there will be a lot of variability in the combinations but maybe we can get lucky and have some apples to apples comparison. Since I'm suggesting it, of course I'll volunteer to collate and do the comparisons. Any takers??

-Chris
 
cobra20sc

cobra20sc

Well-Known Member
#55
#55
coached4417 said:
Chris,
Need some more education, you mentioned the complaint being a centrifugal compressor, is that the same as saying twin screw or roots type supercharger? I know the vocab. not necessarily the meaning. What are the draw backs of the centrifugal ?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Centrifugal superchargers compress air and drive more airflow based on compressor speed. Positive displacement superchargers (like kb, eaton, and whipple) are constant volume compressors that pass a fixed amount of air with each rotation of the pulley.
Since the centrugal superchargers builds airflow with compressor speed, at low RPM's power production is weak. For example, my combination makes only 2psig of boost at 3000RPM. I think the 03 cobra with the stock Eaton makes 8psig at 2500RPM or possibly even lower.
 
coached4417

coached4417

Well-Known Member
#56
#56
Thanks for the help. I hope you get some takers on your experiment, as a science teacher the results would be interesting considering my questions. Low end torque not good on turbos and centrifugal chargers, which could end a race right away with a bad start or an inability to get off the line. So why go anywhere else then the positive displacement? Turbos, in my understanding also cap off at a certain rpm range, right?
So I am assuming the benefits to the other 2 are the level of power they produce is greater when in the mid rpm ranges, enough to make it worth while, if the race is long enough (1/4 mile). (I think out loud, in my attempt to understand all of this.) What are the negatives of the positive displacement?
 
TBapp3

TBapp3

Northern NY Regional Coordinator
#57
#57
lol I dont think there are any

but I have heard that some may be.....You will lose a little MPG because your engine needs to turn the supercharger...The other one Iv heard is the fact that its belt driven, there is always a possibility of the belt breaking

This is just info I have gathered from being part of the forum not outta experience but Im pretty sure its right!:ilovenym:
 
P

ProjectSVO

Well-Known Member
#60
#60
shady-ooc said:
here is my dyno with a 76mm turbo, 9.1:1 comp, 17psi

link to vid
http://s674.photobucket.com/albums/vv106/shady-ooc/?action=view&current=mustangdyno.flv&newest=1
Click to expand...

Very nice :awesomework:

There was some discussion earlier about comparing power adders on the same engine. While I can't help with that what I can do is present this for comparison sake.


Here is mine on low boost & 93 pump gas,


Similar power only higher in the RPM range could be due to less cubes(almost 1/2?), different turbo(T4 frame 6?mm), less CR(less than 8:1) & more boost (21-22psi).

So, we all agree Turbos FTUMFW ?

Now just keep saving :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.