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.
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