Turbo Vs. S/C

[Tuck&Poke]

so what would you guys choose if you had the option?

[AceInHole]

Turbocharger: no parasitic loss, and more potential for higher HP.  Done right... it's possible to lag less than a supercharger.

[AmericanBornSilvia]

Mmmm..Supercharger if I was lazy as hell..but depends on what size is the blower is...btw isn't someone working on a supercharger system? I wonder what size the blower they are using..M45 or a M62. Blah screw it TURBO &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/thumbs-up.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':thumbsup:'>

[Ni5mo180SX]

turbo

[DSC]

Both! Rally style <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

Or just a turbo I guess

[BlackS14]

Turbo...all the way. Be it minute, the small parasitic loss of hp that it takes to run a s/c just bugs the crap out of me. Add to the fact that turbos of today are so damn reliable and the technology continues to grow regarding thier workings...it's hard to not want one.

my .02 cents!

[whateverjames]

turbos seem to have a better feel when not under wide open throttle. driving my aunts GTP is boring as hell....until you floor it, then it's nice. with my friends TT Z, there is a lot more mid range torque when not under WOT. even if i were to buy a mustang or camaro, i'd have to get an incon turbo setup, like some have done. i have a video of a z28 dynoing at 478hp at the wheels with a twin turbo setup.

[zephyr]

i'd only supercharge if i had a really good engine
like an m3 running at 14psi supercharged
of course you get much better numbers with an m3 tt
oh god im gonna have good dreams tonight

[Tuck&Poke]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whateverjames @ Mar. 07 2002,11:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">turbos seem to have a better feel when not under wide open throttle. driving my aunts GTP is boring as hell....until you floor it, then it's nice. with my friends TT Z, there is a lot more mid range torque when not under WOT. even if i were to buy a mustang or camaro, i'd have to get an incon turbo setup, like some have done. i have a video of a z28 dynoing at 478hp at the wheels with a twin turbo setup.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
yeh i saw that video. &nbsp;theres a tt kit for a 5.0 mustang that gives you 1100hp...crazy shit. the kit is like 8g's and includes the internals. thats insane youd have to take off in 3 or 4th gear in normal driving so you wont peel out. &nbsp;and i bet that clutch is rock solid

[Jeff240sx]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BlackS14 @ Mar. 08 2002,12:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Turbo...all the way. Be it minute, the small parasitic loss of hp that it takes to run a s/c just bugs the crap out of me. Add to the fact that turbos of today are so damn reliable and the technology continues to grow regarding thier workings...it's hard to not want one.

my .02 cents!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
About 6 months ago, in SCC, they had a supercharger vs turbo 12-part comparison in the 'suck squish bang blow' section.
The simple fact was they both had a parasitic loss. &nbsp;
The superchargers was from the crank driving the compressor, and was NOT a minute, small parasitic loss. &nbsp;It was 61 hp on a Prelude, and 800hp on a top fuel dragster.
The turbo charger's parasitic loss was due to the forced air moving in the cylinder as the piston was rising. &nbsp;This caused the piston to slow down on the upstroke more than it sped up the lowering of the piston in the other cylinder. &nbsp;The end result was that a supercharger drew 61 hp to make a positive 60 hp or so, and the turbocharger caused a 17hp loss to make a positive 80-some hp.
Please forgive me on the numbers if they are off, but I did read this half a year ago. &nbsp;And I am sure the 61 and 17 hp loss numbers are right, but not the end result and not the make of car.
Just bringing this up to help...
-Jeff

[gman240]

Limited in my knowledge of the subject right now only have rolled in a turbo charged VW and my NA 240 well. I may have to say if money were not the object and could have anything done I would want both. The super charger to carry from Intial drop of the throttle and then have it fade out as the turbo spooled up.

[Ni5mo180SX]

Cool concept but not really useful at all when trying to gain huge power.

[DrDubbleB]

Turbo all the way, they are much more efficient, and at the same PSI, they are actually making more power than S/C's for that reason. Hey, if Porsche engineers say turbo is better, then I do too!!!

Edited for bad grammar, not like I normally care...

[junia]

Go with the twin chargers or as nissan calls it the "super turbo" &nbsp;remember the nissan march super turbo....Auto Shop Turbo in Okinawa, Japan had a silvia with a super turbo setup about 4 or 5 years ago if I'm not mistaking. &nbsp;it was a CA engine and it pushed 400 plus HP at the wheels(they have a dyno in their shop) &nbsp;I forgot what they called it though.

[sspikey]

i thought this up a while back not sure if it would work though. have two turbos on a car. a small and big one. how it would work would be the first turbo would run normally and once it would spool would actuate a valve to the second turbo so the smaller turbo would spool the bigger one. just a though messing around in class bored outta my ass so dont flame me please.

[Jeff240sx]

That is how most twin turbo cars work. &nbsp;Technically speaking, there is not a twin turbo, but a sequential turbo. &nbsp;One is always made to spool up faster than the other, and the slow spooler is made to give big power, and the fast spooler is made to reduce the turbo lag... and fill in for the larger one.
-Jeff

[DrDubbleB]

I think he was joking, and already knew that. &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sly.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':sly:'>

[sspikey]

no actually thought that up myself. geography class gets VERYYYYY boring. wtf am i up a 4:15? &nbsp;<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sleeping.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':zzzz:'>

[thewholefnshow]

Is everyone forgetting cost and practicality? And retard (almost) can bolt up a supercharger to their car without worries of the torture your engine will soon undergo, turbos are so much harder to install and require a lot more work to be done right. Superchargers are as close to plug and play power as you can get. I want a turbo, but if someone makes a supercharger that lays down 250 horses, I am first in line, cause that is enough power for me, and I know I won't have to spend 1000 bucks getting it installed, I will just need a weekend and a well llit garage. And superchargers are getting better all the time, like the centrifugal style which is basically a turbo that runs of the pully rather than exhuast gases...

But I would love that turbo hks made... the supercharger turbocharger combo that is in the Meguires Integra and in lots of MR2's... 4 psi super 16 psi turbo = 465 hp at the wheels.... that is impressive out of a 1.8... imagine that on a 2.4

[mbrady]

Both turbocharging and supercharging have their own unique advantages and disadvantages. The most important factors when choosing a forced induction setup are the owners needs, wants, and finances. Currently, turbocharging has the upperhand in terms of maximum output and flexibility. This is a result of the turbocharger's efficientcy. However, superchargers, both postive-displacement and centrifugal types, have proven to be equally capable if given equal amounts of R&D. The turbocharger has had more development and therefore is the ultimate in high performance today. In the future this could change, look at the developments being made by Vortech and Jackson Racing.

[junia]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sspikey @ Mar. 10 2002,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i thought this up a while back not sure if it would work though. have two turbos on a car. a small and big one. how it would work would be the first turbo would run normally and once it would spool would actuate a valve to the second turbo so the smaller turbo would spool the bigger one. just a though messing around in class bored outta my ass so dont flame me please.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I think thats how the mazda rx-7 fd works, I think it was called sequential twin turbos

[thewholefnshow]

The dodge stealth worked that way, but the best example is the Audi S4 Biturbo, They are two turbos, the first one is smaller spools in an instant almost no lag at all, the second is slightly larger, and spools of the first. I have seen this kind of turbo kit for the 240sx, its adapted from the Dodge Stealth Twin Turbo.

I would have to say supercharger. &nbsp;I like turbos, dont get me wrong (my dad had a volvo 740 turbo, and man that wagon was quick!<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'> but I like the fact that a s/c is instant power. &nbsp;Granted there is a parasitic loss... theres a loss from the power steering too!!!! &nbsp;
If you want to make more power with a s/c, get a smaller pully. Simple. &nbsp;Also, there is no dificulty figuring out exhast routing. &nbsp;
Im not sure on this one, but I would think an s/c is lighter too... no piping, waste gate, intercooler, etc. &nbsp;
I would think an s/c engine is more 'streetable' or drivable too. &nbsp;With a Hi performance turbo engine, when you stomp on it, there is the initial 'launch' but then when the turbo kicks in there is a sudden jolt of power. &nbsp;This is a cool feeling mind you, but only if you are prepared! lol &nbsp;
&nbsp;On top of all this, turbos have to be looked after. &nbsp;You cant turn the car on and just go. &nbsp;They need to warm up. &nbsp;And after a drive, they need a few mins to spin down. (you cant just park an shut it off) &nbsp; Slightly off topic here, but thats the reason most of the 80's Chrysler turbo's die. &nbsp;Poor maintinence, and sudden stars and stops. &nbsp;(chrysler didn't inform ppl of the extra care involved with a turbo car) &nbsp;Well... this got a bit long.. I will stop now! &nbsp; If I'm way off on anything here ppl, let me know.

[ca18guy]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (thewholefnshow @ Mar. 12 2002,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The dodge stealth worked that way, but the best example is the Audi S4 Biturbo, They are two turbos, the first one is smaller spools in an instant almost no lag at all, the second is slightly larger, and spools of the first. I have seen this kind of turbo kit for the 240sx, its adapted from the Dodge Stealth Twin Turbo.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
UMMM the dodge stealth/3000GT was Twin Turbo like the 300ZX, the RX-7 and Supra are sequential.

[BlackS14]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jeff240sx @ Mar. 10 2002,6:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteBegin--BlackS14+Mar. 08 2002,12<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BlackS14 @ Mar. 08 2002,12<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>6)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Turbo...all the way. Be it minute, the small parasitic loss of hp that it takes to run a s/c just bugs the crap out of me. Add to the fact that turbos of today are so damn reliable and the technology continues to grow regarding thier workings...it's hard to not want one.

my .02 cents!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
About 6 months ago, in SCC, they had a supercharger vs turbo 12-part comparison in the 'suck squish bang blow' section.
The simple fact was they both had a parasitic loss.
The superchargers was from the crank driving the compressor, and was NOT a minute, small parasitic loss. It was 61 hp on a Prelude, and 800hp on a top fuel dragster.
The turbo charger's parasitic loss was due to the forced air moving in the cylinder as the piston was rising. This caused the piston to slow down on the upstroke more than it sped up the lowering of the piston in the other cylinder. The end result was that a supercharger drew 61 hp to make a positive 60 hp or so, and the turbocharger caused a 17hp loss to make a positive 80-some hp.
Please forgive me on the numbers if they are off, but I did read this half a year ago. And I am sure the 61 and 17 hp loss numbers are right, but not the end result and not the make of car.
Just bringing this up to help...
-Jeff</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Point taken....should have stated that the parasitic loss is realized in both, just that much greater in the s/c...thanks for the heads up though:)

[thewholefnshow]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ca18guy @ Mar. 10 2002,11:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (thewholefnshow @ Mar. 12 2002,03:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The dodge stealth worked that way, but the best example is the Audi S4 Biturbo, They are two turbos, the first one is smaller spools in an instant almost no lag at all, the second is slightly larger, and spools of the first. I have seen this kind of turbo kit for the 240sx, its adapted from the Dodge Stealth Twin Turbo.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
UMMM the dodge stealth/3000GT was Twin Turbo like the 300ZX, the RX-7 and Supra are sequential.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I need to see that engine bay, I know it is a v6 so they should be on completely different sides, but I have heard that the Stealth is labelled a twin, but in practice works more like a sequential or bi-turbo.... anyone actually have a pic. I would like to see the engine bay. I know that I have been on a 240sx turbo site, where they are building a biturbo using stealth parts. A small spool turbo and a quite large secondary one...

[ca18guy]

http://www.3si.org/member-home/jlucius3/j3-3Senginecutaway.jpg
As you can see one turbo on the front, and another turbo hiding in the back on the other bank of cylinders.

[junia]

I wonder what would happen if you tried a sequental setup with a stock t28 turbo and a t88 or something. &nbsp;Maybe that would just be idiotic...... <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/hehe.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':hehe:'>

[whateverjames]

i believe the 300zx and stealth were twin turbo and the rx7 and supra were sequential. you can make a sequential a true twin setup, according to mkiv.com...for the supra at least