Jonathon1990vette

what do you think is better guys.. a turbo charger or a super charger..not only power wise but what is better for the over all engine.. wont wear the engine down?.. better bang for the buck?

TPIGUY

I prefer the superchagers, the power responce is faster (turbos have to spool up to speed) and you don't have to do as much plumming. A big plus is not having all that extra heat under the hood.

383tpimachine

twin turbo with nitrous is the best
but i superchargers for regualr driving

ZRWON

Early Magnachargers had stickers/Tshirts that said it all,i.e. " I'd rather be blown than sucked"
IMHO, It still applies today (25+ years later).

redvette6spd

corvettedan22

Superchargers rob power to make power.

Turbo is just plus +++

383tpimachine

but turbos wear out faster dont they
and you have to run oil lines and whatnot

most s/c are just bolt on

NEVRL8T

Wont you get more power from a supercharger?

RogerZ06

That really depends on how many pounds of boost the supercharger can push out. Same with the turbos.

Well Since I've been here I haven't seen any paxton novi 2000 or any other huge superchargers on vettes.

cv67

I prefer superchargers...They both have their pluses and minuses.
S/C you get the extra power from the word go. The turbo cars Ive driven seem to drive like stock, then the boost comes on a little too fast, resulting in a burnout. Once the novelty of that wears off I get frustrated trying to accelerate .Maybe there is a way around that (boost controller?), Im not real hip to forced induction.

Either way for the power increase/$$ they are hard to beat.

vader86

Both have their pluses and minuses as mentioned.

Turbos tend to need to spool up, so the engine itself should be able to make alot of low end torque to get you moving faster, then the turbos kick in to give it more top end power. They are free power though.

SCs are parasitic, like an alternator or water pump, but produce alot more low-end power to complement an engine that makes good top end. The General and other makers use them more now because they can get good numbers from smaller displacements without sacrificing fuel economy.

If I was going to choose one or the other, I'd look at my engine plans first, see where the engine was going to make its power without either, and then decide why I needed one vs. the other on the street or track.

Both can kill a motor just as fast, and I could think of ways to make the same power numbers with each on a street car, so its kinda subjective.

m3t3

It is according to what you need what you want.. For a regular driving with maximum +200 hp , you would use superchargers although with magnachargers and a like superchargers ( I do not like prochagers because of their system) you would possibly get a instant feeling of power from the starting of the engine. However turbo is different , you have a capability to increase your power +1000 hp , these type of big turbos would possibly fill theirselves until to a bigger rpm number than a small turbos like garretts 25-35 numbered. I am using 2871R Garrett in my car, that it fills it self at 2500 rpm and verry enjoyable.. I could get 850 hp even though I need 4L85E conversion kit for my transmission; I have A4 transmission which is very problematic..

m3t3

Although as my friends has said above that engine modifications is probably so important ; I am using forged pistons , titanium connecting rods and new 4 inch crankshaft for my LS2 where it makes it to run more fluently and safety with my turbokit.. Even what ever modification you get into supercharger/turbo I would recommend you to change stock pistons and connecting rods; and if you want to get more power a new crankshaft..

Paul Workman

Picking the fly specs outta the pepper here, the energy to drive the compressor of either system comes from the engine: The supercharger is obvious by way of the pulleys. The power to drive the turbo is in another form; the back pressure and heat (read: energy) generated by the engine (instead of drive belts). Energy (conventionally) is nether created nor destroyed. The power to drive either system comes from the engine. As for efficiency comparisons, there are many variables which determine the answer to that question.

FWIW,

P.

STL94LT1

I have both. A twin turbo C5 and a roots type supercharged Ford Lightning. The roots supercharger is instant hp/tq, but can be hard on the engine and runs out of breath up top. The twin turbos do take a second or two to spool, but once spooled they will pull forever. A centrifical supercharger should be a mix of the two.

rocco16

Supercharger. Not nearly the maintenance once it's on.

Larry
code5coupe

__________
not easily impressed....

Jonathon1990vette

man. its a draw almost.. but it seems one of the big differences is the response of the supercharger giving you immediate pull and the turbo winding up, but having better top end.. but thanks for the idea about changing pistons and rods and that stuff. i was trying to think what would need to be done so i wouldnt blow the engine.. im going to have to start out slowly building up my engine so it can handle the forced air.

C-4 Now

I think superchargers are much easier to use in aftermarket setting! Both require a plan! If correctly done [like any power upgrade] both can put a smile on your face!!

Happydad

I like Mine !!!!

Paul Workman

The MOST drivable car I ever had was my previous '95 LT1 Vette. The reason (you alluded to) is the torque curve of the LT1 is nearly square: it jumps to 90% just off idle and stays flat - pretty much to redline. As result, you have near "max grunt" anywhere on the tac, in any gear. Many times (in traffic) one needs a quick spurt to avoid a situation, and waiting for the turbo to spool, or worse yet, have it suddenly "come on" can dramatically change a particular maneuver's "solution". I never liked that about turbos (allowing too; it all depends on how the system is set up - some are much better drivers than others, I've found).

So, like you said, the application will drive the choices. For a street machine or an auto-cross course racer, the "supercharger" would be the ticket, whereas a "1/4 miler" might find the turbo to be advantageous.

One of the problems I ran into is getting truly objective information and advice: Going to ProCharger, they have their "ultimate" solution; ask Magnuson and they have another. FI gets complicated as the application gets more diverse; rife with advantages and disadvantages. The wider the scope of driving situations, the more complicated the FI system design considerations. But, when the FI is right for he situation - it is a beautiful thing! It really requires a detailed understanding of what the desired use will be in order to get the best match. Otherwise, the compromises (and there are always compromises with FI), can be undesirable at best to a real PIA at worst.

The term, "No free lunch", comes to mind, along with, "There ain't no replacement for displacement!"

FI...Always intriguing!

P.