Turbo or Supercharger?????

[SonnyakaPig]

Originally Posted by Da Hose

But for all intensive purposes...they force more air and gas into the cylinders right.... I guess what I'm getting at is, that is their main reason for being!!!

so I'm guessing that the different ways of doing that is what is producing the vastly different dyno numbers. I know a lot has to do with how much boost and so forth. Just curious if you had say 6 lbs of boost on a twin screw maggie might make 500 hp and 6 lbs of boost on a turbo or pro charger might make 580 hp...they are essentially doing the same thing right?

RPM Motors has a twin turbo setup coming out that is highly efficient. I think it makes over 630 hp with less than 7 psi of boost.

Like other centrifugals, Pro Charger can give you very high linear power, but I would guess that you would need over 9 psi of boost to achieve higher than 600 hp with their kit.

And the twin turbo setup gives a lot more torque at a lower rpm than centrifugals.

Also, the twin turbo applications on the Camaro SS are mounted outside the engine compartment, either under the front of the car or rear of the car, so there is much less heat in the engine bay than there is with centrifugals.

[AlSuwaidi]

Originally Posted by axis

That depends on which SC you're comparing it to. A turbo is more closely related to the Procharger and Vortech SC's. Both of these provide a vastly different power curve than the top mounted twin screws. There are pros/cons to all three though. You need to decide what your plans for the car are and what you want from it down the road.

+1

[SonnyakaPig]

Originally Posted by axis

As said before, a engine is basically an airpump. The more air you push through your engine, the more HP it makes. There are NUMEROUS ways to do this but FI gives the most gains. The different SC's and turbos vary in efficiency so that's where the variations in HP/tq come from. SC's are run off a pulley that creates drag on the engine. This is what it means to use power to make power since that drag will suck HP from the car. Just like turning on the AC but a SC sucks more HP. A turbo is run off the expelled exhaust so it doesn't take power away from the engine to make power. Top mounts produce near instant tq since there's litterally inches between the impellers and the heads. This can be a good thing or bad thing, depending on how badly you abuse your car. Instant tq will eat up a drivetrain but can be mad fun to have that much tq available that quickly. All of them produce a very similar HP curve, in terms of onset and rise. A properly sized turbo should make a tad more HP/boost since it's the most efficient and should be easier on the drivetrain since your Tq isn't instant. It does come on quickly though.

Good points.

My short experience with a centrifugal on my L99 was that when peak boost came on, the drivetrain, most notably the transmission still had to handle that extra power. And the centri on my car for some reason was not even making very much extra power, but still, you could feel that extra surge add some stress to the car. I could only imagine what a properly tuned centri feels like when the boost really comes on.

So, my point is that centris too can really affect the drivetrain, even though the torque peaks higher up in the RPM band.

[mcdoogle6969]

In my opinion a roots blower would be more fun. low rpm torque = a blast. I heard from many people that they get bored with a procharger/turbo because they have to be going at high speeds/rpms to really get the most fun out of it.

Don't ask people on forums for opinions like this because you shouldn't base what is better or what you would rather have over what others say.
Unless your just asking to what others think about turbo's and blower's. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, falling asleep at the keyboard here.

For me, id rather have the low end grunt. The Camaro is already fast enough at higher speeds...plus i can't stand the noise of a turbo. It's like nails on chalk board to me.

[GQ4Life]

When it comes down to it. Turbo wins hands down. You can make more HP, makes good low end tq, and doesnt hurt MPG at all.. You can control boost from inside the car.. you can control boost per gear to have have lower boost for 1st gear launching..
Ive had turbos for years and loved it..

Supercharger just cheaper and has instant response.
Love the sound of a turbo.. well and superchargers too

If you only looking for 600wHP range and less then supercharger prob best just because they are usually cheaper when counting parts and install

[SonnyakaPig]

Originally Posted by GQ4Life

When it comes down to it. Turbo wins hands down. You can make more HP, makes good low end tq, and doesnt hurt MPG at all.. You can control boost from inside the car.. you can control boost per gear to have have lower boost for 1st gear launching..
Ive had turbos for years and loved it..

Supercharger just cheaper and has instant response.
Love the sound of a turbo.. well and superchargers too

If you only looking for 600wHP range and less then supercharger prob best just because they are usually cheaper when counting parts and install

Good points.

[axis]

Originally Posted by SonnyakaPig

Good points.

My short experience with a centrifugal on my L99 was that when peak boost came on, the drivetrain, most notably the transmission still had to handle that extra power. And the centri on my car for some reason was not even making very much extra power, but still, you could feel that extra surge add some stress to the car. I could only imagine what a properly tuned centri feels like when the boost really comes on.

So, my point is that centris too can really affect the drivetrain, even though the torque peaks higher up in the RPM band.

I see what you're saying but it's generally not the peak HP/tq that kills you going down the track. It's usually right off the line or within the first 60ft. That tells me that the faster your car makes tq, the more strain that is put on the drivetrain. Think about it, what would be harder on a axle, gears, etc? A gradual increase in tq or instant? That's not saying that turbos and centri's won't break drivetrain parts, just that they are easier on them.

Originally Posted by mcdoogle6969

In my opinion a roots blower would be more fun. low rpm torque = a blast. I heard from many people that they get bored with a procharger/turbo because they have to be going at high speeds/rpms to really get the most fun out of it.

For me, id rather have the low end grunt. The Camaro is already fast enough at higher speeds...plus i can't stand the noise of a turbo. It's like nails on chalk board to me.

What's your definition of highspeed? I know VRE's single setup as well as Fastlanes have very nice tq numbers by 2.5k rpm. 400/2.5k rpm, 500/3k rpm, 650/3.5k rpm, 730/4k rpm doesn't sound like it has to be "highspeed" to me,

[axis]

Originally Posted by Cole@Fastlane

Superior meaning SUPERIOR.you can split hairs all you want but anywhere in the useable (and i appologize in advance if useable is not understood here)rpm band a turbo is going to be superior meaning produce more torque when applied to the same cubic inch displacement engine.

When you can make 300 foot pounds at 3000 rpm and 550 at 3500 rpm 750 at 4000 and peak 920 at 4500 rpm.

Sorry but you and granatelli can have that 2500 rpm and under stuff

As a LONG time turbo guy, i'm not doubting you. I was just stating that you have to define your pararmeters. The topmount SC guys will always tout the low RPM tq. Quite simply a turbo can't do that, while still giving the mid and highend punch. Whether or not it's useable is another thing and a matter of opinion. AdamST sports a KB that is running low 10's so that says a LOT. That's not saying that they are superior, just that they aren't totally worthless. I think a turbo is easier to get off the line and all things being somewhat equal will probably give the better times.

[mcdoogle6969]

Originally Posted by axis

What's your definition of highspeed? I know VRE's single setup as well as Fastlanes have very nice tq numbers by 2.5k rpm. 400/2.5k rpm, 500/3k rpm, 650/3.5k rpm, 730/4k rpm doesn't sound like it has to be "highspeed" to me,

Highspeed as in highspeed, only time i mentioned anything about RPMs was when i said i like the blower more due to the low end grunt. I'm not going to be taking the car 140+ it's not needed. I don't need the punch of a turbo at those speeds when a blower can give the low end grunt i want, and will be quite fine if i do take it up a notch.

[axis]

Originally Posted by mcdoogle6969

Highspeed as in highspeed, only time i mentioned anything about RPMs was when i said i like the blower more due to the low end grunt. I'm not going to be taking the car 140+ it's not needed. I don't need the punch of a turbo at those speeds when a blower can give the low end grunt i want, and will be quite fine if i do take it up a notch.

So you think a turbo is only good when you're going in excess of 100mph? I think you might need to ride in a turbo car that is fed by 6.2 liters of exhaust. You will be quite amazed at just how fast it does come on.

[mcdoogle6969]

Nah, i think a turbo is better for people who want to take their car to the tracks. For DD's or people who just want the low end grunt whenever/wherever a blower would be better, don't you agree? Plus i love the sound that a supercharger makes

Plus, there has been Camaro's with blowers on them getting into the 10's. That's good enough!

[BlownChevy]

Originally Posted by Cole@Fastlane

Sorry but you and granatelli can have that 2500 rpm and under stuff

I will gladly take that.....99.9% of drivers are in the 2500 to 4500 rpm range....

I would rather give up the perceived efficiency of a turbo for the driveability and reliability of a supercharger any day of the week.

Before you go there:

Yes, I have owned turbo vehicles, installed turbo "kits", and sold turbo systems. In my opinion (yes I am entitled to have one) they are riddled with issues that not only cost the customer time and frustration, they cost the installer MONEY.

[Da Hose]

Originally Posted by BlownChevy

I will gladly take that.....99.9% of drivers are in the 2500 to 4500 rpm range....

I would rather give up the perceived efficiency of a turbo for the driveability and reliability of a supercharger any day of the week.

Before you go there:

Yes, I have owned turbo vehicles, installed turbo "kits", and sold turbo systems. In my opinion (yes I am entitled to have one) they are riddled with issues that not only cost the customer time and frustration, they cost the installer MONEY.

How long ago did you have your Turbo? Not that I know that much about them....But I was talking to a customer of Fastlane's that has one of the top mounted turbo kits installed on his Camaro....he says he has put about 6500 miles on his car with no issues what so ever...he has only had the installation tune and never had to go back to the shop. He also says that he drives his car like he stole it....very hard.....So was the lask of reliability issues with your turbo recent or from a few years back...just wondering????

Thanks,

Ronnie

[GQ4Life]

Originally Posted by BlownChevy

I will gladly take that.....99.9% of drivers are in the 2500 to 4500 rpm range....

I would rather give up the perceived efficiency of a turbo for the driveability and reliability of a supercharger any day of the week.

Before you go there:

Yes, I have owned turbo vehicles, installed turbo "kits", and sold turbo systems. In my opinion (yes I am entitled to have one) they are riddled with issues that not only cost the customer time and frustration, they cost the installer MONEY.

I dont get it.. who floors it at 2500rpms.. thats cruising RPMs when you want to go fast you down shift..
theres no real high boost till you floor it..