oh what the heck...........why not be the first to post!
what do you consider better super charger? or a turbo?

and support your reasoning........not just because someone said it was better

 

Upon reading about the KB/Whipple style, I would have to say I perfer the low end tq over the turbo lag. Why wait to build boost when I can hammer down for (almost) instant power.

 

almost gotta agree, but you cant beat the look of twin turbos, untill you get the roots through the hood!

 

I like superchargers more, but it's just preference to me, turbos and superchargers have their own benefits and disadvantages. I don't think turbos should be in trucks, they should be in high reving car motors.

 

if I would have gotten that little mustang i would have tossed a turbo on it, and stuck my foot in it till it blew- oh how much fun!

 

Better let Peterbuilt in on this Justin! Obviously we are talking gasoline powered pickup engines here. A small turbo on a V8 could have you at 6psi by 1500rpm. You wouldn't be getting big boost numbers but it would be much more efficient and work just as well as a small supercharger. My cougar with the 2.3L was getting full boost (14psi) at 2750rpm. Not bad for a little 4 banger. I think the same turbo would be great on a 300I6 or a 302.

 

TURBO ALL THE WAY!

a centrifugal supercharger takes in the neighborhood of 40-70hp to spin at high rpm (40,000-60,000 impeller rpm), a turbo, well the backpressure it adds to a system, which is different in every app, usually costs in the range of 5-12hp at full bost, thus full backpressure....not to mention, its always there as a result of LOAD, not rpm....assuming it's sized correctly......i had a vortech S-trim on my 02gt, spinning to 10 psi, it laid down 408rwhp, and 377ftlbs at the rear wheels on pump gas.....those figures with a turbo, properly sized, and installed, should have been about 450-480hp, and 500-600ftlbs of torque, both at the wheels....with about 200+ ftlbs at ~3000-3500 rpm! thats a difference you can certainly feel.


anyhoo, my thoughts. since i now finally have a turbocharged vehicle, all the others suck :P

 

There is no clear cut on which is better between a turbo and a supercharger. If you really want to get technical a turbocharger is nothing more than a gas driven supercharger. For tuning a positive displacement supercharger is the best. Instantaneous boost response, longevity, and flat torque curve are properties that are well suited for trucks, but do generate a lot more heat than turbos or cent. s/c's which limits there ability to generate high boost. Centrifugal superchargers are kind of the in between.....easy to install and tune, can make fairly high boost, lower temperature of charge air, can't make the same peak as a turbo is able too...(rpms run 60,000 or so while turbos can see 100,000+ rpm) and usually don't have the lifespan of a positive displacement. Turbos are the most intensive ot install, harder to tune, but can yield the greatest results. Modern ball-bearing turbos can spool up very quickly with little lag.....as earlier stated the size of the turbo is what will determine the lag/max output. Can also get fancy with twin turbos to eliminate lag and still have high hp figures....not quite as high as running a single very big turbo though. Plumbing for turbos is the hard part having to make custom headers, piping, intercooler, BOV, by-pass valves, ect.

 

I am personally a big fan of the supercharger for reasons already said.
Furthermore I like the effects of a good jet engine as well. Homebuilt of course.

But then again there's video's like this one and I can't help but like twin turbo's!!!!!Now I can say i seen a car smokem on a dyno!

 

If there were a setup for the 3.0, I would buy a centrifugal. But since my dad might give me his 01 F150 4.6, I might wait until then (and I start working) to mod anything. Not sure though, I hate the 3.0.

 

They do have a supercharger out for the 3.0.......you are talking about a 3.0 ranger right? if so.....yes.....they have a super charge for it out now........If i find the site i'll post it

 

Well I vote for twin turbos

Just because my other car is a RT Stealth. eleven years old and it will still outrun 80% of the cars I meet on the road.

 

Once all the knuckles get skinned and the headaches have cleared I can't see a good turbo setup being beat by the supercharger. I wonder what the top fuel guys would be running if they allowed them.

 

I prefer turbos because it's free horsepower, there's no drag on the engine. Plus, if you size the motor/turbo right, there is little to no lag.

 

a mechanic and i are putting in a 330xd motor in place of my 390 the 330xd makes it torque and horsepower at a lower rpm the compression ratio is 7.6 i want to put in twin turbos for more horsepower to pull the weight that i haul and tow. to build my 390 to get 450hp will cost 6500.00 hot rod magazine built one back in january 2003 but in order to get 200hp it cost too much