SIR

I understand that a turbo is more efficient than a SC. Why is that?? Fuel use greater in a SC?? Basically why is a turbo better than a SC???

Black LS1 T/A

First, Turbos and Superchargers are BOTH "boost" applications. <img src="images/icons/smile.gif" border="0">

It's my personal opinion that it boils down to a matter of preference, in the end.

The pundits have debated the issue over and over, and no consensus is truly ever reached. <img src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

I like Turbos AND SC'ing, but when I was ready to do it, the best available kit was the ATI Procharger, in my opinion. I was split between that and the Incon Twin Turbo, which was not immediately, or even in the short-term, available.

Each has it's advantages, and an even-minded person will choose either what trips his trigger, or will base it on the application. <img src="images/icons/smile.gif" border="0">

PONYEATER

Basicly a Turbo is better for a few reasons but most of all it uses a waste and turns it into power. This is becuase it is spun by exhuast which would normally just go out the pipe anyway. The reason for less fuel is becuase a supercharger is turning all the time and is a parasitic loss like a waterpump. If I had my choice to hand my mother the keys to a turbo car or a blower car to go to the store to buy some beer I would give her the turbo car becuase it would be more forgiving with light driving.

Basicly its all in what you want! <img src="images/icons/smile.gif" border="0">

bigSS

I am by no means an expert, but... the thing about Turbo's and M6s is that when you depress the clutch you loose the boost, and then the turbo has to spool back up. Thats why you want less gearing with a turbo, so your turbo's stay "boosted." Personally I think SCs for sticks, turbos for autos.

Black LS1 T/A

OK... <img src="graemlins/gr_barf.gif" border="0" alt="[barf]" />

Let me play the "Devil's Advocate" side: <img src="images/icons/grin.gif" border="0">

A Supercharger is better because it's power increase is consistent with engine RPM and has a smoother torque increase, therefore not breaking parts as much. Who cares that there are parasitic losses. <img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" border="0" alt="[bullshit]" /> There are parasitic losses due to friction of the piston going up and down the cylinder, but no one would do without one. <img src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

My gas mileage has not suffered with my ATI procharger. A Turbo takes at least three times as long to install as a blower. My blown LS1 drives like a normal car until you WOT it. If anything, I'd be afraid my mother might part-throttle a Turbo and get too much torque, putting her sideways. <img src="images/icons/shocked.gif" border="0">

There's an argument on every side. <img src="images/icons/grin.gif" border="0">

(Hey, I'm having fun... not flaming ya! <img src="images/icons/smile.gif" border="0"> )

Chris Spiess

[quote]Originally posted by Black LS1 T/A:
<strong>There are parasitic losses due to friction of the piston going up and down the cylinder, but no one would do without one. <img src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0">
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Duh, but the Turbo/SC debate has to do with adding additional parasitic losses with the SC and none used to spin the turbocharger.

[quote]Originally posted by Black LS1 T/A:
<strong>I'd be afraid my mother might part-throttle a Turbo and get too much torque, putting her sideways. <img src="images/icons/shocked.gif" border="0">
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree whole heartedly on this one. My dad has a 87 GN and if you're not used to driving it the boost will come on hard when you don't expect it and can cause problems. My mother refuses to drive to this day. At least the SCs are more linear.

<img src="images/icons/cool.gif" border="0"> Havin' fun too..take it easy

BIGBOS

Can some one explain to me how the flow of the turbo system works..??

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

turbo is stealth as long as you have some sort of muffler.. supercharger is a giveaway unless its belt driven (powerdyne)

i prefer turbo to supercharger because the hp is just as good but you get a ton more torque... yes it tends to feel more lazy than a supercharged car, but works wonderfully when it needs to.

i woulnd let install time decide it for you.. thats kinda silly unless you are a warranty freak.

that being said i think i will try a supercharger next. (just to confuse you)


flow of a turbo system.. hmm
well u got air that goes in the filter.. spins around the intake blade.. into the motor, out the exhaust(fast) into the exhaust blade(pushing it around) and out the back..

the exhaust blade is on the same shaft as the intake blade.. pushing air into the motor..

there is a pressure valve (wastegate)in the exhaust that opens when a set amount of intake pressure is established and a blow off valve in the intake tubing that releases when the motor sees vaccum behind the throttle body.. letting exess compressed air out of the loop between discharge and intake.

thats bout it..

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: MIGHTYMOUSE ]</p>

Z00

I believe it would be easier to adjust your psi with a turbo on the fly as well. You would just have to get a controller. Would be good for running a less boost while on the street, and then turn up the boost while racing.

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Z00 ]</p>

SIR

hmmm cool discussion so far..
Now with a SC th eboost is there all the time right? So you are always running 7 spi (if that is the pulley you use)always. So you cyliders are under contast pressure I would guess. Would this then make choosing a cam tricky for an SC? Say a 110 or 112 lsa cam, would that be too narrow or would you need to spread it out to say a 114 or so??

Also the only way to adjust the boost on a SC is to change the pulley right?? How often do you see these belts flying off on a SC?

Now which can make more power overall> Given the SAME exact engine in every way, jsut one using the SC and the other a turbo, which will make more power??

I read tha the SC is more linear , so it comes on easier and is not as much of a hock to the crank, rods etc???

How much PSI can you run AT THE TRACK on these LS1's assuming you are using a IRON block and forged bottom end?? Can I run a 15psi SC or a 15 psi turbo???

At these greater PSI's such as 15, is one system more damaging than the other??? Or when they are both at 15psi there just the same.

Seems like the SC would reach that level sooner when accelerating??

Black LS1 T/A

Nope... Boost only occurs as you are into the throttle. How much is THEN dependent on the RPMs and the size of the Pulley.

My car has a vacuum just like yours while I'm crusing. <img src="images/icons/smile.gif" border="0">

TwinSS

Just to clarify a bit since I was in the supercharger mustang "camp" since 1991 and have learned a few things. With any power adder it is good idea to replace tranny parts like clutches, convertors, etc.. The main issues with a centrifugal are 1) RPM dependency for full boost, and 2) tension created between the crank and head unit via the belt drive. Forget about the parasitic loss cause it just means you run more boost to make power. Firstly, a supercharger will make full boost at max rpm since the crank is spinning the head unit. RPM is the main issue relating to broken motors, excluding detonation. How many motors come apart at 3500rpm in comparison to 6500. The components like rods, crank, valve springs, etc., lose strength at higher rpms' causing component failure which results in engine damage. Turbos create a MUCH broader power band which turns into something that is very visible when someone takes their "average" hp and tq #'s from 2000 rpm up. Everyone always quotes peak which really means very little in respect to moving a car. Secondly, the stress created by the belt tension between the head unit and crank pulley. To little tension you get belt slippage so it has to be snug. Alot of mustang owners, including myself, had issues with excessive main bearing wear on #1 and head unit bearings and seals. I believe this will become more noticeable on the LS1 motors as more miles are racked up.
The main issue with turbos is heat. You can't argue that it makes to much power down low. That's why the average power is higher. I'm not going to try to touch a turbo when it's hot but I'm not going to try a supercharger head unit either. Actually, back in the day I had to pull my SN89 Paxton off the bracket and dump the fluid out every 5000 miles or so. I thought I died and went to heaven when Vortech came out with the engine oil lubrication system and I could just leave the head unit on all the time. Just a little insight.
<img src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Dave

turbo works better with an automatic - my old Grand National would do 0-60 in 4.5 sec and the quarter in 12.6 (not stock), but once it was moving there was an annoying bit of turbo lag. The turbo is a bit harder to install, but if money was no object (yeah, right! <img src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0"> ) I'd go for a twin turbo setup.
In practice, I'll probably go with a belt-driven supercharger at some point (NOT the kind you can hear a block away!) provided it can pass Cali emissions...?

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

In my opinion , turbo power is superior to any other form of forced induction. Most sanctioning body's feel that way too, since turbo cara are always docked weight or cid to make things fair for Sc or nitrous cars to compete.
I will say blower or SC cars are simple to own and tune compared to a turbo build , so there is something to be said for having less of a headache to build .
to me, the cool thing about a turbo build is you can design it around your goals . If you want great off idle power at the sacrifice of top end power, just size the turbo accordingly. If you want massive power , design the parts around that goal, and you can make about all the power you can stand.
but, in the end , it's all about what you want with your force inducted car. They are all a blast to drive !

rel3rd

iTrader: (43)

Only took ya 18 years to respond to this poor fella...lol

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

you have me at a disadvantage, friend. Not sure I understand your post .

forcd ind

iTrader: (7)

Did you look at the date of the last post, lol

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

No, lol. Wonder how I got that far back in the threads ? Oh well, recon one of these cats must have stepped on the phone and flipped me back a few pages.

stevieturbo

epic...that has to be one of the oldest thread bumps yet !

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

Someone needs to find the first ever thread on tech and bump it.