Turbo LT1's?
Originally Posted by Smokeshow_2006
I thought it different. I thought peak boost from a supercharger came on right before rev limit, as its boost is directly related to engine rpms, being driven by the belt.
Also, working with diesels quite often, Peak boost usually comes on around 12-1600 rpm in the bigger trucks, and between 2-4k for the powerstroke fords..
Also, working with diesels quite often, Peak boost usually comes on around 12-1600 rpm in the bigger trucks, and between 2-4k for the powerstroke fords..
Regarding a supercharger: essentially a centrifugal supercharger is a turbo on a belt. It uses the belt to spin the impeller which forces more air into your engine. There is still some lag with a centrifugal, along with parasitic power loss because it is belt driven. Still normally the ends justify the means in terms of ultimate power output.
[QUOTE=Smokeshow_2006]Hijack!
Any pro's/ cons running a supercharger instead of a turbo on the lt1?
QUOTE]
It is purely a matter of opinion... IMO turbo is much better for a few reasons. Superchargers being belt driven do take power to spin up, and turbo charger leaves more options open with location. I can say, there is no better sound than a blower (roots or centrifugal) but for efficiency i am all for the turbo. And for the ones downing STS kits, from my understanding although the kit is not as "functional" as the conventional style (backpressure and so forth) the efficiency makes up for it in the end. I have driven a few vehicles that were remote mount turbocharged and to be perfectly honest if the kits are built right there is absolutely no difference in how they feel. It all comes down to what WHYHELLO said, research and parts combo is the end factor. If you match the compressor map to your application, zero lag SHOULD be there. In my experience, turbo lag is only caused when the charger is too big for your application... (this is regarding NORMAL boost levels, the honda's on 2.0 bar (boost) and up is a different discussion) just my .02. but as far as the original post goes, i dont see why the aftermarket headers should matter. STS says the stock manifolds build more heat, but with aftermarket headers why not move the charger closer to the headers?? (just some food for thought)
Any pro's/ cons running a supercharger instead of a turbo on the lt1?
QUOTE]
It is purely a matter of opinion... IMO turbo is much better for a few reasons. Superchargers being belt driven do take power to spin up, and turbo charger leaves more options open with location. I can say, there is no better sound than a blower (roots or centrifugal) but for efficiency i am all for the turbo. And for the ones downing STS kits, from my understanding although the kit is not as "functional" as the conventional style (backpressure and so forth) the efficiency makes up for it in the end. I have driven a few vehicles that were remote mount turbocharged and to be perfectly honest if the kits are built right there is absolutely no difference in how they feel. It all comes down to what WHYHELLO said, research and parts combo is the end factor. If you match the compressor map to your application, zero lag SHOULD be there. In my experience, turbo lag is only caused when the charger is too big for your application... (this is regarding NORMAL boost levels, the honda's on 2.0 bar (boost) and up is a different discussion) just my .02. but as far as the original post goes, i dont see why the aftermarket headers should matter. STS says the stock manifolds build more heat, but with aftermarket headers why not move the charger closer to the headers?? (just some food for thought)
