i was able to add this to the poll but wanted to voice my opinion:




new comer here but had quick cars and ran them into the ground( young dumb and hating pistons)...i had a 1st gen street port with a jackson supercharger $3500 custom made...with a street port motor...and holley...the CAR WAS TOO MUCH...talk about fast smoking tires in third like it was 1st...i sold the setup to move...i've been in turbos and don't like the fact that you have to WAIT for the boost(had a TII with hgher than stock boost) it was fast but not like the sc...i like both to be honset ...the turbo for the cost and the sc for the power but money is not a issue in the ? so sc it would be ...

buy the way the guy i sold the set up to...is having a hard time keeping the chassi on the car(mazda GLC) he put the set up in straight to get a good time but it running 11's and that was 6yrs ago and the motor still runs..strong

 

Pics?

 

er... what was the question?

 

i really hate the whole "turbo lag" thing if someone properly sizes a turbo and does some research a turbo will kick a super chargers *** in all catagorys. not to mention the whole drag from a super charger loosing hp

but yeah what is your question??

 

I think he answered his question. I think he prefers superchargers.

 

Turbo for me, the SC is mucho dinero $$$$$ .... Also i like the ability to change boost at a flick of the switch

 

actually, I chose a sc because it was cheaper.
(this is my situation)

turbo cost
TII motor and tranny: $1000
intercooler and piping setup, 500-1000
new exhaust from turbo back 500
blow through carb i wouldnt touch so FI=1500+
total: around 4 grand.

supercharger
TII motor and tranny $1000
supercharger 2400
exhaust: done + different header
carb, ebay for like 400cks
total cost: $3000

also, I dont have to set up my intercooler right away, I can do it when I have the money but thats only like $300

 

sorry, forgot fuel,

turbo: new pump, lines, regulator, fuel rail. $500 +

super: no change

 

LOL. how do you like turbo for the cost and supercharger for the power? turbochargers have the potential to make MUCH more power.

 

yes, but then I would be wasting the money I spent on my exaust and fuel 850+

plus, to get a turbo swap to run right takes huge amounts of tuning and patience.

a supercharger system is much simpler. Bolt it on, it works, thats it,

maybe a jet change or something. When I get my intercooler setup going and I start increasing boost then more tuning might be required.

 

HMMMM.....Don't quite think so. Here's the real deal difference between turbos and supercharger resultant gains:

Engine power is nearly linearly proportional to the DENSITY of the fuel/air mixture. (Not the pressure!... important distinction...review the ideal gas law and basic thermodynamics if in doubt.)

When you compress the incoming air with either a turbo or a supercharger, you have increased the temperature of that air. (think diesel engines...compression = elevated temperature). So you have somewhat increased the density by compression, but this is offset by the increase in temperature, which actually lowers the density.

So a turbo then sends this compressed air through an intercooler, which is nothing more than a compact heat exchanger. The optimum design for an intercooler is to minimize the pressure drop of the compressed air as it flows through it, while maximizing the heat transfer out of the compressed air and therefore lower the temperature. The combined result is increased pressure AND decreased temperature, which equals an increase in density and hence more power.

A supercharger, lacking an intercooler, must use another means of cooling the air: Atomized fuel. In order to suffeciently cool the compressed air the carbs on superchargers are set up to run rich.....in my experience REALLY rich. But since the goal is not economy but speed, drag racers don't care about the wasted fuel. So yeah, you can get a lot of power out of a supercharger, but I wouldn't consider it to be streetable.

And yeah, as previously mentioned, a properly designed and matched turbo/intercooler should have minimal lag time.

I've worked on a couple of intercooler designs, and its not easy coming up with an optimum design, mostly given the size constraints. On several cars I've worked on that had stock turbos, in most cases considerable gains could be realized by replacing the stock intercooler to one with a superior design....

Wish I had money to play with my GS....as it is now its just going to have to remain stock....If I want to go fast I ride my bike. And yes, I am an engineer and don't play one on TV

 

hondah8er -
"LOL. how do you like turbo for the cost and supercharger for the power? turbochargers have the potential to make MUCH more power."

***Not if you friggin do it right!

strider-
"HMMMM.....Don't quite think so. Here's the real deal difference between turbos and supercharger resultant gains:

Engine power is nearly linearly proportional to the DENSITY of the fuel/air mixture. (Not the pressure!... important distinction...review the ideal gas law and basic thermodynamics if in doubt.)

When you compress the incoming air with either a turbo or a supercharger, you have increased the temperature of that air. (think diesel engines...compression = elevated temperature). So you have somewhat increased the density by compression, but this is offset by the increase in temperature, which actually lowers the density.

So a turbo then sends this compressed air through an intercooler, which is nothing more than a compact heat exchanger. The optimum design for an intercooler is to minimize the pressure drop of the compressed air as it flows through it, while maximizing the heat transfer out of the compressed air and therefore lower the temperature. The combined result is increased pressure AND decreased temperature, which equals an increase in density and hence more power.

A supercharger, lacking an intercooler, must use another means of cooling the air: Atomized fuel. In order to suffeciently cool the compressed air the carbs on superchargers are set up to run rich.....in my experience REALLY rich. But since the goal is not economy but speed, drag racers don't care about the wasted fuel. So yeah, you can get a lot of power out of a supercharger, but I wouldn't consider it to be streetable.

And yeah, as previously mentioned, a properly designed and matched turbo/intercooler should have minimal lag time..."

***Why is everyone always diving into these futile "turbo vs supercharger" arguements holding up a different fruit, and pointing, "See? See?!"
WTF?!
Yeah, sorry- Any forced induction is gonna suck *** without the use of an intercooler!
It's like someone saying, "Turbos are **** when ya compare 'em to turbos!"...WTF would that mean? It would mean, "Yeah, nonintercooled turbos are **** when compared to intercooled ones.

All I'm saying, is "DAMNIT, PEOPLE - SET YER FRIGGIN APPLICATION PARAMETERS FOR THIS CONVERSATION!"

This arguement happens ALL THE TIME, and half the people who are talking superchargers are talking about centrafugal, and half are talking PD. Then half of each of them are talking intercooled (with that "Well, of course!" attitude), and the other half are'nt.

You people need to think outside the freakin box! I'm pulleying my Eaton M-90 project so it produces the highest boost possible without killing the blower. Then I'm simply going to bleed off unwanted boost to regulate it down to more realistic levels. But I will, at the turn of a **** on my console, be able to regulate my boost.
WTF is so hard about that concept? It's plumbing!
I will be using an intercooling system of my own design.
And when I finally complete this thing, I can't wait to show everyone that they can have THE MOST simple, kick-*** carbed forced induction system on a 1rst gen 12A for under 2500 bucks!
(I want every backyard mechanic with thin wallets to know they can do this, too!)

I'm sorry, but you can't use the bolt-on Atkins Camden 7 inch supercharger as "the" quintessential example of a supercharger in the "Turbo vs Super" arguement. You're taking a limited, non-intercoolable supercharger, and holding that up against the wonders of a turbo...just to make your point!

 

You tell em Sterling! Not to fan the flames, (oh hell I love to instigate) but if turbo's had more potential hp gain than superchargers then why do top fuel and funnycars use supercharging?

 

I wont even get into a supercharger turbocharger debate. Waste of time

 

i say, whatever works for you...i personaly prefer turbo charged, but thats just for me

 

Hell yeah, Sterling! Good for thinking outside the box! I mean goddamn, think of where we'd be if people never tried anything new.

"Change the port timing? If you could get more power that way, Mazda would have done it stock." "Transplant a 13BT into a first gen? Are you nuts?" "You can't get that much airflow out of a Nikki, get a Weber..." "The stock ignition is good enough..."

... anyway. Tubo vs. Supercharger does not need to be gone into, I don't think. I respect all of you enough to think that you know both sides of the argument. If not, hit search; I'd be surprised if this hasn't come up before.

 

easy cause they were banned, they had turbos back in the early 80s and stuff and just went nuts. huge 500ci motors with methonal/alcohol and a monsterous turbo. they allowed superchargers to help limit the advancement of the motors, now days they also are cutting back on the % of nitro they can use in the cars..

 

wow, no ****? Thats interesting. Shows what I know about drag racing LOL.

 

Yep, turbos were banned because teams were making ludicrous amounts of power on those big block engines.

edit: not that 5000 hp isn't insane already...

 

Hey sterling when you gonna have this 12a supercharger project done? I am really considering putting a supercharger on a rebuilt ported 12a. i was wondering what kinda hp that would produce also?

Thanks