Turbo or Supercharger???

purplehaze · 01-11-2006, 09:53 AM

I need some professional opinions... which one would be better overall performance wise? Turbo's or charger???

GTODEALER · 01-11-2006, 10:03 AM

Turbo....

HTRDLNCN · 01-11-2006, 10:09 AM

if money is not a problem = turbo..

purplehaze · 01-11-2006, 10:15 AM

what is the noticable difference?

GTODEALER · 01-11-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplehaze

what is the noticable difference?

Power and torque is phenominal -vs- supercharger....

Firstgoat · 01-11-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTODEALER

Power and torque is phenominal -vs- supercharger....

Oh yes, but you also forgot to mention the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and tuninig issues. And the extreme heat developed under the hood!
Basicly you will develop more low end torque with a turbo vs. a centrificul supercharger but it gets pretty even up top.
A roots type gets the nod for low end torque but being positive displacement it runs out of power around 5500 rpm.

IMHO the best bang for your buck is the Centrificul supergharger.

GTODEALER · 01-11-2006, 12:39 PM

I've got a STS turbo car that we built here and I'd put it up against any other "bolt on" centrifigal s/c kit out there. It's a base STS kit with intercooler and 8lbs of boost. If money is not an option (like HTRDLNCN said earlier) then it's the best out there, I've personally seen highly modded GTO's with Prochargers barely break into the 11's, I've seen STS cars run 9's. As far as the heat issue, every turbo kit out there puts the turbos under the car, gets rid of the heat issues. As far as where the power is made, the turbo will have tons more low end torque and higher top end than a centrifigal..... the only down side I can see is the money.
BTW, two identical 04 GTO's, one with STS (8lbs intercooled) another with Procharger (8lbs intercooled), both cars had custom tunes and underdrive pulleys.
Procharger - 440 rwhp 418 rwtq
STS - 481 rwhp 531 rwtq
I've got dyno sheets and cars to prove it........

HTRDLNCN · 01-11-2006, 12:57 PM

there no centrifugal in the world that can outpower a turbo.. Thats why Turbos are banned in a lot of classes and racing series.
early Indy engine made 800-1000hp out of 80-100 cubic inches using ungodly amounts of turbo boost.

ALL superchargers use the crank to drive them. A typical vortech/ ATI / whipple at 10-12lbs will take 50+hp to turn. Maggies even more.. Turbos take NO power to turn so even if they are otherwise identical the turbo would make 50 extra rwhp. Turboes arent connected to the crank so boost comes in as fast as you can spool it making for incredible low end torque (if sized correctly) yet will stillout power a supercharge on the top end.
Like was stated above, drawback is the cost and complexity of install.

PS: and as for best bang for the buck,,that would be Nitrous..

GTODEALER · 01-11-2006, 01:04 PM

Case in point.... my SRT4, 2.4 liters and makes 330+ whp......

DallasSleeper · 01-11-2006, 01:59 PM

isn't that 330 Fwhp?