View Poll Results: Supercharge or Turbo
Supercharge
133
36.74%
Turbo
229
63.26%
Voters: 362. You may not vote on this poll
Supercharge or Turbo
Jun 16, 2004, 08:33 PM
#228
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
damn that is amazing.. 
almost beats the corolla/camry/something one of my buddies saw that had the big *** aluminum park bench mounted ON TOP of his STOCK wing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like the brackets for the big bench were screwed through the stock spoiler/wing... yikes.
almost beats the corolla/camry/something one of my buddies saw that had the big *** aluminum park bench mounted ON TOP of his STOCK wing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like the brackets for the big bench were screwed through the stock spoiler/wing... yikes.
Jun 16, 2004, 08:40 PM
#229
Evolving Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Anyone can do a super charger,power is limited can upgrade(or very little),drag on the motor=loss in whp and torque on the bottom end..don't gain it back until later in the rpm range."
Poll supercharge it or turbo it and why?
Originally Posted by Kaymo
Poll supercharge it or turbo it and why?
Jun 23, 2004, 05:36 PM
#230
you're wrong a turbocharger does take away power from the engine, it takes more power to push the exhaust air through the turbo in addition to the exhaust system. i will admit that this is less than the raw more obvious loss of power used to drive the supercharger.
in any case billy is correct, saving on plumbing complications makes sc applications on v engines much simpler albeit certainly backwards. most powerful engine that is roadraceable on earth i'd say is a twin turbo ls1.
the reason that there's not more turbo charging in american cars is cuz fast american cars are used for drag racing, and they banned turbo chargers from drag racing long ago. it also has to do with dogma, japanese philosophy on car modding is much different than the american philosophy. turbos are more readily available for imports and super chargers are more available for domestics. japanese engineers think more for amximum efficiency, exhaust gases are an untapped resevior of work energy in super charged and naturally aspirated cars. to tap this is to use energy that would otherwise only be wasted.
personally, super charging all the way. no lag, and you'll always produce better numbers on the track, unless you're on a top speed track in which case the uncapped boost of a turbo will give you the upper hand. otherwise i don't think you can out boost the best of the pulleys they have out there.
black lotus, hell i think a lysholm sc without intercooler would be great on an evo, i'm not waiting for anyone to prove you wrong, how about someone make a kit :[.
b i have much more respect for scc than super street... super street is just disgusting... c'mon... don't put those two mags in the same sentence :[.
what is the point of having a supercharger and a turbo charger? just have the super charger properly tuned. what's the point of having both? added weight? and you could also use the two by putting a wastegate on the supercharger that activated after a certain rpm, but who cares, it's pointless, just a bragging right.
crochrocket: so a turbo loses 5-6 hp huh? that would be if you were running the header and turbo to open atmosphere so you can forget the rest of the exhaust that you so idiotically report will descrease this inefficiency. and yes... superchargers suck up around that much too, so what if it's more, it puts it right back down, immediately, when does yer turbo recoupe these losses?
super charging and turbo charging are not a disparity of high and low end power. super chargers make linear power, hence, when you make high rpms you make high end power. contrast with turbo chargers which only make significant power at high end. the difference, turbocharging is seemingly "uncapped" the turbine can spin as fast as you let it and the wastegate can remain closed until you overboost yer engine to tiny little bits. the super charger is mechanically capped by the maximum leverage/rotation of the pulley you install. hence in any race you will almost always make better numbers with superchargers unless you really just need that "unbounded" type boost to get you REALLY fast on the straighaways (f1 type of highspeed racing but not f1 of course because those cars are n/a).
instead of electric supercharger, how about gas powered supercharger? yes it's been done, yes it was fast.
all forced inductino should be properly tuned, otherwise you get get the same result in either system.
in any case billy is correct, saving on plumbing complications makes sc applications on v engines much simpler albeit certainly backwards. most powerful engine that is roadraceable on earth i'd say is a twin turbo ls1.
the reason that there's not more turbo charging in american cars is cuz fast american cars are used for drag racing, and they banned turbo chargers from drag racing long ago. it also has to do with dogma, japanese philosophy on car modding is much different than the american philosophy. turbos are more readily available for imports and super chargers are more available for domestics. japanese engineers think more for amximum efficiency, exhaust gases are an untapped resevior of work energy in super charged and naturally aspirated cars. to tap this is to use energy that would otherwise only be wasted.
personally, super charging all the way. no lag, and you'll always produce better numbers on the track, unless you're on a top speed track in which case the uncapped boost of a turbo will give you the upper hand. otherwise i don't think you can out boost the best of the pulleys they have out there.
black lotus, hell i think a lysholm sc without intercooler would be great on an evo, i'm not waiting for anyone to prove you wrong, how about someone make a kit :[.
b i have much more respect for scc than super street... super street is just disgusting... c'mon... don't put those two mags in the same sentence :[.
what is the point of having a supercharger and a turbo charger? just have the super charger properly tuned. what's the point of having both? added weight? and you could also use the two by putting a wastegate on the supercharger that activated after a certain rpm, but who cares, it's pointless, just a bragging right.
crochrocket: so a turbo loses 5-6 hp huh? that would be if you were running the header and turbo to open atmosphere so you can forget the rest of the exhaust that you so idiotically report will descrease this inefficiency. and yes... superchargers suck up around that much too, so what if it's more, it puts it right back down, immediately, when does yer turbo recoupe these losses?
super charging and turbo charging are not a disparity of high and low end power. super chargers make linear power, hence, when you make high rpms you make high end power. contrast with turbo chargers which only make significant power at high end. the difference, turbocharging is seemingly "uncapped" the turbine can spin as fast as you let it and the wastegate can remain closed until you overboost yer engine to tiny little bits. the super charger is mechanically capped by the maximum leverage/rotation of the pulley you install. hence in any race you will almost always make better numbers with superchargers unless you really just need that "unbounded" type boost to get you REALLY fast on the straighaways (f1 type of highspeed racing but not f1 of course because those cars are n/a).
instead of electric supercharger, how about gas powered supercharger? yes it's been done, yes it was fast.
all forced inductino should be properly tuned, otherwise you get get the same result in either system.
Jun 23, 2004, 06:16 PM
#231
Evolving Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You missunderstand me. Not turbocharger but supercharger who take away power. We dealing with custom turbo for over 15 yrs.
Originally Posted by trinydex
you're wrong a turbocharger does take away power from the engine, it takes more power to push the exhaust air through the turbo in addition to the exhaust system. i will admit that this is less than the raw more obvious loss of power used to drive the supercharger.
in any case billy is correct, saving on plumbing complications makes sc applications on v engines much simpler albeit certainly backwards. most powerful engine that is roadraceable on earth i'd say is a twin turbo ls1.
the reason that there's not more turbo charging in american cars is cuz fast american cars are used for drag racing, and they banned turbo chargers from drag racing long ago. it also has to do with dogma, japanese philosophy on car modding is much different than the american philosophy. turbos are more readily available for imports and super chargers are more available for domestics. japanese engineers think more for amximum efficiency, exhaust gases are an untapped resevior of work energy in super charged and naturally aspirated cars. to tap this is to use energy that would otherwise only be wasted.
personally, super charging all the way. no lag, and you'll always produce better numbers on the track, unless you're on a top speed track in which case the uncapped boost of a turbo will give you the upper hand. otherwise i don't think you can out boost the best of the pulleys they have out there.
black lotus, hell i think a lysholm sc without intercooler would be great on an evo, i'm not waiting for anyone to prove you wrong, how about someone make a kit :[.
b i have much more respect for scc than super street... super street is just disgusting... c'mon... don't put those two mags in the same sentence :[.
what is the point of having a supercharger and a turbo charger? just have the super charger properly tuned. what's the point of having both? added weight? and you could also use the two by putting a wastegate on the supercharger that activated after a certain rpm, but who cares, it's pointless, just a bragging right.
crochrocket: so a turbo loses 5-6 hp huh? that would be if you were running the header and turbo to open atmosphere so you can forget the rest of the exhaust that you so idiotically report will descrease this inefficiency. and yes... superchargers suck up around that much too, so what if it's more, it puts it right back down, immediately, when does yer turbo recoupe these losses?
super charging and turbo charging are not a disparity of high and low end power. super chargers make linear power, hence, when you make high rpms you make high end power. contrast with turbo chargers which only make significant power at high end. the difference, turbocharging is seemingly "uncapped" the turbine can spin as fast as you let it and the wastegate can remain closed until you overboost yer engine to tiny little bits. the super charger is mechanically capped by the maximum leverage/rotation of the pulley you install. hence in any race you will almost always make better numbers with superchargers unless you really just need that "unbounded" type boost to get you REALLY fast on the straighaways (f1 type of highspeed racing but not f1 of course because those cars are n/a).
instead of electric supercharger, how about gas powered supercharger? yes it's been done, yes it was fast.
all forced inductino should be properly tuned, otherwise you get get the same result in either system.
in any case billy is correct, saving on plumbing complications makes sc applications on v engines much simpler albeit certainly backwards. most powerful engine that is roadraceable on earth i'd say is a twin turbo ls1.
the reason that there's not more turbo charging in american cars is cuz fast american cars are used for drag racing, and they banned turbo chargers from drag racing long ago. it also has to do with dogma, japanese philosophy on car modding is much different than the american philosophy. turbos are more readily available for imports and super chargers are more available for domestics. japanese engineers think more for amximum efficiency, exhaust gases are an untapped resevior of work energy in super charged and naturally aspirated cars. to tap this is to use energy that would otherwise only be wasted.
personally, super charging all the way. no lag, and you'll always produce better numbers on the track, unless you're on a top speed track in which case the uncapped boost of a turbo will give you the upper hand. otherwise i don't think you can out boost the best of the pulleys they have out there.
black lotus, hell i think a lysholm sc without intercooler would be great on an evo, i'm not waiting for anyone to prove you wrong, how about someone make a kit :[.
b i have much more respect for scc than super street... super street is just disgusting... c'mon... don't put those two mags in the same sentence :[.
what is the point of having a supercharger and a turbo charger? just have the super charger properly tuned. what's the point of having both? added weight? and you could also use the two by putting a wastegate on the supercharger that activated after a certain rpm, but who cares, it's pointless, just a bragging right.
crochrocket: so a turbo loses 5-6 hp huh? that would be if you were running the header and turbo to open atmosphere so you can forget the rest of the exhaust that you so idiotically report will descrease this inefficiency. and yes... superchargers suck up around that much too, so what if it's more, it puts it right back down, immediately, when does yer turbo recoupe these losses?
super charging and turbo charging are not a disparity of high and low end power. super chargers make linear power, hence, when you make high rpms you make high end power. contrast with turbo chargers which only make significant power at high end. the difference, turbocharging is seemingly "uncapped" the turbine can spin as fast as you let it and the wastegate can remain closed until you overboost yer engine to tiny little bits. the super charger is mechanically capped by the maximum leverage/rotation of the pulley you install. hence in any race you will almost always make better numbers with superchargers unless you really just need that "unbounded" type boost to get you REALLY fast on the straighaways (f1 type of highspeed racing but not f1 of course because those cars are n/a).
instead of electric supercharger, how about gas powered supercharger? yes it's been done, yes it was fast.
all forced inductino should be properly tuned, otherwise you get get the same result in either system.
Jun 23, 2004, 08:41 PM
#232
i'd like to see an sc boosting the same psi as a properly sized turbo at 3k rpm make more power. It won't happen. Hell i put more power down then a SC'd v6 motor at 3k and 4k and 5k... it wasn't till after 5k he got above me. In the end i pull on him all day long thanks to my power band being about 35%larger! 
I've said it before... turbo 4cylinders... turbo or sc on v6 its pretty close but most sc's do better... on v8's SC that sucker all the way!
I've said it before... turbo 4cylinders... turbo or sc on v6 its pretty close but most sc's do better... on v8's SC that sucker all the way!
Jul 20, 2004, 02:51 PM
#233
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Naperville
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boe - you da man 
Listen to boe and the others, they know there stuff. I was set on a Supercharger but with some help and explanations from boe and Steve (sdhtown) i was quickly turned away from the SC. Turbo when done properly will give you more power all day long , just like boe has stated.
Listen to boe and the others, they know there stuff. I was set on a Supercharger but with some help and explanations from boe and Steve (sdhtown) i was quickly turned away from the SC. Turbo when done properly will give you more power all day long , just like boe has stated.
Jul 20, 2004, 03:56 PM
#234
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL.... man it's been a while since I've been on here.. you guys wouldn't believe some of the stuff I'm up to! LOL...
But yeah.. as deep in as I am I can tell you that turbo is the better way to go.. the fastest cars I've seen have all been turbo... there is a turbo'd Protege5 in Puerto Rico managing to put down 497 whp on the stock block (with different internals... but stock crank)... and he is turbo all the way. We just had a protege make it into the 11's now... which is sick... and a good number of cars starting to cross the 300 whp mark... so very impressive.. mine will be crossing that mark this spring after I rebuild the motor I blew up on the track (stock internals that saw over 16 psi for a good while and held... )
Turbo that baby!
But yeah.. as deep in as I am I can tell you that turbo is the better way to go.. the fastest cars I've seen have all been turbo... there is a turbo'd Protege5 in Puerto Rico managing to put down 497 whp on the stock block (with different internals... but stock crank)... and he is turbo all the way. We just had a protege make it into the 11's now... which is sick... and a good number of cars starting to cross the 300 whp mark... so very impressive.. mine will be crossing that mark this spring after I rebuild the motor I blew up on the track (stock internals that saw over 16 psi for a good while and held...
) Turbo that baby!
Jul 26, 2004, 02:04 PM
#238
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mackay (Qld)
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only got a S/C (10psi) on my 2003 (AUS) Lancer 4G93 and it will run beside a low 13 sec WRX all day from 60 mph on! The WRX is strong on the start since there is lots of traction but after that the ol FWD Lancer is up for a run. So if my Lancer is losing power to the S/C well whats going on with the higher psi turbo cars that I run with????
Jul 26, 2004, 02:07 PM
#239
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 7,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are your CE's the 2.0l or the 1.8l? It's the 1.8l, correct?
The WRX's compression ratio is lower, giving it a lower overall effective CR. Not to mention the loss of power through an AWD drivetrain can be significant compared to that of a FWD drivetrain. From what you've explained it sounds about right though. At 6-7lbs turbocharged Lancers here in the US are keeping up with stock WRX's.
I don't race so I can't speak from personal experience, but I think those are fair estimates given the relative HP outputs of both cars.
The WRX's compression ratio is lower, giving it a lower overall effective CR. Not to mention the loss of power through an AWD drivetrain can be significant compared to that of a FWD drivetrain. From what you've explained it sounds about right though. At 6-7lbs turbocharged Lancers here in the US are keeping up with stock WRX's.
I don't race so I can't speak from personal experience, but I think those are fair estimates given the relative HP outputs of both cars.
Last edited by HobieKopek; Jul 26, 2004 at 02:09 PM.
Jul 26, 2004, 02:12 PM
#240
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also love how from the start though they were saying you wouldn't blow your motor with a SC and how it was so much safer and blah blah.... now I find out one of them blew up! LOL.. sorry but that's a little humorous to me at this point...