Guest Anonymous Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 All i see is people going turbo and not super charger and i just wanted to know the reason(s) behind there actions. -Ark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody 82 ZXT Posted December 25, 2001 Share Posted December 25, 2001 I think that there are two main reasons for everyone going to turbos vs. superchargers. The first is that the factory made a turbo car and is very well proven and can make much more HP when boost is increased and supported by more fuel and intercooler. The second and another very important thing to condider is that there is only one S/C kit out and I'm not sure that it's even in production. I see rumors that it will produced but, they seem to be just wishful thinking. There are still more reasons than what I have listed but, I think that these are the two main reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavyZ Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 A turbocharger is 'clean' power IMO--it makes power from wasted energy throught the force of the exhaust. A supercharger runs through belts off of the engine--it uses power to make power. Is that a reason for going for one over the other? Heck no. A lot of it comes down to personal preference. I have owned turbocharged cars and I enjoy what they do while delivering very good (relatively speaking) gas economy. All in all, turbocharging is more efficient and also produces similar power. Davy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 The shop that painted my car actually fab'ed up a Paxton unit one time, making brackets, plumbing and such to drive the supercharger on an L6 motor, and the owner of the car had pulleys custom made to accomidate the SC belt system for $900... NEVER got the car actually to run because the guy had a family emergancy and sold the car before it ever got tested. Turbos are more expensive initially, but in my opinion make better, more, and reliable power without the failure of belts, not to mention the power you loose in the belt system. That doesn't mean I wouldn't run one. Super chargers are less complex add-ons, but also make less power and provide fewer options in the upgrade arena when considering changes... Change the pulley, maintain the belt and fight belt slippage and throwing... or upgrade the unit. There is only one KIT currently being sold for the L6 applications...Through MSA. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZROSSA Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 I love superchargers. My wife had a aw11 mr2 for years with a factory supercharger. You could nail that thing at low revs and it would take of with a howl. I kept a 750 sport bike at bay for 40kms (he turned of) through hell twisties in third gear the whole way. Baby forced sale. Douglas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 i just like that fact that if you don't nail the gas the turbo doesn't boost. which means it will give you good gas economy as long as you keep your foot off it most of the time plus in such light cars why would you need boost down low? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted December 26, 2001 Share Posted December 26, 2001 Exactly.... IF you keep your foot out of the gas, the turbo will produce an illigitimate boost, and usually the slight back pressure built up from the turbine wheel won't hurt gas mileage too much. Think of it as have an ungutted catylitic converter that only jumps in when you want it to. That's only with proper tuning of the turbo size and wastegate actuation... stock (small) turbo's can set off at 2100 rpms, but then die by 4000. So with the right sizing, trim, and boost threshold a turbo can be both mild and wild, depending on you push it. That's why I chose a zxt swap, I like the idea of still getting 20+ mpg but being able to have 300 hp on tap. Don't you all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted December 27, 2001 Share Posted December 27, 2001 I'm 16 and not paying for my gas so i think i will go with the supercharger. i like the feeling of getting thrown back in my chair thx for the info guys. (i also like the little whistle that the s/c makes, my cuzin used to have a ford lightning.) -Ark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavyZ Posted December 27, 2001 Share Posted December 27, 2001 Well shoot, if you don't have to pay for your gas, visit the Mad max websites and look for a pic of the blower sticking up out of the hood on his car. Duplicate that and then post the pic. Nothing meaner looking than a blower sticking out of a car's hood. It says, "Don't race me because I'll make you look stupid." Davy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fast Frog Posted December 27, 2001 Share Posted December 27, 2001 I've run both a turbo setup and a supercharger on my car. From about 1977 to 1994 I had 3 diff turbos on 3 diff L28 engines-the 82ZX turbo block being the best. In 1995, I installed a 383 in the same car. In 1996, I added a Paxton to beef up performance. From my humble experience, a well setup turbo sys is superior to a SC any day-for many of the same reasons quoted by others on this post. Part of my tainted view may be from the archaic nature of the Paxton. The old SN series is not a state of the art setup and is prone to too much bracket flexing(which allows belt slip and lower boost) and throwing belts when the belt starts to stretch. It's also not a free wheeling internally oiled sys like the new Prochargers and Vortex centrifical setups(which still use belts). If someone would develop a good twin turbo setup for the sbc that would also fit in the 280Z engine bay without completing redoing the Zcar front end, I'd go for it in a heart beat!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted December 27, 2001 Share Posted December 27, 2001 Well if you like the little whistler a sc makes, then you'd probably cream your pants if you heard a good turbo BOV (turboXS, blitz, other noisy ones) at high boost between shifts . Personally I wouldn't go with an sc, but I'd like to see somebody do a good setup with an l28 and pull some power. I'd say.. if that's your bag... go for it. Get ready to spend some money though if you don't like the initial results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrenp Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 i'm going with a 6-71 blower/supercharger personally it looks much more impressive the power is there when u want it. i know it's gonna pass everything except a gas station but u all so gotta look at it this "way power cost money" besides if i every change my mind (and i prolly will not) i can take the s/c off and stick a turbo or 2 on. or maybe s/c and turbo. i doubt that. it could happin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 I work with a guy who has a SCed Nissan Frontier and get a whopping 13-15 MPG. I think the "power on demand" would be a big advantage. Alot of poeple argue that turbos can't deliver low end torque but alot of 18 wheelers use turbos. Thats just my opinion, I don't own turbo or SC car(or even a Z, but I am looking). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrenp Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 it's the gearing on the 18 wheelers, thats where they get there torque, the turbo doesn't kick in at low rpm's on them either, how ever u can make a turbo have little to no lag. i'm not sure how but i am almost 100% sure it can be done. so it's like haveing a supercharger that doesn't take power to make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLKMGK Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 Ummm Warren - what's redline on one of those big diesels? I'm pretty sure they make their boost down low and not at high RPM. Turbos like to have something to push against - heavy loads will do the trick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 Umm, IMHO large diesel trucks get they're torque from the huge ass stroke on the engine. They only red-line at like 2500 rpm's (or way less unless its a detroit diesel). The great number of gears is to keep the engine in its small powerband. But make no mistake, even though your typical '350' cummins makes only 350 RWHP, the torque is anywhere from 1200 to 1800 ft/lbs at a very low RPM. Its pretty funny really in low gears just trying to get the truck moving without bouncing the front end up and down. Oh well, back to the topic, sorry. Regards, Lone In Az. In Absentia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zthang43 Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 Those big diesels generally don't run above 2600 or 2800 rpm. The turbos come on WAY before that, and they do help make torque way down low in the rpm range on an application like that. A diesel is different though, you can keep cranking up the air fuel mixture to get more power, which means greater exhaust volume, which spools up the turbo sooner. The power on those big ones is awesome. I got to drive a Peterbilt 387 at the proving grounds where I worked; it had the 600hp Cummins (or maybe it was a CAT, they use both) the torque was 2050ft-lbs. Without a trailer, it pulled a steep hill just as well as my '69 Chevelle with the built 350/ 4 speed. Very cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 hey blkmgk, that last remark of yours sparked a question in my head. i was just curious but do SC's have to be under load to produce boost? i wouldn't think so since a belt turns the compressor but i was curious. i noticed that if i break traction or am on ice my t-bird TC will not produce boost since the motor has no load on it. i kinda like that, its like it is a little bit self metering in that it doesn't make power when you won't be able to use it. where as a SC would just keep on laying down the power and exaserbate(sp?) your problem (especially on ice ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl327 Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 turbo and supercharged are both great at what they do, making power, im a simple guy that likes to do things very simply and reliably, and i would run a blower before turbo, because i have no desire or intention to run fi at any point. i like the holley powercharger 144, i think its great for street driving/racing, boost is instant, and it pulls great and works great on a stock motor. the blower setup has been around forever and its just like any other mechanical thing, youve got to maintain it, and maintain it more often, with great power you have great responsibility. also, the juice is very nice too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 5, 2002 Share Posted January 5, 2002 Yeah, I like the baby Holley/Weiand chargers too, the look is hard to beat. Just have to watch the advance curve and max boost with them at least on a stock motor with cast pistons (and fuel mixture obviously). On a built motor they claim up to 500 hp which is enough for the average sane hybridz driver. The boost should be right off the bottom which could be a traction issue if you motor is very built. *Shrug* Regards, Lone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.