View Poll Results: Supercharger or turbocharger?
Supercharger
142
50.71%
Turbocharger
138
49.29%
Voters: 280. You may not vote on this poll
The Ultimate SC400 Question: Supercharge or Turbocharge
12-11-04, 10:55 AM
#1
The Ultimate SC400 Question: Supercharge or Turbocharge
What would you want if both were available to you?
Would you want the mid-upper rpm HP or the extra HP over the entire range?
What honestly do you think has the best performance overall?
Placed on a straightaway which would beat the other out eventually?
Would you want the mid-upper rpm HP or the extra HP over the entire range?
What honestly do you think has the best performance overall?
Placed on a straightaway which would beat the other out eventually?
12-11-04, 03:17 PM
#2
Pole Position
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you want if both were available to you? - Supercharger b/c of Question #2
Would you want the mid-upper rpm HP or the extra HP over the entire range? More low end torque provided by the supercharger
What honestly do you think has the best performance overall? Turbo for highway; supercharger for stoplights
Placed on a straightaway which would beat the other out eventually? turbo eventually... the faster you go, the faster you go.
Would you want the mid-upper rpm HP or the extra HP over the entire range? More low end torque provided by the supercharger
What honestly do you think has the best performance overall? Turbo for highway; supercharger for stoplights
Placed on a straightaway which would beat the other out eventually? turbo eventually... the faster you go, the faster you go.
12-11-04, 05:35 PM
#3
Originally posted by Dixond
What would you want if both were available to you? - Supercharger b/c of Question #2
Would you want the mid-upper rpm HP or the extra HP over the entire range? More low end torque provided by the supercharger
What honestly do you think has the best performance overall? Turbo for highway; supercharger for stoplights
Placed on a straightaway which would beat the other out eventually? turbo eventually... the faster you go, the faster you go.
What would you want if both were available to you? - Supercharger b/c of Question #2
Would you want the mid-upper rpm HP or the extra HP over the entire range? More low end torque provided by the supercharger
What honestly do you think has the best performance overall? Turbo for highway; supercharger for stoplights
Placed on a straightaway which would beat the other out eventually? turbo eventually... the faster you go, the faster you go.
I myself would much rather a supercharger for the SC400.
On the other hand if I had the SC3 or a Supra. I would definetly get it outfitted with a 2JZ-GTE. One of the strongest engines built and have so many options for turbos. That I would play around with on the highway.
12-11-04, 07:40 PM
#4
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 3,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm personally torn. For MY use I'm gonna have to say supercharger. Linear power, I'm not gonna need full throttle power for a long time so the supercharger will do me just fine. However, the turbo has potential for more power while keeping driveability. My thing though, is I won't need 600+rwhp. It would be nice but a waste with my driving habits. I wouldn't shut down a turbo kit but if I could pick it would be a supercharger. Oh plus they're easier to tune and if it's a roots style, less plumbing and all that mess.
James
James
12-12-04, 12:38 AM
#5
Lead Lap
I'd go for turbo, cuz I like the efficiency of a turbine being driven by gases vs a belt, I like the sound of a turbo, and most importantly, the rush of when that mug kicks in!!
Also, most importantly, you can gain peak power well before redline in a turbo, unlike a supercharger.
- soon to be boosted....
Also, most importantly, you can gain peak power well before redline in a turbo, unlike a supercharger.
- soon to be boosted....
12-12-04, 09:20 AM
#6
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, after seeing so many supercharged cars dyno vs. turbocharged cars dyno. I wouldn't ever supercharge ANY car. Do you want that linear power? A supercharger will probably have a LITTLE bit more power on the low end, but it will never compare with a turbo. With a supercharger, if you make 500 peak whp, you could probably only hang with a 400-450 whp turbocharged car. A supercharged car doesn' t have a powerband at all. It just peaks and yea, there's your horsepower. 
Here's an example of a S/C Mustang making high 600 whp.
Now here's an example of a 664 whp DSM (Turbocharged of course)
In a race, if they both weighed the same, the DSM would walk all over it. In this scenario, the dsm will still walk all over it because it weighs 400 lbs lighter than the 03 Cobra.
Just look at how long the dsm actually has over 600 whp compared to how long the 03 cobra has it's power over 600 whp. When the S/C car shifts, he's probably going to be at about 400-450 whp, as to when the dsm shifts, he's gonna be at 600 whp still. I'd take the car that has 600 whp between shifts anyday.
S/C roots or Centrifugal = Waste of money imho. Just my .02
Here's an example of a S/C Mustang making high 600 whp.
Now here's an example of a 664 whp DSM (Turbocharged of course)
In a race, if they both weighed the same, the DSM would walk all over it. In this scenario, the dsm will still walk all over it because it weighs 400 lbs lighter than the 03 Cobra.
Just look at how long the dsm actually has over 600 whp compared to how long the 03 cobra has it's power over 600 whp. When the S/C car shifts, he's probably going to be at about 400-450 whp, as to when the dsm shifts, he's gonna be at 600 whp still. I'd take the car that has 600 whp between shifts anyday.
S/C roots or Centrifugal = Waste of money imho. Just my .02
Last edited by CP_Ree; 12-12-04 at 09:30 AM.
Trending Topics
12-12-04, 04:01 PM
#8
Pole Position
i would go for Turbo....purely because of the sound.
CEO
CEO
12-12-04, 04:26 PM
#9
Originally posted by guessd
Honestly, after seeing so many supercharged cars dyno vs. turbocharged cars dyno. I wouldn't ever supercharge ANY car. Do you want that linear power? A supercharger will probably have a LITTLE bit more power on the low end, but it will never compare with a turbo. With a supercharger, if you make 500 peak whp, you could probably only hang with a 400-450 whp turbocharged car. A supercharged car doesn' t have a powerband at all. It just peaks and yea, there's your horsepower.
Here's an example of a S/C Mustang making high 600 whp.
Now here's an example of a 664 whp DSM (Turbocharged of course)
In a race, if they both weighed the same, the DSM would walk all over it. In this scenario, the dsm will still walk all over it because it weighs 400 lbs lighter than the 03 Cobra.
Just look at how long the dsm actually has over 600 whp compared to how long the 03 cobra has it's power over 600 whp. When the S/C car shifts, he's probably going to be at about 400-450 whp, as to when the dsm shifts, he's gonna be at 600 whp still. I'd take the car that has 600 whp between shifts anyday.
S/C roots or Centrifugal = Waste of money imho. Just my .02
Honestly, after seeing so many supercharged cars dyno vs. turbocharged cars dyno. I wouldn't ever supercharge ANY car. Do you want that linear power? A supercharger will probably have a LITTLE bit more power on the low end, but it will never compare with a turbo. With a supercharger, if you make 500 peak whp, you could probably only hang with a 400-450 whp turbocharged car. A supercharged car doesn' t have a powerband at all. It just peaks and yea, there's your horsepower.
Here's an example of a S/C Mustang making high 600 whp.
Now here's an example of a 664 whp DSM (Turbocharged of course)
In a race, if they both weighed the same, the DSM would walk all over it. In this scenario, the dsm will still walk all over it because it weighs 400 lbs lighter than the 03 Cobra.
Just look at how long the dsm actually has over 600 whp compared to how long the 03 cobra has it's power over 600 whp. When the S/C car shifts, he's probably going to be at about 400-450 whp, as to when the dsm shifts, he's gonna be at 600 whp still. I'd take the car that has 600 whp between shifts anyday.
S/C roots or Centrifugal = Waste of money imho. Just my .02
Last edited by verylost; 12-12-04 at 04:32 PM.
12-12-04, 06:21 PM
#10
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by verylost
This logic only works for highway and top end pulls. Now apply this argument to an autocross or technical course, the dsm will be trying to build boost all day long and never reach its powerband. From the graphs, it takes the the DSM 4500 rpms to make 300 tq while the it only takes 2500 rpms for the cobra to make the equivalent tq.
This logic only works for highway and top end pulls. Now apply this argument to an autocross or technical course, the dsm will be trying to build boost all day long and never reach its powerband. From the graphs, it takes the the DSM 4500 rpms to make 300 tq while the it only takes 2500 rpms for the cobra to make the equivalent tq.
Last edited by CP_Ree; 12-12-04 at 06:22 PM.
12-12-04, 06:37 PM
#11
Originally posted by guessd
That tq number really doesn't say much because at 2500, the mustang is still at very little/no boost. That 300 ft/lbs is purely from displacement which in this case, the mustang has 2x as much of. I guess this was a pretty bad example but the point I was trying too get at was that turbocharged cars actually have a powerband. unlike s/c cars.
That tq number really doesn't say much because at 2500, the mustang is still at very little/no boost. That 300 ft/lbs is purely from displacement which in this case, the mustang has 2x as much of. I guess this was a pretty bad example but the point I was trying too get at was that turbocharged cars actually have a powerband. unlike s/c cars.
Even if we ignore the numbers on the graphs you have provided and focus on the shape of the curves, I would still take a supercharged car for technical track work but a turbo for highway runs. The reason I would choose the SC is because the power is there at low rpms.
You can't simply say that a supercharger is worthless unless you define your driving preferences to driving in a straight line at 150 mph. By simply saying a SC has no purpose, you are giving out false information.
12-12-04, 06:41 PM
#12
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennesee
Posts: 3,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by verylost
Please define powerband because according to my definition, every car has a powerband whether it be NA, turbo, or supercharged. My definition of powerband is the range of rpms where the car gives the most useful power or torque. According to the graphs, the mustang's powerband begins at 2500 and doesn't end until 7k. The DSM's powerband only begins at 4500 rpm.
Even if we ignore the numbers on the graphs you have provided and focus on the shape of the curves, I would still take a supercharged car for technical track work but a turbo for highway runs. The reason I would choose the SC is because the power is there at low rpms.
You can't simply say that a supercharger is worthless unless you define your driving preferences to driving in a straight line at 150 mph. By simply saying a SC has no purpose, you are giving out false information.
Please define powerband because according to my definition, every car has a powerband whether it be NA, turbo, or supercharged. My definition of powerband is the range of rpms where the car gives the most useful power or torque. According to the graphs, the mustang's powerband begins at 2500 and doesn't end until 7k. The DSM's powerband only begins at 4500 rpm.
Even if we ignore the numbers on the graphs you have provided and focus on the shape of the curves, I would still take a supercharged car for technical track work but a turbo for highway runs. The reason I would choose the SC is because the power is there at low rpms.
You can't simply say that a supercharger is worthless unless you define your driving preferences to driving in a straight line at 150 mph. By simply saying a SC has no purpose, you are giving out false information.
12-12-04, 10:00 PM
#13
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by verylost
Please define powerband because according to my definition, every car has a powerband whether it be NA, turbo, or supercharged. My definition of powerband is the range of rpms where the car gives the most useful power or torque. According to the graphs, the mustang's powerband begins at 2500 and doesn't end until 7k. The DSM's powerband only begins at 4500 rpm.
Even if we ignore the numbers on the graphs you have provided and focus on the shape of the curves, I would still take a supercharged car for technical track work but a turbo for highway runs. The reason I would choose the SC is because the power is there at low rpms.
You can't simply say that a supercharger is worthless unless you define your driving preferences to driving in a straight line at 150 mph. By simply saying a SC has no purpose, you are giving out false information.
Please define powerband because according to my definition, every car has a powerband whether it be NA, turbo, or supercharged. My definition of powerband is the range of rpms where the car gives the most useful power or torque. According to the graphs, the mustang's powerband begins at 2500 and doesn't end until 7k. The DSM's powerband only begins at 4500 rpm.
Even if we ignore the numbers on the graphs you have provided and focus on the shape of the curves, I would still take a supercharged car for technical track work but a turbo for highway runs. The reason I would choose the SC is because the power is there at low rpms.
You can't simply say that a supercharger is worthless unless you define your driving preferences to driving in a straight line at 150 mph. By simply saying a SC has no purpose, you are giving out false information.
But, pretty much, in my very biased opinion, a turbocharger will always be superior. You can try to bring up the argument of the point that you want lower end power for other kinds of racing like autoX . Well then just get a turbo that spools faster. This turbocharged dyno sheet isn't one of the fastest spooling setups out there. There are far better ones that I don't currently have access to. If you like your supercharger, that's fine. Turbo cars will always be more potent and efficient.
Last edited by CP_Ree; 12-12-04 at 10:03 PM.
12-12-04, 11:09 PM
#14
Originally posted by guessd
As far as when I refer to "powerband" I am referring to the area of power where the car is at its fullest potential power-wise. As you can see, superchargers are all about peak numbers which to me, is not a powerband or a very little one if that.
But, pretty much, in my very biased opinion, a turbocharger will always be superior. You can try to bring up the argument of the point that you want lower end power for other kinds of racing like autoX . Well then just get a turbo that spools faster. This turbocharged dyno sheet isn't one of the fastest spooling setups out there. There are far better ones that I don't currently have access to. If you like your supercharger, that's fine. Turbo cars will always be more potent and efficient.
As far as when I refer to "powerband" I am referring to the area of power where the car is at its fullest potential power-wise. As you can see, superchargers are all about peak numbers which to me, is not a powerband or a very little one if that.
But, pretty much, in my very biased opinion, a turbocharger will always be superior. You can try to bring up the argument of the point that you want lower end power for other kinds of racing like autoX . Well then just get a turbo that spools faster. This turbocharged dyno sheet isn't one of the fastest spooling setups out there. There are far better ones that I don't currently have access to. If you like your supercharger, that's fine. Turbo cars will always be more potent and efficient.
What you call powerband alone is not enough to say the supercharger technology is worthless. Heck, most porsche purists tend to choose the NA version over the turbo. Why is that? It's because they need that low end, linear power for a technical course. If you want a dyno queen, go with turbo. If you want to live life a quarter mile at a time, go with the turbo. If you plan on turning, I, myself, would go with a supercharger or fast spooling turbo. If you plan on doing some turning and some higway racing, I would go supercharger. If I had an infinite budget, I'd get a jet engine.
In most cases I agree with you. It's your blanket statements which is detrimental to the understanding of the differences between turbos and superchargers to the original poster. Turbos and superchargers each have their own benefits for different conditions. When you stereotype and give shallow explanations, you end up with idiots who own mustangs who believe they have a GTR version with a rotary inside with pistons that's turbocharged.
