<img src="http://cobaltss.net/articles/turbo.jpg" align="left" border="0" hspace="5" vspace="5">Decades after each gained prominence, builders advocate one way, the other or both

Sports fans expect a competition of any sort to be settled with simple-to-grasp finality -- win or lose -- but things are rarely so straightforward when it comes to the technology of automobiles.

Take, for instance, the question of which is the best way to produce horsepower: A large, lightly stressed engine can deliver effortless acceleration, but it is likely to be heavy and thirsty; a small engine tuned for high output should be more efficient, though it may be finicky to drive.

Both approaches to producing power are widely used today, with mechanical refinements helping to minimize the drawbacks of each; neither method is a clear winner.

Likewise, there is no undisputed champion when it comes to deciding the best way to wring maximum power from an engine built for the latest high-performance model. Turbochargers and superchargers each have loyal followers ready to cite the benefits of their favorite power-booster.

But neither can claim to be new: The turbocharger recently turned 100 and the supercharger is even older. And despite their long histories, neither seems a clear winner.

Which is best suited to a vehicle depends on the intended use. With both alternatives at their disposal, engineers consider cost, driving characteristics and the space available under the hood to determine which system belongs where.

Even on the same basic engine, the choice may change depending on the vehicle in which it will be used.

General Motors' four-cylinder Ecotec engine is a good example. It is supercharged when installed in the Chevrolet Cobalt SS and Saturn Ion Red Line, but turbocharged in the Saab 9-3 and the Pontiac Solstice GXP (a performance version of the roadster introduced this month at the Los Angeles auto show). In this case, the choice was driven by available space. Pontiac engineers may have been able to save some money by installing the supercharged version from the Cobalt, but there was room for only a turbo in the Solstice, whose engine is mounted front to back.

Turbochargers and superchargers are essentially pumps, raising output by forcing air into the engine rather than depending solely on the suction of the pistons to draw it in. (With more air, the engine can burn more fuel and generate more power.) Conversely, the same devices can be used to raise fuel economy by making smaller engines practical.

Alfred Buchi, a 26-year-old Swiss engineer, conceived the turbocharger in 1905 while researching gas turbines for a Belgian firm.

The turbo's 100-year path to success was not smooth. The first challenge faced by engineers adapting them to aircraft engines was improving the life expectancy of a device that is super hot on one side, below ice-cold (at altitude) on the other, and spinning at more than 30,000 rpm.

Countless improvements were needed to keep engines from blowing up under the high pressure developed by turbochargers. Because detonation is the Achilles' heel of any force-fed engine, high-octane gasoline developed for turbocharged engines in World War II fighters and bombers proved vital to making the technology practical.

Turbocharging took root in ships, trucks and locomotives; by the 1960s, it was ready for glamorous assignments in racecars and performance models. In 1962, the first turbocharged production car, the Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire, took advantage of a water injection system developed by the military to avoid detonation.

The advent of emissions controls in the 1970s kept engineers busy perfecting anti-pollution devices like catalytic converters, exhaust-gas recirculators and fuel injectors. Porsche revived interest in turbocharging first by blowing away competitors in the Can Am racing series and then by giving its decade-old 911 a new lease on life by sticking a turbo in its tail. Turbo makers tried to reach beyond sports and performance models by proposing turbocharged four-cylinder engines as replacements for thirsty V-6s and V-8s. But most makers concluded that their old-school engines were smoother and cheaper than the suggested replacements.

At the ultraluxury end of the market, where cost is definitely not an issue, turbos are the booster of choice for Bentley, Maybach, and three Mercedes-Benz models. But as further evidence that neither approach can claim superiority, Cadillac, Jaguar, Land Rover and, yes, Mercedes-Benz offer 10 supercharged-V-8 models. To further befuddle the wealthy, Mercedes sells its SL roadster and S-Class sedan with the choice of a supercharged V-8 or a twin-turbo V-12.

It gets better. Last fall, Volkswagen introduced a Golf GT in Europe that has both a supercharger and a turbocharger. The supercharger improves low-end throttle response; the turbo kicks in to help generate 168 horsepower from a tiny 1.4-liter engine.

source: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060125/AUTO03/601250418/1149/rss26

Visitors: Join the conversation. Signing up is fast and easy! (http://cobaltss.net/forums/register.php)

Wow I had no idea that there is a twin-charged production car. Awesome!

Still prefer superchargers. They sound better than turbos (IMO), last longer, and have virtually no lag making it easier to apply smooth throttle at the drag strip or on the race track.

I have read about that twin charging. Interesting, but that adds a fair bit of weight to an otherwise light engine, and offers a greater chance of reduced reliability. Only major advantage I see is increased fuel economy.

If turbochargers had NO lag, then TC > SC.

But in most normal driving applications SC > TC

I like the supercharger because of the WHINEEEEEEEEEEEEeee gotta love it. Specially on pullied cobras. holy crap sounds like a little girl. I LOVE THE SC the only thing i like about the turbo is Blow off valve. but you be decelerating to hear that not like the sc that you hear when you are pushing 12-20 psi.

Idon't know about you guys, but in my expirence with both Turbos and SC's, The turbo would come on and out power quicker than the SC does, because it takes RPMs to get the most out of the pulley.

I owned two Turbo 8 Valve Daytonas (commonly refered to as a Turbododge) where full boost and power was realized at 3000 rpm in the 2.2L and 2700 in the 2.5L engines, respectively. I have to wait until 6000 RPM on the Cobalt to get full boost, and 3/4 boost hits after 3300 rpm.

Just an observation, turbo lag really isn't as existent as Anti-turbo people make it out to be.

I like the supercharger because of the WHINEEEEEEEEEEEEeee gotta love it. Specially on pullied cobras. holy crap sounds like a little girl. I LOVE THE SC the only thing i like about the turbo is Blow off valve. but you be decelerating to hear that not like the sc that you hear when you are pushing 12-20 psi.

Superchargers may whine, but turbochargers SCREAM.

supercharged cars can be more reliable but a turbo car as more upgrades(imo). i like both, i have no preference. my cobalt is supercharged and i like it, but one of my future project cars comes with a turbo(1990 eclipse GSX/GST). the whineeee is nice and BOV's are awesome.

Turbo cars are quieter and generally use a little less fuel at a given power level.

I have to wait until 6000 RPM on the Cobalt to get full boost, and 3/4 boost hits after 3300 rpm.

might wanna take your car in to get checked

I owned two Turbo 8 Valve Daytonas (commonly refered to as a Turbododge) where full boost and power was realized at 3000 rpm in the 2.2L and 2700 in the 2.5L engines, respectively. I have to wait until 6000 RPM on the Cobalt to get full boost, and 3/4 boost hits after 3300 rpm.



Def get that looked at i make 12 through out the band and once it hits 5700 it pushes over 13.

Back on topic, Turbo's man they are the shit, lag is getting smaller. Supercharger instant power but don't sound as cool.

Sc had boost at lower RPMs. It is controlled off the crank so it robs some power. You can control boost buy simply changing the gearing. It has its own benefits.

TC has to spool off the exhaust gas. It has some lag. It does not rob that much power off the engine. It has its Benefits also.

I think that twin charging give you the best of both. especially when you can take a 1.4 and give it a good power band plus get great fuel economy. There are so many factors in getting power out of an engine and twin is a good one to look at.

This kind of fits in every one goal to have something faster, smaller and better.

I can imagine a 2 cylinder engine in a car that can produce 160 ish HP and have a MPG from 70 to 15. Now that would be some car of the future.......

Just my 2 cents.

I like the supercharger better

This is my first supercharged car, but in the past I had an 89 7MGTE supra, with the factory CT-26 turbo. Now, maybe it was the age of the car, or the fact that the turbo was a bit smaller than most performance turbos of today, but I have to say that between the two, I like my SC better, I find it performs best under a steady acceleration, that, and I know when the SC is going because I'm pushed back in the seat. With the turbo, I never really knew when it kicked in, but like I said, that could have been due to it's small size.

As for twincharging, I'm still not to keen on that idea, but that's just me.

IMO The Turbo is the better Sounding.

Great Article BTW. I enjoyed it.

P.S. BUSH..
https://www.msprotege.com/members/Brian%20MP5T/Funny___George_W__.wmv

They call this the 100 year debate because there is not right answer and there is no wrong answer. For people who say that turbocharging is better than supercharging, you must be scratching your heads wondering why top fuel dragsters and funny cars use positive displacement blowers instead of turbos to make 5000 HP. For people who say that turbos have lag and superchargers make their boost instantly must wonder why my old VW turbo diesel would make 17lbs of boost at 1800 RPM with no lag whatsoever while a centrifugal supercharger on a VR6 engine does not make any useable boost until about 4000 RPM.

Each has its own merits and drawbacks. It all depends what you want out of your engine. Do you want to enhance the low end torque of your engine withouyt altering its top end power too much? - Then I can size a Supercharger and a turbo that will so the same thing and act in the exact same way. Do you want a race engine with gobs of top end power soley for drag racing? - Then I can size a superchager and a turbo that will act in the same way. Do you want an engine with instant boost at all rpms with lots of low, mid, and top end power and torque? - Then a can spec you out a staged turbo system or a twin supercharged system or even a compound turbo and superchanger to get the job done.

Packaging has alot to do with it also. A turbo generally requires more space for intercooler piping and the like while a supercharger can be made more compact due to the mounting of the unit.

I all really comes down to what you feel comfortable with.

-P

Superchargers in my opinion are much better than turbo's. SC are instant power. Crack the throttle and your in business. On small engines, turbos lag heavily, and more so the bigger you go. I have buddies that put turbos on LS1 engines and have very little lag. Turbos like displacement, which is funny considering the rice rocket groups love sticking huge turbo's on these small displacement engines. Turbo's have their place, I think they work great of Fox body mustangs and even the newer mustangs. And thats only because ford needs forced induction to make any power. J/K

This debate could go on forever. Basically whatever each person decides is up to them. And of couse what they are looking for in their vehicle. But personally i would put a blower on anything im wanting to drag race, or road race. Instant power always wins over lag.

Superchargers in my opinion are much better than turbo's. SC are instant power. Crack the throttle and your in business. On small engines, turbos lag heavily, and more so the bigger you go. I have buddies that put turbos on LS1 engines and have very little lag. Turbos like displacement, which is funny considering the rice rocket groups love sticking huge turbo's on these small displacement engines. Turbo's have their place, I think they work great of Fox body mustangs and even the newer mustangs. And thats only because ford needs forced induction to make any power. J/K

This debate could go on forever. Basically whatever each person decides is up to them. And of couse what they are looking for in their vehicle. But personally i would put a blower on anything im wanting to drag race, or road race. Instant power always wins over lag.

Not trying to start a war or anything..but not all SC's are instant power. A Centrifugal SC does not have instant response as it is not a positive displacement SC. Also, if you do your research and size your turbo properly, you can have a turbo that builds boost fast enough to give you the "instant power" that you are looking for.

For Example: I want to build a 4 cyl. drag car. So..I will spec a turbo that does not build boost too fast but gives me plenty of top end power. The reason is that in a drag race, instant power also means instant wheelspin and that means that you lose. You want your power to be lagged or staged and allow the car to hook up before the turbo(s) are at max boost.

Another example: I want to build an autocross car. Now I will look for a turbo with excellent low end response that will build boost as fast as I can hit the fuel or a positive displacement blower that will give me instant response. I dont want to be making maximum HP but I do want instant response and a healthy low and mis range torque curve to accelerate out of a corner as fast as possile.

Again...it is all in how you want to build and what your prefer but the technology is advanced enough on both sides so that you can spec out a SC with certain properties..and I can take the same engine and spec out the parts to build a turbo that will act in the exact same way as the SC...and vise versa.

-P

Not trying to start a war or anything..but not all SC's are instant power. A Centrifugal SC does not have instant response as it is not a positive displacement SC. Also, if you do your research and size your turbo properly, you can have a turbo that builds boost fast enough to give you the "instant power" that you are looking for.

For Example: I want to build a 4 cyl. drag car. So..I will spec a turbo that does not build boost too fast but gives me plenty of top end power. The reason is that in a drag race, instant power also means instant wheelspin and that means that you lose. You want your power to be lagged or staged and allow the car to hook up before the turbo(s) are at max boost.

Another example: I want to build an autocross car. Now I will look for a turbo with excellent low end response that will build boost as fast as I can hit the fuel or a positive displacement blower that will give me instant response. I dont want to be making maximum HP but I do want instant response and a healthy low and mis range torque curve to accelerate out of a corner as fast as possile.

Again...it is all in how you want to build and what your prefer but the technology is advanced enough on both sides so that you can spec out a SC with certain properties..and I can take the same engine and spec out the parts to build a turbo that will act in the exact same way as the SC...and vise versa.

-P


Wrong wheel drive cars often have problems getting lots of power to hook...And wheelspin is a byproduct of bad design.....having tons of power and not enough tire or suspension to get it to work is the owners fault. This is why lower hp domestics can often whore out lighter and more powerful imports on the street. They hook a lot better. But its not an argument guy. I said in my other post. The debate could go on forever, AND its up to the owner of the vehicle as to what they want.

Wrong wheel drive cars often have problems getting lots of power to hook...And wheelspin is a byproduct of bad design.....having tons of power and not enough tire or suspension to get it to work is the owners fault. This is why lower hp domestics can often whore out lighter and more powerful imports on the street. They hook a lot better. But its not an argument guy. I said in my other post. The debate could go on forever, AND its up to the owner of the vehicle as to what they want.

Exactly. I apologize if I seemed like I was arguing. I did not mean for it to come off like that..I was just trying to look at it from a different perspective....like I do with all things - I take conventional thinking and throw it out the window and try to play devil's advocate in order to see both sides of the coin equally. If you ask me what I actually prefer, I would answer with this: "I like a stout engine with a meaty torque curve and excellent low end response. I would prefer a helical roots type blower or twin screw compressor as they are very reliable and fairly efficient for the RPM range that I would be operating in most of the time." So...I actually prefer the SC.

-P

This is mildly off topic, but BMW is working on a new technology called turbosteam. Found it in this months PopSci. It works now, but BMW won't release it until it meets their weight requirements. In a nutshell, it uses two closed loops to retain up to 80% of the heat usually lost in through the radiator and exaust. The system enhances the heat and uses it to assist in maintaining engine temp and drive the crank. Tests show a 10% boost in HP and Torque as well as a 15% increase in fuel economy. Definately not going to replace TC or SC, but an interesting new technology. Imagine 20 more HP while improving MPG, using steam.

While your talking about new technology, I read an article in a magazine a while back about a ford svt lightning testbed pickup with a supercooler. It is supposed to use the compressed coolant (or something like that) to rapidly cool incoming air into the intake manifold. It would only work in short bursts like nitros but it supposably can make 50+ hp. Whether this is true or not im not sure but i did hear this somewhere.

Sorry, It's compressed coolant from the AC compressor. Weird Huh. Maybe I have no idea what i'm talking about but .. anyway.

Superchargers have 0 lag and produce much less heat as the gas is compressed. and trade of the fact that the power is not free a hydrocharged vehicle is cool but only in a paralle universe. All of that said the best turbos come from volvo. You also need to look at how you are getting the power to the ground. My example would be a RB26 out of a GTR castiron block that can take 35 PSI from stock and a all wheel drive systme that has a problem getting all of that poer to the ground all be it whenyou are looking at all of the things that you need to do in order to produce that boost I for one would say that a supercharger could have problems producing that kind of forced induction it's own for the 9.8K redline.

that's a great article jonyyb and it makes for a great debate. lag or no lag, if you are going turbocharging, you will see more hp and more torque, I think everyone must agree. Supercharging takes hp to make hp, but then again, there is no lag. it's instant. so both have their advantages and disadvantages. with the new technology today tho, you can make a huge turbo, such as a 60 trim, have almost no lag, which is a huge benefit nowadays since that's what everyone seems to complain about. Twin scroll turbos are awesome.

Personally from driving my dad's Grand Prix GTP (supercharged obviously) and my RX7(turbo'd) I prefer the turbo. Once you get it spinning the work is done, whereas the supercharger keeps pulling some poneys to keep it moving.

Now I shall sit back and wait for a turbo kit for the 2.4L:guns:

heres my input...

personally, i like turbos a lot better then superchargers (which is why ill be putting a turbo on my car)

Sure, superchargers are pretty decent and reliable but when it comes down to it turbos are more efficient. A boost controller can be a lifesaver on long road trip. You can be racing at 23 psi and with the push of a button turn it down to 5. Sure it costs a decent chunk of money, but you make up for that with the cost of gas. A supercharger is always gonna be running at the same boost, especially with stage kits which would be putting out more...

What it comes down to is this:
Superchargers are good for the money, BUT if you have the money to spend get a turbo. If you get it from a quility company and put it in correctly, it can be your best friend :cool:

oh and one more thing...
if you took a Coablt SS/SC even with stage kits pushing 20 psi and raced from a 40 or 50 mph roll against a Cobalt SS/NA with a turbo pushing the same amount of boost, the SS/NA would be the victor, hands down...from a dig, i would still be confident enough to say the turbo would leave it in the dust...

anyone who knows anything about turbos would agree with me..

Except that your forgetting that if you push 20psi of boost through a Cobalt SS/NA's 2.4l, you would blow the engine up to lovely little bits. Unless of course you spent all kinda money upgrading the parts to racing spec. But then on top of that, you got the problem that all the racing spec parts for the Ecotech are for the 2.0l and 2.2l. DOH!

So that 20psi turboed 2.4l is going to cost you a whole lot more money.

Except that your forgetting that if you push 20psi of boost through a Cobalt SS/NA's 2.4l, you would blow the engine up to lovely little bits. Unless of course you spent all kinda money upgrading the parts to racing spec. But then on top of that, you got the problem that all the racing spec parts for the Ecotech are for the 2.0l and 2.2l. DOH!

So that 20psi turboed 2.4l is going to cost you a whole lot more money.

are you fucking kidding me dude. nobody in their right mind would put a turbo that big on that kind of car without doing the proper upgrades. im not a fucking idiot.

oh and by the way....why would companies spend time and money creating these turbo kits if they werent sure they would run in a car without blowing it up? There are companies creating up to 25g turbos for my car, but only a fucking moron would bolt it on with stock internals and such.

use your head

p.s. yeah but im rich so it doesnt fucking matter. when it comes down to it, i would leave you in the dust ;) oh and it would be more like 25 psi at full boost

Ok! We get it, you like turbos but when it comes down to it you don't know shit about cars! Leave the talking to guys who change their own oil.

I personally am new to sport compact stuff, If I had the money (which I don't), I'd custom fabricate a new front end on my car, put a rear differential in it, then shove a 434 CUBIC INCH (7.2 litres for those who don't know cubic inches) naturally aspirated small block chevy, puttin out 700 hp! My personal preference is naturally aspirated, but you can't make good power with a 4 banger without a power-adder. I like superchargers even on V-8s and there not half bad on a 4 cylender. I don't have anything against turbos, I just like superchargers more.

are you fucking kidding me dude. nobody in their right mind would put a turbo that big on that kind of car without doing the proper upgrades. im not a fucking idiot.

oh and by the way....why would companies spend time and money creating these turbo kits if they werent sure they would run in a car without blowing it up? There are companies creating up to 25g turbos for my car, but only a fucking moron would bolt it on with stock internals and such.

use your head

p.s. yeah but im rich so it doesnt fucking matter. when it comes down to it, i would leave you in the dust ;) oh and it would be more like 25 psi at full boost

You have any family in California?

Ok! We get it, you like turbos but when it comes down to it you don't know shit about cars! Leave the talking to guys who change their own oil.

I personally am new to sport compact stuff, If I had the money (which I don't), I'd custom fabricate a new front end on my car, put a rear differential in it, then shove a 434 CUBIC INCH (7.2 litres for those who don't know cubic inches) naturally aspirated small block chevy, puttin out 700 hp! My personal preference is naturally aspirated, but you can't make good power with a 4 banger without a power-adder. I like superchargers even on V-8s and there not half bad on a 4 cylender. I don't have anything against turbos, I just like superchargers more.

since when does someone not changing their own oil have anything to do with the knowledge they have of cars? in my case, i dont really have a place to do it, i have work all the time and when im not working im in school. being tired from all that bullshit i hardly think im going to want to crawl under my car when i can be sleeping. especially when i have the money to pay someone to do it for me.

AND...

how can you be so confident if you dont know anything about turbos....after all, the only ride you've had in a turbo car is in a damn stock wrx which is rated like number one for the worst turbo lag ever

You have any family in California?

no? why?

no? why?
Gene Davenport is like a Z car guru here where I live, just wanted to see.:)

I'm just curious as to what lag you're exactly experiencing with a turbo vehicle when you will be reaching full boost by lets say, 2500rpm.

I always hear people saying lag this, lag that...how is that lag?

since when does someone not changing their own oil have anything to do with the knowledge they have of cars? in my case, i dont really have a place to do it, i have work all the time and when im not working im in school. being tired from all that bullshit i hardly think im going to want to crawl under my car when i can be sleeping. especially when i have the money to pay someone to do it for me.

AND...

how can you be so confident if you dont know anything about turbos....after all, the only ride you've had in a turbo car is in a damn stock wrx which is rated like number one for the worst turbo lag ever

what the hell are you talking about? I rode in that guys integra! You know i rode in it because you WERE IN THE BACK SEAT! Does that not count or what!?

personally, i like turbo's more than s/c's because of the BOV. But performance wise, i like superchargers

Wow, this is intersting. Lots of good info AND lots of horseshit. I like turbos better because they will just flat make more power. In my opinion, superchargers benefit V8's best and turbos benefit 4 bangers better. If that 68 drop guy would have made his post backwards he would hane been correct, smaller motors benefit better from turbos. You would think being an old car guy he would know that, I mean how many cars back then came with big engines and turbos. Usually it was blowers and V8's. And last time I checked a blower was a big supercharger. That is why the turbo 4 bangers keep whipping the V8's asses.

That is why the turbo 4 bangers keep whipping the V8's asses.

What dream world are you living in? LOL!!

What dream world are you living in? LOL!!
On the street, its a reality.

i don't really understand the debate here, since it's clear that it depends on the app. lets look at some real world examples, and we can't really count modified cars, we need to deal in that fuzzy land of "in theory"

a turbosupercharger will never be as responsive as a belt driven supercharger, in fact, it's always lagging, even if you can't feel the "lag". they compress air very well given thier small size, but they need to be kept cool and well oiled at all times. being in the exhaust really heats these guys up more than any belt driven supercharger. that said, it's that lag that makes them appealing. if the turbine is sized correctly, it can be just loafing along at a given RPM. thats why they're so appealing on a diesel app. it can pump as the RPM goes up, but just "idle" at crusiing speed, which.. .thanks to modern fuel injection means that you can have a "bigger" engine when you need it and a "smaller" one when you don't.

before i hear about it, YES there are cars with belt blowers that shut off and bypass at low RPM but they're not as common.

a supercharger is great for a vehicle which is going to change RPM often within a given range. the response is instant and they're somewhat easier to package in an engine bay. also, due to the lesser increase in heat, you can get away with an air-water intercooler which is better for throttle response than a traditional one. the downside is that of any belt driven item, it's got a range in which is works best and you can get outside of that pretty quickly. most cars are being made so that the belt driven items are most efficent at crusing speeds, which makes a lot of sense.

so, there we go, it's pretty obvious that it really would depend on what you're building an individual engine for in order to decide which is the better way to go... as far as the best sounding or highest performing? good old fashioned N/A is really the way to fly.

All as I know is this....it's just going to get better as time and tech. advances. Can't wait too see what's in store for cars. I also can't wait for a GM Stage III kit *sob* *dreams*

I have an STi, and I achieve full boost at 4k rpm, but its irrelevant, because off the line ideally you'd launch at about 5500 and after that, because of gearing, your always over 4k when powering through the gears. It might sound like alot of lag but considering the redline is 7k, its really not bad at all. They purposefully made it attain full boost later to counteract compressor surge at low rpms.

woah... back from the GRAVE.

I like the SC because of the good Low-end torque and acceleration but i also like the TC because of the massive power boost it gives you. But if i had to choose i would choose the SC because i just like to get up and be gone not wait until the turbo kicks in

Before my Cobalt, I had never actually driven a forced induction vehicle before. You can imagine the blast I had when I got this baby.

Shortly thereafter I got to drive a friend's VW GTI, and another's Skyline GTR. Needless to say, I LOVED the angry feeling the cars got when they started boosting out of nowhere.

I love my supercharger to death though.

Although maybe I'm the only one, but I'm really convinced that different car models have engines engineered to behave in such a way, that either a Turbo setup, or Supercharger setup would perfectly compliment the motor, in order to produces the "ideal" driving feel for that particular car.

Turbo or Supercharger, forced induction is such an effective style of juicing out a motor.

i have owned only forced induction cars since i started driving. my first car was a 91 talon tsi awd, then i had a 2001 z24 w/ m62, then a 98 jeep cherokee with a s/c on it, and now i have a 96 saab turbo. all of them were fun. my jeep and saab both hit full boost pretty early. i hit full boost in the jeep at like 2700. and in the saab i hit at about 2300 rpm. granted its a t25, but its still boosting at 20 psi and makes 255-260~ hp at the wheels with just exhaust. runs a 1/4 in 13.4@107. if i can find the slip ill post it up but it was over a year ago now. it all depends on what you like.. i LOVE supercharger whine, but i also love the ssssssssssh that the turbo makes and then the pish of the bov. and you cant forget the backfire pops in every gear on decel from 3500-2200 rpm. the jeep was nasty though, that was rated at 190 hp stock with 235 tq and it dyno'd over 290hp and 340tq when it was all done. it also had 8.8:1 compression stock n/a . but that was for off-roading so it needed the power. last i heard thde guy i sold it too took off the supercharger to do the 4.7l stroker kit for it. and then put back on the super. he mentioned it was running like 450hp and 450tq. but it also got about 3-5 miles to the gallon. lol

im auctually writing my senior research paper on this very topic. Why superchargers are better then turbos. haha sorry to bring up an old topic

it all depends on the car and what you want to do with it in the end

holy old thread brought back to life.LOL

Zombie thread FTW!

Oh well, "Live by the search button, die by the search button".

you feel the kick of the turbocharger a bit more imo, but thats probably cause the supercharger always has a pick up and go so theres nothing to not feel ;).

I like both, more potential out of a turbo really, but i prefer a supercharger for a daily driver

I'm partial to turbo's myself in my 240SX it spools fast i make full boost by 2700rpm. and when that sucker spools its like governor swartzenegger just kicked the car in the ass end it throws you back so hard. but i also like superchargers the sound is nice but also i like the sneak up affect it gives you when you let off the gas you realize just how hard you were accelerating. I'm just a forced induction junkie i guess.

Wow I had no idea that there is a twin-charged production car. Awesome!

Nissan released the March SuperTurbo in the late 80s. It used a 900cc 4cylinder with a supercharger and a turbo to give it unmatched torque and power in Japan's under 1.0L racing classes.

I'm partial to turbo's myself in my 240SX it spools fast i make full boost by 2700rpm. and when that sucker spools its like governor swartzenegger just kicked the car in the ass end it throws you back so hard. but i also like superchargers the sound is nice but also i like the sneak up affect it gives you when you let off the gas you realize just how hard you were accelerating. I'm just a forced induction junkie i guess.

Dude, you have a VG30ET powered 240SX!? It's always been my #1 project to stick a VG30DET into a 240. Sorry to go off-topic.

I personally love them both, but I don't think a supercharger can match the low-end torque rush of a well-tuned turbo. Yum.

The positive displacement supercharger sets it apart from any turbo because it provides on demand power instead of being tied directly to RPM's. It allows for a more dynamic fuel curve.

Wont get that out of a turbo, or a centrifuge SC for that matter.

I'm banking on turbo's majorly pulling away from superchargers in performance once the following trends become common:
1) turbo diesel engines (tuned for performance)
2) dynamic inlet veins for turbos and other anti-lag technology becomes more readily available

For #1 above, the the physics of diesel engines means that octane is not an issue and boost is really only really limited by the strength of the engine components. Superchargers have much more to contend with that limits boost capabilities (not to mention that they don't work well, if at all in diesel apps, that I am aware of at least).

For #2 above, the trade-off from small to large turbos has been surpassed with anti-lag technology that had been around for a long time but still isn't mainstream. Some of the old Shelby GLHS Chargers has variable computer controlled turbo veins to almost eliminate lag, and that was in the 80s, lol. Also, take the Prodrive prototype (P2 I think) that employs "anti-lag", which is some mysterious system, lol. No lag there with boost throughout the rev range.

SCs are just not capable of surpassing their own current inherent physical limits the same ways that turbos can.

However, my points are completely moot because most production and after market turbo applications do not employ the benefits of #1 and #2. But as far as potential goes, turbonium wins IMO.

superchargers seem to work better on bigger engines while samller engines get alot more out of a turbo IMO.