You would be wasteing alot of time converting an already boosted car.

Unless you really have your heart set on turbo, I would focus more on building the SC up.

 

A little lesson, in short form,

A SC takes power to turn, If you have a a 2.8 pulley, it takes approx. 50hp from the motor to turn it! Depending on which system you are referring to, supercharges are only 30-45% efficient in making power vs power loss.
Their advantage, EASY packaging for mass production, instant power, longevity!

A turbo uses only about 5-10HP (if any when properly designed) so right there you have 40-50HP more over the SC car at the same boost level! Turbo's are 70-85% efficient
Disadvantage, hard to package in mass produced FWD, durability, LAG, these are all comments straight from GM engineers!!!

Do a google search, you can learn more in 1-2hours than most will in a lifetime. It won't make you an expert but at least you won't look like an idiot with silly outburst of denials

 

Umm, Actually a Well designed turbo system costs ZERO HP.

Heat is used to spool the turbo, If the DP back is un-restricive you will only see a slight more backpressure at the valves over a similar NA or SC setup.

Backpressure is dangerous is left unchecked but it's very easy to overcome this negative by running a larger pipe with no or a highflow cat.

P.S. If you remove your cat, the turbo will spool significantly sooner as you will effectivey make better use of the pressure difernetial between both sides of the hot wheel.

and it will smell BAD. (Ask Pete)

 

Turbo>all.

 

I'm not getting the reasoning here. Lets see how many car makers USE turbochargers. I'd say that the best example is Porsche. Try telling them that they use an unreliable form of forced induction. let's see, everyone on this site has a hardon for the Bugatti Veryon. It uses FOUR. VW and SAAB use them in regular old street cars. Lets see, just about EVERY diesel engine uses them. Strange that they don't offer anything over superchargers but an entire industry uses them? I'd say they are more widely used than superchargers because they are a more efficient means of making power. But that's just me.

Jon

 

^^^ Sadly I think the Turbo reliability thread was deleted.

Basically, we have come a long way since the Model-T and reliability is totally possible with modern applications of proven and refined ideas.

Take the Rotary Engine as an EG.

That thing used to be a nightmare to keep Apex Seals in, now Mazda offeres 7 Year mechanical coverage...

Turbo and Superchargers are daily driver reliable. It's all up to the design and maintenece.

 

Im not critizing the S/C , but IMO they guys getting real serious with the SS/SC's are gonna find it alot harder to make power over a well designed Turbo set up . I have yet to see how our engines respond to ported cylinder heads , cam changes ect. , but with the stock blower and 2.6-2.8 pulley your gonna have to look into the engine for more power because the stock blower is gonna be maxed out RPM wise . Especially if you extent the rev limit beyond 6500 RPM . Even take the stock boost rating of 12.5 psi . With a well designed Turbo/intercooler set up , our 2.0 would make alot more power at the same boost level , and the boost would come on sooner so bottom end torque would start coming on more like 2500 rpm rather than close to 4K . While Superchargers have their place ....I tend to prefer them in a street going V8 set up , and they do make for a damn fun package on our SS/SC in stock and lightly modded form . I think the most prudent way to make alot of power with a very small dispacement 4 cyl engine is Turbocharging .

 

Soemone meeds to find a wrecked Saab 9-3 and see if the intake manifold could be bolted up on the SS/SC in replace of everything. I know it would probably require some custom exhaust bending but maybe the Saab intake manifold/turbo could be used.

 

Depends on how much more HP you are wanting.

Stock for Stock the turbo is easier to get more out of, but if it comes to adding 40-60 HP, the SC is really hard to beat.

Turbo's are my prefered power adder. To me they are so simple even when compared to a SC to tune...

 

Depends on how much more HP you are wanting.

Stock for Stock the turbo is easier to get more out of, but if it comes to adding 40-60 HP, the SC is really hard to beat.

Turbo's are my prefered power adder. To me they are so simple even when compared to a SC to tune...

 

I agree! I prefer turrbo but this LSJ is a nice combo

 

so does anyone make a turbo swap kit? id like to keep the sc but it seems so much easier with that turbo to create hp im not lookin to go much more if at all 300hp

 

If you are lookinf for ~300 hp, the supercharger can get you there. With some other mild mods and some tuning you could get there.

 

Agreed, 90% of the work is there and 300 WHP is a totally possible SC goal.

 

i know its possible with the s/c i can port and polish head and blower get intense stage 3 exhaust and intake should get me there but wont a turbo allow you to get better gas milage? or will the s/c turn on and off when needed?