8cd03gro

i hope you are kidding....you do know that the two most powerful four cylinder production cars are both turbos right?

05SilverStreak

Depends on what you are calling power. In pretty much any case a turbo will prevail. Unless this is your first boosted car, you cant really say that.

05SilverStreak

To say that would be narrow minded, you will gain first but what can you hold??? The supercharger will spool first but then your at the mercy of the screws inside. You wouldnt be able to hold the same boost for the same amount of time as a turbo. If you did your supecharger would definately blow apart. The bigger turbos will surely not get out of the hole first, but when they spool they about take the paint with them when they pass you. I dont know but it would take a huge capacity spercharger, which is not available to you, to keep up with a turbo half its capacity. In a short race sure you have superior advantage, but in like a 1/4 mile you are at definate disadvantage. Just my opinion

BlownSaturn

Superchargers don't "spool" like a turbo. They are a direct drive power adder. It irks me when people say they spool. And we don't have "screws" inside. They are rotors. I wish we were supported by Kenne Bell or Whipple and had a twin screw charger available to us but we don't.

Second, turbos sound like crap. Anybody who likes turbo whistle over blower whine is insane IMO. BOV's are just flat irritating. I wouldn't want to make my car sound like an air compressor.......but whatever.

Lastly, since everybody and their uncle likes to use the most extreme cases of turbos making power then fine, let's look at the other side. The fastest 4 bangers in the world might be using turbo...........but the fastest machines to tear down the 1320 in the world use big......no gigantic roots style blowers

97CIVIC

IT WILL HAVE A TURBO IN 08!!!

8cd03gro

excuse me....the fastest 0-60 car in the world is a turbo car, the hks sx does 0-60 in 1.2 seconds and it uses a highly modified RB26DETT from a skyline gtr34...yea the tt stands for twin turbo. Quickest (quarter mile time) production car was the nismo z-tune skyline up until the veyron came out which is also a turbo car. And just to prove my point...the quickest vehicle to ever run a quarter mile is the hydrogen peroxide powered rocket dragster piloted by kitty O'Neil. It ran the 1/4 in 3.22 seconds at 396 MPH in 1977 and yea it had a turbo.

BlownSaturn

Haha, okay. Since that isn't comparable to what I was refering to. The FASTEST internal combustion powered cars to run down the quarter mile are top fuel dragsters that use large cubic inch V8 engines with hemispherical heads and roots style blowers. Go ahead and put a skyline against that........I'd love to see it....really

8cd03gro

i thought you said "fastest cars" in your first statement...top fuel dragsters are faster, but when we talk about actual cars that are street legal or were once street legal lol, the fastest ones are turbos. I think using gasoline instead of nitromethane would make it more of a car lol

8cd03gro

oh and this is just amazing

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...2C936F472C.htm

BlownSaturn

I've seen that integra vid before. It's no doubt an engineering marvel. I only use top fuel dragsters as an example, even though they aren't street cars, because they are the top of the food chain when speaking about roots style forced induction. Turbo guys always show me vids of huge HP Supra's and whatnot runnin with big snails under the hood......like those are just your average turbo car So my counter to them is the top fuel dragster. Either way.......I'm not so much anti-turbo as I am pro-blower I mean........what man in his right mind wouldn't want to be blown?

Asphalt Assault

I get major popping sounds stock

Asphalt Assault

S/C dont spool. a butter fly valve closes and the supercharger is no longer bypassed.that is why it is instant. and if you compare a jet to a corvette the corvette will out accelerate the jet. but the jet is faster when it is tool late. I agree to keep super charger and mod the engine. will do amazing things yet. With HPtuners out all we need is pistons and head work and we are pushing 400HP at the wheels with stock charger. were already at 300HP with stock motor. If GM put in Forged Pistons from the start their sales would have been even better. oh well.

8cd03gro

yea for sure man im probably gonna go s/c on my stang. what i was trying to say is a turbo 4 is easier to make real powerful than a s/c four. On big engines s/c is for sure the way to go, because they already have the low end torque. I can't wait to be blown

Matty

I love the Vortech on my Mustang.

05SilverStreak

Srt -4 Can safely put down up to 500 whp on stock internals.

cashstacker

how do you know that? If you have a current ss/sc be prepared for the aftermarket parts to stop being made.

ReMz

dont say something like that.... i dont want to bash you... just not a fair or smart comment. an SRT-4 CANNOT put down 500whp "safely" on stock internals.

wrong on a couple occasions.

1) your comparisson is relevent, but not practical. a jet puts out power exponentially. a turbocharger is limited by exhaust spooling. instant hp is achieved from the motor, while still stealing power (a supercharger). dont use a magazine article with a corvette vs. a jet to make a valid argument here. anyways, modern turbos can spool fast and turbo lag is not a valid argument for a car that gets power "too late".

2) sales would not have increased if GM put forged pistons in the cobalt. you have to consider that GM needed to make the car for a cheap price, while still appealing to the average consumer and the tuner crowd. While most (nearly all) SS/SC owners on this site are above the average, most of GM's sales are coming from ppl that like the looks and power of the car. those people may not even know the displacement of the engine (and yes, this is a generalization).

400whp is not currently limmited by internals man.... it is limited by the aftermarket support/competiveness (which is booming quickly)

now i end my rant on how narrow minded some ppl here can be about marketing and engineering (ssnipes, certainly not a personal attack, i respect nearly all of the posts u make man)

-ReMz

Tofu

LOL, wow this thread went waaaay off topic.

NJHK

Remz, gotta give it to you...great post.

red_wing_2121

I believe that a supercharger should theoretically be better than a turbo on a four cylinder because you are dealing with an eninge that is not too powerful to begin with. You need the low end, almost instantaneous power of a supercharger to compensate for only four cylinders. Turbos need to spool up and are mainly good for mid to high range power. Superchargers are pretty much good for all around power. If I was just going for mid to high range, I would get a turbo. But other than that, a supercharger is the only way to go.

On an eight cylinder and maybe a six, you can probably pretty much go either way.

NJHK

This is the problem, everyone is WAY too general when it comes to turbochargers and superchargers. Everyone forgets that superchargers need RPMs to make power, same with turbochargers BUT the thing with turbochargers is that they come in all different sizes, trims, brands, types and specs.

You say "turbos are better for mid-high end power"...WRONG. Ever drive a 1.8T? That turbo is slightly bigger than a snail and spools instantly but has TERRIBLE top end power. I have a T3/T4 50 Trim turbo on my 2.2 ECOTEC...granted, I have a valvetrain work done, but this is why I picked this turbo. Just driving down the street at cruising speeds and not even in boost, it's smooth like no other. I have NO problem spooling this turbo at all. This is due to having a well matched turbo for my motor.

This brings on another thing...turbo lag. Turbo lag almost never happends. I say almost because if you put too big of a turbo, lag can happen but this happening is far likely of happening if you have any turbo knowledge (example: a T4 turbo on a stock 2.2 ECOTEC).

As far as your theory of "superchargers being better for 4 cylinders", generally, I would say to each is own but if you want to think in a power sense, you're wrong. Superchargers no matter what size motor you have, takes power away to make power generated. Turbochargers take NO power from your motor and generates power off of "wastes". Since 4 cylinders generally don't generate alot of power, taking away power would be a slight negative effect just to generate power.

Also, one last thing...I keep hearing people say "low end", but what RPM are you considering low end? If you guys are that worried about having a bunch of power or full boost at 1,500 RPMs, buy a ball bearing turbo.

red_wing_2121

Actually, I believe you are right now that I really think about it. Maybe I am a little biased and don't realize it when I am typing. I try not to be, but I kinda like superchargers better for the simple fact of ease of use (i.e. no startup or shutdown waits and no massive amounts of heat). I also like the sound of a supercharger. A turbo sounds cool too (especially BOV's on many Evo's).

I am open to running either one on any of my vehicles, whether it be stock or aftermarket.
Power is power, afterall!

NJHK

It's all good, I understand what you mean...keeping open minded is difficult sometimes.

WopOnTour

LOL
That's about as hilarious as your other posts in this thread and your sig!

FYI - Kitty's rail was ROCKET POWERED
Do you even know what that is?
You know... Atlas?... Saturn V??... Hello???
They operate solely on thrust propulsion and there certainly is no turbo
Maybe try this...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/rocket7.htm

Here's a real pic of the rocket engine identical to Kitty O'Neil's
AND
Yes I seen her and great many other rocket powered funny cars and dragsters actually competing in the early-mid 70's
(probably long before you were born)

WopOnTour

PS> Yes you're nothing but a troll and a poor one at THAT

8cd03gro

dude that was a joke you idiot...lol. it's called sarcasm. read that sentence again and try to take it seriously.