I never said I prefered one over the other. I was trying to be helpful and post some information I ran across while checking them out online and I get trounced on by a bunch of ******* douches. If you don't like the info..then don't read it. If you can offer facts..then post them. Save your ******* remarks for a thread where someone is being a dick...not trying to help...maybe I should start a site for people over 30 so the maturity level raises a bit?

All this drama and ******** remarks over someone trying to help. Sadly enough I started the thread and I won't be posting on it anymore...thank you to those who actually offered information.

 

I think is was a tad bit biased, but i thought it was still a great read. No need to kill the messenger. This is a supecharged-car-devoted site so a little bias is totally acceptable.

Overall, it can be said that superchargers have better powerbands while turbochargers have superior power output.

Both of them are GREAT ways to safely get power out an engine and both of them have there specific applications.

Now if only hahn would give us a part list on the twincharged setup..........

 

Hey Princess. Don't get your panties in a bunch.. Just next time don't forget to use the search button..

This was put up here over a year ago and is a bit more in depth, so you can understand that it's already been discussed. YOU could learn allot, I suggest you read it..

https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/forced-induction-50/forced-induction-101-a-8183/

 

Wow, you copied and pasted something that was already written, posted and commented on, and yet you still seem to want to bash anyone who disagrees with an article you didn't even write. If you want to be truely helpful, post what you think about the two methods of forced induction rather than someone else's ideas. So far in this thread you have posted nothing of your own ideas, which tells everyone here that you probably know nothing about what you're posting. And if you've already seen enough ******** on this site in the short time you've had a membership here, maybe this isn't the site for you.

 

X2, thank you Brian. At least I'm not the only one here thats finding something odd with the OP's method of "helping people".

 

I would love to know where one can purchase this "torque curve tuner" you speak of. ROFL

 

Hey, lookie @ what I found:

http://homepage.mac.com/wsfrazier/.P...roflatthis.mp3

 

And that is what I am saying. Today's turbos don't suffer from it nearly as bad as a conventionally designed turbo. The variable geometry and twin spool designs allow them to spool much quicker and there is no noticeable lag.

 

You don't even have to get into that level of "Turbo Tech" to get a virtually Lagless system. There has been allot of research since the 70s and with proper turbo selection based off of calculations with pressure maps and the understnading of the relationship between the engine and turbine qualities, a quick panning session will yield an awesome combination.

Add to that, Twinscroll and Variable + Computer Load control.. Bam, you end up with a near linear Dyno (No Lag)

 

the way i see it, with the great things they are doing with turbos today, i.e. ball bearing turbos, and especially turbos with the blades that continually adjust (porsche uses em) the only downsides of a turbo are installation and maintanence. Installation with a turbo is usually more involved and more expensive if you don't do it yourself, and turbos are just plain more complicated. With a proper setup a turbo is usually better than a blower imo. Better numbers, and if done properly, quick power build up. roots and twin screw blowers have the ease of installation factor, are very, very reliable and can have monster torque curves that look more like torque shelves, but a turbo will out perform if put together properly. Centrifugal blowers are kinda goin out of style cause they just can't keep up with the peak numbers of a turbo and they don't make the kinda low-end torque a roots or twin screw can, but they are somewhat easier to maintain and install than a turbo and can make some real good numbers. They also are a bit cheaper than a turbo setup usually. Really neither one is "better" per say. I guess it really depends what you need it for and what your goals are. For example, i want a low 13/high 12 sec v6. all of the power adders on the market for my car will put me there, but i want extreme reliability and to save some cash if i can. Well the only turbo kit on the market is 4700 bucks intercooled. Install is gonna be another grand. i can get an intercooled centri for under 4,000 and install it myself. Both are gonna put me in high 12's reaching my goal. The obvious choice is the centri. Now if i wanted low 12's, the turbo can get me there much easier with less stress on the motor, so it is the obvious choice. the whole supercharger vs turbocharger argument is just stupid. It is like arguing awd vs rwd. People have preferences and each is better for different needs.

 

i would love to see a v6 mustang into high 12's with just a supercharger

 

thread revival...for a useless post? cmon now...