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

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.

 

are you ******* 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 ******* 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 ******* moron would bolt it on with stock internals and such.

use your head

p.s. yeah but im rich so it doesnt ******* 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 **** 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.

 

You have any family in California?

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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".