This discussion will never be resolved. I've been in both cars each have their ups and downs. However, I have never effed up a SuperCharged car because I didn't let it warm up or cool down properly. I have seen people with Turbo's do this to their cars. I will say Turbos will make more power at more expense to the structure of the engine, but I still get a full stiffy at the sound of car with a supercharger.

 

So true, my buddy has two old school eclipse' one gst spyder the other a gsx both with big turbo's and whenever we are out somewhere he always pulls up next to me screaming SUPACHAGARRRR let's hear it SCREEEAAAM! While he is halfway out of the car steering with one arm.

 

Fact:

Almost every company in the past 5 years has switched to turbo variations of their cars, trucks and SUV's.

Almost every brand has a turbo option in some type of vehicle.

They all claim increased low end torque makes for better day to day drive-ability in addition to greater fuel economy.


Why is that? Why do they choose to go turbo? Why does the ECOboost exist?


My guess is for %95 of people who could care less, a turbocharged vehicle is better. And for the people that like to argue, who like superchargers, they are better for them.

 

turbos do not need to steal power from the engine to make more power. They are a pure increase in engine efficiency. Car manufacturers today for the most part do not use turbos on the average vehicle to increase performance. They do it to increase fuel economy. That's the only reason why cars like the Cruze have turbo variations at all.

 

Also larger supercharges eat belts, apply extra pressure to the crank snout and are extremely parasitic in larger higher boost applications.

 

i like both theres disadvantages to both obviously so let the pissing contest continue...lol

i whine but.... i do like sneeze as well

 

Only reason turbos are used in oem applications is for fuel mileage you guys are too funny.

 

Turbos do rob some power to for those of you that think they are the magic power maker with no downsides. They create a restriction in the exhaust that does rob some power. They don't rob as much as a supercharger but the loss is still there.

 

According to the cobalt forums,

The reason why OEMs use turbos, because turbos are worse than superchargers
I can name 20+ 4 cyl turbo cars, but the only one SC 4 cyl, this is due to supercharger being better
The fastest most refined car in the world uses 4 turbos, this is due to superchargers being too good for a Bugatti


Honestly, the reason these threads suck **** is the supercharger people do not follow logic.

The more common application is inferior? That's ridiculous. The more common turbo, is more common because its better. Thats logic.

Funny how the ONLY sc 4CYL car that I can name (the cobalt) was replaced with a turbo. LOL

And by cobalt forum logic, it was replaced by a turbo because turbo s are worse? lol

 

This is false. The additional backpressure created by the turbo puts more force on the piston during the exhaust stroke. This energy taken from the engine is used to power the turbine. It just so happens that there is typically less parasitic loss with a turbo than a supercharger.

As far as which is better, it completely depends on the application. For 1/4 mile runs or a road course with long sweeping turns, the turbo is much better because you can make more peak power and don't need to worry about throttle response.

For a tight track with lots of twisties, it's the supercharger all the way, because you have much better throttle response. The turbo requires that you hit the gas prematurely to corner exit, so that the power is there when you need it. If you are rapidly changing direction, such as in an autocross course, you can do several modulations of the throttle with a sc'ed car in the time that it takes the turbo car to respond to a single throttle input.

It's all about the application. However for each application, one can clearly be defined as better than the other. The reason why turbos are so popular among tuners is because most people think straight line acceleration defines 100% of a vehicle's performance charactersitics, and they have no idea how to drive.

 

I just dont buy the "2,500HP top fuel drag cars use superchargers, so they are better" Argument.

 

^^^^ this

 

excellent

 

I think that this topic comes up alot more here because of the platform. GM created a good looking and "quick" car that was supercharged first and people loved it. They then decided to switch things up and go to Turbo. This car then made more power then the recent year. Of course the SS/TC is faster the the SS/SC, but that does not make it a better car. Like said in many comments before, its all about the application. I like both the SC and the TC.

 

I thought GM went to turbo because of emissions, not power...

 

Staged called it. Should have been locked already. Some people's ignorance in this thread kills me. This will never be proven one way or the other. It's like arguing about coke or Pepsi, everyone has a preference.

 

..........NA ftw jk TC > SC

 

Guess you never heard of Lotus.... That's a shame.

 

i love them both. currently i like to lean more towards the s/c's because as stated by previous posts.. it just stands right up when the whine kicks in. turbos r so common now that everywhere i go i hear a turbo or BOV. i love being a lil different and having that instant power and letting cars hear the whine as i come up on them!

 

we just put a s/c on my buddy's 06 elise. that **** sounds wicked and hauls *****. stil only as fast as a cobalt from a roll though but from a dig just straight nasty

 

pepsi ftw!!! lol sorry i had to

 

Fyi, GM did not replace the SS/SC with a turbo model, because a "turbo is better".... They replaced it, because the supercharged setup would not pass the strict emission laws in 2008. They had the LNF already, and installed it in the Cobalt. They ended up with a fantastic all around car that made the Cobalt line great.

 

Open.

I'm going to just let it go....

I can't win trying to prevent bashing on this site.

but when are we going to learn we all drive the same car.... a Cobalt?!?

We should be pulling together, not apart. Oh well.

and yes, I edited my last post. I'm not here to create arguments, and thought it would be in good taste to let it go.

Enjoy guys.

 

See another thing is where you live. I, like most people I'm sure, live in an area with lots of hills and lots of twisty curvy roads. I've driven supercharged cars around here (1998 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP), and turbo cars (A Volvo wagon and a Subaru Legacy wagon) around here. I'll take the supercharged car each and every time. I love how quick the throttle is to respond. Where I live is like a tight track with lots of twisties. And that's not the only thing. The sneeze sound from turbo cars annoys me like no other. Obviously this part is preference. I live a few houses down from some Volvo/DSM nuts and occasionally I'll hear them tuning, revving or doing something stupid in the middle of the night. Live with that for a while and turbo noises do nothing but annoy. Once I get my tuning squared away, I will supercharge my Ion and leave them for dead around these twisties.

 

or an mr2 and a couple others that come to mind. Dont mind him hes being one sided and ignorant. And the only reason GM went to turbo is because with the stricter emmision laws the supercharger couldnt pass the standards. Again this goes back to Emissions and fuel economy