LittleMT

Best time on the factory tires was a 13.80.....
Not bad at a DA of 7500ft....

We were thrilled at that run...

LittleMT

Those same drag radials on my Red SRt when she was only 471hp... Racing a WRX...

8cd03gro

i understand where you are coming from, but if you take it from your point of view than drag suspension, extreme weight reduction, short throws, etc are not mods. the way i see it, anything that increases performance is a mod. Even big sticky tires that aren't dr's or slicks are a mod imo, but usually they will not cause as much of a major increase in performance as drag radials. I completely understand what you mean, i just disagree because dr's can drastically change the performance of a car.

p7x

once again i see both ways of thinking about it. BUT for some reason, when and only when a car is bone stock on DR's its still stock IMO. I know its kinda weird but.... o well no big deal.

evolve

what happened with that 12.04@120? You had 471hp and didnt break 11s?

p7x

x2

I believe its Alex47 who has S3 and bolt-ons and he's running 11.874 @ 118.24 with 390whp

LittleMT

Not on that run or on that day. That was the 1st run of the day and wound up being the strongest....

the DA was 7500ft, it takes alot to 11 up here...

Here was a run from the following weekend:




Wound up running the same time with a better trap....

Time to light up the tires and try again...

LittleMT

Those runs were almost 3 years ago, at that time the Red SRT was only the 5th car to run a 11 and had the 3rd highest trap in the Country behind Dynoworks and Steve Anderson...

Today at 636hp/596tq the car is scary fast, it destroys what it used to be. A night and day difference.....

NinjaHampster

so what about both of them being stock? the ss/sc still wins?

LittleMT

Again my SRT outran my Cobalt SS, both stock, SRT traps 99-101, Cobalt traps 90-92.... atleast up here, the SRT has too much power...

I won't dispute it might be closer at Sea level.... It very well could be, as the 2006 SS/SC just doesn't make great power up here....

West Palm SRT4

Well for starters, don't speak for everyone on here who owns a Cobalt, because I'm sure many owners care about making their car faster for cheaper costs. Also, you get mad about being bunched into an SRT-4 hating group, but you sit there and clump people like me and other SRT-4 owners into being ********* coming on here and trolling these boards, when in reality, many of us have been here before many of the Cobalt owners. Just because we don't own the car, doesn't mean we don't like it.

Damn, yeah lets talk limits. The fastest stock turbo (when I say stock turbo, I'm saying not even ported out, and with no nitrous) is currently running an 11.8 .

Yes those Cobras do indeed run strong with the blowers, but even stronger with turbos, and I've seen this countless times. Please, do me a favor, I don't even like mutangs but have witnessed turbo cobras run 10's. I even read of a turbo Cobra swap with a 70 something trim run a 10.00 @ 146. Go check the Mustang boards. Please, actually research something for once.


Longest post of garbage I've ever read.

p7x

craziness....love it

with equal drivers the srt4 would win. They have marginally more whp and a ton more torque not to mention better traction in first. While comparable the srt4 is faster. This coming from a guy who has beatin 3 stock srt4's with a stock SS S/C, driver mod is key .

07BlackCobalt-LS

The only reason the SS/SC is slower then a SRT4 stock is the difference of instant power on the line. This is gonna sound funny but. I have an 07 Cobalt LS BONE STOCK... riding bolt on hubcaps and continentals. About 2 weeks ago I lined up against my buddy Brantleys SRT4.
He gave me 2 Car lengths and that was all I needed to beat him in a 1/8th. Of course as far as I know I was the only LS on these boards running low 10's stock. Now with my few mods I ahve broken into the 9's in teh 1/8th and 15.100 in the 1/4. Still its a lightly modded NA 2.2 with a 2 car lead beating a SRT4 with well over 100hp more then me. If a SS/SC could launch as solid as my LS does it would easily destroy a SRT4. But when i ahve raced the SS/SC that lives near me he spins constantly through third gear until about 3800rpm in third. It gives me a huge advantage in a shorter 1/8th mile race. But in a 1/4 he flied past me at around the time I am shifting into 4th gear at like 80+mph.

Now its just my opinion but if a SS/SC could get less spin off the line we would be seeing a worlds worth of difference in 1/4 mile times and trap speeds.

NinjaHampster

what about from a roll? say from about 25mph or so

R&C_rallySS

I know for a fact that a stock SS/SC can beat a SRT-4. Like someone said, any car can beat any car depending on alot of variables. My point is, I run 14.2s consistantly and I have a freind who owns a SRT-4. He is also stock and runs consistantly 14.4s. We are both stock and I hit 100mph in the 1.4th. He has hit 100mph a few times also. Either way, no one can argue that the Cobalt SS/SC out handles the SRT-4 any day.

the1&only

People that know about the ACR SRT-4 can argue that.

pOrk

agreed, btw you are a great driver mr. 14.2 but your friend with the SRT at consistent 14.4 is what some would call an average driver. so yes there are a lot of variables that come into play, with all variables equal and just the cars varying, the SRT is faster end of story.

FNFAST

Your right...thats why most people are running expensive exhasut systems and injen CAI...when a simple airbox mod and cheap parts do the trick just fine. My point was who cars about how much money it takes to make a car fast...EVERY car will require a different amount of money to make it fast...just because the SRT-4 is cheap speed doesn't make it better...that was my point. Nothing like reading into what I say. You spew bullshit about doing research before I post? How about you learn to interperet english..because you obvioulsy misunderstood everything I said.



,

Please enlighten me by posting where I got mad for being bunched into a SRT-4 hating group?

If you ask the other SRT-4 owners on here my opinion of them, I can assure you it is much different than the picture you are painting. Don't know if you thought you found someone to flame to make your point but you picked the wrong person to try and prove a point with.

That works both ways. I never said I didn't like the SRT-4..I just have an issue with most of the arrogant and ignorant ****** like your self that drive them.


Are you retarded? You just keep proving the point of how unintelligent you really are. I never compared the two...only stated the fact that turbo's have a limit like a supercharger. Besides your arguement makes no sense...so that makes your turbo better because a car with a stock turbo can go faster? oh my god...a naturally aspirated car can get into 6's without turbos or supercharger so they are better than both right? Great point dumb ass.




I'm sorry your retard mumblings just kind of stopped abruptly...you want me to do you a favor and don't even like mustangs but have witnessed turbo cobras run 10's...how do I do that again?


Hey everybody he can read!!!!!!!!!!! He can read!!!! Here I thought someone helped him with his posts.


You talk like you have known me for years? I will be more than happy to start a seperate thread to compare actual car knowledge with you...not just what I "read"...let me know.


So much that you just had to reply with your own..... .

The_Blur

This is me admitting that I have a slower car. It's a base model Cobalt.

How were you going to help us 2.2L guys. Your input won't make a difference until we have tuning, and the first thing we are all going to do is put in cams and work the internals so we don't blow up driving. I, for one, am potentially years away from a turbokit.

You need to post time slips to back up those numbers, and you need to post pictures to back up your mods. I personally don't care about either, but someone else will and they will flame you.

If you're so angry that other people refuse to admit that their car is slower, you should reread all of your posts on this thread. You sound just like them.

8cd03gro

wow this thread has turned into a **** hole. First of all, a blower is better for certain applications, and a turbo/twin turbo setup is better for others. there are tt cobras in the 8's not just 10's. with a whipple swap the terminators can easily get into tens. Hell the evolution performance gt500 is using the stock blower with a pulley swap, intake, exhaust, tune, and dr's and it is running mid-low 10's....a turbo is technically more energy efficient as it doesn't rob ANY power from the engine to make power, but once you start getting into the huge power numbers, you need larger turbos which will spool slower. So many different factors will determine whether a blower is better for your application or a turbo is, neither is "better" than the other. This is like arguing which is better out of dinner and breakfast.

FNFAST

Thats what I was trying say.

Although there is one small fact about a turbo that people fail to mention...they are more efficient than a super BUT, they still leech power (VERY little) and alot of the gas they are pushing into the motor is Exhaust gas which is 100% NON COMBUSTIBLE. So out of the 20PSI they are pushing to the motor (don't quote me I forgot the formula but can look it up)...I think only 15PSI of that is combustible air.


This shoudl settle the "stupidity" of people shouting how much better the turbo is over a supercharger (since according to the people who make them...a turbo IS a supercharger )

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a supercharger is defined as:
"a device (as a blower or compressor) for pressurizing the cabin of an airplane or for increasing the volume air charge of an internal combustion engine over that which would normally be drawn in through the pumping action of the pistons".
A turbocharger is defined as:
"a centrifugal blower driven by exhaust gas turbines and used to supercharge an engine".


According to Webster's, a turbocharger is included in the definition for superchargers - it is in fact a very specific type of supercharger - one that is driven by exhaust gasses. Other superchargers that do not fall into this category - the kind that we are all used to hearing about - are normally driven directly from the engine's crankshaft via a crank pulley. So in reality, it is not fair to compare all superchargers to turbochargers, because all turbochargers are also superchargers. For the purpose of this discussion, however, a supercharger will be considered all superchargers that are are not driven directly by the engine, while turbochargers will be considered all superchargers that are driven by engine exhaust gasses.

Similarities



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both superchargers and turbochargers are forced induction systems and thus have the same objective - to compress air and force more air molecules into the engine's combustion chambers than would normally be allowed at atmospheric pressure here on Earth (14.7 psi at sea level). The benefit of forcing more air molecules into the combustion chambers is that it allows your engine to burn more fuel per power stroke. With an internal combustion engine, burning more fuel means that you convert more fuel into energy and power. For this reason, supercharged and turbocharged engines normally produce 40% to 100%+ more power (depending on the amount of boost - check out our horespower calculator) than normally aspirated engines.

How They Work


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A supercharger is mounted to the engine and is driven by a pulley that is inline with the crank (or accessory) belt. Air is drawn into the supercharger and compressed by either an impeller (centrifugal-style supercharger), twin rotating screws (screw-type supercharger), or counter-rotating rotors (roots-type supercharger). The air is then discharged into the engine's intake. Faster crank speed (more engine rpm) spins the supercharger faster and allows the supercharger to produce more boost (normally 6 to 9 psi for a street vehicle). Typical peak operating speeds for a supercharger are around 15,000 rpm (screw-type and roots style superchargers) and 40,000 rpm (centrifugal-style superchargers).

A turbocharger operates in much the same way as a centrifugal (internal impeller) supercharger, except it is not driven by pulleys and belts attached to the engine's crank. A turbo is instead driven by exhaust gasses that have been expelled by the engine and are travelling through the exhaust manifold. The exhaust gas flows through one half of the turbocharger's turbine, which drives the impeller that compresses the air. Typical operating speeds of a turbocharger are between 75,000 and 150,000 rpm.

Head to Head Comparison


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now it's time to evaluate the turbocharger versus the supercharger according to several important factors.

Cost
The cost of supercharger and a turbocharger systems for the same engine are approximately the same, so cost is generally not a factor.

Lag
This is perhaps the biggest advantage that the supercharger enjoys over the tubo. Because a turbocharger is driven by exhaust gasses, the turbocharger's turbine must first spool up before it even begins to turn the compressor's impeller. This results in lag time which is the time needed for the turbine to reach its full throttle from an intermediate rotational speed state. During this lag time, the turbocharger is creating little to no boost, which means little to no power gains during this time. Smaller turbos spool up quicker, which eliminates some of this lag. Turbochargers thus utilize a wastegate, which allows the use of a smaller turbocharger to reduce lag while preventing it from spinning too quickly at high engine speeds. The wastegate is a valve that allows the exhaust to bypass the turbine blades. The wastegate senses boost pressure, and if it gets too high, it could be an indicator that the turbine is spinning too quickly, so the wastegate bypasses some of the exhaust around the turbine blades, allowing the blades to slow down..
A Supercharger, on the other hand, is connected directly to the crank, so there is no "lag". Superchargers are able to produce boost at a very low rpm, especially screw-type and roots type blowers.

Efficiency
This is the turbo's biggest advantage. The turbocharger is generally more economical to operate as it as it is driven primarily by potential energy in the exhaust gasses that would otherwise be lost out the exhaust, whereas a supercharger draws power from the crank, which can be used to turn the wheels. The turbocharger's impeller is also powered only under boost conditions, so there is less parasitic drag while the impeller is not spinning. The turbocharger, however, is not free of inefficiency as it does create additional exhaust backpressure and exhaust flow interruption.

Heat
Because the turbocharger is mounted to the exhaust manifold (which is very hot), turbocharger boost is subject to additional heating via the turbo's hot casing. Because hot air expands (the opposite goal of a turbo or supercharger), an intercooler becomes necessary on almost all turbocharged applications to cool the air charge before it is released into the engine. This increases the complexity of the installation. A centrifugal supercharger on the other hand creates a cooler air discharge, so an intercooler is often not necessary at boost levels below 10psi. That said, some superchargers (especially roots-type superchargers) create hotter discharge temperatures, which also make an intecooler necessary even on fairly low-boost applications.

Surge
Because a turbocharger first spools up before the boost is delivered to the engine, there is a surge of power that is delivered immediately when the wastegate opens (around 3000 rpm). This surge can be damaging to the engine and drivetrain, and can make the vehicle difficult to drive or lose traction.

Back Pressure
Because the supercharger eliminates the need to deal with the exhaust gas interruption created by inserting a turbocharger turbine into the exhaust flow, the supercharger creates no additional exhaust backpressure. The amount of power that is lost by a turbo's turbine reduces it's overall efficiency.

Noise
The turbocharger is generally quiter than the supercharger. Because the turbo's turbine is in the exhaust, the turbo can substantially reduce exhaust noise, making the engine run quieter. Some centrifugal superchargers are known to be noisy and whistley which, annoys some drivers (we, however, love it!)

Reliability
In general, superchargers enjoy a substantial reliability advantage over the turbocharger. When a a turbo is shut off (i.e. when the engine is turned off), residual oil inside the turbo's bearings can be baked by stored engine heat. This, combined with the turbo's extremely high rpms (up to 150,000rpm) can cause problems with the turbo's internal bearings and can shorten the life of the turbocharger. In addition, many turbos require aftermarket exhaust manifolds, which are often far less reliable than stock manifolds.

Ease of Installation
Superchargers are substantially easier to install than a turbos because they have far fewer components and simpler devices. Turbos are complex and require manifold and exhaust modifications, intercoolers, extra oil lines, etc. - most of which is not needed with most superchargers. A novice home mechanic can easily install most supercharger systems, while a turbo installation should be left to a turbo expert.

Maximum Power Output
Turbos are known for their unique ability to spin to incredibly high rpms and make outrages peak boost figures (25psi+). While operating a turbocharger at very high levels of boost requires major modifications to the rest of the engine, the turbo is capable of producing more peak power than superchargers.

Tunability
Turbochargers, because they are so complex and rely on exhaust pressure, are notoriously difficult to tune. Superchargers, on the other hand, require few fuel and ignition upgrades and normally require little or no engine tuning.

Conclusion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the supercharger is generally considered to be a better method of forced induction for most street and race vehicles, the turbo will always have its place in a more specialized market. Superchargers generally provide a much broader powerband that most drivers are looking for with no "turbo lag". In addition, they are much easier to install and tune, making them more practical for a home or novice mechanic.

scottw03

Dinner is better.

pOrk

I call BS, Breakfast wasn't racing.

8cd03gro

i agree with some of your points, but a few are just plain wrong. none of the boost from a turbo is exhaust gas, i have no idea where you got that from. A turbocharger uses two seperate turbines. One is spun by the exhaust gasses, which then spins the other turbine (compresser) which compresses the air and forces it into the motor. The compressor uses an intake just like your engine does and draws outside air. After the exhaust gasses go thru the first turbine, they continue out thru your exhaust system....0 of that makes it back into the motor and if the exhaust is free flowing enough a turbo will leach 0 power.

"While the supercharger is generally considered to be a better method of forced induction for most street and race vehicles, the turbo will always have its place in a more specialized market."

no. Like i said before, it depends on the application. A turbo is more efficient power wise if set up properly than both a centri and a roots blower. a twin screw can be very efficient, but it can't be pushed to the power limits that a centri blower or a turbo can be. If a turbo system is properly set up it will outdo any blower setup to an extent, but there is a point where a turbo simply can't keep up because you start needing such big turbos that they lag like **** and their 1/4 times and low speed acceleration SUCKS, but in most street applications a turbo system will work better if properly designed. I don't know of an example for you on this site, but there is a perfect example on the mustangforums. Rygenstormlocke over there has a turbo system from powerhouse that put down i think 330rwhp...he runs mid-low 12's. There are centri blown 6's putting down 350rwhp, but since their power delivery is so linear, they don't have as much mid-range power and the fastest centri guys are running high 12's. With top fuel drag cars, they use blowers because the power delivery is ideal for their application and twin-screw and roots blowers will help you run far more consistant times than a turbo system because power delivery is so predictable and linear. IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH WHAT YOU NEED OR WANT. like i said, neither one is better than the other.

oh and the whole turbo = supercharger thing is true, but most people know what you mean when you say supercharger/blower. Technically, yes a turbo is a form of a supercharger, but a turbocharger specifically is the only type of blower that isn't belt driven which drastically changes its characteristics.

FNFAST

COOL. Good info..thx man.