comptech supercharger vs greddy turbo
#11
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Francisco, Bay Area
Posts: 9,563
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by s2kbtos,Oct 22 2007, 01:19 PM
i have 4.56 gears, i agree with you about building the power with the supercharger, so we all knowthat the comptech makes more power, how about driveability and maintenance, and of course those topics saying that if people launch with the stock differential, it will blow.
i personally have 4.56 gears, stage 3 clutch six puck and a fdanza flywheel.
i personally have 4.56 gears, stage 3 clutch six puck and a fdanza flywheel.
#13
Originally Posted by s2kbtos,Oct 22 2007, 12:50 PM
so the comptech supercharger needs to be tuned? or can i just use it the way it comes.
if you willing to spend extra approx. $2500 then the results will be this.
#15
I have the Greddy kit right now and I can tell you Greddy has shitass customer service. They forgot to send me parts and they even messed up my friends ap2 order by giving him an ap1 ecu. But I am verysatisfied with my kits performance because of the lower rpm powerband. I will hopefully upgrade to a 3 mm headgasket, bigger injectors, and tune, come spring time. Probably cost around under $2500 parts/labour and expect 350ish whp.
#16
Comparing a Greddy turbo kit and Comptech supercharger isnt very fair. Let me explain. The compressor section of the Comptech/Paxton Novi or Vortec centrifugal supercharger is huge compared to the relatively tiny 18G of the Greddy. It'll be more fair to compare a Comptech with an InlinPro kit which features a T4 compressor.
WIth that said, i would never choose a centrifugal supercharger over a turbocharger. Maybe on a high torque V8 or V6, but not a very low torque F20C.
A centrifugal supercharger has the worst of both worlds of turbocharging and supercharging.
A large amount of waste energy leaves the engine from the exhaust ports. A turbo charger harnesses this energy with little downfall and virtually no pararistic drag. A supercharger leeches power from the engine to power its compressor.
A turbocharger builds boost based on engine RPM and engine load... basically higher exhaust flow: higher boost. A supercharger builds boost soley on RPM. Thus a centrifugal supercharger will build very little boost at low RPMs and build a tremendous amount of boost at 9,000 rpm.
In addition to the above and based on dyno sheets of centrifugal supercharged S2ks (see dans2k's dyno sheets above), they have horsepower bragging rights but its very unusable. First of all the area under the curve... theres more horsepower down low to get to that peak horsepower up top on a turbocharged car. second, the peak horsepower of a centrifugal supercharged car is at the very peak of the RPM range, realistically you will only be there for milliseconds before you upshift. It would be much more effective to peak at least a few hundred RPMS below redline and then taper off.
Theres nothing a centrifugal supercharger can do that a turbocharger cant do.
The only advantage a centrifugal supercharger has over a turbocharger is the simplistic installation. This doesnt mean a turbocharger is hard to install though.
This doesnt mean a centrifugal supercharger is worthless, in fact if you like it then more ower to you. but in terms of efficiency, peak power, and drivability, a turbo charger is much better than a centrifugal supercharger.
Note that i specifically mention centrifugal. roots and screw type superchargers inherently build lots of boost just off idle but are very inefficient ay very high RPMs and high boost. Basicaly it'll make your 4 cyl feel like a V6.
Now what i would like to see is a roots type supercharger for the F20C for the torque hungry crowd. And i will remain pro-turbocharging for peak horsepower.
WIth that said, i would never choose a centrifugal supercharger over a turbocharger. Maybe on a high torque V8 or V6, but not a very low torque F20C.
A centrifugal supercharger has the worst of both worlds of turbocharging and supercharging.
A large amount of waste energy leaves the engine from the exhaust ports. A turbo charger harnesses this energy with little downfall and virtually no pararistic drag. A supercharger leeches power from the engine to power its compressor.
A turbocharger builds boost based on engine RPM and engine load... basically higher exhaust flow: higher boost. A supercharger builds boost soley on RPM. Thus a centrifugal supercharger will build very little boost at low RPMs and build a tremendous amount of boost at 9,000 rpm.
In addition to the above and based on dyno sheets of centrifugal supercharged S2ks (see dans2k's dyno sheets above), they have horsepower bragging rights but its very unusable. First of all the area under the curve... theres more horsepower down low to get to that peak horsepower up top on a turbocharged car. second, the peak horsepower of a centrifugal supercharged car is at the very peak of the RPM range, realistically you will only be there for milliseconds before you upshift. It would be much more effective to peak at least a few hundred RPMS below redline and then taper off.
Theres nothing a centrifugal supercharger can do that a turbocharger cant do.
The only advantage a centrifugal supercharger has over a turbocharger is the simplistic installation. This doesnt mean a turbocharger is hard to install though.
This doesnt mean a centrifugal supercharger is worthless, in fact if you like it then more ower to you. but in terms of efficiency, peak power, and drivability, a turbo charger is much better than a centrifugal supercharger.
Note that i specifically mention centrifugal. roots and screw type superchargers inherently build lots of boost just off idle but are very inefficient ay very high RPMs and high boost. Basicaly it'll make your 4 cyl feel like a V6.
Now what i would like to see is a roots type supercharger for the F20C for the torque hungry crowd. And i will remain pro-turbocharging for peak horsepower.
#17
^^^ i disagree...i dont think were comparing the two based on physical engineering...were comparing based on price/package/power...the greddy can be had for 4200 and the comptech can be had used for 2500 on up...if you get an IP kit just to make around 300hp i would be shocked. That said the greddy/ctsc debate is very valid and appropriate. I don't ahve any experience with the two except for riding in a ctsc'd ap2 and it felt like a more powerful stock s2k...which speaks for its power delivery being stock like....but if you had power below vtec you have a homemade f355 lol
#18
Where can you get a comptech supercharger for $2500? And what do you mean by saying you would be shocked to see an IP kit produce 300hp? Do you also disagree on the fact that turbochargers are more efficient and provide better power delivery than a centfirugal supercharger?
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sparrow,Oct 23 2007, 03:14 AM
^^^ i disagree...i dont think were comparing the two based on physical engineering...were comparing based on price/package/power...the greddy can be had for 4200 and the comptech can be had used for 2500 on up...if you get an IP kit just to make around 300hp i would be shocked. That said the greddy/ctsc debate is very valid and appropriate. I don't ahve any experience with the two except for riding in a ctsc'd ap2 and it felt like a more powerful stock s2k...which speaks for its power delivery being stock like....but if you had power below vtec you have a homemade f355 lol