S2000 Under The Hood S2000 Technical and Mechanical discussions.

Turbo Vs Supercharger?

Thread Tools
 
Old 03-28-2003, 08:46 AM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
StreetDreamzS2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Burtonsville
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Turbo Vs Supercharger?

just got my S a short while ago. i love it but it needs to be faster, i went from having a twin turbo 300z with fairlady engine(jspec) that ran mid 12's so naturally i need more speed, i am told that superchargers are the way to go for v tech engines because it is a pain in the ass to get the timing rite with turbos. but as i look more and more i see alot of turbo s2k's around. Is it true that turbo is that hard to work with? and if not what are some good turbos i might look into?



~mike
Old 03-28-2003, 09:52 AM
  #2  
Registered User

 
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 2,776
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Not sure if it matters in your neck of the woods, but both the Vortech and Comptech Superchargers are CARB certified....
Old 03-28-2003, 03:13 PM
  #3  
Registered User
 
MeWannaS2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: DFW
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Turbo=Almost zero parisitic drag on your current drive system but it needs time to spool up. Ball bearing turbos solve this quite a bit though.

Supercharger=Parisitic drag on your drive system kinda like an A/C compressor, but the boost is linear and instant.

Pick your poision.

If you want less tuning problems and easier instalation, I'd go with a supercharger. If you want more power potential with less strain on the drive system, you should go with a turbo.

Again, pick your poision.

Hope that helped.
Old 03-28-2003, 04:55 PM
  #4  
Registered User
 
JoeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally posted by MeWannaS2K

Supercharger=...but the boost is linear and instant.
Wrong. You only get full boost at redline. Thats is 10 time worse than "turbo lag", which is very overrated. The only people that whine about turbo lag are the ones who have never driven a turbocharged car.

The turbo, on the other hand, gets full boost around 3K. You pick which "lag" you want...
Old 03-28-2003, 05:21 PM
  #5  
Registered User
 
BryanS2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

can someone post a dyno graph of a turbo and supercharger power band together? I'd like to see exactly what the loss low end is... same boost levels... just to give a general idea.

bryan
Old 03-28-2003, 07:48 PM
  #6  
Registered User
 
MeWannaS2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: DFW
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Wrong. You only get full boost at redline. Thats is 10 time worse than "turbo lag", which is very overrated. The only people that whine about turbo lag are the ones who have never driven a turbocharged car.
You know, I just love the way people on this forum just love to start shit. It's almost like a ricer SI forum full of teenagers that love to hide behind computers.

Please tell me where in my post I said that you get instant full boost. Oh, you can't because I didn't say that. Do you not know anything about math? Do you not know what linear means? I'll teach you since you obviously don't know. Linear means something increases, decreases, or stays constant at a constant rate. Meaning it goes by a ratio. The more RPM, the more boost you will have with a blower. Now please tell me why that was so hard to understand from what I posted. I'm sorry, maybe it was just hard for you to understand.

Also, where in my previous post did I even mention the word "turbo lag"? Oh, I didn't, so where did you get it from. Oh, that's right, you pulled it out of your ass didn't you. Why do you think that I said that ball bearing turbos help lower full boost RPM? Turbo lag is a word from the 80's when turbo's weren't built as well as they are now. The engineering that go into turbos now is way more advanced than it was in the 80's and early 90's. I didn't know I had to fully explain the obvious though. I'll try to explain things better for you next time.
Old 03-28-2003, 07:59 PM
  #7  

 
SuzukaS2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ellicott City
Posts: 2,169
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

I would go with turbo..........because that's what I got too.

www.ultimate-racing.com
Old 03-28-2003, 08:57 PM
  #8  
Registered User

 
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 2,776
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Sorry Streetdreamz, so far nobody has really helped answer your question, but it looks like we've got a good debate on our hands.

Ease of installation/simplicity AND 100 extra HP are a pretty damn good combination (supercharger).

Crazy amounts of horsepower with a little more difficulty with installation/tuning and maintenance is a decision only you can make.
Old 03-29-2003, 02:34 AM
  #9  

 
fltsfshr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,868
Received 1,058 Likes on 540 Posts
Default

I agree with nobody, I looked at it very hard. Turbos while producing more power are harder to maintain and usually if you bring your horse power up to high your going to find you'll need lots of additonal modifications to handle the power...but if money is no object or you have the time and like the project...go for it...either way it will be an adventure....lol
Old 03-29-2003, 10:30 AM
  #10  
Registered User
 
JoeD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MeWannaS2K
[B]


Quick Reply: Turbo Vs Supercharger?



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:59 AM.